Interpersonal Conflict and Relational Models Theory: A Structural Approach to Injustice (original) (raw)
Related papers
2005
Two experiments analyzed social conflicts based on A. P. Fiske's (1991, 1992) four relational models: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. Because each model has a distinct logical structure, it was hypothesized that social conflicts in which participants used incommensurate models would lead to more extreme reactions than would conflicts in which both participants used the same model. Participants (N = 178 for Study 1, N = 132 for Study 2) in both experiments read 16 interpersonal scenarios in which an expectation based on one of the four models was contradicted by a negative outcome based on one of the four models. In neither experiment was the incommensurability interaction hypothesis supported. However, exploratory analyses indicated a significant main effect for equality matching and a significant interaction for communal sharing. The results are interpreted as providing qualified support for the role of relationship structures in con...
Two experiments analyzed social conflicts based on A. P. four relational models: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. Because each model has a distinct logical structure, it was hypothesized that social conflicts in which participants used incommensurate models would lead to more extreme reactions than would conflicts in which both participants used the same model. Participants in both experiments read 16 interpersonal scenarios in which an expectation based on one of the four models was contradicted by a negative outcome based on one of the four models. In neither experiment was the incommensurability hypothesis supported, although exploratory analyses indicated significant effects of communal sharing and equality matching. KEY WORDS: Relational models; Procedural and distributive justice; experimental analysis. Relational Model Conflict 3 INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT AND RELATIONAL MODELS THEORY: A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO INJUSTICE Social life is a delicately balanced process in which conflict is a constant risk. In examining the sources of interpersonal conflict, researchers have focused on factors such
Conflict and Fairness in Social Exchange
Social Forces, 2006
Inherent to all social exchange relations are elements of both cooperation and competition. We develop and test a theoretical model which proposes that the relative salience of the competitive, conflictual elements of exchange mediate and explain the negative effects of negotiated exchange, as compared with reciprocal exchange, on actors' evaluations of fairness. By creating inequality within rather than across transactions, and by making relations between one actor's gain and another's cost more transparent, negotiated exchanges alter the relational context of exchange to one of competition and conflict and heighten actors' sense of unfairness. Results of experimental tests show that (1) the salience of conflict increases and perceived fairness decreases as we make reciprocal exchanges more like negotiated exchanges on dimensions of conflict, (2) the salience of conflict mediates and explains the relation between the form of exchange and perceived fairness, (3) conflict affects fairness directly rather than through self-serving attributions, and (4) regardless of the relative conflict in reciprocal exchange, actors reciprocally exchange with unfair partners far more often than they negotiate agreements with them.
British Journal of Management, 2009
The present research examined across two experimental studies the impact of how fairly one's partner was treated on the experience of one's own negative emotions and intentions to display antisocial behaviours. Experiment 1 revealed that one's own feelings of anger and frustration were significantly higher when one's partner was treated fairly (i.e. receiving voice in the decision-making procedure) relative to when one's partner was treated unfairly (i.e. receiving no voice), but only so when the interaction between oneself and the other was characterized by competitive interdependence (i.e. a zero-sum gain in which a good performance by the other is negative for oneself and vice versa). The opposite pattern of results emerged in the cooperative interdependence condition (i.e. a good performance by the other is positive for oneself and vice versa). Experiment 2 (in which also the fairness of one's own treatment was manipulated) further showed that in the competitive interdependence condition own anger and frustration were higher when one's partner received voice and oneself did not relative to when the partner did not receive voice and oneself did. A similar effect was also obtained for intentions to display antisocial behaviour, which was mediated by negative emotions. These findings thus reveal that the other's procedurally fair treatment affects own responses differently as a function of the given goal interdependence and own treatment.
2019
When people socially interact at work, they have an individual understanding of how they relate to each other, an understanding of what behavior is appropriate and fair. But what cognitive and motivational underpinnings underlie this understanding and shape one's expectation of what behavior is appropriate and fair in a given social interaction? And what are the affective and behavioral consequences if there are discrepancies among co-workers about how to relate to each other? The aim of the present thesis was to find answers to these questions. Building upon relational models theory (Fiske, 1992), which posits four I would like to thank all of my colleagues at the Chair of Economic and Organizational Psychology at LMU Munichit was a pleasure to work with you in the past years. I would also like to thank all other colleagues who have accompanied me throughout my professional career, especially Armin of TU Munich, who always had an open ear for my questions and concerns. Furthermore, I would like to thank all of the students who contributed to my research through their active participation in courses, bachelor theses, data collection or simply through inspiring discussions and sharing ideas. I have always considered it a privilege to work with students who openly express their ideas and opinions. I would like to express my special thanks to the people whose hospitality has enabled me to keep my center of life in Tyrol while still having a roof over my head in Munich. These include first and foremost my sister Ulrike and my colleague Josef, as well as my colleagues Jasmin and Eleni. Thank you for giving me shelter in the last five years. I would like to thank my parents for enabling me to study the subject that excites me and especially my mother Dorothea for her endless support. Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful partner Gabriele and my wonderful daughter Lara for their patience, their support and for bringing a smile to my face every day, even during the most challenging phases of my dissertation. I am blessed to have you both by my side.
Egalitarian justice and interpersonal comparison
European Journal of Political Research, 1999
This paper surveys the strengths and weaknesses of three widely-discussed egalitarian standards of interpersonal comparison: welfare, resource, and capability. We argue that welfare egalitarianism is beset by numerous serious problems, and should be rejected. Capability and resourcist standards conform with egalitarian convictions more closely, but each faces distinctive problems. We itemise a set of desiderata which a fully adequate account of interpersonal comparison would satisfy. We conclude that the choice between capability and resourcist standards turns on the relative importance of such an account being able to accommodate reasonable pluralism and identify inequality in a publicly verifiable manner.
Synergistic Person x Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003
Traditional models of distributive justice behaviour have focused predominantly on either personspecific or context-specific explanations. We suggest supplementing these models by including interaction effects between functionally equivalent situation and person factors. Two experiments were conducted to replicate results from a previous vignette experiment in which the effect of situational information that would justify an unequal distribution of burdens was lower for individuals with a positive attitude toward the equality principle than for individuals with a negative attitude toward this principle. The results of the present experiments are consistent with this finding. Again, situational information that would justify an unequal distribution of outcomes had a weaker effect for participants with a favourable attitude toward equality than for participants with an unfavourable attitude. Based on these results and results from other research domains, we concluded that the synergistic person · situation interaction is a general phenomenon that deserves more attention in theory and research. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude-congruent situation schemas that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behaviour are discussed.