Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality

The rhetorical complexity of competitive and common victimhood in conversational discourse

Much current research on collective victimhood acknowledges the role of rhetoric but does not fully address the implications for micro-level variation in personal expressions of victimhood. The focus has tended to be on individual differences in collective victimhood construals where people may either see their group as the sole possessor of victim-status or may incorporate other groups into an inclusive category. While recent research sees a strategic element in some “inclusivity”, we argue that all claims of victimhood are strategic. By using a discursive approach, we show variability in the expression of victimhood and how this accomplishes different activities in conversations. Several focus groups consisting of victims from Northern Ireland were analysed to identify presentations of victimhood and their relation to the unfolding dynamics of the conversation. We demonstrate that presentation of victimhood is an interactional concern, link this to the concept of “needs” and suggest implications this might have

How many pennies for your pain? Willingness to compensate as a function of expected future interaction and intentionality feedback

Despite increased research efforts in the area of reconciliation and trust repair in economic relations, most studies depart from a victim’s perspective. Specifically, these studies evaluate the process of trust repair by looking at the impact of restoration tactics on victims’ reactions. We focused on the transgressor’s perspective and present findings from two studies that investigated how the amount of compensation that a transgressor is willing to pay depends on victims’ reactions to the transgression (i.e. whether they claim the transgression happened intentionally or unintentionally) and the time horizon of the relationship between the transgressor and the victim (future vs. no future interaction). We hypothesized and found that transgressors are willing to pay less compensation to a victim who believes the transgression happened intentionally (as opposed to unintentionally), but only so when they share no future interaction perspective together. When transgressors have a future interaction perspective with the victim, intentionality feedback does not affect compensation size

Pay Communication, Justice and Affect: The Asymmetric Effects of Process and Outcome Pay Transparency on Counterproductive Workplace Behavior

We examined the role of employee justice perceptions in explaining the distinct effects of two forms of pay transparency– process versus outcome pay transparency– on counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). Study 1, a field study of 321 employees, revealed that process pay transparency is inversely related to CWB-O, with this effect mediated by greater procedural justice perceptions. In contrast, among employees perceiving their pay position as being lower than that of referent others, outcome pay transparency is positively associated with both CWB-O and CWB-I, with this effect mediated by reduced distributive justice perceptions. Study 2, using an online simulation-based experiment conducted on 394 employees and assessing actual deception behaviors, replicated and extended these findings. Specifically, when pay allocations were transparent (vs. secretive) and participant's pay was manipulated to be lower than that of teammates, participants reported lower distributive justice perceptions leading to heightened deception behaviors, with this effect mediated by a more negative emotional state. Analyses were done using MPlus 8.4. Files (.dat , and .inp , files are attached) for both CFA (Study 1) and path analyses (Studies 1 and 2). *-alt* files were used for testing alternative models reported in the papaer. R file and .csv file (Study 1) were used to compute alpha and omega values for ordinal indicators. Finally, *-omega* files (Study 2) were used to compute omegas in Study 2.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Data for: When Negotiators with Honest Reputations are Less (and More) Likely to be Deceived

The current research examines negotiators’ deception behaviors towards unfamiliar counterparts with varying creditable reputations– specifically, proficient, friendly, and honest reputations. We primarily differentiate between the honest and friendly reputations, which are both seemingly cooperative, and often tangled in the negotiation literature.We generally hypothesized that Negotiators would deceive counterparts with honest reputations less than those with friendly (or proficient) reputations and that the attenuated deception towards counterparts with honest versus friendly (or proficient) reputations would disappear (or even backfire) in the face of in-congruency – that is, in face of counterparts' deceptive conduct. We also gained further insight into the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions.Data was extracted from "Qualtrics". It includes raw data from our negotiation sessions (reported in Studies 1 to 4) including three preliminary studies (A, B, and C). Please note that in Studies 2 and 4, we also had a prior phase - reported in the manuscript as phase 1, which measured various individual differences, including participants' dispositional lying tendencies. Study 2 and Study 4's data files contain the main session variables (Phase 2) plus the individual differences measures collected in Phase 1 (for the same participant).The actual chat sessions (conducted via "chatplat" in Study 4) are also attached in a txt file extracted from "chatplat" platform, and are in Hebrew.SPSS data files are attached (for each Study). We added a label for each variable for further clarifications. We also attached SPSS syntax files. These files include comments demonstrating the exact filter condition (Data-> Select Cases) used before any analyses were conducted. We further report the specific SPSS analyses conducted and reported in the manuscript.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Agents of Prosociality: Agency Affirmation Promotes Mutual Prosocial Tendencies and Behavior Among Conflicting Groups

Members of conflicting groups are motivated to restore their ingroup's agency, leading to antisocial tendencies against the outgroup. The present research tested the hypothesis that affirming conflicting groups' agency would increase their members' mutual prosociality. The effectiveness of agency affirmation was demonstrated in three contexts of conflict between groups: Switzerland and the EU following the 2014 referendum (Study 1), Israelis and Palestinians (Study 2), and Israeli rightists and leftists (Study 3). Study 1 found that in a nonconflictual context Swiss participants prioritized their moral (prosocial) over agentic goals, yet in the context of conflict with the EU, they prioritized their agentic over moral goals. This “primacy-of-agency” effect, however, was eliminated once their ingroup's agency was affirmed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the positive effect of agency affirmation on prosociality among Israelis referring to Palestinians and Israeli rightists and leftists referring to the adversarial political camp. This effect was mediated by group members' readiness to relinquish some power for the sake of morality. Pointing to the importance of the affirmation's specific content, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that morality affirmation failed to increase prosociality. As such, the present research puts forward a promising strategy to reduce hostility and promote prosociality between conflicting groups

Agents of Prosociality: Agency Affirmation Promotes Mutual Prosocial Tendencies and Behavior Among Conflicting Groups

Members of conflicting groups are motivated to restore their ingroup's agency, leading to antisocial tendencies against the outgroup. The present research tested the hypothesis that affirming conflicting groups' agency would increase their members' mutual prosociality. The effectiveness of agency affirmation was demonstrated in three contexts of conflict between groups: Switzerland and the EU following the 2014 referendum (Study 1), Israelis and Palestinians (Study 2), and Israeli rightists and leftists (Study 3). Study 1 found that in a nonconflictual context Swiss participants prioritized their moral (prosocial) over agentic goals, yet in the context of conflict with the EU, they prioritized their agentic over moral goals. This “primacy-of-agency” effect, however, was eliminated once their ingroup's agency was affirmed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the positive effect of agency affirmation on prosociality among Israelis referring to Palestinians and Israeli rightists and leftists referring to the adversarial political camp. This effect was mediated by group members' readiness to relinquish some power for the sake of morality. Pointing to the importance of the affirmation's specific content, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that morality affirmation failed to increase prosociality. As such, the present research puts forward a promising strategy to reduce hostility and promote prosociality between conflicting groups

Autonomy- , Dependency- oriented Help and Leadership Support

Taking a follower’s perspective on leadership and contributing to the new research stream on behaviors conducive to its emergence, we examined how distinct types of instrumental (task-focused) helping—autonomy- versus dependency-helping—affected recipients’ support for their helpers’ leadershi

Individual Differences in System Justification Predict Power and Morality-Related Needs in Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups in Response to Group Disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N=819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality

Individual Differences in System Justification Predict Power and Morality-Related Needs in Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups in Response to Group Disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N=819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality