Warning: ksort() expects parameter 1 to be array, object given in /home/rferrell63/robertferrell.net/wp-content/plugins/bbpress/includes/core/template-functions.php on line 316
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

  • Disloyalty aversion: Greater reluctance to bet against close others than the self
    Publication date: May 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 140

    Author(s): Simone Tang, Carey M. Morewedge, Richard P. Larrick, Jill G. Klein

    We examine the mechanisms by which loyalty can induce risk seeking. In seven studies, participants exhibited disloyalty aversion—they were more reluctant to bet on the failure of a close other than on their own failure. In contrast, participants were just as willing to bet on the failure of strangers as on their own failure. This effect persisted when bets were made in private, payouts were larger for betting on failure than success (Studies 1–4, 6), and failure was most likely (Studies 2–6). We propose that disloyalty aversion occurs because the negative identity signal to the self that hedging creates can outweigh the rewards conferred by hedging. Indeed, disloyalty aversion was moderated by factors affecting the strength of this self-signal and the payout of the hedge, including the closeness of the other person, bettors’ trait loyalty, and payout magnitude (Studies 3–5). Disloyalty aversion strongly influences social preferences involving risk.





  • Team adaptation in context: An integrated conceptual model and meta-analytic review
    Publication date: Available online 24 March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    Author(s): Jessica Siegel Christian, Michael S. Christian, Matthew J. Pearsall, Erin C. Long

    In modern work teams, successful performance requires adaptation to changing environments, tasks, situations, and role structures. Although empirical studies of team adaptive performance have generated key inferences about team adaptation in specific contexts, there are important conceptual differences across the adaptive stimuli examined in the literature (e.g., novel environments vs. downsizing). We extend theories of team adaptation by suggesting that the effectiveness of team processes and emergent states in driving team adaptive performance will vary based on the nature of the adaptive stimulus. We integrate and extend the team adaptation literature using an IMOI framework to empirically examine a process model of team adaptive performance and examine two distinct contextual moderators: (a) internal versus external changes (i.e., origin), and (b) temporary versus sustained changes (i.e., duration). We meta-analytically examine the processes, emergent states, and inputs that lead to effective team adaptation in general, and in specific contexts. The results of our meta-analysis generally support our proposed model. We discuss implications and directions for future theory and research.





  • Cover 2 – Editorial Board/Barcode
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139









  • Effects of inter-group status on the pursuit of intra-group status
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139

    Author(s): Jin Wook Chang, Rosalind M. Chow, Anita W. Woolley

    This research examines how the status of one’s group influences intra-group behavior and collective outcomes. Two experiments provide evidence that, compared to members of low-status groups, members of high-status groups are more concerned about their intra-group standing, which in turn can increase both the likelihood of competitive and cooperative intra-group behavior. However, whether the desire for intra-group standing manifests via competitive versus cooperative behavior depends on the relevance of the task to the group’s inter-group standing. When the task is not clearly relevant to the group’s status, members of high-status groups are more likely to engage in competitive behavior out of a desire to manage their intra-group status, which, in turn, leads to less desirable collective outcomes. However, when the group’s status is at stake, members of high-status groups seek intra-group status via cooperative behavior, leading to better collective outcomes.





  • A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers’ underestimation of helpers’ effort
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139

    Author(s): Daniel A. Newark, Vanessa K. Bohns, Francis J. Flynn

    Whether people seek help depends on their estimations of both the likelihood and the value of getting it. Although past research has carefully examined how accurately help-seekers predict whether their help requests will be granted, it has failed to examine how accurately help-seekers predict the value of that help, should they receive it. In this paper, we focus on how accurately help-seekers predict a key determinant of help value, namely, helper effort. In four studies, we find that (a) helpers put more effort into helping than help-seekers expect (Studies 1–4); (b) people do not underestimate the effort others will expend in general, but rather only the effort others will expend helping them (Study 2); and (c) this underestimation of help effort stems from help-seekers’ failure to appreciate the discomfort—in particular, the guilt—that helpers would experience if they did not do enough to help (Studies 3 & 4).





  • Hierarchical rank and principled dissent: How holding higher rank suppresses objection to unethical practices
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139

    Author(s): Jessica A. Kennedy, Cameron Anderson

    When unethical practices occur in an organization, high-ranking individuals at the top of the hierarchy are expected to stop wrongdoing and redirect the organization to a more honorable path—this is, to engage in principled dissent. However, in three studies, we find that holding high-ranking positions makes people less likely to engage in principled dissent. Specifically, we find that high-ranking individuals identify more strongly with their organization or group, and therefore see its unethical practices as more ethical than do low-ranking individuals. High-ranking individuals thus engage less in principled dissent because they fail to see unethical practices as being wrong in the first place. Study 1 observed the relation between high-rank and principled dissent in an archival data set involving more than 11,000 employees. Studies 2 and 3 used experimental designs to establish the causal effect of rank and to show that identification is one key mechanism underlying it.





  • How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback and subsequent effort and learning
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139

    Author(s): Matt Zingoni, Kris Byron

    Whether individuals believe that ability can change through effort (incremental theorists) or is fixed (entity theorists) influences self-regulation in achievement situations – especially in response to failure. Explaining why past studies have found mixed results, our findings from two experiments suggest that individuals’ theory of ability interacts with whether feedback compares their performance to others or to an absolute standard. Further, those who believe or were induced to believe that ability can change through effort found negative absolute feedback highly valuable and relatively unthreatening to their self-concept, which, in turn, was positively associated with effort and learning. In contrast, those who believe or were induced to believe that ability is fixed found themselves in a position of motivational conflict as they perceived negative comparative feedback as valuable but also highly threatening. Perhaps because threat is cognitively consuming, our results suggest that threat inhibited learning.





  • “Switching On” creativity: Task switching can increase creativity by reducing cognitive fixation
    Publication date: March 2017
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 139

    Author(s): Jackson G. Lu, Modupe Akinola, Malia F. Mason

    Whereas past research has focused on the downsides of task switching, the present research uncovers a potential upside: increased creativity. In two experiments, we show that task switching can enhance two principal forms of creativity—divergent thinking (Study 1) and convergent thinking (Study 2)—in part because temporarily setting a task aside reduces cognitive fixation. Participants who continually alternated back and forth between two creativity tasks outperformed both participants who switched between the tasks at their discretion and participants who attempted one task for the first half of the allotted time before switching to the other task for the second half. Importantly, Studies 3a–3d reveal that people overwhelmingly fail to adopt a continual-switch approach when incentivized to choose a task switching strategy that would maximize their creative performance. These findings provide insights into how individuals can “switch on” creativity when navigating multiple creative tasks.





http://rss.sciencedirect.com/publication/science/07495978

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *