Fairness Matters Research Articles

Fairness matters for change: A multilevel study on organizational change fairness, proactive motivation, and change-oriented OCB.

The success of organizational change often hinges on the perception of fairness within a change unit. This group-level organizational change fairness is crucial for enhancing proactive motivation states and fostering positive change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Rooted in the proactive motivation model, this study establishes a comprehensive multilevel framework to investigate the influence of group-level organizational change fairness on employees' change-oriented OCB. It explores the mediating role of three proactive motivational states and the moderating impact of perceived change impact. Analyzing data collected from 597 employees within 107 teams across 43 Chinese companies, our findings indicate that group-level perceived organizational change fairness significantly predicts employees' change-oriented OCB through organizational change self-efficacy, involvement, and positive emotional experiences. Furthermore, the study reveals that group-level perceived change impact moderates the relationship between group-level fairness perception and both change self-efficacy and positive emotional experiences, with stronger associations observed under conditions of low perceived change impact. These insights notably advance our understanding of the cross-level determinants influencing change-oriented OCB through perceived fairness and proactive motivation. Managers should focus on developing fairness perceptions to stimulate OCB by fostering employees' proactive motivation states, particularly during low-impact organizational changes. Our findings provide valuable implications for organizational change management practices.

Initial Experiences of African Students When Entering the Higher Education Institution: A Social Justice Perspective

Access to resources is a fundamental component when addressing matters of social justice, fairness, and human rights within a democratic society. In this article, utilising a social justice framework, the author delves into the perspectives of social work students regarding the preferential or detrimental access of first-year African students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds at a South African university. For this study, a purposive sample of twenty-two (N = 22) participants was selected. Data were gathered through focus group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews. The participants emphasised key aspects of access, including the university’s location, admission to preferred programmes, accommodation, and financial support. These access factors critically reflect on issues of justice and fairness when it comes to entering higher education institutions. Interestingly, the diverse profiles and backgrounds of the students did not influence the university administration’s approach to access, resulting in a negative impact on the students’ access experiences due to an emphasis on equality rather than equity. Consequently, there is a pressing need for social justice principles to guide decision-making processes that focus on students’ access to higher education. Structural transformations within higher education institutions are imperative to ensure fairness in access, particularly for historically disadvantaged students.

Fairness and competition in a bilateral matching market

This paper analyzes fairness and bargaining in a dynamic bilateral matching market. Traders from both sides of the market are pairwise matched to share the gains from trade. The bargaining outcome depends on the traders' fairness attitudes. In equilibrium fairness matters because of market frictions. But, when these frictions become negligible, the equilibrium approaches the Walrasian competitive equilibrium, independently of the traders' inequity aversion. Fairness may yield a Pareto improvement; but also the contrary is possible. Overall, the market implications of fairness are very different from its effects in isolated bilateral bargaining.

Procedural fairness and political attitudes: unpacking the experiences of victims of intimate partner violence with the police

What is the relationship between procedural fairness in encounters with the police and intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors’ attitudes? I argue that because of the emotional damage caused by victimization, survivors are especially attuned to the interpersonal treatment they receive when seeking help from specialized services (e. g., police). If this treatment is procedurally unfair, they might conclude that IPV laws are not effective and become less likely to report intentions to intervene by calling the police if they witness intimate partner violence. Relying on public opinion data from Brazil, I find that procedural fairness matters for survivors’ opinions about laws, but I found no relationship between procedural fairness and bystander intervention attitudes. I explore possible explanations for this non-finding with several additional analyses.

Does process matter? Experimental evidence on the effect of procedural fairness on citizens’ evaluations of policy outcomes

One of the key factors distinguishing democracies from non-democracies is the process by which political decisions are made. Central to democratic thought is the idea that policy made in a procedurally fair manner is more legitimate than policy that violates central tenets of procedural fairness. A large number of studies from social psychology show that procedural fairness matters in citizens’ evaluations of the success and legitimacy of various outcomes. Despite this observation, most political science literature focuses on the outcomes rather than the process of policy-making. Using survey experiments we find that procedural arrangements are an important factor in citizens’ judgement of policy outcomes. Specifically, we find that fair procedural arrangements increase outcome legitimacy to the extent that citizens perceive them to be fairer. Our findings suggest that policy-makers need to pay more attention to procedural arrangements when designing policies.

