The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations

We investigated the interactive effects of regulatory focus priming and message framing on the perceived fairness of unfavorable events. We hypothesized that individuals’ perceptions of fairness are higher when they receive a regulatory focus prime (promotion versus prevention) that is congruent with the framing of an explanation (gain versus loss), as opposed to one that is incongruent. We also hypothesized that these effects are mediated by counterfactual thinking. Three studies revealed that primed regulatory fit (promotion/gain or prevention/loss) led to higher levels of justice perceptions than regulatory misfit (promotion/loss or prevention/gain). Additionally, “could” and “should” counterfactuals partially mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and interactional justice (Study 3).     

社会公平感对不同阶层目标达成的影响及其过程

基于目标追求理论和社会阶层心理学的相关理论, 本文通过3个研究, 逐步深入地考察了社会公平感对不同阶层个体目标达成的影响作用及其过程。研究1为相关研究, 考察了高低阶层成人被试的教育领域社会公平感与为孩子进行教育投入的目标承诺及目标达成之间的关系; 研究2为准实验研究, 通过操纵公平或不公平教育情境启动公平感, 考察其对高低阶层中学生的学习目标承诺与目标达成的影响; 研究3为实验研究, 通过实验操纵社会公平感和社会阶层, 考察社会公平感对高低阶层大学生的实验任务目标承诺和目标达成的影响。研究发现, 社会公平感通过正向影响低阶层者的目标承诺, 进而正向影响其目标达成; 而对于高阶层者来说, 变量之间这些关系则不显著。这表明：相对于高阶层来说, 低阶层者的目标追求易受社会公平感的影响; 低阶层者的社会公平感水平越高, 其追求目标的动机水平就越高, 进而越有利于目标达成。     

Authorities’ knowledge of shared group membership and its effects on the respect-informing properties of procedural fairness

We observe that the voice-leads-to-respect process underlying relational models of procedural fairness is assumed to follow primarily if not solely from interaction with an in-group authority. Moreover, if the voice recipients believe that the authority is unaware of this shared group membership, then the provision of voice actually says nothing (to the voice recipients) about their standing as group members; the respect-providing information as valued in-group members is absent because the recipients know that the authority does not know of their shared group membership. We tested these assumptions in a three-way design manipulating the group membership of the authority (in-group vs. out-group), the nature of voice (provided vs. denied) and the nature of group membership knowledge (the authority knows or does not know the voice recipient’s group membership). A significant three-way interaction was found, as predicted, on respect and fairness ratings. These data provide clear experimental support for an unstated, and yet untested, assumption of relational models of procedural fairness.     

“If only I had” versus “If only I had not”: Mental deletions,mental additions,and perceptions of meaning in life events

ABSTRACT

The present research investigated the relationship between meaning perceptions and the structure of counterfactual thoughts. In Study 1, participants reflected on how turning points in their lives could have turned out otherwise. Those who were instructed to engage in subtractive (e.g. If only I had not done X…”) counterfactual thinking (SCT) about those turning points subsequently reported higher meaning perceptions than did those who engaged in additive (e.g. ‘If only I had done X…’) counterfactual thinking (ACT). In Study 2, participants who reflected upon life events from the perspective of understanding the past (versus preparing for the future) tended to engage in more SCT than ACT. Finally, in Study 3, participants engaged in more SCT than ACT about life events whose meaning was perceived as certain (as opposed to uncertain) – presumably to maintain their pre-existing sense of meaning. Implications for the study of counterfactual thinking and meaning are discussed.     

Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness

Experimental exclusion manipulations may induce exclusion in a way that participants perceive as unfair. Groups often use exclusion punitively to correct inappropriate behavior, however, which may lead to perceptions that it is potentially justified or fair. The current studies examined if individuals' perceptions of fairness with respect to an exclusion experience moderated their reactions. Participants wrote about or imagined a time in which they were excluded after they did something wrong (fair exclusion) or excluded even though they did nothing wrong (unfair exclusion) or about a mundane experience unrelated to exclusion (control). Compared with fair exclusion, unfair exclusion resulted in significantly weaker efficacy needs satisfaction (Studies 1, 2, and 4), greater antisocial intent (Study 3), and greater sensitivity to signs of interpersonal acceptance and rejection in a visual search task (Study 4). These results suggest that it is important to consider the role of perceived fairness in shaping responses to exclusion.     

