Organizational Consequences of Misperceptions about Sensitive Topics
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Conversations addressing conflicts, disagreements, and sensitive topics are instrumental for both individual and team decision-making in organizational settings. Nevertheless, discussions of difficult or sensitive topics are often avoided due to a common misconception that such dialogues diminish decision-making efficiency, exacerbate conflicts, and strain relationships. In this symposium, we present novel research on organizational and interpersonal contexts where people fail to talk about and effectively manage sensitive topics. These topics are often controversial, including the request to initiate a negotiation, changing one’s political views, and engaging with large-scale societal problems through reporting or helping. In particular, the papers presented will show that people (1) overestimate how likely negotiation counterparts are to withdraw a deal if one attempts to negotiate, and as a result, avoid negotiating; (2) overestimate how likely ingroup members are to penalize one for changing one’s mind about controversial political topics, which leads to self-censorship; (3) have conflicting perceptions of victims’ motivations in reporting about similar events, which affects trust and perceptions of accuracy; (4) underestimate the sensitivity and impact of big problems, leading to lower helping; (5) may overestimate the mere effect of apologies on reducing medical lawsuits. Moreover, this set of papers shows the detrimental consequences of such misperceptions, particularly for missed opportunities for disclosure and for economic and relational benefits. Taken together, this symposium highlights the fraught nature of sensitive topics, and points to avenues for improving the effective flow of information within organizations. Negotiators’ Inflated Perception of Their Likelihood of Jeopardizing a Deal Author: Einav Hart; George Mason U. Author: Julia Bear; Stony Brook U.-State U. of New York Author: Zhiying Ren; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Intragroup Illusions: Overestimating the Social Costs of Political Belief Change Author: Trevor Spelman; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Author: Abdo Elnakouri; Northwestern U. Author: Nour Kteily; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Author: Eli Finkel; Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern U. Motivated to Uncover the Truth: When Past Experiences of Victimization Boost Trust Author: Jennifer Abel; Harvard Business School Author: Julian Jake Zlatev; Harvard Business School The Bigger the Problem the Littler Author: Lauren Eskreis-Winkler; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Author: Luiza Peres; Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern U. Author: Ayelet Fishbach; professor Apologies: Is Their Effect in Reducing Lawsuits for Medical Malpractice a Misperception? Author: Nelly Arbel Groissman; Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Author: Eran Dorfman; Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Author: Elad Yom Tov; Bar Ilan U. Author: Paul Feigin; Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Author: Anat Rafaeli; Technion Israel Institute of Technology
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.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle