Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310169›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Large-scale community study reveals information sampling drives fairness decisions.

Sarah Vahed, Alan G Sanfey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sarah VahedDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. sarah.vahed@donders.ru.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7115-5223
Alan G SanfeyDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fairness is a fundamental social norm guiding human decision-making. Yet, much of our empirical understanding of fairness derives from controlled laboratory studies with homogeneous student samples, raising concerns about the ecological validity of experimental findings. Here, we tackle this challenge by introducing a citizen science, lab-in-the-field approach, embedding a classic fairness paradigm, the Ultimatum Game (UG), in a well-visited public space within a community: a museum. Over the course of 13 months, we recorded >18,672 decisions from a heterogeneous sample of volunteer members of the public. Each participant responded to four allocation offers from anonymous proposers (two generous, two selfish), with the option to view proposers' past behaviour (previously generous vs. selfish), before deciding whether to accept or reject each offer. Results closely replicated classic UG effects, with unfair offers frequently rejected, confirming the presence of inequality aversion beyond the laboratory. Notably, the majority of participants chose to sample proposer-history information, and those who did showed heightened sensitivity to fairness violations. Specifically, selfish offers from a proposer who had previously acted generously to others elicited the strongest rejection rates, demonstrating that judgements of unfairness are shaped by expectations which emerge from voluntary information sampling. Furthermore, the ecologically enriched design helped uncover temporal and demographic patterns, namely an association between time-of-day and information-seeking behaviour, and an increased willingness to accept unfairness across age. Methodologically, by situating a foundational experimental paradigm in a community venue, our approach aims to provide a scalable model for studying decision-making in ecologically enhanced contexts and a framework for research seeking to examine authentic behaviours beyond the laboratory, ultimately helping to deepen our understanding of the crucial norms that shape society.

Identifiers

PMID41310169
PMCPMC12660913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.