In Korea, the term “Taeoom,” meaning “burn to ashes,” specifically refers to the physical and psychological bullying of newly employed nurses by senior nurses, a phenomenon that is prominent in South Korea and represents a major unresolved issue (Hutchinson et al., 2009; Seo et al., 2012; Kim and Bae, 2020). This includes actions such as hostile comments, physical violence, persistent criticism, social exclusion, and excessive task allocation (Seo et al., 2012; Oh et al., 2016). The impact of such bullying extends beyond individual suffering, causing depression, suicidal thoughts, post-traumatic stress disorder, and reduced job satisfaction, which ultimately affects the entire organization (Yeun and Kwon, 2007; Kang and Yun, 2016; Kim and Bae, 2020).

This issue is not unique to South Korea; similar phenomena are observed globally (Oh et al., 2016). In Western contexts, the phenomenon mirrors “horizontal hostility” (Farrell, 2001; Bartholomew, 2006) or “lateral violence” (Griffin, 2004; Sheridan-Leos, 2008), illustrating behaviors intended to harm, undermine, and belittle a target who is working at the same professional level (Sanner-Stiehr and Ward-Smith, 2017) or peers (Farrell, 2001), often referred to as “nurses eat their young” (Bartholomew, 2006). Despite differing terminologies, both Taeoom and horizontal hostility highlight the power imbalances between senior and newly employed individuals, making it difficult for the latter to defend themselves effectively (Johnson and Rea, 2009). This cycle of maltreatment continues as victims become bullies when they gain more power, creating a chain of downward unfairness (Cleary et al., 2010; Walrafen et al., 2012; Choeng and Lee, 2016; Kang and Yun, 2016).

Spreading experiences of fairness or unfairness to uninvolved individuals has been revealed in numerous studies (Gray et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Horita et al., 2016; Strang et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017; Hu et al., 2018), where such phenomenon is referred to as pay-it-forward (PIF) reciprocity or generalized reciprocity (Nowak and Sigmund, 2005; Pfeiffer et al., 2005). PIF reciprocity originally describes the spread of benevolence, where one’s act of kindness can lead to acts of goodwill by the recipient and forward in a chain (Brandt and Sigmund, 2004; Desteno et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2012). This behavior supports the maintenance of social norms and a cooperative societies from an evolutionary perspective (Nowak and Sigmund, 2005). This social value begins to develop around the age of four, encouraging humans to extend their cooperative behaviors to new social interactions from an early stage of development (Leimgruber et al., 2014; Beeler-Duden and Vaish, 2020). Furthermore, the principle of pay-it-forward reciprocity extends beyond physical interactions and is notably observed in online environments, where users willingly share valuable information for the benefit of the collective (Suri and Watts, 2011; Yang et al., 2020).

Recent studies have expanded this concept to include fairness-related behaviors in both positive and negative contexts. Participants who received unfair treatment behaved more selfishly to an innocent third person, whereas those who experienced fair treatment in previous interactions exhibited more generous behaviors toward unrelated individuals (Wu et al., 2015; Strang et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2018). Specifically, a fair split of money or labor (i.e., good task: rating humorous stimuli vs. bad task: circling voxels in dense foreign text) led to fair treatment to others, while greedy divisions resulted in unfair treatment to others (Gray et al., 2014). However, the study by Capraro and Marcelletti (2014) challenges this view by demonstrating that good actions do not necessarily inspire subsequent good actions in others. Their findings suggest that the spread of altruistic behavior may not be as robust, adding complexity to our understanding of generalized reciprocity (Capraro and Marcelletti, 2014). Moreover, the extent of spreading unequal division was more significant than that of fair splits in the dictator games, where a single trial consisted of two games, and participants alternated between roles as a recipient and a dictator (Hu et al., 2018). Therefore, principles such as “You scratch my back and I will scratch someone else’s” (Binmore, 1994) and “You pinch my finger and I will pinch someone else’s” highlight the transmission of socially undesirable behaviors like unfairness within human society.

Social hierarchy is another factor that significantly influences selfish motivations (Hoffman et al., 1994), immoral behaviors (Lammers et al., 2010), and the acceptance of unfair offers from high-status partners (Blue et al., 2016). If the proposer’s hierarchy is attained through reasonable standard such as scoring high on a quiz rather than random assignment, they are more likely to exhibit self-centered behaviors in ultimatum and dictator games (Hoffman et al., 1994). The impact of social status on unfairness perception has been demonstrated in prior research (Albrecht et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2015). Individuals endowed with higher status were more likely to reject unfair offers than when endowed with low status (Hu et al., 2015), a phenomenon described as the ‘entitlement effect’ (Hoffman et al., 1994; Ball et al., 2001). This aligns with the observation that higher-ranked individuals tend to express anger more freely and directly when faced with negative events, while lower-ranked individuals are more reluctant to do so due to the anticipated negative social feedback (Petkanopoulou et al., 2019; Van Kleef and Lange, 2020). The hierarchy of both the individual and their partner plays a crucial role in decision-making processes, elucidating why individuals often conform to the opinions and beliefs of higher-ranking individuals (Galinsky et al., 2008; Hays and Goldstein, 2015; Qi et al., 2018). This conformity leads to changes in prior beliefs to align with those of high-ranking partners, particularly in public conditions where their choices are observable (Kim et al., 2021).

Taken together, it can be inferred that socially unfavorable elements, such as unfairness, could be transferred to others, and individuals exhibit sensitivity towards hierarchy, inducing bias in decisions based on both their own and others’ hierarchical positions. However, less is known about unfairness pay-it-forward reciprocity and a question remains regarding how participants adjust their decisions toward unrelated partners with different hierarchies based on their previous experiences of unfairness. Building on prior findings, we hypothesize that individuals are more likely to transmit unfairness to those of lower status than to those of higher status.

To test our hypothesis, we employed a modified dictator game consisting of two rounds with different partners in each round. In the first round, participants acted as recipients receiving either a fair or unfair monetary division from their partners. In the second round, participants acted as dictators and decided how to distribute money to new partners. The two distribution options included a fixed equal payoff and an unfair distribution with random fluctuations from a uniform distribution. During this round, information regarding the partner’s hierarchical status – categorized as high, equal, or low compared to the participant – was displayed on the screen. Remarkably, the hierarchy of both the participants and their partners was predetermined based on their performance in a prior cognitive estimation task (Hays and Goldstein, 2015). The entire experimental procedure was conducted on a metaverse platform, leveraging the metaverse’s potential to enhance laboratory accessibility and facilitate replicability (Gómez-Zará et al., 2023).

The primary objective of this study was to determine how a partner’s hierarchical status influences the unfairness pay-it-forward (PIF) reciprocity in the dictator game within metaverse-based laboratory experiments. Based on prior research, we hypothesized that participants would transmit unfairness to others after experiencing unfair treatment themselves. Moreover, considering that hierarchy could induce decision biases, we expected behavioral changes based on the partner’s hierarchical status relative to the participant: high, equal, or low. Specifically, after receiving an unfair monetary division, participants might be inclined to retaliate against uninvolved individuals, projecting their emotional distress onto them, with this tendency being modulated by the subsequent partners’ hierarchy. If the next partner’s status was higher than that of the participant, we predicted that the participant would distribute more money despite previous unfair treatment, whereas they would allocate less money if the partner’s ranking was lower. Additionally, exploratory analysis was conducted using various personality questionnaires to identify the personality traits influencing individual differences in this phenomenon.

The present study aimed to examine whether and how individuals spread unfairness to innocent third parties when the hierarchical status of their partners is visible. Specifically, we investigated the impact of unjust treatment from prior interactions on subsequent interactions with new partners of varying rankings. Based on previous findings and theoretical frameworks, we hypothesized that individuals who experienced inequitable resource distribution from previous partners would forward unjustness more heavily on those of lower ranking compared to those of higher ranking. To test this hypothesis, we employed a modified sequential dictator game. Each participant performed two games: one as a recipient and the other as a dictator. In the first round, participants, as recipients, observed whether their partner’s distribution decision was fair (i.e., equal amount for both) or unfair (i.e., less amount to the participant). In the second round, paired with a new partner, participants decided whether to distribute money fairly (i.e., equal amount to the partner) or unfairly (i.e., less amount to the partner), based solely on the partner’s status.

Consistent with our prediction, participants who experienced a disadvantageous distribution in the first round (DG1) were more likely to allocate fewer resources to partners of lower rankings in the second round (DG2). The results demonstrated that people transmit both socially desirable and undesirable behaviors. Specifically, when the partner’s ranking was equivalent to that of the participant, participants tended to mirror the preceding partner’s choices, resulting in fair treatment begetting fair treatment and unfair treatment begetting unfair treatment. This finding supports the concept of “pay-it forward reciprocity” or “indirect reciprocity,” as supported by numerous previous studies (Gray et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2015; Wu et al., 2015; Strang et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2018). Furthermore, the successful replication of pay-it-forward reciprocity in our study, particularly within an online context, suggests that experiments conducted in a metaverse can effectively create an environment similar to traditional on-site experiments.

