Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 135–148 | Cite as

The effects of relationships and justification in an interdependent allocation task

  • Jeffrey T. Polzer
  • Margaret A. Neale
  • Patrick O. Glenn
Article

Abstract

Two factors, the type of relationship between the involved parties and the justification of the decision maker for being in his or her position, are predicted to influence resource allocation decisions. These predictions are based on a synthesis of several forces, including self-interest, a politeness norm, and a norm of reciprocity, that we argue underlie the selection of allocation norms that guide interdependent resource allocation decisions. An ultimatum bargaining game, in which player 1 divides a resource ($10) and player 2 decides to either reject or accept this division, is employed in a laboratory study to test the hypotheses. For subjects in the player 1 position, subjects with friends as player 2 or those assigned to their position randomly allocated lower amounts of money to themselves than did subjects with strangers as player 2 or those who earned their position. Friends in the player 2 position demanded significantly less to reach an agreement than strangers. These and other results are discussed in terms of the various allocation norms, particularly equity and equality, that appeared to influence subjects' decisions.

Key words

equality equity fairness justification relationships resource allocation decisions ultimatum bargaining game 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. (1965). “Inequity in Social Exchange.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alchian, A., and H. Demsetz. (1972). “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization”.American Economic Review 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, W. (1980). “Friendship and Fairness: Effects of Type of Relationship and Task Performance on Choice of Distribution Rules.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6, 402–408.Google Scholar
  4. Bagarozzi, D. (1982). “The Effects of Cohesiveness on Distributive Justice”.Journal of Psychology 110, 267–273.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, M., and J. Mills. (1979). “Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and Communal Relationships.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 12–24.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, M.S., J.R. Mills, and D.M. Corcoran. (1989). “Keeping Track of Needs and Inputs of Friends and Strangers.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15, 533–542.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, K., and K. Hegtvedt. (1983). “Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality.”Annual Review of Sociology 9, 217–241.Google Scholar
  8. Deutsch, M. (1975). “Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used for Distributive Justice?”Journal of Social Issues 31, 137–150.Google Scholar
  9. Dwyer, F.R., P. Schurr, and S. Oh. (1987). “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 51, 11–27.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, M. (1953).Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fry, W., I. Firestone, and D. Williams. (1983). “Negotiation Process and Outcome of Stranger Dyads and Dating Couples: Do Lovers Lose?”Basic and Applied Social Psychology 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. Gouldner, A. (1960). “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.”American Sociological Review 25, 161–179.Google Scholar
  13. Guth, W., R. Schmittberger, and B. Schwarze. (1982). “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining.”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 367–388.Google Scholar
  14. Guth, W., and R. Tietz. (1990). “Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results.”Journal of Economic Psychology 11, 417–449.Google Scholar
  15. Homans, G. (1961).Social Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
  16. Jensen, M., and W. Meckling. (1976). “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure.”The Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. (1986). “Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics.”Journal of Business 59, 285–300.Google Scholar
  18. Lamm, H., and E. Kayser. (1978). “The Allocation of Monetary Gain and Loss Following Dyadic Performance: The Weight Given to Effort and Ability Under Conditions of Low and High Intradyadic Attraction.”European Journal of Social Psychology 8, 275–278.Google Scholar
  19. Macneil, I.R. (1980).The New Social Contract: An Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Messick, D.M., and K. Sentis. (1983). “Fairness, Preference, and Fairness Bias.” In D.M. Messick and K.S. Cook (eds.),Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Mikula, G., and T. Schwinger. (1978). “Intermember Relations and Reward Allocation: Theoretical Considerations of Affects.” In H. Brandstatter, H. Davis, and H. Schuler (eds.),Dynamics of Group Decisions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Northcraft, G.B., and M.A. Neale. (1990).Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge. Chicago: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rawls, J. (1971).A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Roloff, M.E. (1987). “Communication and Reciprocity Within Intimate Relationships.” In M.E. Roloff and G.R. Miller (eds.),Interpersonal Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Schwinger, T. (1980). “Just Allocations of Goods: Decisions Among Three Principles.” In G. Mikula (ed.),Justice and Social Interaction: Experimental and Theoretical Contributions from Psychological Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Shapiro, E. (1975). “Effect of Expectations of Future Interaction on Reward Allocations in Dyads: Equity or Equality.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 873–880.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, A. (1937).The Wealth of Nations, Cannan edition. New York: Modern Library. Originally published 1776.Google Scholar
  28. Steil, J.M., and D.G. Makowski. (1989). “Equity, Equality, and Need: A Study of the Patterns and Outcomes Associated with Their Use in Intimate Relationships.”Social Justice Research 3, 121–137.Google Scholar
  29. Thibaut, J., and L. Walker. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Valley, K. (1992). “Relationships and Resources: A Network Exploration of Allocation Decisions.” Unpublished dissertation, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey T. Polzer
    • 1
  • Margaret A. Neale
    • 1
  • Patrick O. Glenn
    • 1
  1. 1.J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations