This study examined how perceptions of fairness or unfairness (procedural justice and distributive justice) influence people's willingness to engage in mild or severe unethical decision-making aimed at achieving retributive justice. The study presented scenarios to employees of an electric company in Venezuela and MBA students describing either fair or unfair treatment. It was hypothesized that unfair treatment would make people more likely to choose mild unethical decisions when only one type of injustice was present, but more likely to choose severe unethical decisions when both procedural and distributive injustice were present. The results did not support the hypotheses but surprisingly found employees were more willing to make mild unethical decisions under conditions of complete fairness than partial fairness
Physical Attractiveness and its Influence on Perceptions of Criminal Culpabilityrrcampb
Physical attractiveness and its ability to influence perceptions of criminal culpability was examined in the context of an online assignment of guilt task. Two-hundred and fifty participants were surveyed and asked to label photographs of adult males as either criminal or not criminal. A 3 (attractiveness) X 3 (ethnicity) repeated measures statistical analysis found highly significant main effects for physical attractiveness, ethnicity, and the interaction. The results suggest that physical attractiveness serves as a heuristic cue in the assignment of criminal culpability. These findings are highly relevant to those involved in the discretionary processes of the criminal justice system.
1) The document summarizes research on mimicry behavior of males in relationships and the presence of attractive female alternatives. It examines past studies on mimicry and its relationship to attraction, and the concepts of self-control and how mindsets shape it.
2) One study found that people in romantic relationships mimicked attractive alternatives of the opposite sex less than those not in relationships. Relationship status influenced mimicry even when relationship status was unknown.
3) Another study showed unconscious mimicry is used as a social distance mechanism, with people increasing mimicry to show interest or decreasing it to show desired distance.
Contingent Weighting in Judgment and ChoiceSamuel Sattath
- Choice and matching procedures often yield inconsistent preferences due to differences in how options are evaluated in each method. Choice relies more on qualitative heuristics like selecting the option superior on the more important dimension (lexicographic processing), while matching requires quantitative trade-offs between attributes.
- As a result, the more prominent or important attribute of an option tends to "loom larger" and have more influence in choice than in matching. In other words, choice evaluations are more driven by the primary attribute than are matching evaluations.
- This discrepancy between choice and matching raises conceptual and practical questions about how to define and assess preferences, given their context-dependent nature.
Organizational justice refers to perceptions of fairness within an organization. It is a multidimensional construct consisting of distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Perceptions of justice influence key outcomes like motivation and job satisfaction. A related concept is corporate social responsibility, which focuses on fairness towards external stakeholders. Organizational justice stems from equity theory and judgments about fair inputs and outcomes. Affect also plays an important role in perceptions of justice.
To Switch or Not To Switch Understanding Social Influence i.docxjuliennehar
To Switch or Not To Switch: Understanding Social
Influence in Online Choices
Haiyi Zhu*, Bernardo A. Huberman, Yarun Luon
Social Computing Lab
Hewlett Packard Labs
Palo Alto, California, USA
[email protected]; {bernardo.huberman, yarun.luon}@hp.com
ABSTRACT
We designed and ran an experiment to measure social
influence in online recommender systems, specifically how
often people’s choices are changed by others’
recommendations when facing different levels of
confirmation and conformity pressures. In our experiment
participants were first asked to provide their preferences
between pairs of items. They were then asked to make
second choices about the same pairs with knowledge of
others’ preferences. Our results show that others people’s
opinions significantly sway people’s own choices. The
influence is stronger when people are required to make their
second decision sometime later (22.4%) than immediately
(14.1%). Moreover, people seem to be most likely to
reverse their choices when facing a moderate, as opposed to
large, number of opposing opinions. Finally, the time
people spend making the first decision significantly predicts
whether they will reverse their decisions later on, while
demographics such as age and gender do not. These results
have implications for consumer behavior research as well as
online marketing strategies.
Author Keywords
Social influence, online choices, recommender systems.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Group and
Organization Interfaces – Collaborative computing, Web-
based interaction; K.4.4 [Computers and Society]:
Electronic Commerce – Distributed commercial
transactions.
General Terms
Experimentation.
INTRODUCTION
Picture yourself shopping online. You already have an idea
about what product you are looking for. After navigating
through the website you find that particular item, as well as
several similar items, and other people’s opinions and
preferences about them provided by the recommendation
system. Will other people’ preferences reverse your own?
Notice that in this scenario there are two contradictory
psychological processes at play. On one hand, when
learning of other’s opinions people tend to select those
aspects that confirm their own existing ones. A large
literature suggests that once one has taken a position on an
issue, one’s primary purpose becomes defending or
justifying that position [21]. From this point of view, if
others’ recommendations contradict their own opinion,
people will not take this information into account and stick
to their own choices. On the other hand, social influence
and conformity theory [8] suggest that even when not
directly, personally, or publicly chosen as the target of
others’ disapproval, individuals may choose to conform to
others and reverse their own opinion in order to restore their
sense of belonging and ...
This document summarizes an honors thesis that examines how varying the scale of financial incentives in economic experiments affects measured risk preferences. The thesis conducted a study using Holt and Laury's lottery choice framework with three treatments that differed in payoff structures and probabilities to induce risk behavior. The study found that increasing the scale of payoffs resulted in significantly more risk-averse behavior. Contrary to other research, demographic factors like gender and risky behaviors from a follow-up survey did not predict risk preferences. Self-financing college did predict more risk-averse choices in two treatments, suggesting income should be controlled for. The results provide evidence that the scale of incentives used is important for eliciting realistic risk behavior in experiments.
Physical Attractiveness and its Influence on Perceptions of Criminal Culpabilityrrcampb
Physical attractiveness and its ability to influence perceptions of criminal culpability was examined in the context of an online assignment of guilt task. Two-hundred and fifty participants were surveyed and asked to label photographs of adult males as either criminal or not criminal. A 3 (attractiveness) X 3 (ethnicity) repeated measures statistical analysis found highly significant main effects for physical attractiveness, ethnicity, and the interaction. The results suggest that physical attractiveness serves as a heuristic cue in the assignment of criminal culpability. These findings are highly relevant to those involved in the discretionary processes of the criminal justice system.
1) The document summarizes research on mimicry behavior of males in relationships and the presence of attractive female alternatives. It examines past studies on mimicry and its relationship to attraction, and the concepts of self-control and how mindsets shape it.
2) One study found that people in romantic relationships mimicked attractive alternatives of the opposite sex less than those not in relationships. Relationship status influenced mimicry even when relationship status was unknown.
3) Another study showed unconscious mimicry is used as a social distance mechanism, with people increasing mimicry to show interest or decreasing it to show desired distance.
Contingent Weighting in Judgment and ChoiceSamuel Sattath
- Choice and matching procedures often yield inconsistent preferences due to differences in how options are evaluated in each method. Choice relies more on qualitative heuristics like selecting the option superior on the more important dimension (lexicographic processing), while matching requires quantitative trade-offs between attributes.
- As a result, the more prominent or important attribute of an option tends to "loom larger" and have more influence in choice than in matching. In other words, choice evaluations are more driven by the primary attribute than are matching evaluations.
- This discrepancy between choice and matching raises conceptual and practical questions about how to define and assess preferences, given their context-dependent nature.
Organizational justice refers to perceptions of fairness within an organization. It is a multidimensional construct consisting of distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Perceptions of justice influence key outcomes like motivation and job satisfaction. A related concept is corporate social responsibility, which focuses on fairness towards external stakeholders. Organizational justice stems from equity theory and judgments about fair inputs and outcomes. Affect also plays an important role in perceptions of justice.
To Switch or Not To Switch Understanding Social Influence i.docxjuliennehar
To Switch or Not To Switch: Understanding Social
Influence in Online Choices
Haiyi Zhu*, Bernardo A. Huberman, Yarun Luon
Social Computing Lab
Hewlett Packard Labs
Palo Alto, California, USA
[email protected]; {bernardo.huberman, yarun.luon}@hp.com
ABSTRACT
We designed and ran an experiment to measure social
influence in online recommender systems, specifically how
often people’s choices are changed by others’
recommendations when facing different levels of
confirmation and conformity pressures. In our experiment
participants were first asked to provide their preferences
between pairs of items. They were then asked to make
second choices about the same pairs with knowledge of
others’ preferences. Our results show that others people’s
opinions significantly sway people’s own choices. The
influence is stronger when people are required to make their
second decision sometime later (22.4%) than immediately
(14.1%). Moreover, people seem to be most likely to
reverse their choices when facing a moderate, as opposed to
large, number of opposing opinions. Finally, the time
people spend making the first decision significantly predicts
whether they will reverse their decisions later on, while
demographics such as age and gender do not. These results
have implications for consumer behavior research as well as
online marketing strategies.
Author Keywords
Social influence, online choices, recommender systems.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Group and
Organization Interfaces – Collaborative computing, Web-
based interaction; K.4.4 [Computers and Society]:
Electronic Commerce – Distributed commercial
transactions.
General Terms
Experimentation.
INTRODUCTION
Picture yourself shopping online. You already have an idea
about what product you are looking for. After navigating
through the website you find that particular item, as well as
several similar items, and other people’s opinions and
preferences about them provided by the recommendation
system. Will other people’ preferences reverse your own?
Notice that in this scenario there are two contradictory
psychological processes at play. On one hand, when
learning of other’s opinions people tend to select those
aspects that confirm their own existing ones. A large
literature suggests that once one has taken a position on an
issue, one’s primary purpose becomes defending or
justifying that position [21]. From this point of view, if
others’ recommendations contradict their own opinion,
people will not take this information into account and stick
to their own choices. On the other hand, social influence
and conformity theory [8] suggest that even when not
directly, personally, or publicly chosen as the target of
others’ disapproval, individuals may choose to conform to
others and reverse their own opinion in order to restore their
sense of belonging and ...
This document summarizes an honors thesis that examines how varying the scale of financial incentives in economic experiments affects measured risk preferences. The thesis conducted a study using Holt and Laury's lottery choice framework with three treatments that differed in payoff structures and probabilities to induce risk behavior. The study found that increasing the scale of payoffs resulted in significantly more risk-averse behavior. Contrary to other research, demographic factors like gender and risky behaviors from a follow-up survey did not predict risk preferences. Self-financing college did predict more risk-averse choices in two treatments, suggesting income should be controlled for. The results provide evidence that the scale of incentives used is important for eliciting realistic risk behavior in experiments.
Research ArticleDomain Specificity inExperimental Measur.docxrgladys1
Research Article
Domain Specificity in
Experimental Measures and
Participant Recruitment
An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior
Yaniv Hanoch,1,2 Joseph G. Johnson,3 and Andreas Wilke4
1
UCLA School of Public Health;
2
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany;
3
Miami University;
and
4
International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT—We challenge the prevailing notion that risk
taking is a stable trait, such that individuals show con-
sistent risk-taking/aversive behavior across domains. We
subscribe to an alternative approach that appreciates the
domain-specific nature of risk taking. More important, we
recognize heterogeneity of risk profiles among experi-
mental samples and introduce a new methodology that
takes this heterogeneity into account. Rather than using
a convenient subject pool (i.e., university students), as is
typically done, we specifically targeted relevant subsam-
ples to provide further validation of the domain-specific
nature of risk taking. Our research shows that individuals
who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one
content area (e.g., bungee jumpers taking recreational
risks) can exhibit moderate levels in other risky domains
(e.g., financial). Furthermore, our results indicate that
risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained
within a cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by
the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent
by the perceived risk.
How should researchers study a psychological construct such as
risk-taking propensity? Answering this question might not be as
easy as it seems at first glance. First, an individual might exhibit
risk-taking tendencies in one domain (e.g., financial) but display
more conservative behavior in another (e.g., recreational).
Second, different methodological designs—for example, the
pool of subjects used or the type of analysis conducted—can
yield contradicting results (e.g., Huber, Wider, & Huber, 1997).
In the present study, our methodological focus on the ecological
validity of the experimental design (e.g., Huber, 1997), domain-
specific risk-taking measures, and recruitment of participants in
targeted groups yielded results that allow us to challenge the
tendency to cluster individuals globally as either risk takers or
risk avoiders—thus offering a richer perspective on the psy-
chology of risk taking.
The psychological literature has been largely dominated by
the assumption that risk taking is a stable personality trait, and
thus individuals can be clustered into groups having risk-taking
or risk-aversive styles (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Lejuez
et al., 2002; for a review, see Bromiley & Curley, 1992). This
simplistic, though appealing, conceptualization has proven to be
inadequate. Researchers have responded by examining sub-
traits and, therefore, the relation between risk taking and con-
struc.
The document defines and discusses various types of validity and reliability in research experiments and measurements. It summarizes the key threats to internal and external validity in experiments. It also defines correlation research and distinguishes between explanatory and predictive research designs. Finally, it defines ethnographic research, when it should be used, and outlines the five key steps in conducting an ethnographic study.
UNDERSTANDING DECISION/ GAME THEORY FOR BETTER RISK ASSESSMENT.Kaustav Lahiri
1) Decision theory is concerned with identifying values, uncertainties, and other factors relevant to a given decision in order to determine the optimal decision. It is closely related to game theory.
2) Normative decision theory aims to identify the best decision assuming perfect rationality, while descriptive decision theory describes actual decision-making behaviors under consistent rules.
3) Choices can involve certainty, uncertainty over time, interactions between decision makers, or complex situations. Different representations like extensive form, normal form, and characteristic function form are used to model different types of decisions.
This chapter discusses personnel selection and placement methods. It covers five standards for selection methods: reliability, validity, generalizability, utility, and legality. Nine common selection methods are described: interviews, references, physical ability tests, cognitive ability tests, personality inventories, work samples, and honesty/drug tests. The chapter aims to minimize employee selection errors and improve organizational competitiveness by familiarizing students with effective selection methods.
A Study of Perceived Organizational Justice, Trust, and Organisational Citize...IOSR Journals
The present organizations in which cut throat competition is there among employees, organizational justice and trust become more important to develop organizational citizenship behavior. organisation citizenship behavior is voluntary behavior on the part of employee which does not bring any reward to them. An employee who feels like citizen of organization does something extra for organization and coworkers which is not described in job description. Many previous researches proved impact of trust on organizational citizenship behavior and impact of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior. This study attempts to find out impact of trust and justice on OCB separately as well as combined impact of both the variables on OCB in service industry of Gwalior (MP, India).various statistical tools like reliability analysis and regression analysis was applied to the gathered data to fulfill the objective of the study.
This document discusses different types of triangulation that can be used in research to increase validity and credibility. It defines triangulation as using multiple methods, data sources, investigators, theories or research contexts to check results. Specifically, it outlines data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, methodological triangulation and environmental triangulation. For each type, it provides an example of how it could be applied in practice to strengthen research findings.
Strict Standards Only variables should be passed by reference.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/socialresearch/public_html
/kb/introval.php on line 3
Home » Foundations » Philosophy of Research »
Introduction to Validity
Validity:
the best available approximation to the truth of a given
proposition, inference, or conclusion
The first thing we have to ask is: "validity of what?" When we think about validity in
research, most of us think about research components. We might say that a measure
is a valid one, or that a valid sample was drawn, or that the design had strong
validity. But all of those statements are technically incorrect. Measures, samples and
designs don't 'have' validity -- only propositions can be said to be valid. Technically,
we should say that a measure leads to valid conclusions or that a sample enables
valid inferences, and so on. It is a proposition, inference or conclusion that can 'have'
validity.
We make lots of different inferences or conclusions while conducting research.
Many of these are related to the process of doing research and are not the major
hypotheses of the study. Nevertheless, like the bricks that go into building a wall,
these intermediate process and methodological propositions provide the foundation
for the substantive conclusions that we wish to address. For instance, virtually all
social research involves measurement or observation. And, whenever we measure or
observe we are concerned with whether we are measuring what we intend to
measure or with how our observations are influenced by the circumstances in which
they are made. We reach conclusions about the quality of our measures --
conclusions that will play an important role in addressing the broader substantive
issues of our study. When we talk about the validity of research, we are often
referring to these to the many conclusions we reach about the quality of different
parts of our research methodology.
We subdivide validity into four types. Each type addresses a specific methodological
question. In order to understand the types of validity, you have to know something
about how we investigate a research question. Because all four validity types are
really only operative when studying causal questions, we will use a causal study to set
the context.
Introduction to Validity http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php
1 of 4 12/15/2016 12:25 AM
The figure shows that there are really two realms that are involved in research. The
first, on the top, is the land of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as
researchers. It is where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The
second, on the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which we
translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and observations. When
we conduct research, we are continually flitting back and forth between these two
realms, between what we think about the world and what is going on in it. When we
are investigating a cause-effect relatio.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
There are three main types of organizational justice discussed in the document:
1. Distributive justice, which concerns the perceived fairness of outcomes and reward allocation. It involves comparisons between what employees receive versus what they expect or feel they deserve.
2. Procedural justice, which involves the perceived fairness of decision-making procedures that determine reward distribution. It includes the ability for employees to have input or "voice" in processes.
3. Interactional justice, which concerns the sensitivity and respect with which employees feel they are treated by the employer. It involves both interpersonal justice and informational justice around explanations for procedures. Perceptions of all three types of justice can impact important work attitudes and behaviors.
This document contains a student's honesty declaration for an assignment submitted for an Advanced Research Methods course. The student declares that the assignment is their original work and where they have used other writers' ideas or visuals, they have properly referenced them. The student also acknowledges reading the university's code of conduct regarding honesty in submitting coursework. The student signs and dates the declaration.
