Do Words Change How Fair a Decision Feels?

Do Words Change How Fair a Decision Feels?

Author: Tanvi Gaikwad 

When a decision feels unfair, does explaining the reasoning change how we judge the decision? If your manager cuts your bonus but says “I tried to make this fair,” does that soften the blow compared to saying “I’m maximising company profits”?

At Cowry Consulting, our partnership with City St George’s, University of London empowers students to tackle pertinent questions like these through their behavioural science research. This year, Tanvi Gaikwad, a City University MSc Behavioural Economics student, conducted incentivised research funded by Cowry Consulting, investigating whether verbal framing of intentions can influence fairness perceptions.  

The Fairness Debate

Behavioural economists have long debated whether we care more about what people do or why they do it.

• Outcome-based view: People judge the result. An unfair decision is unfair, no matter the reason. 
• Intention-based view: People judge the motive. Deliberately choosing an unfair option feels worse than when it happens by chance such as a coin flip. 

Previous research showed that intentions matter when we infer them from actions, i.e., someone could have been fair but chose not to. But what if intentions are also explicitly communicated through language? This research asked: when an action comes with a message expressing the intention behind it, do those words influence how fair the action seems?

What We Tested

The Ultimatum Game is used to study fairness. A ‘proposer’ makes an offer to split money, and a ‘responder’ decides whether to accept or reject it. If accepted, both receive their shares; if rejected neither gets anything. Decades of research show people consistently reject unfair splits, willingly sacrificing their profit to punish unfairness.

In this study, 200 UK participants saw pre-scripted offers ranging from nearly fair (£6/£4) to very unfair (£9/£1). Each offer came with a short message signalling the proposer’s intention: 

• Selfish: “I want to maximise my own gain.”
• Neutral: “Here’s the split.”
• Altruistic: “I want this to feel fair for both of us.”

Participants then decided whether to accept the offer and rated how fair it felt.

 What We Found

1. The action itself mattered more than words

People judged fairness based on the numbers in front of them, not the justification. As the offers got more unequal, acceptance rates and perceptions of fairness dropped, no matter what message accompanied them. 

2. Words carried little weight

Whether the message conveyed selfish, altruistic or neutral intention made no significant difference to how people responded. Participants appeared to infer intentions through the action of splitting the money itself. Words without real action to support them were treated as “cheap talk.”

3. When words and action don’t match, people react badly

For the most unfair offers (e.g, £9/£1), altruistic messages reduced acceptance rates compared to selfish or neutral framing. Why? Because people sense the disconnect. Trying to sound fair when acting unfairly, feels hypocritical. 

4. People agree on what’s unfair but differ in how they respond

Fairness ratings were consistent across participants. But stated behaviours differed – some accepted nearly every offer, others rejected almost all unequal splits. This suggests different groups may have different thresholds for unfairness. 

What This Means for Organisations

Prioritise fair and transparent outcomes

In areas like pay, compensation or fees, people focus on the tangible result. If the outcome feels right, the message will land. If the outcome feels wrong, messaging may do little to change the reaction. 

Be direct and honest

Overly warm or scripted empathy can backfire if the underlying decision feels unfair. Language that aligns with the reality of the decision may help maintain trust, even when the outcome is difficult. 

Understand different fairness thresholds

Because individuals vary in how strongly they react to unfair outcomes, identifying groups who are more sensitive to perceived unfairness can help tailor strategy around communication of decisions more effectively. 

The Bottom Line

This research offers a clear message: when outcomes are visible, fairness is judged by actions, not words or justifications. 

Messaging can help when results are ambiguous or complex, but when decisions are obviously unequal, language alone won’t change fairness perceptions. Mismatched messages may even worsen reactions. 

For organisations, prioritising fair outcomes and aligning actions with messages will do more to build trust than any amount of verbal framing.