Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships
Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investigates the social norms people use to distribute adventitious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Organizational behavior and human decision processes 1996-08, Vol.67 (2), p.181-200 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 200 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 181 |
container_title | Organizational behavior and human decision processes |
container_volume | 67 |
creator | Parks, Judi McLean Boles, Terry L. Conlon, Donald E. DeSouza, Eros Gatewood, Wallace Gibson, Kevin Halpern, Jennifer J. Locke, Don C. Nekich, Jamie C. Straub, Paul Wilson, George Murnighan, J.Keith |
description | Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investigates the social norms people use to distribute adventitious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or a friend), received either an unexpected gain or loss which was or was not easily divisible. Participants were then asked to continue the story by describing what they believed would happen after the adventitious event. We measured if and how the outcome was divided between the two individuals involved as well as subjects’ and an outside observer's perceptions of the fairness of these divisions and any expectations they had about the effect of the event on the quality of the relationship between the two. Results suggest that people endorse a “losers weepers” norm more often than they do a “finders keepers” or “share and share alike” (equality) norm, although all were endorsed. Egocentric distributions and expectations permeated the story continuations. Although participants frequently suggest that they would share gains, they also expected that their sacrifices (sharing their own gain or in another's loss) would help improve the future relationship between the two more than would similar sacrifices by the other (i.e., they were often egocentric martyrs). Friendship and the divisibility of the outcome also affected allocation rules and expectations for the future relationship. The discussion highlights the irony associated with the finding that when an adventitious gain is not shared with another, the future relationship between the two is expected to be less positive. Thus, adventitious outcomes (and gains in particular) can be a double-edged sword. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1006/obhd.1996.0073 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61463906</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0749597896900734</els_id><sourcerecordid>10210335</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8123198fafb80d55ee4365aa34557f733ef0aae0704e4cd98bf54f3f45c981f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxSMEEkvhytlCiBPZjmM7iblVZQtU_ZD4OFteZ9z1KomD7ay0_z0OW_WAxGFsafSbpzdviuIthTUFqM_9dtetqZT1GqBhz4oVBSlKKSt4Xqyg4bIUsmlfFq9i3ANQWgOsiuGziym47Zzc-EAuugOOySXn50ju52T8gPET-eGN0z2582GIH8nmwZtMBWfIrQ7pGHJPjx1JOyQba9GkSPxIruY0ByTfsddZb4w7N8XXxQur-4hvHv-z4tfV5ufl1_Lm_su3y4ub0nAOqWxpxahsrbbbFjohEDmrhdaMC9HYhjG0oDVCAxy56WS7tYJbZrkwsqWWsrPiw0l3Cv73jDGpwUWDfa9HzKupmvKaSagz-O4fcO_nMGZvqqpYBVTUbYbWJ8gEH2NAq6bgBh2OioJaoldL9GqJXi3R54Hr00DACc0TjYj7hZzUQTFdN_k55vo7x7TLVeWallZLVQWgdmnIYu8fLepodG-DHo2LT6I5qHzKxWR7wjDnenAYVDQOR4OdC_kkqvPuf3b_AI7EsPE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223201568</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Parks, Judi McLean ; Boles, Terry L. ; Conlon, Donald E. ; DeSouza, Eros ; Gatewood, Wallace ; Gibson, Kevin ; Halpern, Jennifer J. ; Locke, Don C. ; Nekich, Jamie C. ; Straub, Paul ; Wilson, George ; Murnighan, J.Keith</creator><creatorcontrib>Parks, Judi McLean ; Boles, Terry L. ; Conlon, Donald E. ; DeSouza, Eros ; Gatewood, Wallace ; Gibson, Kevin ; Halpern, Jennifer J. ; Locke, Don C. ; Nekich, Jamie C. ; Straub, Paul ; Wilson, George ; Murnighan, J.Keith</creatorcontrib><description>Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investigates the social norms people use to distribute adventitious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or a friend), received either an unexpected gain or loss which was or was not easily divisible. Participants were then asked to continue the story by describing what they believed would happen after the adventitious event. We measured if and how the outcome was divided between the two individuals involved as well as subjects’ and an outside observer's perceptions of the fairness of these divisions and any expectations they had about the effect of the event on the quality of the relationship between the two. Results suggest that people endorse a “losers weepers” norm more often than they do a “finders keepers” or “share and share alike” (equality) norm, although all were endorsed. Egocentric distributions and expectations permeated the story continuations. Although participants frequently suggest that they would share gains, they also expected that their sacrifices (sharing their own gain or in another's loss) would help improve the future relationship between the two more than would similar sacrifices by the other (i.e., they were often egocentric martyrs). Friendship and the divisibility of the outcome also affected allocation rules and expectations for the future relationship. The discussion highlights the irony associated with the finding that when an adventitious gain is not shared with another, the future relationship between the two is expected to be less positive. Thus, adventitious outcomes (and gains in particular) can be a double-edged sword.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-5978</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9920</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0073</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OBDPFO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Allocation ; Behavior ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chance ; Cognition. Intelligence ; Decision making. Choice ; Distributive Justice ; Egocentrism ; Equality ; Friendship ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human relations ; Interpersonal Relations ; Money ; Norms ; Personal relationships ; Psychological aspects ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Social norms ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1996-08, Vol.67 (2), p.181-200</ispartof><rights>1996 Academic Press</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc. Aug 1996</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8123198fafb80d55ee4365aa34557f733ef0aae0704e4cd98bf54f3f45c981f13</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0073$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,4009,27929,27930,31004,33780,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3191168$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejobhdp/v_3a67_3ay_3a1996_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a181-200.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parks, Judi McLean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boles, Terry L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conlon, Donald E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeSouza, Eros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatewood, Wallace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibson, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Jennifer J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Locke, Don C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nekich, Jamie C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Straub, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murnighan, J.Keith</creatorcontrib><title>Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships</title><title>Organizational behavior and human decision processes</title><description>Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investigates the social norms people use to distribute adventitious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or a friend), received either an unexpected gain or loss which was or was not easily divisible. Participants were then asked to continue the story by describing what they believed would happen after the adventitious event. We measured if and how the outcome was divided between the two individuals involved as well as subjects’ and an outside observer's perceptions of the fairness of these divisions and any expectations they had about the effect of the event on the quality of the relationship between the two. Results suggest that people endorse a “losers weepers” norm more often than they do a “finders keepers” or “share and share alike” (equality) norm, although all were endorsed. Egocentric distributions and expectations permeated the story continuations. Although participants frequently suggest that they would share gains, they also expected that their sacrifices (sharing their own gain or in another's loss) would help improve the future relationship between the two more than would similar sacrifices by the other (i.e., they were often egocentric martyrs). Friendship and the divisibility of the outcome also affected allocation rules and expectations for the future relationship. The discussion highlights the irony associated with the finding that when an adventitious gain is not shared with another, the future relationship between the two is expected to be less positive. Thus, adventitious outcomes (and gains in particular) can be a double-edged sword.</description><subject>Allocation</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chance</subject><subject>Cognition. Intelligence</subject><subject>Decision making. Choice</subject><subject>Distributive Justice</subject><subject>Egocentrism</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Friendship</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human relations</subject><subject>Interpersonal Relations</subject><subject>Money</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Personal relationships</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Social norms</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0749-5978</issn><issn>1095-9920</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxSMEEkvhytlCiBPZjmM7iblVZQtU_ZD4OFteZ9z1KomD7ay0_z0OW_WAxGFsafSbpzdviuIthTUFqM_9dtetqZT1GqBhz4oVBSlKKSt4Xqyg4bIUsmlfFq9i3ANQWgOsiuGziym47Zzc-EAuugOOySXn50ju52T8gPET-eGN0z2582GIH8nmwZtMBWfIrQ7pGHJPjx1JOyQba9GkSPxIruY0ByTfsddZb4w7N8XXxQur-4hvHv-z4tfV5ufl1_Lm_su3y4ub0nAOqWxpxahsrbbbFjohEDmrhdaMC9HYhjG0oDVCAxy56WS7tYJbZrkwsqWWsrPiw0l3Cv73jDGpwUWDfa9HzKupmvKaSagz-O4fcO_nMGZvqqpYBVTUbYbWJ8gEH2NAq6bgBh2OioJaoldL9GqJXi3R54Hr00DACc0TjYj7hZzUQTFdN_k55vo7x7TLVeWallZLVQWgdmnIYu8fLepodG-DHo2LT6I5qHzKxWR7wjDnenAYVDQOR4OdC_kkqvPuf3b_AI7EsPE</recordid><startdate>19960801</startdate><enddate>19960801</enddate><creator>Parks, Judi McLean</creator><creator>Boles, Terry L.</creator><creator>Conlon, Donald E.</creator><creator>DeSouza, Eros</creator><creator>Gatewood, Wallace</creator><creator>Gibson, Kevin</creator><creator>Halpern, Jennifer J.</creator><creator>Locke, Don C.</creator><creator>Nekich, Jamie C.