18 times (22%), with the remaining allocations being an equal split. This difference is statistically significant (Pearson Chi-square = 5.60, p = 0.01, one-tailed), supporting H3b. We further compare the bonus decisions of superiors with initial resource allocation responsibility and information about the agents (Resp/Info) to those without initial resource allocation responsibility or information about the agents (i.e., our baseline No Resp/No Info, condition) and those with only initial resource allocation responsibility (Resp/No to Info), provide further support for H3b. for superiors in the condition (-0.83) is Sympathy Resp/Info significantly less than that for superiors in the (5.19) and the No Resp/No Info Resp/No Info (4.00) conditions, (ps < 0.01, one-tailed). Further, the 61% likelihood of superiors in the condition to allocate a greater bonus to the advantaged agent is significantly greater Resp/Info than for superiors in the (6%) and the (18%) conditions (ps < 0.001, No Resp/No Info Resp/Info one-tailed). We also analyze perceptions of distributional fairness and decision justification superiors’ to further support our prediction. For these tests, we combine the and the No Resp/No Info conditions to compare them in aggregate to the condition. Table 3 Resp/No Info Resp/Info provides descriptive statistics for responses concerning who they felt more sympathy superiors’ towards, who was entitled to a higher payout, and how justified they felt in their allocation of the probability of winning the lottery (allocation of chips resources). We find that superiors with – initial resource responsibility and information about the agents sympathize more with the advantaged agent (3.89 > 3.06, p = 0.08, one-tailed) and believe the advantaged agent is more entitled to a higher payoff (6.33 > 4.85, p < 0.001, one-tailed) than those without both resource responsibility and information about the agents. Further, these superiors feel more justified in
18 times (22%), with the remaining allocations being an equal split. This difference is statistically significant (Pearson Chi-square = 5.60, p = 0.01, one-tailed), supporting H3b. We further compare the bonus decisions of superiors with initial resource allocation responsibility and information about the agents (Resp/Info) to those without initial resource allocation responsibility or information about the agents (i.e., No Resp/No Info, our baseline condition) and those with only initial resource allocation responsibility (Resp/No Info), to provide further support for H3b. Sympathy for superiors in the Resp/Info condition (-0.83) is significantly less than that for superiors in the No Resp/No Info (5.19) and the Resp/No Info (4.00) conditions, (ps < 0.01, one-tailed). Further, the 61% likelihood of superiors in the Resp/Info condition to allocate a greater bonus to the advantaged agent is significantly greater than for superiors in the No Resp/No Info (6%) and the Resp/Info (18%) conditions (ps < 0.001, one-tailed). We also analyze superiors’ perceptions of distributional fairness and decision justification to further support our prediction. For these tests, we combine the No Resp/No Info and the Resp/No Info conditions to compare them in aggregate to the Resp/Info condition. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for superiors’ responses concerning who they felt more sympathy towards, who was entitled to a higher payout, and how justified they felt in their allocation of the probability of winning the lottery (allocation of chips – resources). We find that superiors with initial resource responsibility and information about the agents sympathize more with the advantaged agent (3.89 > 3.06, p = 0.08, one-tailed) and believe the advantaged agent is more entitled to a higher payoff (6.33 > 4.85, p < 0.001, one-tailed) than those without both resource responsibility and information about the agents. Further, these superiors feel more justified in