Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2018
-
(2018): Ranking low, feeling high. How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice. In: The Journal of applied psychology 103 (2), S. 164-181. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000260
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28933910 Abstract: Research shows that power can lead to prosocial behavior by facilitating the behavioral expression of dispositional prosocial motivation. However, it is not clear how power may facilitate responses to contextual factors that promote prosocial motivation. Integrating fairness heuristic theory and the situated focus theory of power, we argue that in particular, organization members in lower (vs. higher) hierarchical positions who simultaneously experience a high (vs. low) sense of power respond with prosocial behavior to 1 important antecedent of prosocial motivation, that is, the enactment of procedural justice. The results from a multisource survey among employees and their leaders from various organizations (Study 1) and an experiment using a public goods dilemma (Study 2) support this prediction. Three subsequent experiments (Studies 3-5) show that this effect is mediated by perceptions of authority trustworthiness. Taken together, this research (a) helps resolve the debate regarding whether power promotes or undermines prosocial behavior, (b) demonstrates that hierarchical position and the sense of power can have very different effects on processes that are vital to the functioning of an organization, and (c) helps solve ambiguity regarding the roles of hierarchical position and power in fairness heuristic theory. (PsycINFO Database Record
2016
-
(2016): Promoting fairness in the face of conflict. The moderating effect of social control. In: Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37 (5), S. 593-608. DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0175
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0175 Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe how superior-subordinate conflicts stimulate managers to promote fairness. The theory proposes that managers’ efforts to apply social controls (i.e. training and socialization activities that promote emotional connection and value congruence) moderate the influence of superior-subordinate conflicts on managers’ efforts to promote fairness. When conflicts are experienced by managers who apply social controls, those managers increase their efforts to promote fairness. Because managers who apply social controls need subordinates to endorse their directives, they promote fairness in the face of conflict to demonstrate that they manage subordinates in ways that are appropriate and deserving of their cooperation. Design/methodology/approach: These ideas are tested in two studies: a survey of managers and their subordinates and a scenario-based experiment. Findings: The results obtained from these studies demonstrate that whe n manage rs who apply social controls encounter superior-subordinate conflicts, they more actively work to fairly distribute rewards and responsibilities (i.e. promote distributive fairness) and accurately and consistently implement organizational procedures (i.e. promote procedural fairness). Practical implications: This paper demonstrates how managers who are engaged in important sets of behaviors use fairness to address conflicts with their subordinates. Originality/value: By identifying when superior-subordinate conflicts stimulate managers to promote fairness, this paper contributes to research on how individuals use fairness and controls together to maintain their positions of authority within social contexts (e.g. groups, units, organizations). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
-
(2016): Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer
Abstract: The International Society for Justice Research (ISJR) aims to provide a platform for interdisciplinary justice scholars who are encouraged to present and exchange their ideas. This exchange has yielded a fruitful advance of theoretical and empirically-oriented justice research. This volume substantiates this academic legacy and the research prospects of the ISJR in the field of justice theory and research. Included are themes and topics such as the theory of the justice motive, the mapping of the multifaceted forms of justice (distributive, procedural) and justice in context-bound spheres (e.g. non-humans). It presents a comprehensive "state of the art" overview in the field of justice research theory and it puts forth an agenda for future interdisciplinary and international justice research. It is worth noting that authors in this proposed volume represent ISJR's leading scholarship. Thus, the compilation of their research within a single framework exposes potential readers to high quality academic work that embodies the past, current and future trends of justice research. .
-
(2016): Moral values and increasing stakes in a dictator game. In: Journal of Economic Psychology 56, S. 107-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2016.06.004
Abstract: Using data from a large representative US sample (N = 1519), we compare hypothetical moral fairness values from the Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale with actual fairness behavior in an incentivized dictator game with either low or high stakes. We find that people with high moral fairness values fail to live up to their high fairness standards, when stake size increases. This violates principles from consistency theories according to which moral values are supposedly aligned with moral behavior, but is in line with temptation theories that question the absoluteness of morality values.
