People accepted the same pay less often when the distribution was more unequal
In a short online task, a person’s own pay stayed the same. Even so, people accepted less often when group rewards were more unequal.
The key idea
With the same personal pay, accepting a task changed depending on how group rewards were distributed and where the offer ranked.
The study, in plain language
In an online task, people could accept or decline a short transcription task for a reward of 24 pence. Their own amount did not change, but the distribution of rewards around them did. Two later in-person tests repeated the comparison with other tasks and several rounds.
When the group’s rewards were more unequal, fewer people accepted the work. When their own offer ranked higher, more accepted. In the multi-round tests, a larger reward also brought greater willingness to work.
What they found
- With personal pay fixed, the more unequal the group’s reward distribution, the fewer people accepted the task.
- The higher a person’s offer ranked against the others, the more people accepted.
- In the in-person tests, a higher reward also brought greater willingness to work.
Something to think about
When you are offered payment for a task, do you look only at what you will earn or also at how the group’s rewards are distributed?
How they studied it
Three experiments varied the inequality of the distribution, the offer’s rank, and the reward amount. One was online and used a transcription task. The other two took place in person over several rounds.
What the study cannot show
- The first sample consisted of platform workers in the United Kingdom; the in-person tasks used a small university sample.
- The study does not show that wage inequality reduces real productivity or predict any individual worker’s decisions.
The original study
The motivational cost of inequality: Opportunity gaps reduce the willingness to work
Source under CC0 1.0. English adaptation and explanation by PaperFlow, with AI assistance. The text has been reorganized for a general audience; it is not the complete paper and does not imply endorsement by its authors.
One study alone does not represent a field's consensus. Educational content does not replace professional advice. Report a possible error.
