Abstract
This study examines the effect of two variables—relationship and grouping—on the distribution of resources which are unearned, or “adventitious.” Strangers and acquaintances made decisions about the distribution of an adventitious resource either as individual decision makers or as members of a small group. Results indicate that acquaintances were more likely to share the resource than were strangers, and that group members were more likely to share than were individual allocators. Equality received the highest overall rating as a norm for distributing the adventitious resource. At the same time, subjects expected allocators to keep the resource instead of applying an equality distribution norm.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance on choice of distribution rules. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 6: 402-408.
Boles, T. L., and Nekish, J. (1995). The effect of prior relationship and expected future interaction on satisfaction with own/other outcome distributions in a negotiation context. Manuscript under review.
Brown, R. (1988). Group Processes, Blackwell, Oxford.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 201-235.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychol. Rev. 80: 97-125.
Davis, J. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model. In Davis, J. H., and Witte, E. H. (eds.), Understanding Group Behavior, vol. 1, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35-59.
Davis, J. H., and Hinsz, V. B. (1982). Current research problems in group performance and group dynamics. In Brandstatter, H., Davis, J., and Stocker-Kreichgauer, G. (eds.), Group Decision Making, Academic Press, London.
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., and Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior 6: 347-369.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., and Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior 7: 346-380.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., and Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. Am. Econ. Rev. 86: 653-660.
Hoffman, E., and Spitzer, M. (1985). Entitlements, rights, and fairness: An experimental examination of subjects concepts of distributive justice. J. Legal Studies 15: 254-297.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1987). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. In Hogarth, R. M., and Reder, M. W. (eds.), Rational Choice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 101-116.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrika 47: 263-291.
Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction, 9 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 91-131.
Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: “Equity” and “parity” among children. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 29: 539-550.
McLean Parks, J., Boles, T. L., Conlon, D. E., DeSouza, E., Gatewood, W., Gibson, K., Halpern, J. J., Locke, D. C., Nekich, J. C., Straub, P., Wilson, G., and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Distributing adventitious outcomes: Social norms, egocentric martyrs, and the effects of future relationships. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 67: 181-200.
Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In Mellers, B., and Baron, J. (eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 11-31.
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., and Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 21: 480-500.
Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 127-166.
Mikula, G., and Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward allocation. In Brandstatter, H., and Davis, J. H. (eds.), Dynamics of Group Decisions, Sage Beverly Hills: Sage.
Schwinger, T. (1980). Just allocations of goods: Decisions among three principles. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 127-166.
Stasser, G, Kerr, N., and Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In Paulus, P. (ed.), Psychology of Group Influence (2nd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 421-477.
Tornblom, K. (1992). Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nadler, J. Distributing Adventitious Resources: The Effects of Relationship and Grouping. Social Justice Research 12, 131–147 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022047926794
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022047926794