Intended and unintended overconsumption of physical, spatial, and temporal resources.

Abstract

T\vo experiments investigated whether people overconsume nonpartitioned physical, spatial, and temporal resources; whether this overconsumption reflects intended or unintended processes; and whether these processes have adverse inferential and behavioral consequences. In Experiment 1, members of large groups overconsumed nonpartitioned resources of all types, especially nonpartitioned temporal resources. Moreover, these overconsumptions stemmed from both intentional motives as well as from an unintentional perceptual bias. Even when allocated their equal share of a nonpartitioned resource in Experiment 2, members of large groups judged it to be less than their equal share, a perceptual bias that produced pejorative trait inferences and retaliatory overconsumption choices. Theoretical and practical implications for resource management are discussed.

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

“…Early distributive justice research indicated that factors unrelated to principles of distributive fairness (e.g., the degree of personal beneWt from an outcome) can inXuence distributive fairness judgments, especially when there is informational uncertainty in the judgmental context (Herlocker, Allison, Foubert, & Beggan, 1997;Thompson & Loewenstein, 1992). Demonstrating a similar pattern with regard to procedural justice facilitates a coherent understanding of how people generally assess justice and meets justice researchers' calls for greater attention to subjective assessments of fairness, since subjective assessments typically have a greater impact on reactions than do objective characteristics of procedures (e.g., Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990;Shapiro & Brett, 1993).…”

What's Fair in Foul Weather and Fair? Distributive Justice across Different Allocation Contexts and Goods

“…They accounted for many of the differences they find in the interpersonal exchange of the goods they examine by classifying resources along two dimensions: particularism (i.e., the value of a resource as influenced by the particular persons involved in exchanging it and their relationship to one another) and concreteness (i.e., whether the resources are relatively concrete as opposed to symbolic). Some of the findings of these studies are relevant to our research, for example that individuals evaluating hypothetical transfers tended to prefer equality when distributing tangible goods (as well as love and services) and to split in their preferences over equality and merit when allocating money (Törnblom and Foa 1983; see also Herlocker et al 1997).…”

Extending the Deontic Model of Justice: Moral Self-Regulation in Third-Party Responses to Injustice

“…They were assured that it was actual money being distributed, although due to budgetary constraints, only 10 percent of the participants would be randomly selected to receive the money allocated to them. This type of situation, where teammates are not physically present for the allocation task, has been used effectively in past research (Allison, McQueen, & Schaerfl , 1992;Herlocker, Allison, Foubert, & Beggan, 1997;Roch et al, 2000). Further, past research has shown that experimental results do not signifi cantly differ when all versus ten percent of participants are paid (Kahneman et al, 1986).…”