2015
-
(2015): Toward a general model of fairness perception formation: A critical review and revision of fairness theory.. Dissertation. University of Arizona, Arizona, US, zuletzt geprüft am 07.03.2018
Abstract: Fairness theory represents a widely cited framework for modeling the cognitive processes that underlie the formation of fairness perceptions in the workplace. Nonetheless, imprecise language and scant empirical research limit its ability to further organizational justice research. Therefore, in this dissertation I provide a review and critique of fairness theory suggesting several revisions. I then build upon this revised model to develop a new model of fairness perception formation. The developed model is tested via a laboratory experiment and a field study, both of which provide initial evidence in favor of the proposed model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
(2015): From Honesty–Humility to fair behavior – Benevolence or a (blind) fairness norm?. In: Personality and Individual Differences 80, S. 91-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.017 Abstract: Recent research has identified trait Honesty–Humility as a vital determinant of a variety of cooperative, fair, or pro-social behaviors. However, it is less clear what drives the link between Honesty–Humility and the tendency to exhibit fair behavior which we first demonstrate in a meta-analysis of prior work using the dictator game. To close this gap, we test two potential explanations, namely benevolence versus an internalized (blind) fairness norm. In a redistribution paradigm, we implemented an unfair situation in which participants and their hypothetical counterparts received asymmetric rewards for the same performance in a quiz. The asymmetry was either to the participants’ advantage or disadvantage, manipulated experimentally. Finally, participants were empowered to redistribute all rewards at will. In line with the benevolence account, individuals high in Honesty–Humility established a fair distribution if they themselves were advantaged (thus making sure they do not exploit others) whereas they refrained from rectifying the asymmetry (by taking points from the other) if they were disadvantaged. Vice versa, the pattern cannot be accommodated by the idea of a (blind) fairness norm which would have implied that individuals high in Honesty–Humility establish an equal distribution irrespective of who is advantaged.
-
(2015): Evolutionary dynamics of group fairness. In: Journal of theoretical biology 378, S. 96-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.04.025
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25936348 Abstract: The emergence and impact of fairness is commonly studied in the context of 2-person games, notably the Ultimatum Game. Often, however, humans face problems of collective action involving more than two individuals where fairness is known to play a very important role, and whose dynamics cannot be inferred from what is known from 2-person games. Here, we propose a generalization of the Ultimatum Game for an arbitrary number of players--the Multiplayer Ultimatum Game. Proposals are made to a group of responders who must individually reject or accept the proposal. If the total number of individual acceptances stands below a given threshold, the offer will be rejected; otherwise, the offer will be accepted, and equally shared by all responders. We investigate the evolution of fairness in populations of individuals by means of evolutionary game theory, providing both analytical insights and results from numerical simulations. We show how imposing stringent consensuses significantly increases the value of the proposals, leading to fairer outcomes and more tolerant players. Furthermore, we show how stochastic effects--such as imitation errors and/or errors when assessing the fitness of others--may further enhance the overall success in reaching fair collective action.
-
(2015): Fairness - A multidimensional approach. Kumulative Dissertation. Universität Bonn, Bonn. Online verfügbar unter http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2015/4168/4168.pdf, zuletzt geprüft am 01.03.2018
Abstract: In this cumulative dissertation - in addition to an overview about psychological and economic theories on fair behavior - four contributions are presented investigating fairness with different neuroscientific methods and using different paradigms. - (1) Strang, S., Gross, J., Schuhmann, T., Riedl, A., Weber, B., & Sack, A. (2014). Be nice if you have to - The neurobiological roots of strategic fairness. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsu114 Titel anhand dieser DOI in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen. (2) Strang, S., Utikal, V., Fischbacher, U., Weber, B., & Falk, A. (2014). Neural correlates of receiving an apology and active forgiveness: An fMRI study. PLoS One, e87654. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087654 Titel anhand dieser DOI in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen. (3) Hu, Y., Strang, S., & Weber, B. (2015). Helping of punishing strangers: Neural correlates of altruistic decisions as third-party and of its relation to empathic concern. Frontiers of Behavioral Neuroscience, 9:24. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00024 Titel anhand dieser DOI in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen. (4) Strang, S., Grote, X., Kuss, K., Park, S. Q., & Weber, B. (2015, in preparation). Generalized negative reciprocity - How to interrupt the chain of unfairness.
2013
-
Gollwitzer, Mario; Lotz, Sebastian; Schlösser, Thomas; Streicher, Bernhard (Hg.) (2013): Soziale Gerechtigkeit. Was unsere Gesellschaft aus den Erkenntnissen der Gerechtigkeitspsychologie lernen kann. Göttingen: Hogrefe
Abstract: Gesetzliche Lohnuntergrenzen, Arbeitsaufteilung in Familien, Justizirrtümer, betriebliche Mitbestimmung, Managergehälter, frühkindliche Förderung, Studiengebühren–so unterschiedlich und unzusammenhängend diese Themen auf den ersten Blick auch klingen mögen, sie haben eines gemeinsam: Sie werfen Fragen auf, in denen mit „Gerechtigkeit “argumentiert wird und werden muss. Dass Gerechtigkeit ein wünschbares Ideal darstellt und Ungerechtigkeit zu Konflikten und unter Umständen sogar zu gewaltvollen …
Keywords: Fairnesstheorie, sanctions -
(2013) : Gerechtigkeitsaspekte sozialer Sanktionssysteme In: Gollwitzer, Mario; Lotz, Sebastian; Schlösser, Thomas; Streicher, Bernhard (Hg.): Soziale Gerechtigkeit. Was unsere Gesellschaft aus den Erkenntnissen der Gerechtigkeitspsychologie lernen kann: Göttingen: Hogrefe, S. 157-173
Abstract: Aus einer gerechtigkeitspsychologischen Sicht werden Fragen der Vergeltungsgerechtigkeit erörtert. Neben der Angemessenheit von Vergeltungsaktionen werden Funktionen von Strafe aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln (als Sühne oder Mittel zur Normbekräftigung) betrachtet und Implikationen von Strafen in und zwischen Gruppen erläutert. Zudem werden unterschiedliche Formen sozialer Sanktionen beleuchtet und Zusammenhänge des Strafrechts mit Rache und Vergeltung diskutiert.
-
Hojjat, Mahzad (2013): Positive psychology of love. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press ([Series in positive pychology])
Abstract: In this chapter, we focus on friendships because the bounty of research to date has emphasized romantic relationships, and we wanted to bring some new information to this body of work. More specifically, we emphasize the manner in which people retain satisfaction from their ongoing relationships through the use of what has become known as 'relational maintenance strategies.' In a word, we argue that strategic use of maintenance strategies increases partners' relational quality, which in turn affects one's happiness. The following sections elaborate on this position. We first discuss the link between personal happiness and ongoing personal relationships. We then develop how relational maintenance strategies support important and fundamental relational characteristics, such as satisfaction. Finally, we explain how assessments of fairness affect the link between maintenance strategy and relational quality. Here we rely on equity theory as a conceptual framework that explains how people in Western cultures assess fair treatment and how such assessments of fairness operate in close relationships to affect the use of maintenance strategies (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
2011
-
(2011) : Motive fairen und nicht-solidarischen Verhaltens: Korruption: Forschungsstand, Prävention, Probleme: Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers
Abstract: Ausgehend von der Feststellung, dass sich die Psychologie bisher wenig mit dem Thema "Korruption" auseinandergesetzt hat, werden mogliche psychologische Beitrage zu einer Korruptionsforschung besprochen. Dabei werden psychologische Theorien und Forschungsergebnisse zu "Gerechtigkeit und Fairness" (Organisationsgerechtigkeit als theoretische Basis; distributive Gerechtigkeit bzw. Fairness; prozedurale Fairness; Interaktionsfairness) sowie zu "Fairness und Teameffizienz" dargestellt. Im Rahmen des zuletzt genannten Punktes wird uber eine Studie berichtet, in der das Gerechtigkeitserleben bei der Teamarbeit untersucht wurde. Es zeigte sich unter anderem, dass die Grundeinstellung zu einer Aufgabe ausschlaggebend dafur ist, inwieweit jemand eine Teamarbeit akzeptiert und effizient im Team arbeitet. Die realen vorhandenen Arbeitsbedingungen, sowie die Art und Weise der Aufgabenverteilung (Losverfahren) beeinflussen die Teameffizienz nicht. Fairness und "Social Loafing" sind dagegen starke Pradiktoren fur Teameffizienz. Je weniger Fairness vorhanden ist, desto weniger erfolgreich ist ein Team.
2009
-
(2009): What is Fair. Three Perspectives. In: Journal of Business Ethics 84 (S1), S. 89-102. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9683-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9683-6 Abstract: Although words like 'fair' may have a common meaning, we cannot assume that people speak them or hear them in the same manner, or appreciate the impact of their implied interpretations and nuances. We describe three different perspectives–rational, emotional, and spiritual–which offer vastly different meanings of fairness. We also discuss the manner in which the different meanings they represent with respect to policies and practices are pursued by business interests within the American and international arenas. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
-
(2009): Social preferences and moral biases. In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 69 (3), S. 201-212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2008.10.007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.10.007 Abstract: An emerging consensus in economics is that three motives are at work in strategic decisions: distributive preferences, reciprocal preferences and self-interest. An important obstacle, however, has been moral biases: distortions created by self-interest can obscure our measures of social preferences. This paper describes a simple experiment to address this. We compare the decisions of implicated “stakeholders” with those of impartial “spectators.” We find that stakeholders are less inclined to respond to the generosity of others than are spectators. We also clarify a result in previous research [e.g., Offerman, T., 2002. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. European Economic Review 46, 1423–1437] that stakeholders punish unkindness more than they reward kindness. We find that this asymmetry in reciprocity has two sources: an asymmetry in the underlying preference that even impartial spectators display and a moral bias; stakeholders punish more and reward less than spectators. In sum, we find that all three motives have important and significant effects on final allocations. zitiert von: 91
-
(2009): Differential roles of fairness- and compassion-based motivations for cooperation, defection, and punishment. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1167, S. 41-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04733.x
DOI: http://www.nyas.org/annals/index.asp Abstract: The present paper briefly describes and contrasts two different motivations crucially involved in decision making and cooperation, namely fairness-based and compassion-based motivation. Whereas both can lead to cooperation in comparable social situations, we suggest that they are driven by fundamentally different mechanisms and, overall, predict different behavioral outcomes. First, we provide a brief definition of each and discuss the relevant behavioral and neuroscientific literature with regards to cooperation in the context of economic games. We suggest that, whereas both fairness- and compassion-based motivation can support cooperation, fairness-based motivation leads to punishment in cases of norm violation, while compassion-based motivation can, in cases of defection, counteract a desire for revenge and buffer the decline into iterative noncooperation. However, those with compassion-based motivation alone may get exploited. Finally, we argue that the affective states underlying fairness-based and compassion-based motivation are fundamentally different, the former driven by anger or fear of being punished and the latter by a wish for the other person's well-being.
2006
-
(2006) : Chapter 8 The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories: Foundations, 1: 1. ed.: Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier (Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity), S. 615-691
Abstract: Most economic models are based on the self-interest hypothesis that assumes that material self-interest exclusively motivates all people. Experimental economists have gathered overwhelming evidence in recent years, however, that systematically refutes the self-interest hypothesis, suggesting that concerns for altruism, fairness, and reciprocity strongly motivate many people. Moreover, several theoretical papers demonstrate that the observed phenomena can be explained in a rigorous and tractable manner. These theories then induced a first wave of experimental research which offered exciting insights into both the nature of preferences and the relative performance of competing fairness theories. The purpose of this chapter is to review these developments, to point out open questions, and to suggest avenues for future research. We also discuss recent neuroeconomic evidence that is consistent with the view that many people have a taste for mutual cooperation and the punishment of norm violators. We further illustrate the powerful impact of fairness concerns on cooperation, competition, incentives, and contract design.
Keywords: Fairness, Fairnesstheorie, Most economic models are based on the self-interest hypothesis that assumes that material self-interest exclusively motivates all people. Experimental economists have gathered overwhelming evidence in recent years, however, that systematically refutes the, Review, science direct 2004
-
Peterson, Christopher (2004): Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.. Kapitel: Fairness. pp. 391-412. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, zuletzt geprüft am 08.03.2018
Abstract: In their book 'Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification,' Peterson and Seligman present a taxonomy of character strengths and virtues. This chapter specifically examines fairness. The chapter provides a consensual definition of fairness, and discusses its theoretical traditions; measures; correlates and consequences; development; enabling and inhibiting factors; gender, cross-national, and cross-cultural aspects; and deliberate interventions for cultivating fairness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
Keywords: Fairnesstheorie, Human Sex Differences, Cross Cultural Differences, Intervention, Fairness, Justice, Kulturforschung/ kulturelle Unterschiede, Morality, Personality Development, Personality Measures, Personality Theory, Personality Traits, Positive Psychology, Sociocultural Factors, Taxonomies 2000
-
(2000): Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness.. In: Journal of personality and social psychology, S. 355-366, zuletzt geprüft am 08.03.2018
Abstract: This article focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that people especially need fairness when they are uncertain about things that are important to them. Following terror management theory, the authors focus on a basic kind of human uncertainty: fear of death. Integrating these two theoretical frameworks, it is proposed that thinking about their mortality should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of three experiments support the authors' line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about their mortality led to stronger fair process effects (positive effects of perceived procedural fairness on subsequent reactions) than not asking them to think about mortality. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are uncertain about fundamental aspects of human life such as human mortality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, al l rights reserved)
1989
-
(1989): Survey of fairness notions. In: Information and Software Technology 31 (7), S. 371-386. DOI: 10.1016/0950-5849(89)90159-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-5849(89)90159-6 Abstract: Fairness has been examined from different viewpoints and in varied semantic models, for example, CCS, guarded commands, Petri nets, and automata. Classification of fairness notions has been proposed in many formalisms, which have often required a suitable extension. Surprisingly, there still seems to be no general agreement on what fairness means and how it should be dealt with. One possible reason for this state of affairs is the multiplicity of semantic models used and the dependence of fairness on the intrinsic characteristics of these models, which makes it difficult to establish interrelationships between fairness notions. It is not uncommon to encounter criticism of fairness, and the need for the powerful methods that reasoning with fairness constraints has called for, for example, transfinite induction, is also questioned. This situation is clearly undesirable, and ways to provide better understanding of fairness, and perhaps a unified approach, should be sought. The paper reviews major issues in the area, the purpose being to present a taxonomy of notions of fairness and to discuss the main directions taken and the implications of choosing a particular approach. The object of this review is to identify common features of fairness definitions and to examine the adequacy, or, in some cases, the failure, of standard methods when applied to deal with fairness.
1986
-
(1986): Rules, reciprocity, and rewards. A developmental study of resource allocation in social interaction. In: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22 (5), S. 419-435. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90043-0
Abstract: Most studies of children's fairness have been conducted in settings of minimal interdependence. However, understanding the development of fair behavior also requires exploration of the processes operating in settings of ongoing interaction. It was hypothesized that in such settings reciprocity would be an important determinant of children's reward allocations. Second and sixth grade boys and girls (N = 80) participated in a simulated interaction requiring them to take turns with a fictitious co-worker distributing earnings over a series of 10 trials. Co-worker's distributions were consistently selfish, generous, equitable, or equalitarian across trials. Results indicated, for both age groups, a strong influence of co-workers' prior distributions that increased across trials. For sixth graders, the modal distributions in each of the three experimental groups matched the co-workers'. They understood the rules of equity and equality and considered both fair. Neither selfishness nor generosity was considered fair, even as reciprocation of others' prior distribution. Second graders understood the equality norm although they tended to act selfishly and consider both equality and selfishness fair, despite having contributed less work than their co-workers. Generous and equitable co-workers influenced second graders' distributions away from selfishness but not enough to match the co-workers' distributions. Second graders considered neither equity nor generosity fair and displayed little understanding of the equity norm.
- <<
- <
- 1