One of the main questions of distributive justice concerns how we judge inequality in returns from labor. How unjust an inequality is perceived inter alia depends on the factors that generated the inequality. This project investigates a situation where people can choose both, how much effort they are willing to provide and whether they want a safe rate of return to their effort or a risky one. In such a setting, people can be held accountable for their choices and following the accountability principle, differences in earnings created by different decisions should not be offset. Using a third party spectator design, I investigate whether people do indeed follow the accountability principle or whether they are influenced in their allocation decision by the level of effort exerted by the risk-taker such that if the risk-taker put high effort and won, the resulting inequality might be perceived as more just than if the risk taker put low effort and won. In the same vein, if the risk-taker put high effort and was unlucky the resulting inequality might be perceived as less just than if the risk-taker put low effort and was unlucky.