In this dissertation, I investigate two key questions: 1) What are the specific conditions under which economic inequality undermines democratic legitimacy; and 2) How does inequality map onto individuals’ perceptions of fairness and subsequently affect satisfaction with democracy and trust in political institutions? I first argue that individuals’ perceptions of distributive unfairness are key factors whereby economic inequality undermines democratic legitimacy. Inequality - and subsequent perceptions that the economic distribution is unfair - undermine political support by signaling that the democratic process is not functioning properly and by challenging people’s normative expectations about what democracy should do in practice. I next draw from a diverse literature on social and political psychology, as well as governance quality, to derive new hypotheses about how people form their fairness judgments and use them to evaluate democracy. Right-leaning and upper-class individuals should be less upset with inequality in the first place, but even when these individuals perceive distributive unfairness, they should be less likely to express political dissatisfaction as a result. Additionally, the context in which individuals form their fairness perceptions should condition the relationship between fairness judgments and political support. In a context of good governance, individuals should be less likely to perceive inequality as unfair, and subsequently less likely to express political dissatisfaction for any perceived distributive unfairness in society. Governance quality provides alternative evidence that democracy is in fact functioning properly and should allay citizens’ concerns about inequality and distributive unfairness, at least when it comes to evaluating democratic legitimacy. To test my theory and hypotheses, I take a mixed-methods approach that combines large-N analysis of public opinion data and original survey experiments. To contextualize my quantitative results, I draw on motivating examples from original open-ended surveys, newspapers, and elite interviews. In the first empirical chapter, I conduct a multilevel analysis of data from 18 Latin American and show that perceptions of distributive unfairness are negatively correlated with trust in government and satisfaction with democracy, yet good governance significantly mitigates this negative relationship. In the second empirical chapter, I use original survey experiments in Argentina, Mexico, and the US to show that perceptions of distributive unfairness are key causal factors linking inequality to political dissatisfaction. In the third empirical chapter, I use a second set of survey experiments to investigate how governance quality moderates the relationship between inequality and political support. When individuals are presented with information about declining corruption, they are less likely to perceive their country’s income distribution as unfair, and less likely to link inequality to political dissatisfaction.

<p>Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan, 2012. Sammanfattning jämte 4 uppsatser.</p>

The objective of the study was to examine the relationships between the concepts of personal fairness and social fairness and hotel cancellation policies. These relationships will be explored using the framework of Prospect Theory in terms of consumer patronage (willingnessto-purchase and word-of-mouth). This study begins with a brief history of the development of the lodging industry in the United States from inns and taverns to the modern hotel industry that is a critical sector of the hospitality and tourism economy. Current statistics are provided regarding the U.S. and Central Florida hotel industry in order to provide both a national and local economic perspective. The study also provides relevant statistics regarding U.S. domestic traveller information. The included literature review consists of concepts of mental accounting theory, economic utility theory, prospect theory, personal fairness, social fairness, and consumer patronage. The study also discusses how the lodging industry is unique in its implementation of reservation cancellation policies when compared against other industries. Research regarding merchandise return policies is also discussed here. The study was designed to investigate three separate components of both personal and social fairness. The first component investigated the effects of hotel rate price increases and discounts on personal fairness when compared against an existing reference price. The second component studied the perceptions of social fairness on three established hotel cancellation policies. The third component introduces a treatment of distributive and procedural fairness violations as a moderator to observe the effects on consumer patronage for the same three hotel cancellation policies. iv The data were collected from 415 hotel guests staying in Central Florida hotels near the Orlando international airport using an experimental method which provided different written scenarios regarding hotel pricing and three different hotel cancellation policies. The data was then analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), MANOVA and Tukey’s Post Hoc test to provide results that allowed the comparison of effects on each in terms of consumer patronage. The study results indicated that that price increases against established reference prices had a significant negative effect on consumer patronage whereas discounts of the same magnitude had a significant effect only in the middle range. Included smaller and large discounts did not have a significant effect on consumer patronage outside of the middle range. The study results also indicated that there was significant difference in consumer patronage between an Open cancellation policy and a 48 Hour Cancellation Policy. There is a significant difference in consumer patronage when a No Refund policy is compared against both the Open Cancellation Policy and the 48 Hour Cancellation Policy. The study results also show that a violation of either Distributive Fairness or Procedural Fairness has a significant negative effect on consumer patronage for both an Open Cancellation policy and 48 Hour Cancellation Policy. However, when Distributive Fairness or Procedural Fairness violations are introduced as a moderator, there is no significant effect on a No Refund Cancellation Policy. The study and its ensuing results are of importance to the academic community in that it provides additional scholarly support to both Prospect Theory and the theory of mental accounting and the roles that each plays in consumer behavior. From an industry practitioner perspective, the current results provide insight into hotel consumer’s attitudes regarding rate increases/ discounts and the implementation of the three different hotel cancelation policies. The v results can be utilized to provide justification and guidance in altering or establishing hotel cancellation policies that hotel consumers consider to be fair.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in organizational decision-making, optimizing performance, and cutting operational costs. While AI can potentially improve decision-making processes' efficiency and reliability, empirical research highlights that AI adoption may cause people to question the fairness of algorithmic decisions. Thus, the present study investigates whether distributive and procedural fairness perceptions are influenced by human, algorithmic, and hybrid decision-makers in high versus low task complexity conditions. Participants (N = 391) assessed the perceived distributive and procedural fairness in a pre-registered scenario-based experiment. Decision-maker type (human vs. hybrid vs. AI) and task complexity (low vs. high) were manipulated using a 3x2 between-subject design. It was hypothesized that the human decision-maker would be perceived as fairer than the AI, especially in high-complexity conditions. Furthermore, hybrid decision-makers were hypothesized to be perceived as fairer than AI and human decision-makers in low and high-complexity tasks. The results indicate that people tend to perceive human decision-makers as fairer than AI in situations of high complexity. Additionally, in the high-complexity condition, the hybrid decision-maker was perceived as more distributively fair than AI and less procedural fair than the human decision-maker. In low-complexity tasks, the hybrid decision-maker does not show superiority in fairness perception over AI or humans. Hence, the results support the first hypothesis and contradict the second hypothesis that hybrid decision-makers would be perceived as more distributive and procedural fair than AI and human decision-makers. Implications regarding the consequences of implementing AI in organizational decision-making are discussed, and suggestions for further research are included.