违实语义的加工机制

违实句(counterfactuals)是传递与事实相反意义的语句,广泛存在于人们的日常生活中并被用以表达对已知事实的另外假设。研究发现,相对于事实语义,违实语义能够激活双重心理表征/空间(虚拟vs.现实),需消耗更多的认知加工资源。本文分别从句法结构和语境制约两个层面详细探讨了违实语义的加工机制。语境方面,双重语义表征构建与消解的时间进程受到语境相关性的制约,充足的语境信息可以消解事实表征的干扰。句法方面,汉语违实标记的缺失使得汉语母语者更加依赖语境与语用来表达、理解违实义,但尚不明确其在线加工机制与印欧语违实义加工有何异同。后续研究应扩大语言研究范围,关注违实语义加工的个体差异,进一步厘清双重语义表征构建与消解的时间进程及其对语篇加工的影响。     

THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES ON REACTIONS TO HUMAN RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS: AN INTEGRATION OF PRIVACY AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES

The goal of the present study was to extend research on information privacy and fairness by examining these constructs within the context of human resource information systems. Using a 2 × 2 experimental design and data from 124 employed subjects in an organization that was in the process of developing a human resource information system, the present study examined the main and interactive effects of policies concerning ability to authorize disclosure (ability to authorize vs. no ability to authorize) and target of disclosure (internal to the organization vs. external to the organization) on invasion of privacy perceptions and fairness perceptions. Results of multivariate and univariate analyses of variance indicated that the independent variables had main and interactive effects on both fairness perceptions and invasion of privacy perceptions. Moreover, a confirmatory factor analysis suggested that invasion of privacy perceptions and fairness perceptions are distinct constructs. Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.     

Counterfactual seeking: The scenic overlook of the road not taken

Decision makers faced with an opportunity to learn the outcome of a foregone alternative must balance anticipated regret, should that information be unfavorable, with the potential benefits of this information in reducing experienced regret. Counterfactual seeking, the choice to learn more about foregone alternatives, may be a functional, regret-regulating strategy for individuals already experiencing regret. Counterfactual seeking increases in response to dissatisfying outcomes (Studies 1 and 2). Counterfactual seeking is generally able to reduce dissatisfaction (Study 2), regardless of whether individuals personally chose to view this information or were randomly assigned to do so (Study 3). Moreover, both imaginative (vs. factual) thoughts about the foregone option and upward (vs. downward) counterfactual thoughts play a role in this improvement in satisfaction (Study 4). Regret thus has a complex influence in how individuals engage with counterfactual information.     

Counterfactual comparison modulates fairness consideration in the mini‐ultimatum game: An event‐related potentials study

Existing literature on the mini‐ultimatum game indicates that counterfactual comparison between chosen and unchosen alternatives is of great importance for individual's fairness consideration. However, it is still unclear how counterfactual comparison influences the electrophysiological responses to unfair chosen offers. In conjunction with event‐related potentials’ (ERPs) technique, the current study aimed to explore the issue by employing a modified version of the mini‐ultimatum game where a fixed set of two alternatives (unfair offer vs. fair alternative, unfair vs. hyperfair alternative, unfair offer vs. hyperunfair alternative) was presented before the chosen offer. The behavioral results showed that participants were more likely to accept unfair chosen offers when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. The ERPs results showed that the feedback‐related negativity (FRN) elicited by unfair chosen offers was insensitive to the type of unchosen alternative when correcting for possible overlap with other components. In contrast, unfair chosen offers elicited larger P300 amplitudes when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. These findings suggest that counterfactual comparison may take effect at later stages of fairness consideration as reflected by the P300.     

The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness

This study explored the relationship between 3 dimensions of organizational structure--centralization, formalization, and size--and perceptions of procedural and interactional fairness. Data from 11 organizations (N = 209) indicated that, as predicted, centralization was negatively related to perceptions of procedural fairness, and organizational size was negatively related to interactional fairness. However, contrary to predictions, formalization was not related to perceptions of procedural fairness. Results suggest that organizational structure and design should play a more prominent role in our thinking about organizational fairness.     

Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session

Utilizing an organizational justice perspective, this cross-organizational study developed procedural fairness dimensions for the appraisal review session and two contextual domains of the performance appraisal process. The contextual domains were: (a) the structure, policies, and support characterizing the formal appraisal system, and (b) the appraisal-related interactions that occur throughout the year between supervisors and subordinates. In addition, relationships of the three procedural variable sets and their respective individual variables with three fairness (two distributive justice and one global) criteria were assessed. Procedures from the session and system domains were found to be most useful for predicting the fairness criteria.     

Hope as a resource for career exploration: Examining incremental and cross-lagged effects

Hope is believed to be beneficial for vocational pursuits, but the question of how and why hope is related to pivotal career development variables remains largely unaddressed. In a series of three studies, we investigated the relationship between hope and career exploration. Study 1 examined at-risk adolescents (N = 228) in Switzerland and showed that hope explains variance in career exploration beyond the significant effects of generalized self-efficacy beliefs and perceived social support. Study 2 found the same result among a group (N = 223) of first-year students at a Swiss university with a measure of state hope. Study 3 applied a one-year cross-lagged design with a diverse group of students (N = 266) at a German university to investigate the mutual effects of dispositional hope and career exploration over time. Although both variables were found to be related within and over time, we could not confirm lagged effects in either direction. The results suggest that hope is significantly correlated with career exploration because both are related to personality and social–contextual variables.     

人工智能决策的公平感知

不平等问题是全球社会和经济发展需要应对的首要挑战, 也是实现全球可持续发展目标的核心障碍。人工智能(artificial intelligence, AI)为缓解不平等、促进社会公平提供了新的途径。然而, 新近研究发现, 即使客观上AI决策具有公平性和准确性, 个体仍可能对AI决策的公平感知较低。因此, 近年来越来越多的研究开始关注AI决策公平感知的影响因素。然而, 目前研究较为分散, 呈现出研究范式不统一、理论不清晰和机制未厘清等特征。这既不利于跨学科的研究对话, 也不利于研究者和实践者对AI决策公平感知形成系统性理解。基于此, 通过系统的梳理, 现有研究可以划分为两类: (1) AI单一决策的公平感知研究, 主要聚焦于AI特征和个体特征如何影响个体对AI决策的公平感知; (2) AI-人类二元决策的公平感知研究, 主要聚焦于对比个体对AI决策与人类决策公平感知的差异。在上述梳理基础上, 未来研究可以进一步探索AI决策公平感知的情绪影响机制等方向。     

From First Impression to Fairness Perception: Investigating the Impact of Initial Trustworthiness Beliefs

Evolutionary theory and neuroscientific evidence suggest that humans automatically infer the trustworthiness of others based on facial appearance. Building upon this knowledge base, this article presents three empirical studies that investigate the influence of initial impressions of trustworthiness on post‐event perceptions of justice. Across 2 vignette studies and 1 laboratory study, the results consistently suggest that pre‐event trustworthiness impressions exert significant indirect effects on post‐event justice perceptions. In Study 1 and 2, the effects of trustworthiness were mediated by individuals’ psychological state of trust and fairness‐related counterfactual thinking, respectively. In Study 3, the indirect effect of trustworthiness was transmitted through the psychological state of trust alone. The finding that initial trustworthiness impressions derived from surface cues (facial appearance) help shape subsequent perceptions of justice has important implications for justice theory and research.     

Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, it is argued in this article that people especially need fairness when they are reminded about aspects of their lives that make them uncertain. It is therefore proposed that thinking about uncertainty should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of 3 experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking (vs. not asking) participants 2 questions that solicited their thoughts and feelings of being uncertain led to stronger effects of perceived procedural fairness on participants' affective reactions toward the way they were treated. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness matters to people especially when they are trying to deal with things that make them uncertain. An implication of the current findings therefore may be that fairness is important to people because it gives them an opportunity to manage uncertain aspects of their lives.     

