Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90010-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that egocentric interpretations of fairness are an important cause of unnecessary and costly settlement delays in bargaining. Subjects engaged in an interactive, dynamic bargaining task in which their objective was to reach an agreement with an opponent. If negotiators failed to settle, a strike ensued which was costly for both parties. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that negotiators' judgments of fair outcomes were biased in an egocentric direction. Further, the magnitude of the parties' biases strongly predicted the length of strikes. Experiment 2 examined the role of situational complexity as a cause of egocentric interpretations of fairness. Two forms of complexity were examined: complexity created by background information concerning the dispute and complexity associated with asymmetries in negotiators' strike costs. Background information concerning the dispute and asymmetric costs exacerbated egocentric interpretations of fairness. Egocentric interpretations of fairness were greatest when measured before negotiation and were mitigated following bargaining. Negotiators showed biased recall of information concerning the dispute, remembering more information that favored their own position. The magnitude of bias was positively related to egocentric interpretations of fairness. We conclude that egocentric interpretations of fairness hinder conflict resolution because people are reluctant to agree to what they perceive to be an inequitable settlement.

References (39)

  • C Cohen

    Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge

    Journal of Personality & Social Psychology

    (1981)
  • K.S Cook et al.

    Social determinants of equity judgments: the problem of multidimensional input

  • K Hammond et al.

    Social judgment theory

  • A.H Hastorf et al.

    They saw a game: A case study

    Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

    (1954)
  • F Heider
  • G Homans
  • S Issacharoff et al.

    Second thoughts about summary judgment

    Yale Law Review

    (1990)
  • G Loewenstein et al.

    Decision making in interpersonal contexts

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1989)
  • D Messick et al.

    Fairness, preference, and fairness biases

  • Cited by (353)

    • post-MORDM: Mapping policies to synthesize optimization and robustness results for decision-maker compromise

      2022, Environmental Modelling and Software
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, studies suggest that fewer than three to a maximum of nine alternatives be ideally examined at one time (Miller, 1956; Brill et al., 1982; LeCompte, 1999; Saaty and Ozdemir, 2003). Moreover, in the context of negotiation between DMs, large quantities of information can have negative consequences by increasing egocentric interpretations of what constitutes a fair resolution, thus increasing the time needed to identify a compromise policy (Thompson and Loewenstein, 1992; Tsay and Bazerman, 2009). These studies highlight the cognitive burden DMs face when selecting policies from large, many-dimensional policy sets.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The research reported in this article was supported by a grant to the first author from the Graduate School Research Fund at the University of Washington and a grant to the second author from the Russell Sage Foundation and Alfred P. Sloan foundation.

    View full text