Inequity aversion models have been used to explain equitable payoff divisions in bargaining games. I show that inequity aversion can actually "increase" the asymmetry of payoff division if unanimity is not required. This is because responders may be willing to accept a lower share rather than risk being left out. Inequity aversion may also affect comparative statics: the advantage of being the proposer can "decrease" as players become more impatient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
María Montero (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: