Social Groups with Selfish Individuals

Abstract

I test the effect of multiple pivotal players on unfair choices in a setup with a leader and two followers deciding on whether to expropriate the payoff of a group member. Comparing unanimity decisions to individual decisions within the group, I find that leaders are fairer in the unanimity rule compared to individual decision-making. Followers are more unfair than leaders. These findings refute multiple pivotality as a source of unfair group decisions, and are in line with image and harm responsibility concerns. Control treatments suggest that a minority might prefer not to collectively redistribute the wealth away from a victim.