Using Guidelines to Better Shape Rape Victims' Impact Statements: Toward Incr...inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
Advancing Cognitive Moral Development A Field Observation Of College StudentsJoshua Gorinson
This document summarizes a study that observed the ethical decision-making of 112 college students in marketing classes. The students were split into two groups - one where the importance of ethics was discussed in every class, and one where it was only briefly mentioned. When given the opportunity to cheat, 100% of students in the non-sensitized group cheated, with some trying to cover it up. Some students in the sensitized group also cheated, while others did not. Focus group interviews found that students who cheated were at a lower stage of moral reasoning, while those who did not cheat were at a higher stage. The findings suggest that discussing ethics regularly may help advance students' moral reasoning.
Discuss whether or not you feel these programs are effective in prev.pdffashioncollection2
Discuss whether or not you feel these programs are effective in preventing recidivism. Do you
think inmates should be eligible for Pell Grants? Why, or why not?
Solution
Recidivism is the act of relapsing into a problem or criminal behavior during or after receiving
sanctions, or while undergoing an intervention due to a previous behavior or crime. In criminal
justice settings, recidivism is often measured by criminal acts that result in rearrest, reconviction,
or return to prison. Yes, these programs are effective in preventing recidivism. Recidivism data
have been reported in terms of a variety of measures, including re-arrest, re-adjudication, and re-
incarceration. As a result, policy makers are often unable to make sense of seemingly disparate
findings or draw meaningful conclusions about program or system performance. Common
definitions and indicators are necessary to clearly communicate the meaning of outcome study
results, to unambiguously describe the methods used to obtain research findings, to enable
replication of research designs, to make possible comparisons across studies and regions, and to
facilitate our understanding of program or system effectiveness.
By definition, recidivism comprises two elements: 1) the commission of an offense, 2) by an
individual already known to have committed at least one other offense (Blumstein & Larson,
1971). To have a truly operable definition, one must clarify and qualify both parts.
Regarding the first half of the definition, one must ask: What constitutes “commission of an
offense?” Does the definition include status offenses? Would parole violations fall under the
definition? One might assume that the phrase “commission of an offense” refers to a criminal act
and thus excludes status offenses and parole violations. Consistency requires that the phrase
“commission of an offense” be defined explicitly.
For the second half of the definition, one must ask: Who is considered to be “an individual
already known to have committed at least one other offense?” In the case of a juvenile, must the
juvenile have been found guilty of an offense? If the juvenile had been arrested but diverted prior
to adjudication, is she included in this definition? A policy maker might argue that diversion
does not imply innocence; in fact, it implies or requires admission of guilt. Thus, if a youth who
was previously diverted comes before the court on a subsequent offense, is that not recidivism?
Evaluators must agree on uniform answers to these questions or their findings will be difficult to
interpret or compare.
Measuring Recidivism
The terms “define” and “measure” are often confused by non-researchers. Whereas “define”
refers to the meaning of a word—in this case, recidivism—“measure” refers to a method of
systematically determining its extent or degree within a given sample. In program evaluations,
the measures are the types of data used to determine recidivism levels. These data types include,
among others, self-.
Behavioral Economics and Psychology of IncentivesHarsha MV
This document summarizes research on how standard economic incentives can sometimes backfire or be ineffective, and how non-standard interventions like framing can influence behavior. It discusses how paying for inherently interesting tasks, noble tasks, too much or too little can reduce motivation or performance. It also explains how more options are not always better, and how defaults and framing can powerfully shape decisions. The key mechanisms proposed to explain these anomalies are contextual inference, loss aversion, dynamic inconsistency, and choking under pressure.
1) The document discusses decision making in criminals from several perspectives, including rational choice theory, social bonding theory, and biological theories. It also presents two case studies of individuals who committed crimes and the influencing factors.
2) Cognitive limitations and use of heuristics are believed to influence criminal decision making. Deterrence theory also proposes that punishments can control crime through certainty, severity and clarity.
3) Adolescent decision making is still developing, and video research found they were more future-oriented and less peer-influenced than non-detained youth. Peer influence and strain were factors for the 16-year-old in the home invasion.
Correlates of criminal behavior among female prisonersashtinadkins
The study examined relationships between attachment, childhood experiences, sensation seeking, and criminal behavior among 348 female inmates. Measures of attachment, adverse childhood events, alcohol use, and sensation seeking were administered and correlated with criminal behaviors. Preliminary results found several scales significantly correlated with number of crimes, including risk taking behaviors, adverse childhood events, experiences of partner abuse, and insecure attachments. Further path analyses may provide a more complex model of criminality accounting for different types of crimes.
Slide 1 what is social science social science is about examininrock73
Social science examines human behavior and interactions using empirical and scientific methods. It studies people and societies while natural sciences examine natural processes. Both use verifiable data and logical reasoning but social science must account for how research is a product of time and place as societies change.
Research is conducted for various reasons like influencing policy, academic inquiry, and personal interests. The main types of research are descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, and evaluation. Research methods can be quantitative using numbers or qualitative using words. Key aspects researchers must understand are theories, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, and operational definitions. Research can use deductive reasoning starting with a theory or inductive reasoning developing a theory from data.
Existing evidence of inequality aversion relies on data from class-room experiments where subjects face hypothetical questions. This paper estimates the magnitude of inequality aversion using representative survey data, with questions related to the real-economy situations the respondents face. The results reveal that the magnitude of inequality aversion can be measured in a meaningful way using survey data, but the estimates depend dramatically on the framing of the question. No matter how measured, the revealed inequality aversion predicts opinions on a wide range of questions related to the welfare state, such as the level of taxation, tax progressivity and the structure of unemployment benefits.
This document summarizes a dissertation that investigates whether equal but inefficient outcomes remain salient choices for subjects in coordination games when they are placed under time pressure. It conducted an experiment extending previous research by introducing time pressure. The dissertation reviews literature on equality and efficiency in coordination games. It finds that subjects tend to become more risk-taking under time pressure in individual decision games. The experiment was conducted with employees to avoid issues of students participating only for monetary incentives.
