Database from a study investigating whether situational power moderates allocation decisions toward an uninvolved subsequent participant following fair or unfair treatment. The study examines whether receiving an unfair rather than fair allocation affects subsequent allocation behavior, and whether this effect depends on being assigned to a power or no-power condition.
The database includes 434 complete observations. There are no missing values in the variables included in the public dataset.
The following variables are included:
participant_id — anonymous participant identifier
gender — participant gender; 1 = female, 2 = male
age — participant age in years
group — experimental condition; 1 = power/fair, 2 = power/unfair, 3 = no-power/fair, 4 = no-power/unfair
power_condition — situational power condition; 1 = power, 2 = no-power
fairness_condition — fairness of the allocation received from the previous participant; 1 = fair, 2 = unfair
allocation_next_person — amount allocated to the next, uninvolved participant; range: 0–100 Experimental Dollars
perceived_fairness_received — perceived fairness of the received allocation; 1–10 scale
perceived_fairness_allocated — perceived fairness of the participant’s own allocation decision; 1–10 scale
Emotional response variables assessed anger, frustration, happiness, sadness, feeling wronged, and satisfaction in relation to both the received allocation and the participant’s own allocation decision; all were measured on 1–10 scales.
The study employed an online 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design, with situational power and fairness of prior treatment as the experimental factors. Participants were assigned to either a power or no-power condition and then received an allocation allegedly made by another participant. The allocation was either fair or unfair.
Participants subsequently decided how many of 100 Experimental Dollars to allocate to an uninvolved next participant. Higher values of allocation_next_person indicate more Experimental Dollars allocated toward that person. Afterward, participants rated the fairness of the received allocation and of their own allocation decision, and reported their emotional responses to both.
(2026)
