Human reactions to technological failure: How accidents rooted in technology vs. human error influence judgments of organizational accountability

Two experiments examine how the identification of technology as a causal factor in an organizational accident influences judgments of organizational accountability. In study 1, organizations were found to be held less accountable for their actions when a misfortune was rooted in a computer error than when rooted in human error. The predicted mechanism for this effect, counterfactual thinking, was confirmed. Specifically, technologically induced accidents were found to generate fewer counterfactual thoughts of better possible outcomes than similar accidents resulting from human error. Study 2 replicated the findings of study 1 in a more natural setting and using a less intrusive measure for counterfactual thoughts.     

Online bargaining and interpersonal trust

The presented study explores the effect of interacting over the Internet on interpersonal trust when bargaining online. Relative to face-to-face negotiations, online negotiations were characterized by (a) lower levels of pre-negotiation trust and (b) lower levels of post-negotiation trust. The reduced levels of pre-negotiation trust in online negotiations (i.e., before any interaction took place) demonstrate that negotiators bring different expectations to the electronic bargaining table than to face-to-face negotiations. These negative perceptions of trust were found to mediate another aspect of the relationship, namely, desired future interaction. Those who negotiated online reported less desire for future interactions with the other party. Online negotiators also were less satisfied with their outcome and less confident in the quality of their performance, despite the absence of observable differences in economic outcome quality.     

The team halo effect: why teams are not blamed for their failures

In this study, the existence of the team halo effect, the phenomenon that teams tend not to be blamed for their failures, is documented. With 2 studies using both real teams and controlled scenarios, the authors found evidence that the nature of the causal attribution processes used to diagnose failure scenarios leads to individuals being more likely to be identified as the cause of team failure than the team as a collective. Team schema development, as indexed by team experience, influences this effect, with individuals who have more team experience being less likely to show the team halo effect     

Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments

Across three empirical studies, this paper explores the effect of using e-mail as a communication medium (versus pen-and-paper) when conducting performance appraisals of peers. The notion put forth by Media Richness Theory that paper-form and e-mail media should be considered identical for conveying this information was theoretically challenged and differences were empirically supported. Using two different settings, results demonstrate that evaluators offered more negative appraisals of their peers when using e-mail than when using traditional paper-form methods. Reduced feelings of social obligation in the e-mail condition were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that social psychological processes can influence the effects of different media on peer ratings.