Fairness Theory

Fundamentals

Fairness theory analyzes why B might hold A accountable for unfair treatment. For example, suppose Alice, Ben’s supervisor, publicly ridicules him. If Ben perceives this ridicule as the undesired result of an improper action over which Alice had control, he holds her accountable for unfairness (blaming her for mistreatment he didn’t deserve). Fairness theory conceptualizes Ben’s reactions in terms of counterfactual (contrary to fact) processing. Ben’s actual situation seems unfair compared with a fair treatment counterfactual. (A worse counterfactual, on the other hand, would make the actual situation seem better.)

Something can seem undesirable compared to a desirable Would counterfactual. Remembering last year’s Christmas bonus of $100, for example, makes this year’s $50 seem more unfavorable than if last year’s had been $25. Indeed, if the counterfactual (alternatively imaginable) condition seems more favorable in certain kinds of ways (e.g., for health and well-being), the more negative-seeming actual condition might even be perceived as harmful. Harm in that sense comes from a contrasting mental representation with the absence of harm. The greater the discrepancy between an actual state and a counterfactual one that would feel better, the greater the ease with which the actual state has the potential for feeling harmful—and the more harmful it can feel. The extent to which Ben feels harmed, for example, depends on how the presence of ridicule feels to him relative to its absence. Thus, if Ben has never experienced ridicule before and, in fact, is accustomed to being treated at the very least with politeness and frequently with high praise in a wide variety of contexts, then ridicule will seem to him equivalent to a considerable amount of harm. If Ben is used to being criticized sarcastically some of the time, then ridicule from Alice might seem unfavorable only to somewhat of a degree.

The Would-based contrast between feeling good and not feeling good, however, is by itself insufficient as grounds to hold someone accountable for unfair treatment. For example, conditions might seem unfavorable but warranted when losses stem from reap-what-you-sew personal choices (e.g., money lost from bets at Las Vegas). Under such conditions the accountability rests with the person who experiences the unfavorable feelings rather than with anyone else. There are also unfavorable conditions for which no one is accountable, such as those caused by genetic birth defects. Accountable as blame for unfairness will instead require particular versions of Could and Should counterfactuals.

When a Could counterfactual contributes to the possibility that someone might be held accountable for unfair treatment, the language of perpetrator and victim begins to have the potential for becoming applicable (although it will ultimately depend on an additional counterfactual regarding norms of action). The Would counterfactual of a victim involves perceptions of unfavorable conditions. Could counterfactuals refer to perceiving someone as a person whose actions could account for variations in the kinds of conditions that the victim might experience. For example, Alice’s actions can vary the conditions that Ben experiences at work because she is his supervisor. Ben perceives that she has a choice about how to treat him and that ridicule is only one of various ways she could treat him. She is in a position to exercise discretion over the courses of action she will take in supervising him. People who have the potential for being perceived as perpetrators, therefore, are those who could have acted so as to prevent the conditions that someone perceives as being unfavorable; other courses of action were available, and at least one of the alternatively available choices would have not led to those conditions. Put another way, the potential victim has one of those alternative choices as a counterfactual action that contrasts with the perpetrator’s actual choice.

...