</creator><creator>Straub, Paul</creator><creator>Wilson, George</creator><creator>Murnighan, J.Keith</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960801</creationdate><title>Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships</title><author>Parks, Judi McLean ; Boles, Terry L. ; Conlon, Donald E. ; DeSouza, Eros ; Gatewood, Wallace ; Gibson, Kevin ; Halpern, Jennifer J. ; Locke, Don C. ; Nekich, Jamie C. ; Straub, Paul ; Wilson, George ; Murnighan, J.Keith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8123198fafb80d55ee4365aa34557f733ef0aae0704e4cd98bf54f3f45c981f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Allocation</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chance</topic><topic>Cognition. Intelligence</topic><topic>Decision making. Choice</topic><topic>Distributive Justice</topic><topic>Egocentrism</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Friendship</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human relations</topic><topic>Interpersonal Relations</topic><topic>Money</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Personal relationships</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Social norms</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parks, Judi McLean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boles, Terry L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conlon, Donald E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeSouza, Eros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gatewood, Wallace</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibson, Kevin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halpern, Jennifer J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Locke, Don C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nekich, Jamie C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Straub, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, George</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murnighan, J.Keith</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Organizational behavior and human decision processes</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parks, Judi McLean</au><au>Boles, Terry L.</au><au>Conlon, Donald E.</au><au>DeSouza, Eros</au><au>Gatewood, Wallace</au><au>Gibson, Kevin</au><au>Halpern, Jennifer J.</au><au>Locke, Don C.</au><au>Nekich, Jamie C.</au><au>Straub, Paul</au><au>Wilson, George</au><au>Murnighan, J.Keith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships</atitle><jtitle>Organizational behavior and human decision processes</jtitle><date>1996-08-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>200</epage><pages>181-200</pages><issn>0749-5978</issn><eissn>1095-9920</eissn><coden>OBDPFO</coden><abstract>Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investigates the social norms people use to distribute adventitious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or a friend), received either an unexpected gain or loss which was or was not easily divisible. Participants were then asked to continue the story by describing what they believed would happen after the adventitious event. We measured if and how the outcome was divided between the two individuals involved as well as subjects’ and an outside observer's perceptions of the fairness of these divisions and any expectations they had about the effect of the event on the quality of the relationship between the two. Results suggest that people endorse a “losers weepers” norm more often than they do a “finders keepers” or “share and share alike” (equality) norm, although all were endorsed. Egocentric distributions and expectations permeated the story continuations. Although participants frequently suggest that they would share gains, they also expected that their sacrifices (sharing their own gain or in another's loss) would help improve the future relationship between the two more than would similar sacrifices by the other (i.e., they were often egocentric martyrs). Friendship and the divisibility of the outcome also affected allocation rules and expectations for the future relationship. The discussion highlights the irony associated with the finding that when an adventitious gain is not shared with another, the future relationship between the two is expected to be less positive. Thus, adventitious outcomes (and gains in particular) can be a double-edged sword.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1006/obhd.1996.0073</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0749-5978 |
ispartof | Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1996-08, Vol.67 (2), p.181-200 |
issn | 0749-5978 1095-9920 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61463906 |
source | RePEc; Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Allocation Behavior Biological and medical sciences Chance Cognition. Intelligence Decision making. Choice Distributive Justice Egocentrism Equality Friendship Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human relations Interpersonal Relations Money Norms Personal relationships Psychological aspects Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Social norms Studies |
title | Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T02%3A38%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Distributing%20Adventitious%20Outcomes:%20Social%20Norms,%20Egocentric%20Martyrs,%20and%20the%20Effects%20on%20Future%20Relationships&rft.jtitle=Organizational%20behavior%20and%20human%20decision%20processes&rft.au=Parks,%20Judi%20McLean&rft.date=1996-08-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=200&rft.pages=181-200&rft.issn=0749-5978&rft.eissn=1095-9920&rft.coden=OBDPFO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/obhd.1996.0073&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E10210335%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223201568&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0749597896900734&rfr_iscdi=true |