Kristina A. Diekmann

Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: allocators versus recipients.

Two studies explored the tension between self-interest and the equality norm in problems of resource allocation. Study 1 presented graduate business students with a hypothetical task requiring them to make a series of managerial decisions. On learning the outcome of those decisions, they were asked to divide a bonus pool between self and a rival manager (who had opted for very different decisions and achieved either the same results as self on 2 criteria or a better result on 1 criterion and a worse result on the other criterion). Study 2 required Stanford and San Jose State undergraduates to consider the division of a hypothetical scholarship fund between candidates from their 2 schools. Data from both studies contrasted the apparent evenhandedness and lack of self-interest manifested by allocators with the self-serving responses of evaluators. Furthermore, when faced with different claims, participants were inclined to justify an unequal allocation of resources--provided that they, or a representative of their group, received the larger share--that few personally would have recommended, demanded, or imposed.

Motivation and Opportunity: The Role of Remote Work, Demographic Dissimilarity, and Social Network Centrality in Impression Management

This study examined relationships among remote work, demographic dissimilarity, social network centrality, and the use and effectiveness of impression management behaviors. In our findings, a highe...

‘Implicit justifications’ and self‐serving group allocations

In comparison to allocating resources to oneself, when allocating resources to ones group, people are able to ‘get away with’ taking more than a fair and equal share because there exists an implicit justification that fellow group members will benefit. Such an implicit justification enables people to hide their self-serving motivation. Results reveal that subjects allocating a sum of money between their group and a competing group took a significantly greater share of the resource than subjects allocating between themselves and a competing individual. Whether the allocation was made public or kept private had a significant impact on this relationship: the difference between group and self allocations was significantly greater when the allocation was made public than when kept private. However, subjects allocating only to themselves and in private were almost as self-serving as subjects allocating to their group (both in private and in public). The only case where subjects were overly constrained by equality was when they were allocating to only themselves and the allocation was made public.

4 Towards a “Fairer” Conception of Process Fairness: Why, When and How More may not Always be Better than Less

Abstract Process fairness refers to people’s perceptions of how fairly they are treated in the course of interacting with another party. Conceptually distinct from outcome fairness, it subsumes procedural fairness, interpersonal fairness, and the like. As recipients of decisions, we generally want to be treated with more rather than with less process fairness. As agents of decisions, we often would rather plan and implement them with more rather than with less process fairness. Whereas the organizational justice literature generally extols the virtues of high process fairness, recent theory and research suggest that when it comes to process fairness, more is not always better than less. We discuss why, when, and how people’s general tendency to desire higher process fairness over lower process fairness may be attenuated, eliminated, or even reversed. Our analysis is organized by the notion that under some conditions, receiving or acting with high process fairness prevents people from satisfying some of th...

Organization of Information and the Detection of Gender Discrimination

This report examines several factors that influence the detection of gender discrimination in organizations We presented subjects with information about the qualifications and salaries of women and men in 10 departments of a hypothetical company The information was created so that one or the other gender was undercompensated relative to its qualifications Subjects rated the fairness of salaries and recalled the average qualifications of the women and men Ordinal inequity, which occurred when the gender with the better qualifications received a lower salary within a department, was easily detected Discrimination that did not violate ordinal equity within a department was more difficult to detect The results indicate that the way information is presented to subjects influences the processing of the information and the ease with which unfairness is perceived In addition, subjects judged the discrimination to be more unfair when women, rather than men, were disadvantaged

Job-decision inconsistencies involving social comparison information: the role of dominating alternatives.

Previous research on joint versus separate preference reversals has demonstrated that individuals focus on social comparison information when they are evaluating a single option but focus on absolute salary when they are considering more than 1 option. Study 1 demonstrates that social comparison information is important in multiple option scenarios when an option favorable on social comparison dominates an inferior, 3rd alternative. Study 2 examines why dominating alternatives are so attractive by investigating the role that the value-shift, weight-change, and emergent-value models play in explaining the pattern of results obtained in Study 1. Results provide support for the value-shift and emergent-value models and further suggest that these 2 models may be interrelated, with justification (emergent-value model) mediating the relationship between the attractiveness of the attributes (value-shift model) and the attractiveness of the dominating alternative.

Sexual Harassment in Academia: Ethical Climates and Bounded Ethicality

This article reviews research on sexual harassment, particularly that pertaining to academia, to understand its underlying causes. Arguing that sexual harassment is an ethical issue, we draw on the field of behavioral ethics to structure our review. We first review ethical climate antecedents at the individual, leader, organizational, and environmental levels and examine their effects on both the occurrence of and responses to sexually harassing behaviors. This discussion is followed by an exploration of research that speaks to the cognitive processes of bounded ethicality-including ethical fading, motivated blindness, and the slippery slope-and their role in facilitating and perpetuating sexual harassment. We conclude by highlighting the value to be gained from integrating research on sexual harassment with research on behavioral ethics and identifying several practical steps that can be taken to curb sexual harassment in academia.

She Said “Me, Too,” He Said “Not Me:” A Situationist Perspective on Sexual Harassment

Despite rising public awareness about sexual harassment, we lack a complete understanding of the etiology of harassment and its perpetuation in organizations. The papers in this symposium explore p...