Subtractive versus Ratio Model of “Fair” Allocation: Can the Group Level Analyses Be Misleading?

Two models of equity judgments are ratio and subtraction. Proponents of the former assume a linear relationship between the subjective feelings of equity and their overt expressions; those of the latter assume a monotonic relationship. Consequently, the ratio and subtractive rules are tested with the raw and monotonically rescaled data, respectively. I evaluated these two approaches with managers and students from India. Experiment 1 varied merit and pay of two persons and obtained judgments of difference between unfairness to them. Experiments 2 and 3 manipulated two inputs of two persons and studied “fair” reward for them. I analyzed both the raw and rescaled data at the group and individual levels. The group analyses supported the ratio model; the individual analyses showed that majority was consistent with the subtractive model. Discrepant results from these analyses were due to individual differences in the models employed and use of the response scale. Implications of the findings are discussed for cross-cultural and developmental research in “fair” allocation.     

人情与公正的抉择:社会距离对第三方干预的影响

第三方干预(third-party intervention)是一种重要的利他行为,它包括惩罚和补偿两种措施。本研究结合情境性问卷与实验法,采用修改后的独裁者博弈范式(Dictator Game,DG),让被试作为第三方对朋友或者陌生人的不公平行为进行干预,考察社会距离对第三方干预的影响。研究发现:(1)对于朋友提出的不公平方案,个体对其的惩罚轻于陌生人,而对第二方(无权者)的补偿没有显著差异。(2)个体对朋友的不公平提议的公平性判断高于陌生人,但提议引发的情绪体验没有显著差异。上述结果表明,社会距离可能通过影响个体对不公平行为的公平感知,进而影响其第三方干预行为。     

小学儿童奖赏公平性的认知发展

采用信息加工研究途径并假设故事情境探索小学儿童对奖赏公平性的社会认知发展,并将儿童的发展与成人作对比。研究结果表明,７,９岁儿童容易将＂均等＂与＂公平＂混淆,还没形成一个稳定的分配模式,而１２岁儿童已能运用＂努力＂、＂成果＂、＂能力＂等规则较为稳定地作出公平奖赏决定或评价,但还没达到对更高层次的社会准则的理解和掌握。儿童这一发展制约于他们的信息加工能力以及获得有关社会价值观的社会化过程。     

Rational selective exploitation and distress: employee reactions to performance-based and mobility-based reward allocations

Prior research has demonstrated that allocators frequently distribute greater rewards to persons with high professional and geographic mobility than to persons with constrained mobility, especially among the very competent. This phenomenon has been termed rational selective exploitation. Do the recipients of such allocations actually experience this distribution rule as unjust and distressing, or is it a misnomer to refer to this phenomenon as exploitation? Two studies were conducted to explore this question. Study 1 was a laboratory experiment in which we manipulated relative performance level, relative mobility level, and allocation standard: performance based versus mobility based. Study 2 was a cross-sectional survey of actual employees in which subjects reported the degree to which performance and mobility were the basis for pay decisions at their places of employment, as well as the degree to which they perceived each standard to be fair. Both studies demonstrated that people regard mobility-based allocations as less fair and more distressing than performance-based allocations. Furthermore, the degree of distress resulting from mobility-based allocations is greater among persons who are disadvantaged by that standard: among people with constrained mobility, especially those who perform at high levels. These findings provide good support for the assertion that so-called rational selective exploitation is indeed distressing to employees. Reactions to this form of distress are also explored, and the implications of these findings for the allocation process are discussed.     

Two operations for "ratios" and "differences" of distances on the mental map

Ss judged "ratios of distances" and "differences of distances" between pairs of U.S. cities. Results fit the theory that Ss used two comparison processes as instructed. A ratio scale of distances between cities was constructed from the 2 rank orders. From this scale, an interval scale of the city locations on an east-west continuum was derived. This scale agrees with the subtractive model fit to "ratios" and "differences" of easterliness and westerliness, and it also agrees with multidimensional scaling of judged distances between cities. These findings are consistent with the theory that Ss use subtraction when instructed to judge either "ratios" or "differences," but that they can use both ratio and difference operations when the stimuli (in this case, distances) constitute a ratio scale on the subjective continuum.     

Moral foundations tell us why guilt induces unfair allocation in multi‐party interactions

Previous studies have demonstrated that a sense of guilt promotes and maintains social fairness in two‐party interactions (Psychological Bulletin, 115, 1994 and 243). However, the situation is much more complex in three‐party or multi‐party interactions. De Hooge et al. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 2011 and 462) found that guilt could not only induce pro‐social behaviour towards the victim, but also have a disadvantageous impact on a third party. In the present study, we attempt to explain how guilt promotes unfair allocations from a moral foundations perspective. We conducted two experiments using a ‘three‐party dictator game’ paradigm. Firstly, it was repeatedly verified that guilt could induce unfair allocations in three‐party interactions. Secondly, five moral foundations (harm, fairness, ingroup, hierarchy and purity) were measured. Then the moderating and main effects of these five indices on how guilt affects the fair allocation of resources were explored using regression analysis. The results show that competition between harm and fairness in individual traits can explain the disadvantageous effect of guilt on fair allocations: the fairness foundation promoted equality in allocation, while the harm foundation promoted victim compensation.     

On passion and moral behavior in achievement settings: The mediating role of pride

The Dualistic Model of Passion (Vallerand et al. in J Person Soc Psychol 85:756–767, 2003) distinguishes two types of passion: harmonious passion (HP) and obsessive passion (OP) that predict adaptive and less adaptive outcomes, respectively. In the present research, we were interested in understanding the role of passion in the adoption of moral behavior in achievement settings. It was predicted that the two facets of pride (authentic and hubristic; Tracy and Robins in J Person Soc Psychol, 92:506–525, 2007) would mediate the passion-moral behavior relationship. Specifically, because people who are passionate about a given activity are highly involved in it, it was postulated that they should typically do well and thus experience high levels of pride when engaged in the activity. However, it was also hypothesized that while both types of passion should be conducive to authentic pride, only OP should lead to hubristic pride. Finally, in line with past research on pride (Carver et al. in J Res Person 44:698–703, 2010; Tracy et al. in Self Identity 8:196–213, 2009), only hubristic pride was expected to negatively predict moral behavior, while authentic pride was expected to positively predict moral behavior. Results of two studies conducted with paintball players (N = 163, Study 1) and athletes (N = 296, Study 2) supported the proposed model. Future research directions are discussed in light of the Dualistic Model of Passion.     

Equity,Equality, or Need? The Effects of Organizational Culture on the Allocation of Benefits and Burdens

Individuals′ concerns with entitlements and fairness are important in determining outcomes of negotiations. This paper examines the effects of organizational culture and resource valence on the decision rules individuals enact in creating fair resource allocations. It was hypothesized that organizational culture (economically oriented, relationship-oriented, or personal development-oriented) would determine which distribution principle (equity, equality, or need) group members would use to allocate resources. Valence of the resources also was predicted to influence allocation decision and processes. Participants role-played the negotiation of resource allocations across three divisions of a company. Results generally supported the hypothesized links between culture and the resource distribution used by the principles. Significant differences also were found between the allocation of positively valenced and negatively valenced resources.     

Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making

Subjects read a story in which five business partners needed to allocate the profits and expenses of the partnership in a fair and reasonable manner. Each of the partners worked independently and produced different gross incomes between $140 and $285. The gross incomes were to be divided into expenses and profits. Subjects were asked to fill in fair allocations in an accounting ledger. Three factors were manipulated: the target of the allocation task (either the expenses or the profits), the causal attributions for the differences in gross incomes (internal, external, or both), and whether the subjects were asked to fill in both columns (expenses and profits) or just one.

The results supported the hypothesis that the subjects heuristically used equality to make their allocations. Over 70% of the subjects allocated at least one column equally (although the frequency of equality use varied as a function of both the target of the allocation and the attribution given). Subjects allocated the target columns equally more often than non-target columns, even though equality for one column implied inequality for the other. The use of equality was also sensitive to the attribution given for the performance differences. Differences due to external factors, i.e., the number of people showing up at the market, produced the most equal allocations of profits (with unequal expenses) while the internal attribution produced the highest proportion of equal expense allocations (with unequal profits).     

INFLUENCES ON MANAGERIAL PAY ALLOCATIONS: A DEPENDENCY PERSPECTIVE

This paper reviews evidence and presents arguments for the view that managerial pay allocations are influenced by the degree of dependence on subordinates and by threats to that dependence. In assessing this view, the issues of managerial discretion in pay allocation and pay as a means of managing dependencies are explored. Major sources of objective and subjective dependence on subordinates are identified. Predictions are made regarding managerial pay allocations under various conditions of dependence and dependency threat. Finally, research and practical implications of the dependency perspective are discussed.     

Does an intrinsic work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A perspective from the Job Demands–Resources Model

Based on assumptions of the Job Demands–Resources model and the Person–Environment fit literature, the present research conceptualizes an intrinsic relative to an extrinsic work value orientation as a personal resource. We examine whether such an orientation may strengthen the relations of classical job resources (i.e., autonomy and learning opportunities) with well-being outcomes. The results in a large, representative sample of Dutch employees (N = 4009) show that a predominant intrinsic work orientation strengthened the negative association of learning opportunities with emotional exhaustion as well as the buffering role of autonomy for the health-impairing impact of workload. With respect to work engagement, a predominant intrinsic work orientation strengthened the positive association of autonomy, the expected boosting impact of workload on the stimulating association of autonomy, as well as the—rather unexpected—attenuating impact of workload on the positive association of learning opportunities with work engagement. Although not all hypotheses were confirmed, in general, results point at the importance and practical relevance of personal resources in the realm of the Job Demands–Resources model.     

Judgments of differences and ratios of numerals

Each subject performed two tasks, dividing a line segment so that either (a) theratio of subjective lengths corresponded to the ratio of the magnitudes of two numerals or (b) thedifference in length was proportional to the numerical difference. Had subjects actually performed two operations on the same scale, the responses would have been nonmonotonically related. Instead, data for the two tasks were nearly identical and ordinally compatible with either a ratio or a subtractive model. The ratio model implied scale values for numerals that were a positively accelerated function of numerical value, inconsistent with previous results. With a nonlinear response function for graphic length, the subtractive model fit well, yielding scale values that were a negatively accelerated function of numerical value and a linear function of previously obtained scales. These results, together with other recent findings, suggest that subjects may perform the same operation in spite of instructions to judge “ratios” or “differences” and that this operation can be best represented by a subtractive model.     

The choice between allocation principles: amplifying when equality dominates

One hundred and ninety participants (95 undergraduates and 95 employees) responded to a factorial survey in which a number of case-based organizational allocation tasks were described. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as employees in fictitious organizations and chose among three allocations of employee-development schemes invested by the manager in different work groups. The allocations regarded how such investments should be allocated between two parties. Participants chose twice, once picking the fairest and once the best allocation. One between-subjects factor varied whether the parties represented social (i.e., choosing among allocations between two different work groups) or temporal comparisons (i.e., choosing among allocations between the present and the following year). Another between-subjects factor varied whether participants' in-group was represented by the parties or not. One allocation maximized the outcome to one party, another maximized the joint outcome received by both parties, and a third provided both parties with equal but lower outcomes. It was predicted that equality, although always deficient to both parties, would be the preferred allocation when parties represented social comparisons and when choices were based on fairness. When parties represented temporal comparisons, and when choices were based on preference, maximizing the joint outcome was hypothesized to be the preferred allocation. Results supported these hypotheses. Against what was predicted, whether the in-group was represented by the parties or not did not moderate the results, indicating that participants' allocation preferences were not affected by self-interest. The main message is that people make sensible distinctions between what they prefer and what they regard as fair. The results were the same for participating students who imagined themselves as being employees and participants who were true employees, suggesting that no serious threats to external validity are committed when university students are used as participants.     

Comparison of two theories of "ratio" and "difference" judgments

This article examines the hypothesis that judges compare stimuli by ratio and subtractive operations when instructed to judge" "ratios" and "differences." Rule and Curtis hold that magnitude estimations are a power function of subjective values, with an exponent between 1.1 and 2.1. Accordingly, the two-operation model tested assumes magnitude estimations of "ratios" are a comparable power function of subjective ratios. In contrast, Birnbaum and Veit theorize that judges compare two stimuli by subraction for both "ratio" and "difference" instructions and that magnitude estimations of "ratios" are approximately an exponential function of subjective differences. Three tests were used to compare the theory of one operation with the two-operation theory for the data of nine experiments. The results strongly favor the theory that observers use the same operation for both instructions.     

Input integration and input weighting in decisions on allocations of gains and losses

Although the concept of relevance (or weight) of inputs plays a central role in equity theory, it has not been clearly defined. The present investigation attempts to answer the question of when, and which, inputs are taken into account in allocation decisions. Subjects were given a stimulus story in which two fictitious persons had, through joint work, produced a monetary gain or loss; further, information was provided on the relative effort (amount of time worked intensively) and /or ability (as determined by a test) that each stimulus person had contributed. Subjects were asked how they would allocate the gain or loss. Empirical evidence for the following three codeterminants of allocation decisions was obtained: (1) the type of input—personal and behavioural characteristics are [relevant] for allocation if they are perceived as (a) causallv important for outcome production, (b) variable, and (c) under the person's volitional control; (2) the type of outcome to be allocated—more equal allocations are observed when loss as opposed to gain must be allocated; and (3) the constellation of individual inputs on given dimensions—information is given on several input dimensions, a dimension which should be [irrelevant] according to criteria (a), (b), and (c) does codetermine allocations when recipients have contributed equally with respect to this dimension. The latter finding is discussed from the perspective of [cognitive algebra].     

Judgment processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior

The behavioral correlates of human judgment have received little attention from judgment and decision making researchers. One behavioral domain that provides for the study of judgment-behavior relations is task motivation (i.e., the allocation of time and effort to a task). Judgments of contingent relations are primary components of several theories of motivation, including expectancy theories and the theory of behavior in organizations proposed by Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980). The characteristics of heuristic judgment processes are hypothesized to affect contingency judgments and thus behavioral allocations of time and effort. This paper examines the effects of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic upon (a) judgments of future effort and performance and (b) upon actual allocations of time and effort using several types of anchoring information. Results indicate that both irrelevant and relevant information have strong anchoring effects on effort and performance judgments, but do not have concomitant effects on behavior. Implications for the role of judgment in motivation and for the link between judgment and behavior are discussed.     

In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations

In this paper, we found that fairness judgments in intergenerational allocation decisions depend on (1) individuals’ position in the intergenerational sequence (i.e., whether they are in the preceding or succeeding generation), (2) the amount of uncertainty about the effect of the preceding generation’s decisions on the succeeding one, and (3) whether the preceding generation is primed with power. We found that both power priming and greater levels of uncertainty about the future consequences of present decisions can elicit stewardship attitudes, which may temper self-interested behavior on the part of the preceding generation. Our data also indicate that the nature of the uncertainty is important; it is not just a matter of how much future generations will be affected, but also whether or not they will be affected at all by the decisions of earlier generations. Our findings help to explain (1) how intergenerational inequities can occur even when people are explicitly focused on achieving fair allocations of resources between generations, and (2) how social responsibility concerns can motivate intergenerational beneficence in the face of intergenerational conflict.     

Effects of specific emotions on subjective judgment,driving performance,and perceived workload

The aim of this paper was to explore effects of specific emotions on subjective judgment, driving performance, and perceived workload. The traditional driving behavior research has focused on cognitive aspects such as attention, judgment, and decision making. Psychological findings have indicated that affective states also play a critical role in a user’s rational, functional, and intelligent behaviors. Most applied emotion research has concentrated on simple valence and arousal dimensions. However, recent findings have indicated that different emotions may have different impacts, even though they belong to the same valence or arousal. To identify more specific affective effects, seventy undergraduate participants drove in a vehicle simulator under three different road conditions, with one of the following induced affective states: anger, fear, happiness, or neutral. We measured their subjective judgment of driving confidence, risk perception, and safety level after affect induction; four types of driving errors: Lane Keeping, Traffic Rules, Aggressive Driving, and Collision while driving; and the electronic NASA-TLX after driving. Induced anger clearly showed negative effects on subjective safety level and led to degraded driving performance compared to neutral and fear. Happiness also showed degraded driving performance compared to neutral and fear. Fear did not have any significant effect on subjective judgment, driving performance, or perceived workload. Results suggest that we may need to take emotions and affect into account to construct a naturalistic and generic driving behavior model. To this end, a specific-affect approach is needed, beyond the sheer valence and arousal dimensions. Given that workload results are similar across affective states, examining affective effects may also require a different approach than just the perceived workload framework. The present work is expected to guide emotion detection research and help develop an emotion regulation model and adaptive interfaces for drivers.     

A COMPARISON OF RUSSIAN AND U.S. PAY ALLOCATION DECISIONS, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE JUDGMENTS, AND PRODUCTIVITY UNDER DIFFERENT PAYMENT CONDITIONS

This article reports the results of two studies of pay-related attitudes and behaviors of Russian and U.S. managers and students. In a pay allocation role play, managers in both countries place primary emphasis on individual performance (equity) and secondary emphasis on coworker relations and equality. In addition, Russian managerial subjects utilized need in their pay allocations. In a series of experiments, both Russian and U.S. students preferred the equity rule, although there were no productivity effects across different allocation rules. Procedural justice effects were also observed. Implications for pay practices are examined.