The Ethics of Machine Learning in Medical Sciences: Where Do We Stand Today?

Advances in Machine Learning and availability of state-of-the-art computational resources, along with digitized healthcare data, have set the stage for extensive application of artificial intelligence in the realm of diagnosis, prognosis, clinical decision support, personalized treatment options, drug development, and the field of biomedicine. Here, we discuss the application of Machine Learning algorithms in patient healthcare and dermatological domains along with the ethical complexities that are involved. In scientific studies, ethical challenges were initially not addressed proportionally (as assessed by keyword counts in PubMed) and just more recently (since 2016) this has started to improve. Few pioneering countries have created regulatory guidelines around how to respect matters of (1) privacy, (2) fairness, (3) accountability, (4) transparency and (5) conflict of interest when developing novel medical Machine Learning applications. While there is a strong promise of emerging medical applications to ultimately benefit both the patients and the medical practitioners, it is important to raise awareness on the five key ethical issues and incorporate them into medical practice in the near future.

Fairness matters when responding to disasters: An experimental study of government legitimacy

AbstractGovernments worldwide are regularly faced with severe weather conditions and disasters caused by natural hazards. Does the way in which governments respond to disasters affect their legitimacy? The current study investigated how evaluations of authorities were influenced by four aspects of a governmental response to a hypothetical disaster. In a survey experiment participants read a scenario in which a government distributed aid in the aftermath of a flooding. Data were collected from the Netherlands, France, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia (N = 2,677). Results showed that the government was seen as more legitimate when it was described as distributing resources fairly, following fair procedures, and providing a material benefit to the participant. However, in contrast to predictions derived from system‐justification theory, results showed that outcome dependence was associated with reduced legitimacy. These findings suggest that response policies that address both instrumental and fairness concerns might help maintain positive evaluations of governments.

The Fair Tax: The Personal Realization Income Tax

This article argues that the properly conceived fairness norm for taxation leads to a personal realization income tax. Fairness in taxation refers to “allocative tax fairness,” that is, the ethical/political standard according to which taxes are to be apportioned among the relevant population. In concrete terms, the standard constitutes the tax base for individual taxpayers. Allocative fairness is but one norm bearing on taxation, but it is one that (in academia, at least) has unjustifiably taken a back seat to economics and welfarist norms, largely due to the perception that allocative tax fairness lacks any specific content apart from the speaker’s political and personal tastes and, therefore, by implication, is without independent normative grounding. The short riposte is that exclusive adherence to economic and/or welfarist norms is itself a matter of personal taste. The more elaborate response entails showing that (1) fairness is an independent norm category apart from economics and welfarism; (2) allocative fairness matters in the construction of tax systems; and (3) allocative tax fairness has a discernable content. That content is conceptualized in the notion of “objective ability-to-pay,” which refers to an individual’s realized net increase in material wealth over the taxable period (reduced by off-the-bottom allowances), and does not refer to utility, satisfactions, or well-being as such. The tax base that conforms to the objective ability-to-pay principle is that of a personal realization income tax, as opposed to (say) a personal wealth, accretion, or consumption tax.

Ultimatum Game Bargaining in a Partially Directed Search Market

We investigate a partially directed search market where buyers search for sellers and then final prices are determined by ultimatum game bargaining. In the search stage of this game, sellers post intervals of possible surplus splits to attract buyers and then buyers approach one seller from whom they attempt to purchase. Our main goal is to investigate the interaction between bargaining and competition in the preliminary search stage. The main results confirm that behavior in the ultimatum game is consistent with past findings (i.e., fairness matters), and the main effect on search is to drive up the posted lower bounds for buyer surplus above the competitive equilibrium (towards more equal splits). Our main treatment variable is the number of buyers in the market, and when the number of buyers is increased, lower bounds and ultimatum offers to buyers decrease. This is consistent with fairness perceptions being influenced by competition.

Fixing What's Wrong with How Universities Adjudicate Sexual Misconduct Claims: How Procedural Changes Can Encourage Cooperation

Processes that are considered to be fair for both accused students and victims are what’s missing from the way institutions of higher education adjudicate campus sexual assault. Ideas for reform are available from a myriad of sources. Evidence-based guidance; however, is in short supply. This Article seeks to provide much needed structure for the debate regarding campus sexual assault by describing a model based upon procedural justice theory. The experiments described here investigate the proposition that students will be more likely to report sexual assault and assist authorities when asked, if they trust those authorities because they believe that the process for settling disputes is fair. Results show that perceived fairness matters. When students were presented with fair policies and procedures, they reported having greater confidence in the disciplinary system, which corresponded with greater willingness to cooperate with authorities. Exposure to fair policies increased willingness to cooperate, even when the outcome was unfavorable. Accordingly, students’ opinions about the process should factor into the reform of university disciplinary systems.

An Experimental Study on Internal and External Negotiation for Trade Agreements

This paper experimentally studies the performance of negotiation considering individual and party, like a country, share of benefit over the best ones. It experiments two-stage bargaining games, internal and external negotiations. From the experimental results, this paper shows strong tendency to select fair allocation in the internal negotiations, but the tendency would be weaker with attractive outside option. In addition, the outside option may claim difference in individual benefit. From the regressions on individual performance in the negotiations, being a proposing party would matter to enhance the performance. However, relative individual performance within party fairness matters. Still attractive no-agreement options happen to break the tendency. As policy implication for trade negotiation, this paper warns that possible loss in individual benefit from not active participation to the external negotiations, no active role of proposer in case that players stick to internal allocations, and deviation of advantageous sector due to attractive outside options.

An Experimental Study on Internal and External Negotiation for Trade Agreements

This paper experimentally studies the performance of negotiation considering individual and party, like a country, share of benefit over the best ones. It experiments two-stage bargaining games, internal and external negotiations. From the experimental results, this paper shows strong tendency to select fair allocation in the internal negotiations, but the tendency would be weaker with attractive outside option. In addition, the outside option may claim difference in individual benefit. From the regressions on individual performance in the negotiations, being a proposing party would matter to enhance the performance. However, relative individual performance within party fairness matters. Still attractive no-agreement options happen to break the tendency. As policy implication for trade negotiation, this paper warns that possible loss in individual benefit from not active participation to the external negotiations, no active role of proposer in case that players stick to internal allocations, and deviation of advantageous sector due to attractive outside options.

When fairness matters less than we expect

Do those who allocate resources know how much fairness will matter to those who receive them? Across seven studies, allocators used either a fair or unfair procedure to determine which of two receivers would receive the most money. Allocators consistently overestimated the impact that the fairness of the allocation procedure would have on the happiness of receivers (studies 1-3). This happened because the differential fairness of allocation procedures is more salient before an allocation is made than it is afterward (studies 4 and 5). Contrary to allocators' predictions, the average receiver was happier when allocated more money by an unfair procedure than when allocated less money by a fair procedure (studies 6 and 7). These studies suggest that when allocators are unable to overcome their own preallocation perspectives and adopt the receivers' postallocation perspectives, they may allocate resources in ways that do not maximize the net happiness of receivers.

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

We extend the study of procedural fairness in three new directions. Firstly, we focus on lotteries determining the initial roles in a two-person game. One of the roles carries a potential advantage over the other. All the experimental literature has thus far focused on lotteries determining the final payoffs of a game. Secondly, we modify procedural fairness in a dynamic—i.e. over several repetitions of a game—as well as in a static—i.e. within a single game-sense. Thirdly, we analyse whether assigning individuals a minimal chance of achieving an advantaged position is enough to make them willing to accept substantially more inequality. We find that procedural fairness matters under all of these accounts. Individuals clearly respond to the degree of fairness in assigning initial roles, appraise contexts that are dynamically fair more positively than contexts that are not, and are generally more willing to accept unequal outcomes when they are granted a minimal opportunity to acquire the advantaged position. Unexpectedly, granting full equality of opportunity does not lead to the highest efficiency.

Does Fairness Matter for the Success of Fiscal Consolidation?

Does it matter for fiscal consolidation programs to be fair in order to be successful? This question has never been empirically addressed despite its profound importance especially since many developed countries have embarked on fiscal consolidation programs, which in many cases have led to sizeable increases in unemployment and poverty, and are met with public dissatisfaction. Using a data set for 29 OECD countries over the period 1971–2009, we argue that fairness matters, namely that improving the targeting of social transfers and their effectiveness in terms of poverty alleviation, higher public expenditure on training and active labor market programs and programs like social housing directed to the poor, even decreasing the VAT rate on necessities, improve the success probabilities of consolidation attempts. Introducing such concerns sheds new light on the prevailing view that the successful fiscal adjustments are those that rely on spending‐cuts rather than on tax increases. The results of this paper provide empirical evidence that ameliorating the effects of adjustment, by supporting the weaker parts of society, is crucial for the success of fiscal consolidations and argues that “fair fiscal adjustments” may provide the double dividend of enhancing the probability of success of the adjustment and of promoting social cohesion.

Does Fairness Matter for the Success of Fiscal Consolidation?

Summary Does it matter for fiscal consolidation programs to be fair in order to be successful? This question has never been empirically addressed despite its profound importance especially since many developed countries have embarked on fiscal consolidation programs, which in many cases have led to sizeable increases in unemployment and poverty, and are met with public dissatisfaction. Using a data set for 29 OECD countries over the period 1971–2009, we argue that fairness matters, namely that improving the targeting of social transfers and their effectiveness in terms of poverty alleviation, higher public expenditure on training and active labor market programs and programs like social housing directed to the poor, even decreasing the VAT rate on necessities, improve the success probabilities of consolidation attempts. Introducing such concerns sheds new light on the prevailing view that the successful fiscal adjustments are those that rely on spending-cuts rather than on tax increases. The results of this paper provide empirical evidence that ameliorating the effects of adjustment, by supporting the weaker parts of society, is crucial for the success of fiscal consolidations and argues that “fair fiscal adjustments” may provide the double dividend of enhancing the probability of success of the adjustment and of promoting social cohesion.

Does Fairness Matter for the Success of Fiscal Consolidation?

Does it matter for the success of fiscal consolidation programmes that they are fair? This question has never been empirically addressed despite its profound importance especially since many developed countries have embarked on fiscal consolidation programmes, which in many cases have led to sizeable increases in unemployment and poverty, and are met with public dissatisfaction. Using a data set for 29 OECD countries over the period 1971-2009, we argue that fairness matters, namely that improving the targeting of social transfers and their effectiveness in terms of poverty alleviation, higher public expenditure on training and active labor market policies and programmes like social housing directed to the poor, even decreasing the VAT rate on necessities, improve the success probabilities of consolidation attempts. Introducing such concerns sheds new light on the prevailing view that the successful fiscal are those that rely on spending-cuts rather than on tax increases. The results of this paper provide empirical evidence that ameliorating the effects of adjustment, by supporting the weaker parts of society, is crucial for the success of fiscal consolidations and argues that fair fiscal adjustments may provide the double dividend of enhancing the probability of success of the adjustment and of promoting social cohesion.

Exploring wisdom in relationship with coping styles, social desirability, subjective well being, age and gender

