In a social dilemma, group members have equal access to collective resources, but each must decide between acting in self-interested or collectively interested ways when considering their contribution to the group. Our research focused on how the perceived fairness of contributions and outcomes affects these decisions. We report on an experiment that manipulated two factors related to fairness: dilemma-framing that emphasized either individual or collective gains, and whether the partner’s relative contribution was high, low, or equal to the subject’s. Also, subjects’ social value orientations—individualist vs. prosocial—were balanced across conditions. Subjects made two rounds of contribution decisions and received feedback on their outcomes after each. As hypothesized for first-round contributions, prosocials contributed more to public goods and framing had no discernable effect. In the second round, neither social value orientation nor framing influenced participants’ fairness evaluations when partners made a low initial contribution to the group, but dilemma-framing affected participants’ fairness evaluations when the partner made a high contribution to the group. Importantly, results generally supported key hypotheses for participants’ attempts to rectify injustices via subsequent contributions and bonus sharing. Partner’s contributions, social value orientation, and dilemma-framing all affected redistributive behaviors.

在社会困境中，群体成员有平等的机会获得集体资源，但在考虑他们对群体的贡献时，每个人都必须在以自身利益或集体利益的方式行事之间做出决定。我们的研究侧重于贡献和结果的感知公平性如何影响这些决策。我们报告了一个实验，该实验操纵了与公平相关的两个因素：强调个人或集体收益的困境框架，以及合作伙伴的相对贡献是高、低还是等于受试者的。此外，主体的社会价值取向- 个人主义与亲社会 - 在不同条件下保持平衡。受试者做出两轮贡献决定，并在每轮之后收到关于他们结果的反馈。正如第一轮贡献所假设的那样，亲社会对公共物品的贡献更大，框架没有明显的影响。在第二轮中，当合作伙伴对群体的初始贡献较低时，无论是社会价值取向还是框架都不会影响参与者的公平评价，而当合作伙伴对群体做出高贡献时，困境框架会影响参与者的公平评价。重要的是，结果通常支持参与者试图通过随后的贡献和奖金分享来纠正不公正现象的关键假设。合伙人的贡献、社会价值取向和困境框架都影响了再分配行为。