Our study extends the existing literature by demonstrating that individuals are not only sensitive to the unfairness they experience in prior interactions but also adjust their behavior in subsequent interactions based on the hierarchical status of their partners. This behavioral inclination, described as “you pinch me then I will pinch someone else,” was conditional upon the status of the partner in the second round. In other words, although provoked by unequal distribution, the urge to reciprocate was modulated by the partner’s hierarchy: participants were more likely to pass on the unfairness to lower-ranked individuals than to higher-ranked ones. In addition, the motivation to express hierarchy-biased decisions was associated with SoP and SEM, while sensitivity to unfair options was related to FNE and empathy. Considered together, these findings provide empirical evidence for the framework of unfairness PIF reciprocity in hierarchical contexts, where individuals’ responses to received patterns of behavior are influenced by their partner’s hierarchical status.

Experiencing unfairness can trigger perceptions of injustice and affect one’s attitude or behavior, ultimately biasing subsequent decision-making (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Van den Bos, 2005, 2018). When treated unfairly, people tend to treat others unfairly in return, following the strategy of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Wu et al., 2015). However, this tendency extends beyond direct revenge, affecting even uninvolved individuals in anonymous interactions. Previous studies have shown that perceptions of unfairness lead to negative outcomes, such as anger, depression, and violent behavior (Klandermans, 1997; Meier et al., 2009). Being treated unfairly by group members signals that one is not valued as an individual nor as a member of a group or a society which one belongs (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Van den Bos, 2018). Since humans inherently strive for social connection, unfair treatment that implies social exclusion is particularly painful (Eisenberger et al., 2003). The sense of fairness seems to be deeply rooted in human nature, as evidenced by standards that emerge early in infancy (Schmidt and Sommerville, 2011; Sloane et al., 2012; Buyukozer Dawkins et al., 2019), which forms the foundation of moral cognition. Hence, as human beings, we expect others to be reciprocally fair. This expectation explains why fair-dependent effects on behavior appear only when partners are perceived as real people, not as computers (Hu et al., 2018). When the expectation of mutual fairness is unmet and a prediction error occurs, it activates an internal alarm system, prompting individuals to evaluate their surroundings and make sense of provoking events (Van den Bos, 2018). The gap between expected and actual fair treatment increases the activation of alarm systems, leading to negative emotional responses such as anger, anxiety and depression (Mikula et al., 1998; Urbanska et al., 2019). To resolve this imbalance and alleviate heightened alarm responses, individuals may redirect their emotional burden from prior partners to uninvolved others.

Previous research has shown how hierarchy influences perceptions of unfairness using the Ultimatum Game - individuals who achieved high rankings through cognitive tasks are more likely to reject unfair offers from their partners (Hu et al., 2015), and perceptions of unfairness vary based on their own socioeconomic status (Zheng et al., 2017). However, the impact of a recipient’s hierarchy, even when manipulated within the experiment, on PIF reciprocity has not been clearly investigated. Extending the prior findings, our study reveals that individuals are highly responsive to either socially favorable or unfavorable behaviors toward strangers based on preceding events, and that one’s motivation to act unfairly is adjusted according to the partner’s hierarchy in subsequent encounters.

Moreover, considering the effect of hierarchy on PIF reciprocity, we explored how individual differences in SoP and SEM relate to sensitivity to hierarchy (βHierarchy). Our results indicate that the tendency to distribute more resources to high-ranked partners and fewer resources to low-ranked partners, regardless of previous treatment, is more evident among individuals with higher levels of SoP and SEM. Both SoP and SEM are linked to power-oriented tendencies and narcissism (Farwell and Wohlwend-Lloyd, 1998; Miller and Campbell, 2011; Nevicka and Sedikides, 2021). SoP refers to the perception of one’s ability to influence other people, which varies across individuals even when they have control over the same resources or socio-structural positions (Bandura, 1999; Anderson et al., 2012). SEM reflects an inclination toward inflated and positively biased self-views, often deviating from reality in ways that are improbable or logically impossible (Leary, 2007; Zell et al., 2023). Even when external indicators describe their ability or attributes, people with elevated SEM evaluate these indicators more favorably than they are supposed to Dufner et al., (2019). This suggests that, despite being assigned a middle-rank, those with high SEM perceive themselves as having a higher rank due to their tendency to overestimate their abilities. This self-enhancement leads to hierarchy-biased decision-making. Consequently, under the influence of the DG2 partner’s hierarchy, the fairness results from DG1 were not salient enough to impact their distribution decisions.

