Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining

Loewenstein, George; Issacharoff, Samuel; Camerer, Colin F.; Babcock, Linda

doi:10.1086/468160

Cited by 264 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, unlike earlier research (e.g., Kruger, 1999;Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer, & Babcock, 1993), we tested this assumption such that no extensive description of personal relevance was necessary. Thereby, we introduced a very subtle manipulation of personal relevance to the literature that may be conducive when conducting future research on this important subject.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences

Ham

Bos

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we argue that the personal relevance of a situation primarily influences spontaneous inferences about social justice, and not necessarily affects explicit justice judgments. To test this hypothesis, two studies manipulated personal relevance and assessed justice inferences and judgments: Participants read descriptions of fair or unfair events happening to stimulus persons referred to with first-person versus third-person pronouns (Experiment 1) or as ''a friend'' versus ''a stranger'' (Experiment 2). We then measured spontaneous justice inferences (using the probe recognition paradigm) and explicit justice judgments (using rating scales). As predicted, both studies showed stronger spontaneous justice inferences for high personal relevance descriptions, of unjust events specifically, whereas explicit justice judgments were not significantly influenced by our personal relevance manipulations. These findings suggest that especially the spontaneous component of the justice judgment process is sensitive to personal relevance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences

Ham

Bos

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Thompson and Loewenstein (1992) found that negotiators had self-serving conceptions of fairness and that such biases were related to the length of strikes during simulated negotiations. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that self-serving biases are evident among professional negotiators and that such biases are related to impasses (Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer, & Babcock, 1993), length of strikes (Babcock, Wang, & Loewenstein, 1996), and reduced problem-solving and feelings of frustration (de Dreu, Nauta, & Van de Vliert, 1995). In summarizing this literature, Babcock and Loewenstein (1997) concluded that negotiators' tendencies to equate what is fair with what benefits themselves impedes negotiations by reducing the potential zone of agreement, by creating cynical perceptions of the other party, and by inflating perceptions of the minimum settlement point that is seen as fair.…”

Section: Self-serving Biases In Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation.

Gelfand¹,

Higgins²,

Nishii³

et al. 2002

Journal of Applied Psychology

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors advanced a cultural view of judgment biases in conflict and negotiation. The authors predicted that disputants' self-serving biases of fairness would be more prevalent in individualistic cultures, such as the United States, in which the self is served by focusing on one's positive attributes to "stand out" and be better than others, yet would be attenuated in collectivistic cultures, such as Japan, where the self is served by focusing on one's negative characteristics to "blend in" (S. J. Heine, D. R. Lehman, H. R. Markus, & S. Kitayama, 1999). Four studies that used different methodologies (free recall, scenarios, and a laboratory experiment) supported this notion. Implications for the science and practice of negotiation are discussed. University of Maryland Fumio Murakami and Susumu Yamaguchi University of Tokyo Midori Toyama Osaka UniversityCulture and Egocentric Perceptions of Fairness in Conflict and Negotiation 2 AbstractIn this article, the authors advanced a cultural view of judgment biases in conflict and negotiation. The

show abstract

“…Loewenstein et al (1993) created a highly realistic settlement scenario. They provided subjects (all students) with 27 pages of testimony from an actual accident case.…”

Section: Loewenstein and Babcockmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Law and Economics

Arlen¹,

Talley²

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews experimental economics research relevant to law and economics. The introduction includes a brief discussion of experimental methodology and a survey of the categories of economics experiments relevant to law and economics, with citations to other reviews and compilations. The bulk of the chapter reviews two series of economics experiments designed to test theoretical claims of law and economics: those relating to the Coase theorem and those relating to pre-trial bargaining and settlement. JEL classification: C90, C91, C92

show abstract

Self-Serving Assessments of Fairness and Pretrial Bargaining

Cited by 264 publications

References 0 publications

Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences

Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences

Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation.

Experimental Law and Economics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About