Journals / Türk Psikoloji Yazıları / 2019 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 44

The Effect of Effort/Ability Based Contributions and In-group Membership on the Perceived Fairness of Positive and Negative Outcomes

Ödül ve Bedel Bölüşümüne İlişkin Haklılık Algılarında Katkı Türü ve İç-Grup Üyeliğinin Etkisi

Pages
80–90
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The equal distribution is judged to be fairer by the participants when the contribution type is ability rather than effort; when the outcome is cost rather than reward; and when the person who contributed more is out-group member rather than in-group member.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study was designed to examine the effect of effort/ability based contributions and in-group membership on the perceived fairness of positive and negative outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Participants (160 university students) were asked to allocate reward in positive condition and cost in negative condition among co-workers in the vignette.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The equal distribution is judged to be fairer by the participants when the contribution type is ability rather than effort; when the outcome is cost rather than reward; and when the person who contributed more is out-group member rather than in-group member.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine the effect of effort/ability based contributions and in-group membership on the perceived fairness of positive and negative outcomes. Participants read a vignette about two target persons (one of them being an in-group member and the other an out-group member) working on a joint project. These co-workers’ inputs were manipulated in such a way that one of them contributed more with either a higher ability or more effort to the accomplishment of the project. Their outputs were also manipulated to have either positive (reward) or negative (cost) outcomes. Participants (160 university students) were asked to allocate reward in positive condition and cost in negative condition among co-workers in the vignette. Then, they were asked to rate the degree of fairness of the distribution of equal outcomes. The results revealed that when the contribution type is effort, participants allocated both the rewards and the costs according to equity norm. When the contribution type is ability, participants allocated costs equally. However, when the target person who contributed more with a higher ability is in-group member, the reward is distributed proportionally; while the person is out-group member, the reward is equally distributed. The equal distribution is judged to be fairer by the participants when the contribution type is ability rather than effort; when the outcome is cost rather than reward; and when the person who contributed more is out-group member rather than in-group member.

Özet

Bu araştırma ödül ve bedel bölüşümüne ilişkin haklılık algılarında katkı türü ve iç-grup üyeliğinin etkisini incelemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak yetenek/çaba, ödül/bedel, iç-grup/dış-grup değişkenlerinin değişimlenmeleriyle oluşturulan deneysel koşulları temsil eden sekiz öykü kullanılmıştır. Öykülerde, yarışmaya katılmak üzere ortak proje yürüten iki kişiden biri iç-grup, diğeri dış-grup üyesi olup, yeteneği ya da çabasıyla sonuca daha az ya da daha fazla katkıda bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada üniversite öğrencisi 160 katılımcıya, başarı koşulunda ödülü, başarısızlık koşulunda bedeli nasıl paylaştıracakları sorulmuştur. Ayrıca kendilerine sunulan eşit derecede ödül ya da bedel paylaştırma önerisini ne ölçüde adil bulduklarını değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, çaba söz konusu olduğunda ödül ve bedelin iç-grup dış-grup ayrımı yapılmadan katkıya göre dağıtıldığını göstermiştir. Yetenek söz konusu olduğunda ise bedelin her iki gruba da eşit dağıtıldığı gözlenmiştir. Ancak katılımcılar, daha çok yetenekli olan iç-grup üyesi olduğunda ödülün katkıya göre, dış-grup üyesi olduğunda ise eşit dağıtılmasını tercih etmişlerdir. Katılımcılar, eşit pay dağıtımını, bedelin söz konusu olduğu durumda ödüle; yetenek söz konusu olduğunda çabaya; daha çok katkı gösteren dış-grup üyesi olduğunda iç-grup üyesine kıyasla daha adil algılamışlardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BATUR, S. C. (2019). The Effect of Effort/Ability Based Contributions and In-group Membership on the Perceived Fairness of Positive and Negative Outcomes. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 44, 80–90. https://ajindex.com/articles/125207

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Aberson, C. L., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 157173. Adams, J. S. (1965).
  2. Inequity in social exchange, Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (267-299). New York: Academic Press Akgün, S. (2004). Bölüşümsel Adalet Normlarının Çevresel Belirleyicileri: İlişki Türü ve Sorumluluk Yükleme. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19, 1-18.
  3. Aydın, O. (1991). Başarı ve başarısızlıkların nedenlerine ilişkin açıklamaların duygusal sonuçları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8, 83-99.
  4. Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group baises in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
  5. Brickman, P., Folger, R., Goode, E., & Schul, Y. (1981).
  6. Microjustice and macrojustice, Lerner, M. J. & Lerner, S. C. (eds.) The Justice Behavior in Social Behavior içinde (173-202). New York: Plenum Press.
  7. Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. L. (1979). It’s best to be able and virtious too: Student and teacher evaluative responses to sucessful effort. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 688-700.
  8. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equality, equity and need: What determines which value will be used as a basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 37-149.
  9. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A socialpsychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  10. Elster, J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 99–117.
  11. Furby, L. (1986).
  12. Psychology and justice, Cohen, R. L. (ed.) Justice: Views from the Social Sciences içinde (153-203). New York: Plenum Press.
  13. Goodwin, B. (1992). Justice by lottery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Homans, G. (1961). Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kayser, E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Input integration and input weighting in decision on allocations of gain and losses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 275-278.
  15. Lamm, H., & Kayser, E. (1978). The allocation of monetary gain and loss following dyadic performance: The weight given to effort and ability under conditions of low and high intra-dyadic attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 275-278.
  16. Lamm, H., Kayser, E., & Schanz, V. ( 1983). An attributional analysis of interpersonal justice: Ability and effort as inputs in the allocation of gain and loss. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 269-281
  17. Lamm, H. & Schwinger, T. (19