Victims' Satisfaction With Compensation: Effects of Initial Disadvantage and Third Party Intervention

Two experiments examined the reactions of victims of disadvantage to compensation designed to improve their lot. In Experiment 1, subjects participated in an organizational simulation where they were disadvantaged with respect to their pay. Subsequently, a third party intervened with one of a number of strategies which varied according to whether or not the subjects received compensation and whether or not the person responsible for their disadvantage suffered. The interaction between compensation and suffering was significant on a satisfaction measure and the pattern indicated that subjects were most satisfied when the harmdoer suffered to provide compensation. This interaction was not significant on a measure of perceptions of fairness. Experiment 2 examined the possibility that the intervention of the third party in Experiment 1 may have created feelings of indebtedness. In a similar paradigm, subjects were either disadvantaged by a harmdoer or by external events and received compensation that either was or was not accompanied by a request for repayment. When subjects had been disadvantaged by external events, they were more satisfied and felt more fairly treated when there was an opportunity for reciprocation than when there was not, while the opposite pattern was the case when the harmdoer was responsible for the disadvantage. The results were discussed in the context of the complexity of the receipt of aid phenomenon and possible implications for the design of ameliorative social programs.     

Balance and social comparison processes in the attribution of attraction

The area of attributed attraction was examined from the perspective that observers intuit some of the processes studied by social psychologists in the area of interpersonal attraction. A social situation was examined in which a target person was evaluated positively or negatively by another. The target was described as being either confident or not confident about the subject of the evaluation. Social comparison theory was interpreted to predict for observer subjects a stronger effect for the direction of the evaluation when the target's confidence was low rather than high, while balance theory was interpreted to predict the opposite. Support was found for the balance theory prediction. It was then suggested that low confidence may not be sufficient to engage social comparison processes unless it occurs in the context of a “need to know”—when the issue has important consequences. In another experiment, this context was provided and the trustworthiness of the evaluator was also manipulated. A social comparison effect was obtained. The strongest effect for the direction of the evaluation occurred when the target's confidence was perceived to be low and the evaluation was sincere.     

The extra credit effect in interpersonal attraction

An experiment was conducted in which three levels of personal evaluation (positive, mixed, or negative) were crossed with two levels of dependence of the evaluator (high or low) and two levels of accuracy of the evaluation (high or low). Liking for the evaluator was expected to increase linearly with the favorableness of the evaluation, with two possible exceptions: When a positive evaluation from a dependent evaluator was inaccurate, and when a negative evaluation from a dependent evaluator was accurate. In the former case, the obvious inaccuracy of the positive evaluation in the face of the temptation to ingratiate was expected to elicit a decrement in liking (an “ingratiation effect”) by the person being evaluated. In the latter case, the honesty of the evaluator in the face of the temptation to ingratiate was expected to elicit an increment of linking (an “extra credit effect”) by the person being evaluated. Only the second of these two possibilities was supported.