Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-09-06 DOI:10.1177/20413866231199068
M. Bashshur, Laurie J. Barclay, Marion Fortin
{"title":"Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness","authors":"M. Bashshur, Laurie J. Barclay, Marion Fortin","doi":"10.1177/20413866231199068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231199068","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前照灯和大理石:对公平的动态和辩证本质的一种积极的感性方法
人们如何看待公平?最近,公平学者提出了一些重要的理论问题,涉及公平感知中使用了什么信息,为什么强调这些信息,以及公平感知如何随着时间的推移而变化。将Brunswikian镜头方法与动机认知视角相结合,我们开发了动机感知方法(MPA),以强调人们如何被激励选择性地感知和衡量线索,从而形成与其动机一致的公平感知。然而,这些动机可能会随着时间的推移以及通过与有动机的其他人的互动而改变。通过阐明公平观念背后的动态和辩证过程,MPA揭示了人们的公平观念如何受到自己动机的影响,以及如何通过与有动机的他人的互动来构建和协商社会。实际的见解包括如何有效地管理长期和跨视角的公平观念。最后,我们提出了推进公平文献的研究议程。无论人们是否认为自己(或他人)在工作中受到了公平对待,或正在公平对待他人,都会对各种重要结果产生影响,从帮助他人(当人们认为公平时)到破坏主管、制定辞职计划或惩罚不良行为者(当人们觉得不公平时)。然而,重要的问题仍然存在,人们最初是如何看待这些看法的。他们如何决定什么是公平的?长期以来的一个假设是,这些看法是主观的和有动机的;“公平在旁观者的眼中。”基于这一假设,经历同一事件的两个人可能会产生截然不同的公平观。这是一个至关重要的见解,有助于解释人们在公平观念上的巨大差异。然而,作为一个领域,我们似乎偏离了这一基本假设。在本文中,我们重新审视了这一前提,以开发一种方法来描述人们如何收集和整合信息,以告知他们的公平观念,强调他们的动机(他们想要感知的东西,例如,他们是公平的参与者,他们受到重要他人的良好对待)塑造了他们在获得公平感知时所关注和使用的信息。从这个角度来看,我们解释了公平观念如何随着时间的推移而变化,解释和预测不同观点(如经理和员工)之间的差异,并为制定实际干预措施提供指导,以在这些差异变得难以解决之前减少这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
1.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.
期刊最新文献
Sustainability champions: A proactive perspective on the inter-organizational job design dynamics of sustainability implementation Multiple Pathways to Leadership: A Revision and Extension of the CIP Leadership Framework The development of blended friendship in high leader-member exchange relationships: Mechanisms and consequences of a relational shift More Teams, More Meetings? Toward an Understanding of Multiteam System Meeting Design, Facilitation, and Effectiveness Trust in Human-Agent Teams: A Multilevel Perspective and Future Research Agenda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1