More Related Content
Similar to Retributive Justice through Decision Making
Research ArticleDomain Specificity inExperimental Measur.docxrgladys1
Research Article
Domain Specificity in
Experimental Measures and
Participant Recruitment
An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior
Yaniv Hanoch,1,2 Joseph G. Johnson,3 and Andreas Wilke4
1
UCLA School of Public Health;
2
Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany;
3
Miami University;
and
4
International Max Planck Research School LIFE, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT—We challenge the prevailing notion that risk
taking is a stable trait, such that individuals show con-
sistent risk-taking/aversive behavior across domains. We
subscribe to an alternative approach that appreciates the
domain-specific nature of risk taking. More important, we
recognize heterogeneity of risk profiles among experi-
mental samples and introduce a new methodology that
takes this heterogeneity into account. Rather than using
a convenient subject pool (i.e., university students), as is
typically done, we specifically targeted relevant subsam-
ples to provide further validation of the domain-specific
nature of risk taking. Our research shows that individuals
who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one
content area (e.g., bungee jumpers taking recreational
risks) can exhibit moderate levels in other risky domains
(e.g., financial). Furthermore, our results indicate that
risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained
within a cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by
the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent
by the perceived risk.
How should researchers study a psychological construct such as
risk-taking propensity? Answering this question might not be as
easy as it seems at first glance. First, an individual might exhibit
risk-taking tendencies in one domain (e.g., financial) but display
more conservative behavior in another (e.g., recreational).
Second, different methodological designs—for example, the
pool of subjects used or the type of analysis conducted—can
yield contradicting results (e.g., Huber, Wider, & Huber, 1997).
In the present study, our methodological focus on the ecological
validity of the experimental design (e.g., Huber, 1997), domain-
specific risk-taking measures, and recruitment of participants in
targeted groups yielded results that allow us to challenge the
tendency to cluster individuals globally as either risk takers or
risk avoiders—thus offering a richer perspective on the psy-
chology of risk taking.
The psychological literature has been largely dominated by
the assumption that risk taking is a stable personality trait, and
thus individuals can be clustered into groups having risk-taking
or risk-aversive styles (e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Lejuez
et al., 2002; for a review, see Bromiley & Curley, 1992). This
simplistic, though appealing, conceptualization has proven to be
inadequate. Researchers have responded by examining sub-
traits and, therefore, the relation between risk taking and con-
struc.
The document defines and discusses various types of validity and reliability in research experiments and measurements. It summarizes the key threats to internal and external validity in experiments. It also defines correlation research and distinguishes between explanatory and predictive research designs. Finally, it defines ethnographic research, when it should be used, and outlines the five key steps in conducting an ethnographic study.
UNDERSTANDING DECISION/ GAME THEORY FOR BETTER RISK ASSESSMENT.Kaustav Lahiri
1) Decision theory is concerned with identifying values, uncertainties, and other factors relevant to a given decision in order to determine the optimal decision. It is closely related to game theory.
2) Normative decision theory aims to identify the best decision assuming perfect rationality, while descriptive decision theory describes actual decision-making behaviors under consistent rules.
3) Choices can involve certainty, uncertainty over time, interactions between decision makers, or complex situations. Different representations like extensive form, normal form, and characteristic function form are used to model different types of decisions.
This chapter discusses personnel selection and placement methods. It covers five standards for selection methods: reliability, validity, generalizability, utility, and legality. Nine common selection methods are described: interviews, references, physical ability tests, cognitive ability tests, personality inventories, work samples, and honesty/drug tests. The chapter aims to minimize employee selection errors and improve organizational competitiveness by familiarizing students with effective selection methods.
A Study of Perceived Organizational Justice, Trust, and Organisational Citize...IOSR Journals
The present organizations in which cut throat competition is there among employees, organizational justice and trust become more important to develop organizational citizenship behavior. organisation citizenship behavior is voluntary behavior on the part of employee which does not bring any reward to them. An employee who feels like citizen of organization does something extra for organization and coworkers which is not described in job description. Many previous researches proved impact of trust on organizational citizenship behavior and impact of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior. This study attempts to find out impact of trust and justice on OCB separately as well as combined impact of both the variables on OCB in service industry of Gwalior (MP, India).various statistical tools like reliability analysis and regression analysis was applied to the gathered data to fulfill the objective of the study.
This document discusses different types of triangulation that can be used in research to increase validity and credibility. It defines triangulation as using multiple methods, data sources, investigators, theories or research contexts to check results. Specifically, it outlines data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, methodological triangulation and environmental triangulation. For each type, it provides an example of how it could be applied in practice to strengthen research findings.
Strict Standards Only variables should be passed by reference.docxflorriezhamphrey3065
Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/socialresearch/public_html
/kb/introval.php on line 3
Home » Foundations » Philosophy of Research »
Introduction to Validity
Validity:
the best available approximation to the truth of a given
proposition, inference, or conclusion
The first thing we have to ask is: "validity of what?" When we think about validity in
research, most of us think about research components. We might say that a measure
is a valid one, or that a valid sample was drawn, or that the design had strong
validity. But all of those statements are technically incorrect. Measures, samples and
designs don't 'have' validity -- only propositions can be said to be valid. Technically,
we should say that a measure leads to valid conclusions or that a sample enables
valid inferences, and so on. It is a proposition, inference or conclusion that can 'have'
validity.
We make lots of different inferences or conclusions while conducting research.
Many of these are related to the process of doing research and are not the major
hypotheses of the study. Nevertheless, like the bricks that go into building a wall,
these intermediate process and methodological propositions provide the foundation
for the substantive conclusions that we wish to address. For instance, virtually all
social research involves measurement or observation. And, whenever we measure or
observe we are concerned with whether we are measuring what we intend to
measure or with how our observations are influenced by the circumstances in which
they are made. We reach conclusions about the quality of our measures --
conclusions that will play an important role in addressing the broader substantive
issues of our study. When we talk about the validity of research, we are often
referring to these to the many conclusions we reach about the quality of different
parts of our research methodology.
