Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

  • From “me” to “we”: The role of construal level in promoting maximized joint outcomes
    Publication date: July 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 147

    Author(s): Paul E. Stillman, Kentaro Fujita, Oliver Sheldon, Yaacov Trope

    To minimize waste and inefficiencies, research has sought to understand under what circumstances decision-makers tasked with allocating outcomes to self and others maximize joint outcomes – making decisions that provide the greatest net gain across all vested stakeholders, irrespective of beneficiary. We explore construal level as a critical cognitive mechanism. We hypothesize that high-level construal – a representational process that expands mental scope by broadening attention to global, gestalt wholes – relative to low-level construal – a representational process that contracts mental scope by narrowing attention to local, idiosyncratic elements – should facilitate sensitivity to the welfare of the collective unit relative to specific individuals. Four experiments demonstrate that high-level relative to low-level construal promotes decisions that maximize joint outcomes, irrespective of beneficiary. These findings contribute to a growing literature examining factors that influence consideration of joint outcomes by highlighting construal level as a key cognitive antecedent, with theoretical and practical implications.





  • A ratings pattern heuristic in judgments of expertise: When being right Looks wrong
    Publication date: July 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 147

    Author(s): Gerri Spassova, Mauricio Palmeira, Eduardo B. Andrade

    We propose a “ratings pattern heuristic” in judgments of expertise—that is, people’s tendency to undervalue critics who assign the same rating to multiple options, overlooking diagnostic information which would clearly justify the uniform ratings. The heuristic is driven by a strong association between discrimination and expertise and a focus on summary ratings. People “punish” uniform (vs. varied) raters even when (a) uniform ratings are acknowledgedly more likely (studies 1a and 1b), (b) the uniform rater’s past performance is superior (studies 2 and 3), and (c) the uniform rater also reports varied sub-ratings (study 4a), unless participants are prompted to assess the sub-ratings prior to choosing a critic (studies 4b and 5). Study 6 reveals that critics are less aware than judges of the impact of the pattern of their ratings on others’ perceptions.





  • No self to spare: How the cognitive structure of the self influences moral behavior
    Publication date: July 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 147

    Author(s): Maferima Touré-Tillery, Alysson E. Light

    People represent knowledge about their self-concept in terms of multiple cognitive structures or self-aspects. “Self-overlap” refers to the extent to which people perceive their various self-aspects as interconnected, such that their thoughts and feelings about themselves are similar across these self-aspects. The present research shows self-overlap influences moral behavior. Specifically, people high in self-overlap (interconnected self-aspects) are more likely to behave ethically than people low in overlap (independent self-aspects), because they tend to see their actions as “self-diagnostic” (i.e., representative of the type of person they are). In six studies, we find this pattern of behavior for chronic/measured (Studies 1 and 2) and situational/manipulated self-overlap (Studies 3 – 6). We show people low in self-overlap behave as though they have “no self to spare”—unless their actions are presented as non-diagnostic for inferences about the self (Study 5), or unless they do not value the context-relevant moral characteristic (e.g., being altruistic; Study 6). Finally, we introduce a 7-item measure of perceptions of self-diagnosticity (SDS).





  • Editorial Board
    Publication date: May 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 146









  • Social support at work and at home: Dual-buffering effects in the work-family conflict process
    Publication date: May 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 146

    Author(s): Helen Pluut, Remus Ilies, Petru L. Curşeu, Yukun Liu

    Using experience-sampling methodology, the present study offers a within-individual test of the buffering model of social support in the daily work-family conflict process. Building on the conceptualization of social support as a volatile resource, we examine how daily fluctuations in social support at work and at home influence the process through which work interferes with family life. A total of 112 employees participated in the study and were asked to respond to daily surveys in the work and home domains. Results showed that social support at work and at home—as volatile resources—buffered the daily work-family conflict process within their respective domains. First, a supportive supervisor mitigated the within-individual effect of workload on emotional exhaustion. Second, a supportive spouse protected the strained employee from the effect of emotional exhaustion on work-family conflict, and spousal support also moderated the indirect effect from workload to work-family conflict through emotional exhaustion. The findings suggest that enacting a dual social support system can effectively reduce the adverse effects of excessive job demands on exhaustion and work-family conflict, but buffering effects are highly dependent on the timely availability of social support.





  • How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations
    Publication date: May 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 146

    Author(s): Scott S. Wiltermuth, Medha Raj, Adam Wood

    Recent research (Wiltermuth, Tiedens, & Neale, 2015) has indicated that negotiators may use expressions of dominance and submissiveness to discover mutually-beneficial solutions and thereby create more joint value. We examined how the perceived relative power of negotiators who express dominance influences value claiming and value creation in negotiations. Negotiators with relatively little power benefitted by expressing dominance, as expressing dominance increased relatively low-power negotiators’ abilities to claim value. In contrast, relatively powerful negotiators’ expressions of dominance fueled value creation. Dyads in which only the relatively powerful negotiator expressed dominance created more value than did dyads in which neither, both, or only the relatively powerless negotiator expressed dominance. The coordination benefits attributable to dominance complementarity were therefore best achieved when there was congruence between a negotiator’s perceived power and the power/status cues the negotiator sent through expressions of dominance.





  • Paternalistic lies
    Publication date: May 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 146

    Author(s): Matthew J. Lupoli, Emma E. Levine, Adam Eric Greenberg

    Many lies that are intended to help others require the deceiver to make assumptions about whether lying serves others’ best interests. In other words, lying often involves a paternalistic motive. Across seven studies (N = 2,260), we show that although targets appreciate lies that yield unequivocal benefits relative to honesty, they penalize paternalistic lies. We identify three mechanisms behind the harmful effects of paternalistic lies, finding that targets believe that paternalistic liars (a) do not have benevolent intentions, (b) are violating their autonomy by lying, and (c) are inaccurately predicting their preferences. Importantly, targets’ aversion towards paternalistic lies persists even when targets receive their preferred outcome as a result of a lie. Additionally, deceivers can mitigate some, but not all, of the harmful effects of paternalistic lies by directly communicating their good intentions. These results contribute to our understanding of deception and paternalistic policies.





  • A formal model of goal revision in approach and avoidance contexts
    Publication date: May 2018
    Source:Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 146

    Author(s): Phillip Gee, Andrew Neal, Jeffrey B. Vancouver

    We developed a formal model of goal revision based on contemporary accounts of decision making under risk and uncertainty. The model assumes that individuals anchor their goal level to their dynamically updated expectations of performance and make adjustments around the anchor point depending on their risk preference. Risk preference was hypothesized to be a function of goal framing and personality. To assess the model, 60 participants were asked to set and revise goals as they completed an Air Traffic Control simulation task. Fitted model parameters indicated that participants pursuing avoidance goals were more risk averse when setting and revising their goals than participants pursuing approach goals. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism were more sensitive to the effects of goal framing than those with low levels of neuroticism. These findings clarify the role of goal framing, risk preferences, and activated traits in goal revision.





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

Leave a Reply

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