Social Justice Research

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 53–78 | Cite as

Egocentric Perceptions of Relationships, Competence, and Trustworthiness in Salary Allocation Choices

  • John M. Oesch
  • J. Keith Murnighan


This paper presents three experiments that investigate the effects of interpersonal perceptions on simulated monetary and salary allocations. Experiment 1 examined the effects of relationships on choices between interdependent monetary distributions for a sample of students. Experiment 2 examined the effects of relationships and competence on choices between interdependent salary allocations and on discretionary salary allocations in scenarios presented to a sample of working managers. Experiment 3 used a novel measurement of the social motives revealed by interdependent salary allocations and added a manipulation of trustworthiness for a sample of experienced MBA students. Egocentrism and judgments of incompetence or untrustworthiness had strong effects on participants' choices. Allocations also increased for liked others, even though allocators denied any effects for liking.

allocations justice relationships competence trustworthiness egocentrism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adam, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol.. 67: 422-436.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange.In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (Vol. 2), Academic Press, New York, pp. 422-436.Google Scholar
  3. Bartol, K. M. and Martin, D. C. (1988). Influence on managerial pay allocation: A dependacy perspective. Pers. Psychol. 41: 361-378.Google Scholar
  4. Bazerman, M. H., Blount, S., Loewenstein, G. (1995). Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations. Psychol. Sci. 4: 39-43.Google Scholar
  5. Bazerman, M., Loewenstein, G., and White, S. (1992). Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Adm. Sci. Q. 37: 220-240.Google Scholar
  6. Bazerman, M. H., Schroth, H. A., Pradhan Shah, P., Diekmann, K. A., and Tenbrunsel, A. E. (1994). The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job descriptions: Implications for job acceptance decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 60: 326-352.Google Scholar
  7. Bettenhausen, K., and Murnighan, J. K. (1991). Developing and challenging a group norm: Interpersonal cooperation and structural competition. Adm. Sci. Q. 36: 20-35.Google Scholar
  8. Bies, R. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In: Staw, B., and Cummings, L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol 9), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 289-319.Google Scholar
  9. Bies, R., and Tripp, T. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In: Tyler, T., and Kramer, R. (eds.), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Chiu, R. (2000). Does perception of pay equity, pay satisfaction, and job satisfaction mediate the effect of positive affectivity on work motivation? Soc. Behav. Pers. 28: 177-184.Google Scholar
  12. Deshpande, S. P., and Joseph, J. (1994). Variation in compensation decisions by managers: An empirical investigation. J. Psychol. 128: 41-50.Google Scholar
  13. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. J Soc. Issues 31: 137-149.Google Scholar
  14. Falk, R. (1989). Judgment of coincidence: Mine versus yours. Am. J. Psychol. 102: 477-493.Google Scholar
  15. Fenigstein, A. (1984). Self-consciousness and the overperception of self as a target. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47: 860-870.Google Scholar
  16. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V., and Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78: 211-222.Google Scholar
  17. Heneman, R. L. (1990). Merit pay research. In: Ferris, G. R., and Rowland, K. M. (eds.), Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 321-364.Google Scholar
  18. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., and Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12: 222-234.Google Scholar
  19. Kernis, M. H., and Grannemann, B. D. (1986). Secondary control processes: A link with the egocentric bias? Represent. Res. Soc. Psychol. 16: 14-23.Google Scholar
  20. Krueger, J., and Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67: 596-610.Google Scholar
  21. Krueger, J., and Stanke, D. (2001). The role of self-referent and other-referent knowledge in perceptions of group characteristics. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27: 878-888.Google Scholar
  22. Kulik, J. A., Sledge, P., and Mahler, H. I. (1986). Self-confirmatory attribution, egocentrism, and the perpetuation of self-beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 587-594.Google Scholar
  23. Lawler, E. E. (1990). Strategic Pay, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, P. J., and Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23: 438-512.Google Scholar
  25. Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wolters, F. (1986). Why we are fairer than others: A cross-cultural replication and extension. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22: 590-604.Google Scholar
  26. Liebrand, W. B. G., and Van Rijn, G. J. (1985). The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21: 86-102.Google Scholar
  27. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings, Lexington Books, Lexington MA.Google Scholar
  28. Loewenstein, G. F., Bazerman, M. H., and Thompson, L. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57: 426-441.Google Scholar
  29. Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., and Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Soc. Cogn. 6: 269-286.Google Scholar
  30. MacCrimmon, K., and Messick, D. (1976). A framework for social motives. Behav. Sci. 2: 86-100.Google Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20: 709-734.Google Scholar
  32. McClintock, C. (1972). Social motivation—A set of propositions. Behav. Sci. 17: 438-454.Google Scholar
  33. McLean Parks, J., Boles, T. L., Conlon, D. J., DeSouza, E., Gatewood, W., Gibson, K. L., et al. (1996). Distributing adventitious outcomes: Social norms, egocentric martyrs, and the effects on future relationships. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 67: 181-200.Google Scholar
  34. Messick, D. M., and Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 80: 311-323.Google Scholar
  35. Messick, D. M., and Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 15: 418-434.Google Scholar
  36. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., and Huseman, R. C. (1989). The Equity Sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. J. Manage. 15: 581-588.Google Scholar
  37. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., and Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. J. Organ. Behav. 15: 585-596.Google Scholar
  38. Morgan, W., and Sawyer, J. (1967). Bargaining, expectations, and the preference for equality over equity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 6: 139-149.Google Scholar
  39. Mueller, C. W., and Wynn, T. (2000). The degree to which justice is valued in the workplace. Soc. Justice Res. 13: 1-24.Google Scholar
  40. Peterson, C., Peterson, J., and McDonald, N. (1975). Factors affecting reward allocation by preschool children. Child Dev. 46: 942-947.Google Scholar
  41. Pillutla, M. M., and Murnighan, J. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Acad. Manage. J. 38: 1408-1426.Google Scholar
  42. Polzer, J. T., Neale, M. A., and Glenn, P. O. (1993). The effects of relationships and justifications in an interdependent allocation task. Group Dec. Neg. 2: 135-148.Google Scholar
  43. Racicot, B., Doverspike, D., Hornsby, J., and Hauenstein, N. (1996). Job grade and labor market information effects on simulated compensation decisions. Public Pers. Manage. 25: 343-355.Google Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Steil, J. M., and Makowski, D. G. (1989). Equity, equality, and need: A study of the patterns and outcomes associated with their use in intimate relationships. Soc. Justice Res. 3: 121-137.Google Scholar
  46. Syroit, J., and Poppe, M. (2000). Equity: Effects of input and output orientation on taking, giving, and dividing money. Soc. Justice Res. 13: 41-54.Google Scholar
  47. Tanaka, K. (1993). Egocentric bias in perceived fairness: Is it observed in Japan? Soc. Justice Res. 6: 273-285.Google Scholar
  48. Tanaka, K. (1999). Judgments of fairness by just world believers. J. Soc. Psychol. 139: 631-638.Google Scholar
  49. Tyler, T., and Lind, E. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., and Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  51. Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., and Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Pers. Psychol. 50: 979-1006.Google Scholar
  52. Williamson, O. E. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 36: 453-486.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.J.L. Rotman School of ManagementUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Kellogg School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations