向上(和向下)合作:研究人们何时以及为何更喜欢与薪酬较高的同行(以及薪酬较低的下属)合作。

IF 12.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY American Psychologist Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1037/amp0001397
Kevin M Kniffin, John Angus D Hildreth
{"title":"向上(和向下)合作:研究人们何时以及为何更喜欢与薪酬较高的同行(以及薪酬较低的下属)合作。","authors":"Kevin M Kniffin, John Angus D Hildreth","doi":"10.1037/amp0001397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Emerging trends toward greater pay transparency and more freedom in teaming decisions intersect to highlight a potential conflict. Extant research suggests that visible pay disparities should adversely affect collaborations, particularly with higher paid partners, but we challenge this thesis and present three preregistered studies demonstrating that visible salary disparities can positively affect collaboration with higher paid peers in teaming decisions. In Studies 1 and 2, people chose to collaborate with higher rather than lower paid peers unless explicitly told that their potential collaborators' knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience were similar, suggesting that pay was viewed as a signal for competence. In Study 3, the preference for working with higher paid peers was replicated even when the decision-makers were familiar with their potential coworkers. In contrast to teaming decisions, in a fourth preregistered study (Study 4) focused on hiring decisions, people were <i>less</i> likely to hire a candidate with a higher (vs. lower) pay history for a subordinate position on their team. Taken together, the studies demonstrate that visible pay disparities affect collaboration and selection decisions but in different ways: People tend to show a bias in favor of higher paid peers as collaboration partners, while they show an aversion to hiring people with higher pay histories as subordinates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partnering up (and down): Examining when and why people prefer collaborating with higher paid peers (and lower paid subordinates).\",\"authors\":\"Kevin M Kniffin, John Angus D Hildreth\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Emerging trends toward greater pay transparency and more freedom in teaming decisions intersect to highlight a potential conflict. Extant research suggests that visible pay disparities should adversely affect collaborations, particularly with higher paid partners, but we challenge this thesis and present three preregistered studies demonstrating that visible salary disparities can positively affect collaboration with higher paid peers in teaming decisions. In Studies 1 and 2, people chose to collaborate with higher rather than lower paid peers unless explicitly told that their potential collaborators' knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience were similar, suggesting that pay was viewed as a signal for competence. In Study 3, the preference for working with higher paid peers was replicated even when the decision-makers were familiar with their potential coworkers. In contrast to teaming decisions, in a fourth preregistered study (Study 4) focused on hiring decisions, people were <i>less</i> likely to hire a candidate with a higher (vs. lower) pay history for a subordinate position on their team. Taken together, the studies demonstrate that visible pay disparities affect collaboration and selection decisions but in different ways: People tend to show a bias in favor of higher paid peers as collaboration partners, while they show an aversion to hiring people with higher pay histories as subordinates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001397\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001397","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

提高薪酬透明度和增加团队决策自由度的新趋势交织在一起,凸显了潜在的冲突。现有研究表明,明显的薪酬差距会对合作产生不利影响,尤其是与高薪伙伴的合作,但我们对这一论断提出了质疑,并提出了三项预先登记的研究,证明明显的薪酬差距会对团队决策中与高薪同行的合作产生积极影响。在研究 1 和研究 2 中,除非明确告知潜在合作者的知识、技能、能力和经验相似,否则人们会选择与高薪而非低薪的同行合作,这表明薪酬被视为能力的一种信号。在研究 3 中,即使决策者熟悉潜在的同事,他们也会选择与薪酬较高的同事合作。与团队决策形成对比的是,在第四项预先登记的研究(研究 4)中,人们更倾向于雇用薪酬较高(与较低)的候选人担任团队中的下属职位。综合来看,这些研究表明,明显的薪酬差异会影响合作和选拔决策,但影响的方式不同:人们倾向于选择薪酬较高的人作为合作对象,而不愿意聘用薪酬较高的人作为下属。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Partnering up (and down): Examining when and why people prefer collaborating with higher paid peers (and lower paid subordinates).

Emerging trends toward greater pay transparency and more freedom in teaming decisions intersect to highlight a potential conflict. Extant research suggests that visible pay disparities should adversely affect collaborations, particularly with higher paid partners, but we challenge this thesis and present three preregistered studies demonstrating that visible salary disparities can positively affect collaboration with higher paid peers in teaming decisions. In Studies 1 and 2, people chose to collaborate with higher rather than lower paid peers unless explicitly told that their potential collaborators' knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience were similar, suggesting that pay was viewed as a signal for competence. In Study 3, the preference for working with higher paid peers was replicated even when the decision-makers were familiar with their potential coworkers. In contrast to teaming decisions, in a fourth preregistered study (Study 4) focused on hiring decisions, people were less likely to hire a candidate with a higher (vs. lower) pay history for a subordinate position on their team. Taken together, the studies demonstrate that visible pay disparities affect collaboration and selection decisions but in different ways: People tend to show a bias in favor of higher paid peers as collaboration partners, while they show an aversion to hiring people with higher pay histories as subordinates. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Psychologist
American Psychologist PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
18.50
自引率
1.20%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.
期刊最新文献
Daniel Kahneman (1934-2024). Jean Maria Arrigo (1944-2024). A quasi-experimental study examining the efficacy of multimodal bot screening tools and recommendations to preserve data integrity in online psychological research. Ascribing understanding to ourselves and others. The free will capacity: A uniquely human adaption.
×
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