IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v126y2015icp27-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing effects in justice perceptions: Prospect theory and counterfactuals

Author

Listed:
  • Ganegoda, Deshani B.
  • Folger, Robert

Abstract

The majority of organizational justice research is underscored by the assumption that individuals form justice perceptions based on deliberate processing of information, using various justice judgment criteria. Taking an alternative view, this research examined how individuals form fairness perceptions in less deliberate ways—in particular, based on the way in which a decision outcome is framed. Drawing on prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), we argued that decision outcomes that are framed in line with prospect theory’s predictions would attenuate counterfactual processing because those outcomes are consistent with individuals’ biased preferences. Drawing on fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001), we argued that lower levels of counterfactual thinking increases the tendency for a decision to seem fair; therefore, framing a decision in a way that is consistent with a pre-existing bias could increase the extent to which it is perceived as fair. We found support for our hypotheses in two experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Folger, Robert, 2015. "Framing effects in justice perceptions: Prospect theory and counterfactuals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 27-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:126:y:2015:i:c:p:27-36
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597814000788
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    4. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    5. Nicklin, Jessica M. & Greenbaum, Rebecca & McNall, Laurel A. & Folger, Robert & Williams, Kevin J., 2011. "The importance of contextual variables when judging fairness: An examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 127-141, March.
    6. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    7. Dalal, Reeshad S. & Bonaccio, Silvia & Highhouse, Scott & Ilgen, Daniel R. & Mohammed, Susan & Slaughter, Jerel E., 2010. "What If Industrial–Organizational Psychology Decided to Take Workplace Decisions Seriously?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(4), pages 386-405, December.
    8. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    9. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2005. "Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 311-339, November.
    10. Brockner, Joel & Wiesenfeld, Batia M. & Martin, Christopher L., 1995. "Decision Frame, Procedural Justice, and Survivors' Reactions to Job Layoffs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 59-68, July.
    11. Kray, Laura J. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2003. "The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 69-81, May.
    12. Li, Andrew & Evans, Joel & Christian, Michael S. & Gilliland, Stephen W. & Kausel, Edgar E. & Stein, Jordan H., 2011. "The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 268-282, July.
    13. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:11-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jianqi Qiao & Suicheng Li & Antonio Capaldo, 2022. "Green supply chain management, supplier environmental commitment, and the roles of supplier perceived relationship attractiveness and justice. A moderated moderation analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 3523-3541, November.
    2. Cadsby, C. Bram & Song, Fei & Zubanov, Nick, 2024. "Working more for more and working more for less: Labor supply in the gain and loss domains," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Alison M. Konrad & Orlando C. Richard & Yang Yang, 2021. "Both Diversity and Meritocracy: Managing the Diversity‐Meritocracy Paradox with Organizational Ambidexterity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(8), pages 2180-2206, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rahman, Arifur & Crouch, Geoffrey I. & Laing, Jennifer H., 2018. "Tourists' temporal booking decisions: A study of the effect of contextual framing," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 55-68.
    2. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    5. Vassilis A. Efthymiou & George N. Leledakis, 2014. "The price impact of the disposition effect on the ex-dividend day of NYSE and AMEX common stocks," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 711-724, April.
    6. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    7. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    8. Baars, Maren & Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2021. "An alternative behavioral explanation for the MAX effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 868-886.
    9. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    10. Malcolm Baker & Xin Pan & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2009. "A Reference Point Theory of Mergers and Acquisitions," NBER Working Papers 15551, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    12. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    13. Gutiérrez-Nieto, Begoña & Ortiz, Cristina & Vicente, Luis, 2023. "A bibliometric analysis of the disposition effect: Origins and future research avenues," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    14. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    15. Ebert, Sebastian & Hilpert, Christian, 2019. "Skewness preference and the popularity of technical analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Kliger, Doron & Kudryavtsev, Andrey, 2008. "Reference point formation by market investors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1782-1794, September.
    17. Mousumi Singha Mahapatra & Jayasree Raveendran & Anupam De, 2019. "Building a Model on Influence of Behavioural and Cognitive Factors on Personal Financial Planning: A Study Among Indian Households," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 20(4), pages 996-1009, August.
    18. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    19. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    20. Wenner, Lukas M., 2015. "Expected prices as reference points—Theory and experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 60-79.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:126:y:2015:i:c:p:27-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.