Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes最新文献

{"title":"Targeting behavioral interventions based on past behavior: Evidence from vaccine uptake","authors":"Ilana Brody ,&nbsp;Hengchen Dai ,&nbsp;Silvia Saccardo ,&nbsp;Katherine L. Milkman ,&nbsp;Angela L. Duckworth ,&nbsp;Mitesh S. Patel ,&nbsp;Dena M. Gromet","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104465","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104465","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Behavior change interventions are widely used, but for whom are they most effective? We examine whether past behavior shapes the effectiveness of interventions designed to either (1) provide information to shift intentions or (2) help people follow through on existing intentions. We focus on encouraging flu vaccinations. In online experiments (Study 1; N = 2,602), a video correcting misconceptions about flu vaccines increased vaccination intentions more effectively among people who had not been vaccinated in the prior flu season than those who had. In a field experiment with health systems (Study 2; N = 14,760), the same information intervention increased vaccination intentions and uptake for people who had not been vaccinated in the prior season but it did not have a significant impact on those previously vaccinated, though the difference between these subgroups was not statistically significant. In contrast, in the same field experiment, a follow-through intervention designed to make vaccination salient and convenient increased vaccine uptake only among those previously vaccinated. In a large-scale field experiment where streamlined adaptations of these interventions were delivered by a pharmacy (Study 3; N = 2,980,249), the follow-through intervention was again more effective for prior adopters than for previously unvaccinated individuals, while the information intervention had no impact for either subgroup. Collectively, these findings suggest that people’s past behavior may indicate whether insufficient intentions or follow-through challenges are the more relevant impediments to behavior change. Organizations can use this insight to decide whether and how to invest resources in behavior change interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 104465"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145978829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Learning from crisis: how crisis volunteering fosters resilience and change-oriented behaviors","authors":"Qing Gong ,&nbsp;Dong Liu ,&nbsp;Yang Chen ,&nbsp;Cynthia Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104466","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104466","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Drawing on experiential learning theory and a nonwork–work enrichment perspective, this research examines if and how employee crisis volunteering as nonwork volunteering efforts to address public crisis situations fosters resilience that then enhances change-oriented behaviors at work. We propose that crisis volunteering can represent an experiential learning opportunity as it provides concrete and meaningful experiences that enable individuals to develop effective responses to adversity and derive positive meaning. Such processes strengthen resilience, which further enhances adaptive and creative performance at work. We further highlight the importance of context, proposing that employees’ perceived crisis strength and organizational culture of companionate love may amplify the effect of crisis volunteering. Evidence from five complementary field studies supports our theoretical model. A field experiment (Study 1) and a field quasi-experiment (Study 2) establish the causal effect of crisis volunteering on resilience and demonstrate the moderating roles of perceived crisis strength and companionate love culture. Two time-lagged, multisource field surveys conducted in distinct crisis contexts (Studies 3 and 4) provide converging support for the hypotheses. Finally, a qualitative study (Study 5) details the experiential learning processes through which crisis volunteering cultivates resilience and reveals broader transformative implications beyond the workplace.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 104466"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145978830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When You Say It: How the Timing of LGBTQ+ Allyship Displays Shapes Evaluations of Organizations","authors":"Michael W. White ,&nbsp;James T. Carter","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104464","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104464","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Organizations frequently aim to display their allyship with the LGBTQ+ community, often through campaigns, advertisements, and statements, particularly during Pride Month. Although existing research typically focuses on the content of such allyship displays, we integrate theories of attribution and identity safety to reveal how the perceived authenticity of organizational allyship depends on when organizations display it. Across six preregistered experiments using field, laboratory, and online samples, we find that both LGBTQ+ observers (Experiments 1, 3, 5, and 6) and LGBTQ+ employees (Experiments 2 and 4) perceive organizational allyship displays as less authentic when displayed during Pride Month as opposed to other times, even when the content of the allyship display is held constant. We further find that the timing of organizational allyship displays shapes perceived authenticity because timing shapes the extent to which LGBTQ+ individuals attribute values-driven motives to the organization’s allyship (Experiments 3 and 4), a process that, in turn, impacts employees’ sense of belonging and organizational commitment (Experiment 4). Lastly, we find that this effect is unique to LGBTQ+ individuals: non-target groups, such as cis-straight observers, evaluate the authenticity of allyship displays similarly, regardless of timing (Experiments 5 and 6). This work advances research on allyship and has implications for how perceptions of allyship are influenced by social identity. To be an authentic ally, it is not just <em>what</em> an organization says, but also <em>when</em> an organization says it.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 104464"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145940085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should I stand up for my mistreated colleague? When and why high-status team members stand up for their coworkers","authors":"Oguz Gencay ,&nbsp;Rellie Derfler-Rozin ,&nbsp;Gamze Arman","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104463","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104463","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Supervisory mistreatment has adverse consequences for its victims. Coworkers, as observers, can shape victims’ experiences by standing up for them. Yet doing so entails the risk of supervisory retaliation. High-status coworkers should be well-positioned to stand up for victims as they have greater social capital at work. However, such retaliation risks may loom large for them because they are highly motivated to protect what they have. Thus, prior research reports both positive and negative links between status markers and various forms of standing up. We suggest that these inconclusive findings stem from examining individuals’ status only within a single domain (e.g., work) while neglecting how their standing in other groups may shape their experiences in that focal domain. Building on status inconsistency theory (<span><span>Lenski, 1954</span></span>) and the concept of status portfolios (<span><span>Fernandes et al., 2021</span></span>), we argue that status variance (i.e., inconsistency of status across groups) shapes how high-status employees react to mistreatment. Specifically, we hypothesize that high-status employees with high (compared to low) status variance will experience greater fear of retaliation and reduced willingness to stand up. We argue that this occurs because they perceive their status portfolios as unstable and become more vigilant in protecting their elevated standing at work. Four complementary studies provided support for our hypotheses. We discuss implications for research on bystander intervention, supervisory mistreatment, and status.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"192 ","pages":"Article 104463"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145845533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The common behavior effect in norm learning: When frequent observations override the behavior of the majority","authors":"Thomas K.A. Woiczyk ,&nbsp;Rahil Hosseini ,&nbsp;Gaël Le Mens","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104441","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104441","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Prior research suggests that descriptive norms correspond to what most people do—the “behavior of the majority.” We examine norm perception in situations where the behavior of the majority differs from the most frequently observed behavior—the “common behavior.” In environments where individuals learn descriptive norms through repeated observations of a reference group, we propose that perceived norms align more closely with the common behavior than with the behavior of the majority. Consequently, individuals are more likely to follow the common behavior, even when it differs from what most people do. We argue that this ‘common behavior effect’ arises from a combination of two factors: the structure of the information environments in which the behavior of the majority and the common behavior differ, and imperfect source memory of the observed behaviors. We provide evidence for the basic phenomenon and test two moderators in four studies reported in the body of the article and two ancillary studies reported in the appendix. These findings are important for our understanding of social norms, because they challenge the assumption that norms simply reflect the behavior of the majority. They also cast light on phenomena such as pluralistic ignorance, majority illusions in online and offline environments or the spread of misinformation on social media. Finally, they have practical implications for how to shape norms in organizations.</div><div><strong>Organizational Relevance and Contribution Statement</strong></div><div>Organizations frequently rely on social norms to promote coordination, compliance, and shared expectations among employees, customers, or citizens. Our research shows that people often infer norms not from what most people do, but from what they observe most frequently — even when these behaviors are enacted by only a minority. This ”common behavior effect” highlights that perceptions of what is typical can be shaped by how information is encountered rather than by actual majorities. For managers and policymakers, this insight has direct implications. Efforts to influence behavior—such as encouraging ethical conduct, adoption of safety practices, or participation in diversity initiatives—may fail if interventions rely on communicating the behavior of the majority but neglect the behaviors people encounter most often. Norm-based strategies can be strengthened by structuring information environments so that desirable behaviors are both visible and repeatedly observed, even if they are not yet the majority choice. By clarifying when and why common behaviors override actual majorities in shaping norms, our findings help organizations design communication and training programs that more effectively guide employee and consumer behavior, reduce the persistence of harmful practices, and prevent misperceptions that contribute to misinformation or organizational drift.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104441"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145268740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The power of pausing in collaborative conversations","authors":"Alex B. Van Zant ,&nbsp;Jonah Berger ,&nbsp;Grant Packard ,&nbsp;Harry Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104455","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104455","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Communicators benefit from being perceived as helpful in collaborative conversations. While research has found that actions preceding such conversations can impact how communicators are perceived, less is known about how speaking style shapes such perceptions. Might <em>how</em> communicators talk (i.e., how often they pause) influence how helpful they seem? Though speakers who spend more time in silence while talking are often perceived negatively, we suggest that brief pauses while speaking can be beneficial. Specifically, we argue that pausing encourages verbal assents from conversation partners (e.g., “yeah” or “uh-huh”), which leads them to perceive speakers more positively. A multi-method study of collaborative conversations, including an analysis of customer service calls and two experiments manipulating pause frequency, supports this account. Although long silences can have impression management drawbacks, our findings indicate that, in collaborative conversations, brief pauses while speaking can make a person seem more helpful because they encourage conversation partners to assent.