An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction

Research has examined how the design and implementation of computerized performance monitoring (CPM) systems affects individuals’ performance and attitudes. In this study, we examine how the attributes of the feedback received in a CPM context affects individuals’ reactions to monitoring. One hundred and sixty-five individuals participated in an experiment that examined the effect of three feedback attributes (feedback control, feedback constructiveness, and feedback medium) on monitoring fairness judgments, performance, and satisfaction. Results demonstrate feedback constructiveness significantly predicted monitoring fairness. Additionally, supervisor-mediated feedback was associated with higher levels of monitoring fairness than was computer-mediated feedback. Moreover, monitoring fairness mediated the relationship between these feedback attributes and performance and satisfaction. However, contrary to expectations, feedback control did not affect perceptions of monitoring fairness. Implications for future research on the design of CPM systems are discussed.     

Spoilt for choice: The role of counterfactual thinking in the excess choice and reversibility paradoxes

Contrary to popular belief many choice options and the ability to reverse one's initial choice are sometimes associated with decreased chooser satisfaction. Two studies investigated the role of counterfactual thinking in explaining these paradoxes. Participants chose drawing implements from either a limited (6) or extensive (24) choice set (Study 1), or an expected reversible/non-reversible selection (Study 2). Following a drawing task, satisfaction with their chosen implement was rated under either high or low cognitive load to manipulate the availability of counterfactual alternatives. In Study 1 satisfaction was higher with limited vs. extensive choice under low load. The number of counterfactuals generated mediated this effect. Under high load the pattern was reversed. Participants in Study 2 generated more counterfactuals when reversibility was expected under low but not high load and this partially mediated the impact of expected reversibility on revealed satisfaction. Implications for theoretical understanding of these paradoxes are discussed.     

Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Decisions: The Role of Counterfactual Thought in the Experience of Regret and Disappointment

Regret and disappointment are emotions that can be experienced in response to an unfavorable outcome of a decision. Previous research suggests that both emotions are related to the process of counterfactual thinking. The present research extends this idea by combining it with ideas from regret and disappointment theory. The results show that regret is related to behavior-focused counterfactual thought in which the decision-maker's own actions are changed, whereas disappointment is related to situation-focused counterfactual thought in which aspects of the situation are changed. In Study 1 participants (N= 130) were asked to recall an autobiographical episode of either a regretful or a disappointing event. When asked to undo this event, regret participants predominantly changed their own actions, whereas disappointment participants predominantly changed aspects of the situation. In Study 2 all participants (N= 50) read a scenario in which a person experiences a negative event. Participants who were instructed to undo the event by changing the person's actions reported more regret than disappointment, while participants who were instructed to undo the event by changing aspects of the situation reported more disappointment than regret. Study 3 (N= 140) replicated the findings from Study 2 with a different scenario, and a design in which regret and disappointment were measured between rather than within subjects. In the discussion we address the relation among counterfactual thinking, attributions and affective reactions to decision outcomes, and the implications for decision research.     

The personality basis of justice: The five‐factor model as an integrative model of personality and procedural fairness effects on cooperation

Building upon the self‐based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005 ), the present study investigates the relationship between the five‐factor model (FFM) and cooperation. Study 1 (N = 56), an experiment conducted in the laboratory, and Study 2 (N = 116), a field study conducted in an organisational context, yielded a moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness in explaining cooperation. Study 3 (N = 177) showed that this moderator effect was mediated by the self‐uncertainty and relational variables proposed by the self‐based model of cooperation. It is concluded that the FFM is useful in explaining cooperation and contributes to a better understanding of (procedural) fairness effects. Moreover, the necessity to build integrative, multi‐level models that combine core and surface aspects of personality to explain the effects of fairness on cooperation is elaborated upon. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory mode effects on counterfactual thinking and regret

The present studies examined the influence of two regulatory mode concerns—a locomotion concern with movement from state to state and an assessment concern with making comparisons [see Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293-344). New York: Academic Press]—on engaging in counterfactual thinking and experiencing post-decisional regret. When contemplating a decision with a negative outcome, it was predicted that high (vs. low) locomotion would induce less counterfactual thinking and less regret, whereas the opposite would be true for high (vs. low) assessment. Locomotion and assessment orientations were measured as chronic individual differences in Study 1 and 2, and were induced experimentally in Study 3. In Study 1 and 3 a purchase scenario with a negative outcome was used to elicit counterfactuals and regret, while in Study 2 participants were asked to recall one of their own personal purchases that had a negative outcome. The results supported our predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for the nature of counterfactual thinking and regret from the perspective of their relation to regulatory mode.