The Negotiated Allocation of Benefits and Burdens: The Impact of Outcome Valence, Contribution, and Relationship

Sondak, Harris; Neale, Margaret A.; Pinkley, Robin L.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1103

Cited by 65 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research suggests that indeed people may become more self-interested in a loss domain (e.g. Schweitzer & DeChurch, 2001, Sondak, Neale, & Pinkley, 1995. For instance, in the context of a multi-issue negotiation De Dreu, Carnevale, Emans, and Van der Vliert (1995) showed that loss framed negotiators demanded more, and conceded less than negotiators in a gain frame.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

Leliveld¹,

Beest²,

Dijk³

et al. 2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

Leliveld¹,

Beest²,

Dijk³

et al. 2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Findings in line with this notion suggest that losses indeed can enhance people's concern for their self-interest, and thus give rise to selfish (Brewer & Kramer, 1986;Poppe & Valkenberg, 2003;Sondak, Neale, & Pinkley, 1995) and unethical intentions (e.g., Kern & Chugh, 2009) and behavior (Reinders Folmer & De Cremer, 2012). The current financial crisis can be analyzed using the negative frame of suffering financial losses.…”

Section: Ethical Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 88%

Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach

Cremer

Vandekerckhove

2016

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues of morality and ethics have increasingly become more important in organizations and business settings. Traditionally, these issues of ethics and social responsibility in business settings have been discussed and commented on by prescriptive approaches that are grounded in philosophical traditions. Building on the idea that we need to develop a more comprehensive and complete understanding of the value that people assign to ethics and how it influences their actions and decisions, in the present article we discuss and review the importance and relevance of adopting also a descriptive approach that is grounded in the behavioral sciences (referred to as behavioral business ethics). This approach has the advantages to promote our insights into how people can show both good and bad behavior and why this is the case. Behavioral business ethics therefore represents an important research challenge for organizational researchers to pursue and engage more meaningfully with more prescriptive approaches.

show abstract

“…Several studies in organizational behavior have directly compared the allocation of benefits and burdens. Allocations based on the norm of equity tend to be preferred for burdens, for example, while the use of equality tends to be preferred for benefits (Sondak, Neale, & Pinkley, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychology of markets vs. hierarchies: The procedural fairness of alternative allocation procedures for benefits and burdens

Sondak

Tyler

2012

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Negotiated Allocation of Benefits and Burdens: The Impact of Outcome Valence, Contribution, and Relationship

Cited by 65 publications

References 0 publications

Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach

The psychology of markets vs. hierarchies: The procedural fairness of alternative allocation procedures for benefits and burdens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About