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104455"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145268741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scarcity undermines directed attention and pleasurable thinking","authors":"Sherry Jueyu Wu ,&nbsp;Nathan N. Cheek ,&nbsp;Eldar Shafir","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104449","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104449","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Thinking for pleasure, including fantasies and imagination, can be a source of joy, relaxation, and a mental escape from everyday adversity. We demonstrate that people intuitively expect those in poverty, who presumably have less access to other forms of welcome escape, to be better able and more highly motivated to find pleasure in imagination and fantasy (Study 1). Yet, thinking for pleasure involves the effortful direction of attention. We argue that persistent financial concerns can impair directed attention and thus interfere with pleasurable thinking. Using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, we first establish an association in everyday life between financial concerns and self-reported difficulty in directed attention and pleasurable thinking (Studies 2–3). In a subsequent experiment (Study 4), participants engage in pleasurable thinking experiences accompanied by lexical decision tasks. We find that, when financial concerns are salient, perceived financial scarcity predicts faster responses to money-related stimuli, slower responses to stimuli related to pleasurable thinking experiences, and a less pleasurable experience overall. Perceived financial scarcity appears to undermine the potential entertainment or relief that imagination can bring. Because imaginative thought underlies creativity and problem-solving, the attentional cost of financial constraint may impair performance in cognitively demanding roles. Our research adds to models linking compensation and performance, suggesting that reducing financial constraint may boost not only motivation, but also cognitive resources essential for innovation and productivity. For those experiencing persistent financial scarcity, intentional thinking, joyful as it can be, may prove a less effective tool for finding pleasure in work and daily life.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104449"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145098997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The power and peril of first offers in negotiations: a conceptual, meta-analytic, and experimental synthesis","authors":"Hannes M. Petrowsky ,&nbsp;Lea Boecker ,&nbsp;Yannik A. Escher ,&nbsp;Marie-Lena Frech ,&nbsp;Malte Friese ,&nbsp;Adam D. Galinsky ,&nbsp;Brian Gunia ,&nbsp;Alice J. Lee ,&nbsp;Michael Schaerer ,&nbsp;Martin Schweinsberg ,&nbsp;Meikel Soliman ,&nbsp;Roderick Swaab ,&nbsp;Eve S. Troll ,&nbsp;Marcel Weber ,&nbsp;David D. Loschelder","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Is it advantageous to make the first offer and to do so ambitiously? Although initial studies suggested clear advantages across cultures and contexts, recent findings have challenged the robustness of this first-mover advantage. A preregistered meta-analysis of 374 effects from 90 studies (Study 1; <em>N</em> = 16,334) revealed three beneficial effects of making the first offer: (a) a general first-mover advantage (<em>g</em> = 0.42, <em>m</em> = 80), (b) a positive correlation between first-offer magnitude and agreement value (<em>r</em> = 0.62, <em>g</em> = 1.56, <em>m</em> = 53), and (c) an advantage of ambitious (vs. moderate) first offers on agreement value (<em>g</em> = 1.14, <em>m</em> = 187). The meta-analysis also identified two detrimental outcomes of ambitious first offers: (d) fewer deals (i.e., more impasses; <em>g</em> = −0.42, <em>m</em> = 13) and (e) worse subjective value experienced by recipients (<em>g</em> = −0.40, <em>m</em> = 41). Two preregistered experiments (Study 2a-2b; <em>N</em> = 2,121) replicated both the beneficial and detrimental meta-analytic effects and simultaneously tested multiple psychological mechanisms driving these effects. Across the experiments, selective accessibility drove the effect of first-offer magnitude on counteroffers, while anger drove the effects on impasses and subjective value. Across both the meta-analysis and the experiments, negotiation complexity moderated both the beneficial and detrimental effects of first offers; as the number and type of issues (i.e., complexity) increased, the effects of first offers became smaller, and the mechanisms changed. Overall, the current meta-analysis and experiments collectively illuminate the direction, size, psychological pathways, and boundaries of first-offer effects in negotiations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104448"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145098996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Reviewer’s PACT: A guide and commitment to high-quality reviewing","authors":"Michael D. Baer","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104450","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104450","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104450"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144932165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Not all workplace gossip is equal: A moral-emotions perspective on how gossip type shapes recipients’ reactions to gossipers","authors":"Rui Zhong ,&nbsp;Stephen H. Lee ,&nbsp;Yingxin Deng","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104440","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104440","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Existing research has presented mixed perspectives and evidence on how gossip recipients react to gossipers. Our work reconciles these discrepancies by proposing that the answer depends on the type of workplace gossip the recipient receives and the moral emotion each type generates. Building on <span><span>Lee and Barnes’ (2021)</span></span> typology—which distinguishes between two types of negative gossip (i.e., derogation-based and protection-based) and two types of positive gossip (i.e., endorsement-based and communion-based)—and drawing on moral emotion theory, we argue that the four types of workplace gossip lead recipients to exhibit divergent responses toward the gossiper by eliciting different moral emotions. Specifically, we hypothesize that derogation-based gossip leads to avoidant behavior through moral disgust, protection-based gossip leads to helping behavior through gratitude, endorsement-based gossip leads to endorsement emulation through moral elevation, and communion-based gossip leads to socializing behavior through companionate love. To test these hypotheses, we first developed measures following a pre-registered procedure to capture the receipt of the four types of workplace gossip with three separate samples of employees. We then conducted three pre-registered studies using complementary methods: a multi-wave survey study, a recall-based experiment, and a scenario-based experiment. The results fully supported our hypotheses. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104440"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144895479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}