We subdivide validity into four types. Each type addresses a specific methodological
question. In order to understand the types of validity, you have to know something
about how we investigate a research question. Because all four validity types are
really only operative when studying causal questions, we will use a causal study to set
the context.
Introduction to Validity http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php
1 of 4 12/15/2016 12:25 AM
The figure shows that there are really two realms that are involved in research. The
first, on the top, is the land of theory. It is what goes on inside our heads as
researchers. It is where we keep our theories about how the world operates. The
second, on the bottom, is the land of observations. It is the real world into which we
translate our ideas -- our programs, treatments, measures and observations. When
we conduct research, we are continually flitting back and forth between these two
realms, between what we think about the world and what is going on in it. When we
are investigating a cause-effect relatio.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
There are three main types of organizational justice discussed in the document:
1. Distributive justice, which concerns the perceived fairness of outcomes and reward allocation. It involves comparisons between what employees receive versus what they expect or feel they deserve.
2. Procedural justice, which involves the perceived fairness of decision-making procedures that determine reward distribution. It includes the ability for employees to have input or "voice" in processes.
3. Interactional justice, which concerns the sensitivity and respect with which employees feel they are treated by the employer. It involves both interpersonal justice and informational justice around explanations for procedures. Perceptions of all three types of justice can impact important work attitudes and behaviors.
This document contains a student's honesty declaration for an assignment submitted for an Advanced Research Methods course. The student declares that the assignment is their original work and where they have used other writers' ideas or visuals, they have properly referenced them. The student also acknowledges reading the university's code of conduct regarding honesty in submitting coursework. The student signs and dates the declaration.
Using Guidelines to Better Shape Rape Victims' Impact Statements: Toward Incr...inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
Advancing Cognitive Moral Development A Field Observation Of College StudentsJoshua Gorinson
This document summarizes a study that observed the ethical decision-making of 112 college students in marketing classes. The students were split into two groups - one where the importance of ethics was discussed in every class, and one where it was only briefly mentioned. When given the opportunity to cheat, 100% of students in the non-sensitized group cheated, with some trying to cover it up. Some students in the sensitized group also cheated, while others did not. Focus group interviews found that students who cheated were at a lower stage of moral reasoning, while those who did not cheat were at a higher stage. The findings suggest that discussing ethics regularly may help advance students' moral reasoning.
Discuss whether or not you feel these programs are effective in prev.pdffashioncollection2
Discuss whether or not you feel these programs are effective in preventing recidivism. Do you
think inmates should be eligible for Pell Grants? Why, or why not?
Solution
Recidivism is the act of relapsing into a problem or criminal behavior during or after receiving
sanctions, or while undergoing an intervention due to a previous behavior or crime. In criminal
justice settings, recidivism is often measured by criminal acts that result in rearrest, reconviction,
or return to prison. Yes, these programs are effective in preventing recidivism. Recidivism data
have been reported in terms of a variety of measures, including re-arrest, re-adjudication, and re-
incarceration. As a result, policy makers are often unable to make sense of seemingly disparate
findings or draw meaningful conclusions about program or system performance. Common
definitions and indicators are necessary to clearly communicate the meaning of outcome study
results, to unambiguously describe the methods used to obtain research findings, to enable
replication of research designs, to make possible comparisons across studies and regions, and to
facilitate our understanding of program or system effectiveness.
By definition, recidivism comprises two elements: 1) the commission of an offense, 2) by an
individual already known to have committed at least one other offense (Blumstein & Larson,
1971). To have a truly operable definition, one must clarify and qualify both parts.
Regarding the first half of the definition, one must ask: What constitutes “commission of an
offense?” Does the definition include status offenses? Would parole violations fall under the
definition? One might assume that the phrase “commission of an offense” refers to a criminal act
and thus excludes status offenses and parole violations. Consistency requires that the phrase
“commission of an offense” be defined explicitly.
For the second half of the definition, one must ask: Who is considered to be “an individual
already known to have committed at least one other offense?” In the case of a juvenile, must the
juvenile have been found guilty of an offense? If the juvenile had been arrested but diverted prior
to adjudication, is she included in this definition? A policy maker might argue that diversion
does not imply innocence; in fact, it implies or requires admission of guilt. Thus, if a youth who
was previously diverted comes before the court on a subsequent offense, is that not recidivism?
Evaluators must agree on uniform answers to these questions or their findings will be difficult to
interpret or compare.
Measuring Recidivism
The terms “define” and “measure” are often confused by non-researchers. Whereas “define”
refers to the meaning of a word—in this case, recidivism—“measure” refers to a method of
systematically determining its extent or degree within a given sample. In program evaluations,
the measures are the types of data used to determine recidivism levels. These data types include,
among others, self-.
Behavioral Economics and Psychology of IncentivesHarsha MV
This document summarizes research on how standard economic incentives can sometimes backfire or be ineffective, and how non-standard interventions like framing can influence behavior. It discusses how paying for inherently interesting tasks, noble tasks, too much or too little can reduce motivation or performance. It also explains how more options are not always better, and how defaults and framing can powerfully shape decisions. The key mechanisms proposed to explain these anomalies are contextual inference, loss aversion, dynamic inconsistency, and choking under pressure.
1) The document discusses decision making in criminals from several perspectives, including rational choice theory, social bonding theory, and biological theories. It also presents two case studies of individuals who committed crimes and the influencing factors.
2) Cognitive limitations and use of heuristics are believed to influence criminal decision making. Deterrence theory also proposes that punishments can control crime through certainty, severity and clarity.
3) Adolescent decision making is still developing, and video research found they were more future-oriented and less peer-influenced than non-detained youth. Peer influence and strain were factors for the 16-year-old in the home invasion.
Correlates of criminal behavior among female prisonersashtinadkins
The study examined relationships between attachment, childhood experiences, sensation seeking, and criminal behavior among 348 female inmates. Measures of attachment, adverse childhood events, alcohol use, and sensation seeking were administered and correlated with criminal behaviors. Preliminary results found several scales significantly correlated with number of crimes, including risk taking behaviors, adverse childhood events, experiences of partner abuse, and insecure attachments. Further path analyses may provide a more complex model of criminality accounting for different types of crimes.