In the past few years Wisdom has been upcoming area of research in the field of psychology. The west has shared some interesting work on wisdom and its correlates, development, variables contributing to wisdom, and many other wisdom related life skills. To the best of the author's knowledge, the concept of wisdom as a psychological construct hasn't been taken up extensively as a part of research in India. Despite the blessings of abundant spiritual and religious knowledge found in our Ancient Indian texts (Vedas, The Gita, Guru Granth Sahib ji, etc.), there hasn't been much work on characteristics of wise people and wisdom in everyday life. There is also a need to see if the work done in the west finds similar results in the Asian context and how significant are the cultural differences.In this study, a brief overview will be given of how wise people cope? Is there any gender difference in wisdom? Does wisdom necessarily increase with age? Do wise people have the need to impress others? Are wise people able to accept the negative side of their personality (self deception)? Are wise people happier? All of this has been answered using standardized self report measures and statistical analysis.Over the past two decades many definitions of wisdom have been proposed. Surprisingly, the construct of wisdom is such that it is difficult to arrive at one specific definition. Many people confuse wisdom with intelligence, creativity, moral reasoning and knowledge. Here a few of the many differences between the above mentioned constructs will be discussed based on Robert J Sternberg's work (Sternberg, 1990). According to Sternberg, wisdom, creativity and intelligence are the same. What makes them different is their use. Difference between Wisdom, Intelligence and Creativity: A wise person gets into in depth clarity seeking by focusing on the question of why. He/she doesn't rely on automatic assumptions. Whereas, intelligent person looks for automatic solutions and routines which help him solve a problem faster. A creative person has no interest in thewhy of what he does. He's interested in exploring new things which carry element of originality or uniqueness. Furthermore, intelligence is the discovery of new truths and wisdom is understanding the depth of the existing ones (Ardelt, 2008). Secondly, a wise person is capable of comfortably accepting the contradictions, uncertainties and ambiguities in life. They know that they don't know it all. An intelligent person would like to solve the ambiguity. He can tolerate the uncertainty of life only if he is both wise and intelligent. A creative person tolerates ambiguity with discomfort (Sternberg, 1990).Difference between Wisdom and Moral Reasoning: Whereas, moral reasoning is limited to matters of justice and fairness, wisdom involves judgments and insights about issues that are not only of moral concerns but other than moral concerns as well. Some problem situations require practical solutions instead of moral solutions. Moral reasoning involves looking at one aspect like justice, fairness and care. Wisdom on the other hand involves taking into account multiple aspects other than just the moral aspect. Therefore, wisdom is broader and all entailing.Difference between Wisdom and Knowledge: Knowledgeable people are not necessarily humble if they are under the illusion that they know. Humility and transcendence of self are qualities of the wise. Thus, knowledgeable can be prone to superiority and excessive ego which the wise are capable of controlling (Ardelt, 2008).Definitions of Wisdom: While some researchers focus on the as a feature of wisdom, a few focus on acceptance of limitations of knowledge as a quality of the wise and some focus on integration of cognitive, reflective and affective aspects of life as wise. Meacham (1990) defines wisdom as awareness of not knowing everything in life. Baltes and Smith (1993) define wisdom as an expertise in the domain of fundamental pragmatics of life, such as life planning and life review. …

Survivors and Victims, a Meta‐analytical Review of Fairness and Organizational Commitment after Downsizing

There is a lack of consistent evidence that downsizing leads to improved financial performance. Lowered commitment after painful downsizing periods is identified as an important reason why downsizing does not show the intended long‐term effects. This paper provides a meta‐analytical overview of the impact of fairness on organizational commitment for survivors and victims after a downsizing operation. Among 37 samples (11,256 persons), a positive relationship was found between fairness and affective organizational commitment (ρ=0.40) for both survivors and victims. Three moderators of the fairness–commitment relationship were identified: (1) for survivors, procedural justice matters more than distributive justice; (2) the impact of fairness is stronger in countries with an individualistic (versus collectivistic) culture; (3) fairness matters more when mass layoff is initiated for profit maximization (versus economic necessity).

Fairness matters—more than deterrence

Criminology & Public PolicyVolume 9, Issue 3 p. 525-533 Fairness matters—more than deterrence Class bias and the limits of deterrence Paul Leighton, Paul Leighton Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology at Eastern Michigan University.Search for more papers by this author Paul Leighton, Paul Leighton Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology at Eastern Michigan University.Search for more papers by this author First published: 11 July 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00647.xCitations: 5 Direct correspondence to Paul Leighton, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197 (e-mail: paul@stopviolence.com). AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume9, Issue3Special Issue: SPECIAL ISSUE: The Global Economy, Economic Crisis, and White-Collar CrimeAugust 2010Pages 525-533 RelatedInformation