MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406114401 · doi:10.7554/elife.102800.1.sa0

Reviewer #2 (Public review): Advantageous and disadvantageous inequality aversion can be taught through vicarious learning of others’ preferences

2025· peer-review· en· W4406114401 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsInequity aversionInequalityPsychologySocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While enforcing egalitarian social norms is critical for human society, punishing social norm violators often incurs a cost to the self. This cost looms even larger when one can benefit from an unequal distribution of resources, a phenomenon known as advantageous inequity—for example, receiving a higher salary than a colleague with the identical role. In the Ultimatum Game, a classic testbed for fairness norm enforcement, individuals rarely reject (or punish) such unequal proposed divisions of resources because doing so entails a sacrifice of one’s own benefit. Recent work has demonstrated that observing and implementing another’s punitive responses to unfairness can efficiently alter the punitive preferences of an observer. It remains an open question, however, whether such contagion is powerful enough to impart advantageous inequity aversion to individuals—that is, can observing another’s preferences to punish inequity result in increased enforcement of equality norms, even in the difficult case of AI? Using a variant of the Ultimatum Game in which participants are tasked with responding to fairness violations on behalf of another ‘Teacher’—whose aversion to advantageous (versus disadvantageous) inequity was systematically manipulated—we probe whether individuals subsequently increase their punishment unfair after experiencing fairness violations on their own behalf. In two experiments, we found individuals can acquire aversion to advantageous inequity ‘vicariously’ through observing (and implementing) the Teacher’s preferences. Computationally, these learning effects were best characterized by a model which learns the latent structure of the Teacher’s preferences, rather than a simple Reinforcement Learning account. In summary, our study is the first to demonstrate that people can swiftly and readily acquire another’s preferences for advantageous inequity, suggesting in turn that behavioral contagion may be one promising mechanism through which social norm enforcement— which people rarely implement in the case of advantageous inequality—can be enhanced.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207