Slide 1 what is social science social science is about examininrock73
Social science examines human behavior and interactions using empirical and scientific methods. It studies people and societies while natural sciences examine natural processes. Both use verifiable data and logical reasoning but social science must account for how research is a product of time and place as societies change.
Research is conducted for various reasons like influencing policy, academic inquiry, and personal interests. The main types of research are descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, and evaluation. Research methods can be quantitative using numbers or qualitative using words. Key aspects researchers must understand are theories, hypotheses, independent and dependent variables, and operational definitions. Research can use deductive reasoning starting with a theory or inductive reasoning developing a theory from data.
Existing evidence of inequality aversion relies on data from class-room experiments where subjects face hypothetical questions. This paper estimates the magnitude of inequality aversion using representative survey data, with questions related to the real-economy situations the respondents face. The results reveal that the magnitude of inequality aversion can be measured in a meaningful way using survey data, but the estimates depend dramatically on the framing of the question. No matter how measured, the revealed inequality aversion predicts opinions on a wide range of questions related to the welfare state, such as the level of taxation, tax progressivity and the structure of unemployment benefits.
This document summarizes a dissertation that investigates whether equal but inefficient outcomes remain salient choices for subjects in coordination games when they are placed under time pressure. It conducted an experiment extending previous research by introducing time pressure. The dissertation reviews literature on equality and efficiency in coordination games. It finds that subjects tend to become more risk-taking under time pressure in individual decision games. The experiment was conducted with employees to avoid issues of students participating only for monetary incentives.
Similar to Retributive Justice through Decision Making (19)
1. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE THROUGH DECISION MAKING
Carlos Rodeiro Vargas, Electricidad de Caracas, Venezuela
carlos.rodeiro@laedc.com.ve
An earlier version of this work was presented at the Latin American Research
Consortium and Dean’s Workshop (LARC), New Orleans, LA, United States
March, 2010
2. 2
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to enhance understanding of the subtle mechanisms
through which employees and students achieve a balance of justice, apart from
conducts belonging to the well studied category of organizational misbehaviors (e.g.,
workplace aggression, employee theft, incivility, retaliatory behavior, or revenge). I
posited that: (a) people under conditions of procedural and distributive injustice will
be more likely to choose an unethical decision option (i.e., ‘mild’ and ‘severe’
mechanisms of revenge), than under conditions of fair treatment; and (b) anger will
mediate the relationship between perceptions of injustice and severe unethical
decisions. Two experiments, both from organizational and educational perspectives,
examined the influence of unfair treatment on workers from a utility company and
MBA students at a business school. During the experiments, some participants were
biased toward combinations of just procedures and outcomes and others to
combinations of unjust procedures and outcomes; to study the effects that this
manipulation may have in participants’ decision choices. Although the hypotheses
were not supported, surprising findings indicated that employees agree more with
making mild unethical decisions under the condition of both fair procedure and
outcome, than in a situation when procedures are fair and outcomes are unjust.
Limitations and future directions are addressed.
3. 3
Literature Review
According to McLean’s proposition (1997), changes in behavior (i.e.,
retribution) are more pronounced in the presence of multiple forms of injustice.
Mclean describes three mechanisms available to the individual in securing retribution
(i.e., recompense, impression management, and retaliation); emphasizing that these
mechanisms are not exclusive and do not cover all possible processes by which
individuals get justice. Some individuals might engage in subtle mechanisms to
achieve a justice balance, relying on the degree of injustice accumulation to assess the
level of intensity of the retribution mechanism to be used. To examine this contention,
in the present research, individuals’ retributive behavior --when making decisions--
will be assessed in the presence and/or absence of procedural and distributive justice.
Thus, when confronting a combination of procedural justice and distributive injustice
(and the other way around), the individual will choose a covert mechanism to retaliate
(i.e., “less” retribution as proposed by McLean).
Folger and Skarlicki (1998) described the “popcorn metaphor” in linking
injustice and workplace aggression. They argued that when employees perceive
organizational injustice, it sometimes trigger aggression in the workplace. Research
suggests that employees can find covert ways to gain revenge at someone under unfair
conditions. Moreover, “overt violence maybe merely a surface indicator --like the ‘tip
of the iceberg’-- of many other covert and less visible forms of retaliation” (Folger &
Skarlicki, 1998, p. 48).
According to the model proposed by Bies, Tripp, and Kramer (1997), a
revenge episode begins with a precipitating event (e.g., interpersonal abuse,
demotion), which sparks revenge cognitions and emotions. The latter can create a
heating-up process within the victim or observer, the intensity and duration of which
4. 4
depends on a variety of cognitive, motivational, and social processes that influence
how the sparking event is construed. If the heat continues building up, revenge
cognitions will find release through one of four different paths: venting, dissipation,
fatigue, or explosion.
Tripp, Bies, and Aquino (2002) found that observers judged the severe
revenge act more favorably when the provocation was severe than when the
provocation was mild. However, similarity of method was judged more harshly than
dissimilarity of method --because observers opined that using a similar method makes
the victim’s revenge motive too transparent.
The above findings suggest that all other things being equal, in order to avoid
that observers perceive the presence of similarity of method, smart revenge should be
covert. As a consequence, I expect that under lower levels of injustice, a person
focused on revenge will be likely to covertly choose a mild unethical decision. The
covert and mild form of revenge would be preferred as it also less likely, in relation to
more severe and overt forms of revenge, to lead to a spiral of retaliation. Therefore, I
hypothesize:
H1a-H1b: In the presence of procedural justice and distributive injustice (or
procedural injustice and distributive justice) the individual focused on revenge
will be more likely to choose --or agree with-- a mild, covert decision option
than under a condition of fair treatment.
