IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Stability and Presentation Order of Rewards on Justice Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Hyomin Park
  • David Melamed

Abstract

Justice research has evolved by elucidating the factors that affect justice evaluations, as well as their consequences. Unfortunately, few researchers have paid attention to the pattern of rewards over time as a predictor of justice evaluations. There are two main objectives of this research. First, it aims to test the effect of reward stability on justice evaluations. Based on justice theory and prospect theory, we assume that an under-reward at one time cannot be fully offset by an equivalent over-reward at another time. Therefore, in unstable reward systems the asymmetry of the effect of unjust rewards with opposite directions will produce a lower level of justice evaluations over time. The second objective of this research is to show the moderating effect of the presentation order (primacy vs. recency) of unstable rewards on justice evaluations. The results from a controlled experiment with five conditions, which presents the instability of rewards in different orders, confirm both the negative effect of unstable rewards and the stronger effect of primacy on justice evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyomin Park & David Melamed, 2016. "The Effects of Stability and Presentation Order of Rewards on Justice Evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168956
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168956
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168956&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168956?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    2. E.Laine Paddock, & Jaewon Ko & Russell Cropanzano, & Jessica Bagger, & Assâad El Akremi & Julie Camerman, & Gary. J Greguras & Antonio Mladinic & Kidok Nam, & Kjell Tornblom & Kees van den Bos & Carol, 2015. "Voice and Culture: A Prospect Theory Approach," Post-Print halshs-01263130, HAL.
    3. 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..
    4. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    5. Lind, E. Allan & Kray, Laura & Thompson, Leigh, 2001. "Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 189-210, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. El Mouden, Claire, 2013. "The Sciences Of Risk: Implications For Regulation Of The Financial Sector," INET Oxford Working Papers 2013-01, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    2. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    3. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Cropanzano, Russell & Paddock, Layne & Rupp, Deborah E. & Bagger, Jessica & Baldwin, Amanda, 2008. "How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-51, January.
    7. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Davood Bayat & Hadi Mohamadpour & Huihua Fang & Pengfei Xu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "The Impact of Order Effects on the Framing of Trust and Reciprocity Behaviors," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Brosnan, Sarah F., 2011. "An evolutionary perspective on morality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 23-30, January.
    10. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    11. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2022. "The link between corporate sustainability and willingness to invest: new evidence from the field of ethical investments," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 335-369, September.
    12. Giacoletti, Marco & Parsons, Christopher A., 2022. "Peak-Bust rental spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 504-526.
    13. van Winden Frans A.A.M. & Ash Elliott, 2012. "On the Behavioral Economics of Crime," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 181-213, June.
    14. Nichola Raihani & David Aitken, 2011. "Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 47-55, September.
    15. Anya Savikhin Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2014. "Recognizing contributors: an experiment on public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 673-690, December.
    16. Cárdenas, Juan-Camilo & Gómez, Santiago & Mantilla, César, 2019. "Between-group competition enhances cooperation in resource appropriation games," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 17-26.
    17. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    18. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    19. Luhe Yang & Duoxing Yang & Lianzhong Zhang, 2022. "The Effect of Bounded Rationality on Human Cooperation with Voluntary Participation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, May.
    20. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2020. "Urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights: A commentary and research agenda," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(9), pages 1994-2007, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0168956. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.