Fairness and Emotions: Reactions to the Process and Outcomes of Negotiations

Hegtvedt, Karen A.; Killian, Caitlin

doi:10.1093/sf/78.1.269

Cited by 106 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anger was highest when the outcome was unfavorable and the procedure was biased against the participant. Guilt was highest when the outcome was favorable and the procedure was biased in favor of the participant, and pride was highest whenever the outcome was favorable (for similar findings see Hegtvedt & Killian, 1999;Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000).…”

Section: Emotions and Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 77%

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Murphy

2008

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why is it that some people respond in a more negative way to procedural injustice than do others, and why is it that some people go on to defy authority while others in the same situation do not? Personality theorists suggest that the psychological effect of a situation depends on how a person interprets the situation and that such differences in interpretation can vary as a function of individual difference factors. For example, affect intensity-one's predisposition to react more or less emotionally to an event-is one such individual difference factor that has been shown to influence people's reactions to events. Cross-sectional survey data collected from (a) 652 tax offenders who have been through a serious law enforcement experience (Study 1), and (b) 672 citizens with recent personal contact with a police officer (Study 2), showed that individual differences in 'affect intensity' moderate the effect of procedural justice on both affective reactions and compliance behavior. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice had a greater effect in reducing anger and reports of non-compliance among those lower in affect intensity than those higher in affect intensity. Both methodological and theoretical explanations are offered to explain the results, including the suggestion that emotions of shame may play a role in the observed interaction.

show abstract

Section: Emotions and Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 77%

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Murphy

2008

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anger is a common response to feelings of unfairness (Folger, 1993;Homans, 1974;Hegtvedt and Killian, 1999), but in addition to anger, we expect violations of community standards of fairness to decrease satisfaction and happiness. Prior equity and social justice research suggests that individuals will experience negative emotions when they perceive that they have been treated unfairly (Adams, 1965;Homans, 1974;Murnighan, 1996, 2003).…”

Section: Emotional Responses To Unfairnessmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When individuals perceive outcomes to be fair, they experience satisfaction (Hegtvedt and Killian, 1999;Ordonez et al, 2000) and are likely to be supportive of both the outcome and the parties involved (Barry and Oliver, 1996). However, when individuals perceive outcomes to violate fairness, they are likely to experience anger (Allred, 1999;Bies, 1987;Bies et al, 1997;Homans, 1974) and retaliate (Folger, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness, Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making: Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Carver and Scheier (1990) as well as Hsee and Abelson (1991) relate positive emotions to the extent to which a person approaches his or her goals. Hegtvedt and Killian (1999) have shown that negotiators who regard the negotiation process as fair were more likely to experience positive emotions. Cooperation and integration brings the negotiators closer to a common goal and conciliatory behavior may increase the perception of fairness.…”

Section: The Emotional Patterns Of Successful and Failed Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations

Griessmair

Koeszegi

2009

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial body of literature in CMC and eNS research suggests that communication via textual electronic media is devoid of emotional content as many non-and para-verbal indicators expressing emotions are missing. In order to support these theoretical positions, up to date, studies have mainly focused on the direct expression of emotions. To complement this research, we analyze transcripts from electronic negotiation experiments conducted at three universities in December 2006. By using an exploratory research methodology, i.e., content analysis and subsequent multidimensional scaling (MDS), we analyze the emotional connotation of factual statements (content layer). Thereby we take three different perspectives, (1) on a macro resolution level we assess negotiations in order to gain insight into the dynamics of emotional communication over time, (2) on a meso resolution level, single messages (speech acts) of transcripts are the units of analysis and (3) on a micro resolution level, we analyze single utterances within messages. Our results demonstrate that emotions, although not necessarily expressed explicitly, are nevertheless conveyed by the wording and phrasing of utterances. We show that factual statements in negotiations convey an emotional layer, and the same factual statements can be differentiated along their emotional connotation depending on the lexical and syntactical choices of the communicators. Furthermore, there is indication that emotions seem to evolve differently in successful and failed negotiations.

show abstract

Fairness and Emotions: Reactions to the Process and Outcomes of Negotiations

Cited by 106 publications

References 28 publications

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Fairness, Feelings, and Ethical Decision- Making: Consequences of Violating Community Standards of Fairness

Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About