The choice between allocation priciples

International Journal of Psychology 44 (2):109-119 (2009)
Authors
Marcus Selart
Norwegian School of Economics
Abstract
One hundred and ninety participants (95 undergraduates and 95 employees) responded to a factorial survey in which a number of case-based organizational allocation tasks were described. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as employees in fictitious organizations and chose among three allocations of employee development schemes invested by the manager in different work groups. The allocations regarded how such investments should be allocated between two parties. Participants chose twice, once picking the fairest and once the best allocation. One between-subjects factor varied whether the parties represented social (i.e., choosing among allocations between two different work groups) or temporal comparisons (i.e., choosing among allocations between the present and the following year). Another between-subjects factor varied whether participants’ in-group was represented by the parties or not. One allocation maximized the outcome to one party, another maximized the joint outcome received by both parties, and a third provided both parties with equal but lower outcomes. It was predicted that equality, although always deficient to both parties, would be the preferred allocation when parties represented social comparisons and when choices were based on fairness. When parties represented temporal comparisons, and when choices were based on preference, maximizing the joint outcome was hypothesized to be the preferred allocation. Results supported these hypotheses. Against what was predicted, whether the in-group was represented by the parties or not did not moderate the results, indicating that participants’ allocation preferences were not affected by self-interest. The main message is that people make sensible distinctions between what they prefer and what they regard as fair. The results were the same for participating students who imagined themselves as being employees and participants who were true employees, suggesting that no serious threats to external validity are committed when university students are used as participants.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history
Admin Source id: pp//EEKTCB   Serial ID: 2806622
Change log    Delete without trace    Inspect

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Fair Kidney Allocation Based on Waiting Time.Matthias Hild - 2001 - Analyse & Kritik 23 (2):173-190.
Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions.Henry Shue - 1993 - Law and Policy 15 (1):39–59.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-10-23

Total downloads
58 ( #107,370 of 2,268,339 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #38,194 of 2,268,339 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature