IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v147y2018icp16-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From “me” to “we”: The role of construal level in promoting maximized joint outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Stillman, Paul E.
  • Fujita, Kentaro
  • Sheldon, Oliver
  • Trope, Yaacov

Abstract

To minimize waste and inefficiencies, research has sought to understand under what circumstances decision-makers tasked with allocating outcomes to self and others maximize joint outcomes – making decisions that provide the greatest net gain across all vested stakeholders, irrespective of beneficiary. We explore construal level as a critical cognitive mechanism. We hypothesize that high-level construal – a representational process that expands mental scope by broadening attention to global, gestalt wholes – relative to low-level construal – a representational process that contracts mental scope by narrowing attention to local, idiosyncratic elements – should facilitate sensitivity to the welfare of the collective unit relative to specific individuals. Four experiments demonstrate that high-level relative to low-level construal promotes decisions that maximize joint outcomes, irrespective of beneficiary. These findings contribute to a growing literature examining factors that influence consideration of joint outcomes by highlighting construal level as a key cognitive antecedent, with theoretical and practical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Stillman, Paul E. & Fujita, Kentaro & Sheldon, Oliver & Trope, Yaacov, 2018. "From “me” to “we”: The role of construal level in promoting maximized joint outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 16-25.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:16-25
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597815303022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.004?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. Okhuysen, Gerardo A. & Galinsky, Adam D. & Uptigrove, Tamara A., 2003. "Saving the worst for last: The effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 269-279, July.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. Boyd, Harper Jr. & El Sherbini, Abdel Aziz & Sherif, Ahmed Fouad, 1961. "Egypt's need for marketing management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 77-84.
    4. Rogers, Todd & Bazerman, Max H., 2008. "Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of 'should' choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Hyojin Lee & Xiaoyan Deng & H. Rao Unnava & Kentaro Fujita, 2014. "Monochrome Forests and Colorful Trees: The Effect of Black-and-White versus Color Imagery on Construal Level," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 1015-1032.
    6. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    7. Hyojin Lee & Xiaoyan Deng & H. Rao Unnava & Kentaro Fujita, 2014. "Monochrome Forests and Colorful Trees: The Effect of Black-and-White versus Color Imagery on Construal Level," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 1015-1032.
    8. Joan Meyers-Levy & Rui (Juliet) Zhu, 2007. "The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming on the Type of Processing That People Use," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 174-186, June.
    9. Yanping Tu & Alex Shaw & Ayelet Fishbach, 2016. "The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 669-687.
    10. Kivetz, Yifat & Tyler, Tom R., 2007. "Tomorrow I'll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 193-211, March.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:236-249 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. Kulow, Katina & Kwon, Mina & Barone, Michael J., 2021. "Does seeing bad make you do good? How witnessing retail transgressions influence responses to cause marketing offers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 680-692.

    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. Wang, Lili & You, Yanfen & Yang, Chun-Ming, 2020. "Restrained by resources: The effect of scarcity cues and childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on consumer preference for feasibility," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 557-571.
    2. Kelting, Katie & Berry, Christopher & van Horen, Femke, 2019. "The presence of copycat private labels in a product set increases consumers' choice ease when shopping with an abstract mindset," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 264-274.
    3. Kevin L. Sample & Henrik Hagtvedt & S. Adam Brasel, 2020. "Components of visual perception in marketing contexts: a conceptual framework and review," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 405-421, May.
    4. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    5. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    6. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    7. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    8. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    9. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    10. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    11. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    12. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    13. Rocco Caferra & Andrea Morone & Piergiuseppe Morone & Paolo Storelli, 2022. "Professional traders’ individual and social preferences under risk: Does group's wealth matter?," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(4), pages 1063-1082, December.
    14. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    15. Avram, Silvia, 2020. "Zero-hours contracts: flexibility or insecurity? Experimental evidence from a low income population," ISER Working Paper Series 2020-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    16. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    17. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    18. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.
    19. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    20. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.

    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:147:y:2018:i:c:p:16-25. 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.