Tamura & Kameda (2004) showed that, when people evaluated the desirability of various resource allocations, their preference for an "allocation that was unfair but provided a Pareto-improvement" over other "fair" allocations was enhanced via group discussion. In their study, participants served as arbitrators who were asked to solve disputes over resource-allocation. This study was a conceptual replication of Tamura & Kameda (2004) to determine whether the prevalence of the Pareto-principle can be observed in a group situation, where interested parties discussed resource-allocation. In each experimental session, two college students worked on an anagram task individually, and then discussed how to allocate a "pair-reward" between them (n=40). The pairs were presented with three reward allocation schemes : plans based on equality, equity, or a plan that was unfair (i.e., paying more to the less productive member) but provided a Pareto-improvement over the other two plans. In line with Tamura & Kameda (2004), the results confirmed that participants' preference for the unfair but Pareto-improving allocation was enhanced substantively via group discussion.