Another interesting finding of this study is that the participants adjusted their decisions based on the varying amounts of the unfair option across trials (i.e., KRW 240–2,400). This tendency was measured by the chosen amount of unfair option sensitivity (βunfairoption), where a higher value indicates a greater inclination to distribute more resources (i.e., be fairer) as unfair option amounts increase. Participants with a high degree of this parameter chose an unfair split when the disparity between the fair and unfair options were large, maximizing their own profit. Conversely, they were more likely to distribute equal amounts when the difference between options decreased, reducing potential benefits from choosing the unfair option. Furthermore, individual differences in FNE and empathy were negatively correlated with this tendency. This result suggest that participants inclined toward unfair options when disparities were large were less sensitive to inequity and exhibited lower levels of FNE and empathy. FNE arises from apprehension about being judged negatively by others (Carleton et al., 2006). While most people occasionally worry about how they would be viewed by others, individuals differ in the degree to which they adjust their behaviors in accordance with others’ judgments. Those highly concerned about negative evaluations tend to act in ways that prevent unfavorable impression (Leary, 1983; Carleton et al., 2006). To avoid negative public images, they employ strategies such as prosocial behavior, self-presentation, conformity, and social facilitation (Schlenker, 1980). Previous research has shown that empathy positively predicts prosocial behavior, including fairness to others (Bieleke et al., 2017). Empathetic individuals are more responsive to unfairness directed at others, motivating them to act based on the victim’s feelings (Urbanska et al., 2019). For instance, empathy has been shown to relate positively to fairness in groups of nursing students (Woo and Park, 2019) and teachers (Hong et al., 2022).

In light of this empirical evidence and theoretical insights, we can infer that individuals who are highly concerned about being perceived negatively may distribute equal amounts of resources to their partners when the unfair option is particularly unfavorable. This behavior is likely to avoid being reflected as selfish individuals who maximize their own profit at the expense of their partners. The underlying intention can be interpreted as a preference for maintaining a favorable public image (e.g., fair person image) over monetary benefit (e.g., one’s possible benefit by splitting less to the partner), especially among those with high levels of FNE. Conversely, those with low FNE place less emphasis on this public image. In addition, empathy appears to motivate individuals to act fairly by enabling them to perceive partners’ negative feelings when given unequal amounts. Highly empathetic individuals, absorbing others’ feelings and blur the boundary between self and other, may experience distress and perceive unfairness stemming from their own unfair decisions. Thus, individuals with high empathy are more likely to avoid placing their partners in a disadvantageous position and opt to distribute resources equally when the alternative is intensely unfair.

Taken together, the current study suggests that people spread unfairness to uninvolved, anonymous others, especially those with lower hierarchical status. Sensitivity to the partner’s hierarchy is particularly noticeable among those with higher levels of SoP as well as among those with higher SEM. Moreover, sensitivity to degree of unfairness varied among participants, being more prominent among those with lower empathy and among those with lower FNE. Confirming our a priori prediction, individuals tend to treat others in a way that they were treated previously: when treated unfairly, they transmit this unfairness to others, modulated by the counterpart’s hierarchical status. We believe that this study provides empirical evidence of unfairness PIF reciprocity in hierarchical contexts. Moreover, a future neuroimaging study could further explore the neural mechanisms that underpin how people perceive and incorporate varied social information about unfairness and hierarchy to arrive at attuned decision-making.

A few limitations should be considered further for the future study. First, the cultural and national context in which this study was conducted may influence the generalizability of the findings. While the phenomenon of the transmission of both socially desirable and undesirable behaviors has been observed globally, this experiment was conducted exclusively with Korean participants. The collectivist culture of East Asia may have impacts on the results, which might differ in individualistic cultures, such as those prevalent in many Western countries. It would be important for future research to explore whether similar patterns of behavior are observed in participants from different cultural backgrounds, considering the potential influence of cultural dimensions on experimental results. Second, the age of the participants is another factor to consider. This study was conducted with university students in their twenties. It is important to investigate whether the impact of perceived unfairness and hierarchical status on decision-making varies across different age groups. The reactions to unfair treatment and subsequent behaviors may differ significantly between younger and older adults, influenced by varying life experiences and developmental stages. Lastly, the online nature of this study due to the COVID-19 pandemic introduces another limitation. Although the results aligned with previous research, confirming the validity of online experiments, it is crucial to examine whether these findings hold in face-to-face interactions. The dynamics of in-person interactions could reveal additional nuances in unfairness PIF in a hierarchical context, which may not be fully captured in an online experiment. Future studies should consider replicating this research in physical settings to validate and extend these findings.

Propagation of unfairness is a phenomenon observed globally, particularly in hierarchically structured medical environments like nursing organizations. This phenomenon manifests as a longstanding chain of behaviors. The significance of this study lies in providing insights into developing policies and programs aimed at preventing the downward propagation of unfairness within hierarchy-based organizational structures. By examining the psychological mechanisms underlying such propagation, this research paves the way for enhancing the overall mental health and well-being of individuals across various professions who are impacted by this enduring pattern of unfairness. Therefore, this study holds importance at the intersection of social, health, and occupational psychology, providing a comprehensive understanding of the unfairness PIF. This understanding is crucial for developing strategies that not only address the phenomenon itself but also offer policy insights to break this vicious circle, ultimately promoting a cooperative and more equitable professional environment.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving humans were approved by Institutional Review Board of Korea University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

HyK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft. JK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. DK: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. HaK: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.