Economic Inequality: Implications for Society and Organizations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this symposium, we present some of the latest research findings in regard to economic inequality and the ways in which it is shaping beliefs and behaviors, both at the societal and the organizational levels. These findings are timely and relevant, as the consequences of economic inequality are heightened by current trends, and the effects for society and organizations are of great consequence, as demonstrated by the work presented in this symposium. In the first presentation, Ongis and Davidai discuss the antecedents of a destructive thinking pattern known as zero-sum thinking, i.e., the belief that in order for one group to win another one has to lose. More specifically, they explore the belief that wealth is zero-sum, such that one’s economic gains must also come at the expense of another’s loss. Their work reveals a surprising factor that leads to zero-sum thinking: the experience of personal relative deprivation. In the second presentation, Waldfogel, Kteily, Sheehy-Skeffington, Ho, and Hauser explore the ways in which social dominance orientation (SDO), an inequality-relevant ideology, predicts the extent to which people notice the presence of economic inequality. Their work shows that social egalitarians pay more attention to inequality relative to anti-egalitarians, noticing it to a greater extent. In the third presentation, Kakkar et al. contend that the relationship between social class and unethical behavior depends on the immediate economic environment an individual resides in. While for high SES individual’s the propensity to behave unethically reduces with the worsening of their economic environment, for low SES individuals the tendency to behave unethically increases as the economic environment worsens. Their work shows that this is driven by comparing similar others as points of reference to gauge one’s own social standing. In the fourth and final presentation, Goya-Tocchetto, Kay, and Payne discuss the effects of economic inequality on perceptions of the fairness of organizational processes and outcomes. They show that, when it comes to economic inequality, it is impossible to disentangle the fairness evaluation of processes versus outcomes. More specifically, their work reveals that inequality aversion exists not only when unequal outcomes are the result of unfair processes, but also when people realize that unequal outcomes are inter-temporally undermining the landscape of opportunities for income generation. The Influence of Personal Relative Deprivation on the Belief that Wealth is Zero-Sum Presenter: Martino Ongis; The New School for Social Research Presenter: Shai Davidai; Columbia Business School (Anti-)Egalitarianism Predicts Attention to Inequality Presenter: Hannah Benner Waldfogel; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Nour Kteily; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington; London School of Economics and Political Science Presenter: Arnold Ho; U. of Michigan Presenter: Oliver Hauser; U. of Exeter Business School The Critical Role of the Economic Environment in Influencing Unethical Behavior Presenter: Hemant Kakkar; Fuqua School of Business, Duke U. Presenter: Niro Sivanathan; London Business School Presenter: Jon Michael Jachimowicz; Harvard Business School Presenter: Xiaoran Hu; London Business School The Role of Economic Inequality in Perceptions of Process and Outcome Fairness in the Workplace Presenter: Daniela Goya-Tocchetto; Fuqua School of Business, Duke U. Presenter: Aaron Kay; Duke U. Presenter: Keith Payne; U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».