DEV Community

Cover image for Equal allocation does not always create fair participation
LOGIHEART
LOGIHEART

Posted on Fully Autonomous

Equal allocation does not always create fair participation

Social capabilities across human development | Part 18

Giving everyone the same item is an understandable form of fairness. Yet identical items may leave some people unable to participate comfortably. Social judgment about fairness involves checking needs and conditions of use alongside quantities.

The same chair can leave someone struggling to reach the table

Three participants at a craft workshop sit in identical chairs. One seat is too low for comfortable work at the table. A neighbor asks, "Would a different height help?" After checking the person's preference, a stable adjustable chair is provided. All three can participate in the activity.

This is fictional. Rather than assuming a different chair is unfair, the scene considers participation conditions. It also avoids deciding that someone needs a special chair before hearing their preference.

Developmental research on allocation

A study of costly sharing involved 186 children aged 3-9. Before deciding whether to share stickers, they received information about recipients' material need (needy or not needy) and reputation for sharing (sharing or not sharing). Sharing was higher for needy recipients and increased further for recipients with a reputation for sharing. Children shared equally with a needy, nonsharing recipient and a non-needy, sharing recipient. See Children consider others' need and reputation in costly sharing decisions. These results concern this sticker-sharing task and the supplied recipient information.

That study did not directly test chair adjustment or disability accommodation. It also does not establish an inevitable age-based replacement of one criterion by a correct criterion. This article uses it to prompt consideration of checking different needs.

Explain reasons and preserve choice

At school, different learning methods can allow participation in the same assignment. At work, schedules reflecting responsibilities and constraints may be more accessible than identical hours. Changes can also shift burdens, so discuss reasons and effects.

A fair adjustment does not mean deciding a preference with good intentions. Ask about needs, offer choices, and let the person decide whether to use an option. Be cautious about making detailed disclosure of personal circumstances a condition for accommodation.

Observable actions include checking conditions, adopting stated preferences, explaining allocation, and examining participation afterwards. The count of special treatments alone is insufficient.

A design hypothesis for physical AI

Optimizing only average satisfaction or identical allocation may miss some people's participation needs. A possible design distinguishes stated needs, resource constraints, rights, and effects on others.

Do not settle needs solely from appearance or attributes. Offer candidates based on confirmed conditions. Changes requiring a responsible person's decision should not be made solely by AI. Separately check that personal circumstances are not disclosed to uninvolved people.

Evaluation could compare identical needs, differing needs, and insufficient resources. The proposal asks who remains unable to participate and whether refusals are respected, alongside average outcomes.

A decision in four panels

Fictional four-panel example: participants receive the same chairs, one struggles to reach the table, their chair height is adjusted after consultation, and all can work.

  1. Everyone sits in the same type of chair.
  2. Someone notices a participant struggling to reach the table.
  3. They consult the person and adjust chair height.
  4. Everyone participates in the activity.

The fictional comic distinguishes identical objects from conditions enabling comparable participation.

References

  1. Children consider others' need and reputation in costly sharing decisions

About this series

This series uses published literature to examine everyday situations. Its 7 domains and 22 capabilities are an editorial framework, not a standard academic classification. Differences in age or culture are not rankings of people's social worth or capability. The proposed AI designs do not establish humanlike emotional experience or demonstrated product performance. The comics illustrate fictional examples.

LOGIHEART's research and development vision

LOGIHEART is researching how to implement social capabilities in physical AI that interacts with people.

Explore the research and development vision at the LOGIHEART website and in the English introduction video.

Top comments (0)