Economic Inequality: Implications for Society and Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".