No abstract

No abstract

The effect of the normatively based plaintiff bias (favoritism toward an individual suing a corporation) on decision making was assessed for six-person mock juries that made decisions, or merely discussed the case, or for individual jurors. Decision makers also received information in either tables or graphs but there was no effect of this manipulation. It was predicted that groups would award more money than individual decision makers, and that the effect of the plaintiff bias on individual opinions would be strongest when groups discussed but did not decide. Group decisions were higher than individual decisions, and examination of the amount and perception of consensus achieved in groups indicated that the bias affected opinions when groups discussed, but not when groups decided. These results demonstrate the effects of the norm on intermember social influence and opinion change absent similar effects arising from the process of group decision making. The results are integrated with existing research on related issues.

International audienceThe present study examines the congruence of individuals’ minimum preferred amounts of voice with the prospect theory value functionacross nine countries. Accounting for previously ignored minimum preferred amounts of voice and actual voice amounts integral to testingthe steepness of gain and loss functions explicated in prospect theory, we use curve fitting to show that ratings of procedural justice fit prospecttheory’s value function specifically. Further, we investigate the form of this function across nine countries that range in power distance. Resultssuggest that the form of the value function is congruent with prospect theory, showing an S-shaped curve that is steeper in the loss than in thegain domain. Further, this pattern is similar across countries. Theoretical and practical implications of these results for both decision makingand organizational justice are discussed

No abstract