Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict☆
References (39)
- et al.
Negotiator cognitions: A descriptive approach to negotiators' understanding of their opponents
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1988) - et al.
Fairness and preference
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1979) - et al.
Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1982) - et al.
Social perception in negotiation
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1990) - et al.
Two-person bargaining behavior in fixed discounting factors games with infinite horizon
Games and Economic Behavior
(1990) Toward an understanding of inequity
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
(1963)Inequity in social exchange
- et al.
Negotiator cognition
- et al.
Improving negotiation effectiveness under final offer arbitration: The role of selection and training
Journal of Applied Psychology
(1982) - et al.
Heuristics in negotiation: Limitations to effective dispute resolution
Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
Social determinants of equity judgments: the problem of multidimensional input
Social judgment theory
They saw a game: A case study
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
Second thoughts about summary judgment
Yale Law Review
Decision making in interpersonal contexts
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
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 SoftwareCitation 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.
Spontaneous anchors bias consumers’ divisions, judgments, and behavior
2022, Journal of Economic PsychologyDo Good Intentions Pay Off? Employee Responses to Well-Intended Actions with Risky Outcomes
2024, European Accounting ReviewBiases in legal decision-making: Comparing prosecutors, defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons
2023, Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesA scoping review on the impact of algorithm bias on the perceived fairness
2023, Research Square
- ☆
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.