Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward.

Barclay, Laurie J.; Bashshur, Michael Ramsay; Fortin, Marion

doi:10.1037/apl0000204

Cited by 75 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 155 publications

(241 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, our research highlights the role of transgressor motives in shaping their perceptions of the reconciliation process. Our findings are consistent with the body of research on motivated cognition, which demonstrates that people's perceptions of others can be filtered through their motives, leading them to interpret targets in ways that support desired conclusions (Barclay et al, ; Huang & Bargh, ; Kunda, ). Interpersonal transgressions are inherently ambiguous events in which the parties may have differing views, and forgiveness must be inferred by transgressors because it is a process occurring within the victim.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Motivated cognition refers to the general process by which people's preferences, expectations, and motives influence their interpretation of events (Barclay et al, 2017;Kunda, 1990;Sonenshein, 2007). According to the reconfiguration principle of motivated cognition, motives direct people's attention toward information that confirms their desired outcomes and away from disconfirming information (Huang & Bargh, 2014).…”

Section: Study 3: Apology Motives and Transgressor Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, in the present research, we set out to provide a systematic examination of the apology–forgiveness–reconciliation process in the workplace from the transgressor perspective. We adopt a motivated cognition approach (for a recent review, see Barclay, Bashshur, & Fortin, ) to suggest that transgressor perceptions of the reconciliation process will be shaped by the motives that underlie their decision to apologize. By motives, we refer to internal representation of desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes, events, or processes (Austin & Vancouver, , p. 388; also see Cox, Bennett, Tripp, & Aquino, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation

Bobocel

2019

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Despite the importance of apology in reconciling interpersonal transgressions, little research has focused on the people engaging in the behavior. Why do transgressors apologize in the workplace, and do apology motives shape transgressor perceptions of reconciliation? We conducted three field studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine these questions. In Studies 1 and 2 (total N = 781), we identified four distinct apology motives—self‐blame, relational value, personal expedience, and fear of sanctions—and developed self‐report scales to measure the motives. In Study 3 (N = 420), we examined relations between apology motives and transgressor perceptions of victim forgiveness and relationship reconciliation through the lens of motivated cognition. We found that apologizing due to self‐blame, relational value, and personal expedience increases perceptions of victim forgiveness, whereas apologizing due to fear of sanctions decreases perceived forgiveness. Moreover, mediation analyses revealed that motives indirectly influence transgressor perceptions of relationship reconciliation through perceived forgiveness. Taken together, our research presents a novel multidimensional perspective on apology‐giving in the workplace, suggesting that why transgressors apologize can affect their perceptions of reconciliation. Overall, our research highlights the need to incorporate transgressor cognitive and motivational processes into reconciliation research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Study 3: Apology Motives and Transgressor Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation

Bobocel

2019

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the existing evidence in case of procedural justice makes this an unlikely proposition. Several cognitive psychological studies have shown that the perception of procedural justice is a fundamental psychological process ('fairness heuristic', see Barclay et al 2017;Lind 2001;Proudfoot and Lind 2015), whilst relational identification (i.e., social identity) and constructs that require deliberation (i.e., legitimacy) are more complex (Barclay et al 2017;van Lier et al 2013;Tabibnia et al 2008). Although this line of reasoning might be alien to criminological audiences, in the psychological literature it is widely accepted that more basic psychological processes are affecting (and informing) more complex ones down the line (Von Hippel et al 2005;Kahneman 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prying Open the Black Box of Causality: A Causal Mediation Analysis Test of Procedural Justice Policing

Pósch

2020

J Quant Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Review causal mediation analysis as a method for estimating and assessing direct and indirect effects. Reexamine a field experiment with an apparent implementation failure. Test procedural justice theory by examining to which extent procedural justice mediates the impact of contact with the police on police legitimacy and social identity. Methods Data from a block-randomised controlled trial of procedural justice policing (the Scottish Community Engagement Trial) were analysed. All constructs were measured using surveys distributed during roadside police checks. Treatment implementation was assessed by analysing the treatment effect's consistency and heterogeneity. Causal mediation analysis, which can derive the indirect effect even in the presence of a treatmentmediator interaction, was used as a versatile technique of effect decomposition. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of the mediating role of procedural justice. Results First, the treatment effect was fairly consistent and homogeneous, indicating that the treatment's effect is attributable to the design. Second, there is evidence that procedural justice channels the treatment's effect towards normative alignment (NIE = − 0.207), duty to obey (NIE = − 0.153), and social identity (NIE = − 0.052), all of which are moderately robust to unmeasured confounding (ρ = 0.3-0.6, LOVE = 0.5-0.7). Conclusions The effect's consistency and homogeneity should be examined in future block-randomised designs. Causal mediation analysis is a versatile tool that can salvage experiments with systematic yet ambiguous treatment effects by allowing researchers to "pry open" the black box of causality. The theoretical propositions of procedural justice policing were supported. Future studies are needed with more discernible causal mediation effects.

show abstract

“…In this regard, we see high potential in researching the role of fairness in open innovation. Ample evidence and theorizing from the field of psychology indicate that actors compare their derived value with the value derived by other actors in the same system (Barclay, Bashshur, and Fortin, 2017). This comparison forms the basis of fairness perceptions, which have affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences (Barclay et al, 2017).…”

Section: Value Realizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation

Chesbrough

Lettl

Ritter³

2018

J of Product Innov Manag

346

231

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open innovation has attracted a significant amount of attention from scholars and practitioners. Prior research on open innovation has mainly focused on collaborative inventing. However, understanding the processes and outcomes of joint inventing is not sufficient for understanding sustained open‐innovation activities and the competitive advantages of the actors involved in open innovation. Instead, an understanding of value creation and value capture is paramount for advancing our understanding of sustained open‐innovation activities. Open innovation requires collaboration among distributed but interdependent actors who rely on each other’s capabilities for value creation and capture. Value in open innovation is driven not only by actors’ value creation but also by their ability to capture value. While value creation and value capture are discussed in the open‐innovation literature, the advancement of this stream of research is hindered by conceptual ambiguity, especially in relation to the concept of value capture. This article adopts a value perspective on open innovation, offers consistent conceptualizations of value creation and value capture, and outlines potential avenues for further research at the interface of open innovation, value creation, and value capture.

show abstract

Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward.

Cited by 75 publications

References 155 publications

Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation

Why did I say sorry? Apology motives and transgressor perceptions of reconciliation

Prying Open the Black Box of Causality: A Causal Mediation Analysis Test of Procedural Justice Policing

Value Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About