However, as the level of injustice increases, an individual focused on revenge
is more likely to endorse a more severe unethical decision option in terms of how that
decision adversely affects the original harmdoer. In this sense, the level of injustice is
expected to engender a “heating-up” process where the person focused on revenge is
5. 5
more emotionally charged and open to more severe consequences for the harmdoer
(especially in a context where the revenge can be overt). Therefore, I hypothesize:
H2a-H2b: Under the condition of both procedural and distributive unfair
treatment, the individual focused on revenge will be more likely to choose --or
agree with-- a severe unethical decision option than under the condition of
procedural justice and distributive injustice (or procedural injustice and
distributive justice).
Furthermore, Barclay, Skarlicki, and Pugh (2005) found that outward-focused
negative emotions partially mediated the relationship between justice perceptions and
retaliation --thus providing an empirical test of the effects proposed by Folger and
Skarlicki (1998). Following this line of reasoning, I propose the following:
H3: Anger will mediate the relationship between the level of procedural and
distributive injustice and the likelihood of making (or agreeing with) a severe
unethical decision.
Method
Research setting
I conducted two studies, in different contexts, in order to test the
aforementioned hypotheses. The first one, a field experiment, focused on EDC
(spanish acronym for Electricidad de Caracas), a Venezuelan electric utility which
delivers electricity to more than 5.3 million people. The second one, a lab experiment,
was run in IESA (spanish acronym for Instituto de Estudios Superiores de
Administración), the only business school in Venezuela accredited by the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB).
The possibility of applying a similar and meaningful story (i.e., traveling
outside the country), where participants could be expected to act in a decision-making
6. 6
capacity, was the main reason to run the experiment with these samples (worker and
student) in two types of organized settings (work and academic).
Participants
On average, EDC participants (N = 136) were 33.6 years of age (SD = 8.2)
and had worked in the organization for 10.4 years (SD = 7.8). Females comprised
55.2% of the sample.
IESA participants (N = 229) were enrolled in the MBA (92.1%), ranged in age
from 23 to 54 years (M = 29.4; SD = 4.6), and had an average tenure in their
respective organizations of 6.5 years (SD = 4.7).
Experimental Design and Procedure
The between-subjects manipulation of the independent variables was
embedded in four scenarios: (1) procedurally just, distributively just, (2) procedurally
just, distributively unjust, (3) procedurally unjust, distributively just, and (4)
procedurally unjust, distributively unjust. The researcher and the participants were
blind to conditions.
Such scenarios described similar situations in which an employee applies to
integrate a valuation team in charge of evaluating a business opportunity in a foreign
country and a MBA student is considered for spending a semester abroad.
Subsequently, the employee is invited to participate in the evaluation committee,
giving him the right to make recommendations about the selection of employees to go
abroad, from a pool of three candidates: a former committee member (who denied
several job postings to prior applicants in order to benefit friends or relatives), an
under qualified candidate, and an over qualified candidate. A similar vignette is
presented to the group of MBA students.
7. 7
Results
Hypotheses 1a-1b were tested by comparing: (a) the mean corresponding to
the ‘mild’ decision (i.e., “accept under qualified candidate”) for scenario 1 and
scenario 2; and (b) the mean corresponding to the ‘mild’ decision for scenario 1 and
scenario 3.
Hypotheses 2a-2b were tested by comparing: (a) the mean corresponding to
the ´severe´ decision (i.e., averaging responses regarding options “assign least
preferred option” and “deny with no reason”) for scenario 2 and scenario 4; and (b)
the mean corresponding to the ´severe´ decision for scenario 3 and scenario 4.
Mediation analysis was performed following the steps described by James,
Mulaik, and Brett (2006).
EDC sample
For hypothesis 1a, the mean for scenario 1 was higher than mean for scenario
2. This difference was found to be significantly different from zero (p < 0.05), in the
opposite direction. Thus, hypothesis 1a was not supported.
The rest of the hypotheses were not supported.
IESA sample
The differences between means were not found to be significantly different
from zero. Hypotheses were not supported.
Mediation analysis
Results do not provide support for the mediation of anger --regarding
procedure or outcome-- of the relationship between perceptions of justice and severe
unethical decisions.
8. 8
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Work need to be done regarding just / unjust conditions. The degree of ‘just’
procedures could not be assessed by some participants, implying that lack of
information concerning the procedure followed by the committee could not be
interpreted as a faulty protocol. The manipulation regarding defective procedures
must be reinforced in order to allow the respondent to fully assess when the procedure
is just or not.
The timing of survey delivery (e.g., 90% of students at IESA were about to
enter into exchange program) could also have had a negative effect on detecting
differences in behavior. These students might have found it difficult to imagine an
unjust situation or what they would have done if they were really rejected.
Future studies might consider the influence of demographics such as sex on
the occurrence of revenge. A significant correlation (at the .05 level) was found
between age and the ‘deny with no reason’ option in the EDC sample (i.e., older
people seem to prefer certain kind of unethical decisions); while sex was significantly
correlated (at the .05 level) with the ‘assign least preferred option’ choice in the IESA
sample (i.e., women tend to prefer certain kind of unethical decisions). The idea of
replicating this study under the light of other variables such as a combination of
demographics or traits such as “collectors of injustice” (i.e., people who are quick to
perceive injustice and get easily engaged in retaliation), and the sole focus on ‘mild’
decisions looks promising. On the other hand, considering that participants from EDC
were --at the moment of the survey-- waiting for discussion of the labor contract to
end, the presence of external financial pressures (as proposed by Litzky, Eddleston,
and Kidder, 2006) might constitute another avenue for research.
9. 9
References
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., and Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions
in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 90(4),
629-643.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., and Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive
and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone and J.
Greenberg (Eds.). Anti-social behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression.
In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, and J. M. Collins (Eds.),
Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (Vol.
23, Part A; pp. 43-81). Stamford, CT: JAI.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., and Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods.
Organizational Research Methods. 9(2), 233-244.
Litzky, B.E., Eddleston, K. A., and Kidder, D. L. (2006). The Good, the bad, and the
misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 91-103.
McLean, J. (1997). The fourth arm of justice: The art and science of revenge.
Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, 113-144.
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., and Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The
aesthetics of revenge. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,
89, 966-984.