While that is a type of inequality it's not really what they're studying here. The IA they're looking a is more direct and is triggered in situations where equi

While that is a type of inequality it's not really what they're studying here. The IA they're looking a is more direct and is triggered in situations where equity would be expected. Unless you're a renown celebrity that's just been categorically underpaid it's not really apples to apples because in some sense you don't perceive any actual inequality. That person is doing a job that pays them that well. the IA here would be more like you and a friend go over to help your elderly neighbor with his yard work. You both rake up leaves and both do the same quality and amount of work. Your neighbor then gives your friend $200, and then gives you $5. Out of a sense of IA you might actually reject that money which is disadvantageous inequity aversion since technically that leaves you with nothing. Now if your friend had cleaned the gutters and fixed the toilet and you had just swept the porch you would not feel as unequal since the tasks were different, but given a sense of equal effort you would likely not be so casual about being snubbed and come next year maybe you won't even help your neighbor, or at least not with the same friend. and you could probably narrow that gap down if the snubbery were consistent. Maybe you help your neighbor all the time and he consistently gives your friend $10 and you $5. after the 6th or 7th time I would be surprised if you didn't begin to harbor a sense of inequality over a mere $5, and for a job you would be willing to do for free anyway.