Advertisement

Psychological Studies

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 103–109 | Cite as

Fairness in Allocation Decisions: Does Type of Resource and Relationship Matter?

  • Arif HassanEmail author
  • Muhammad Ahmed
Target Article (with peer commentary)
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The study, conducted in Malaysia, examined the role of recipient–allocator relationship in perceived choice of resource allocation norms (equity, equality, and need) on two types of resources (money and favour) and the degree to which they were considered fair. Subjects responded to vignettes that described a resource to be allocated by an allocator between a needy and a meritorious employee. Recipients relationship status in the vignettes indicated that one of the two was the brother of the allocator who was either meritorious or needy. In the control group, no relationship characteristic of the recipient was stated. Results indicated that equality was the most fair and preferred norm of justice. No significant difference was obtained among the perceived norm and fairness in all but one situation (distribution of loan). The results are discussed in relation to the subjects’ cognitive strategy and collectivistic values.

Keywords

Allocation decisions Justice norms Resource type Allocator–recipient relationship 

Notes

References

  1. Abdullah, A. (1996). Going glocal: Cultural dimensions in Malaysian management. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management.Google Scholar
  2. Aruna, A., Jain, S., Choudhary, A. K., Ranjan, R., & Krishnan, L. (1994). Justice rule preference in India: Cultural or situation effect? Psychological Studies, 39(1), 8–17.Google Scholar
  3. Benton, A. A. (1971). Productivity, distribution, justice, and bargaining among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 68–78.Google Scholar
  4. Berman, J. J., Murphy-Berman, V. A., & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions of fairness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 55–67.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220022002185016001005.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, C. C. (1995). New trends in reward allocation preferences: A Sino-U.S. comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 408–428.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256686.Google Scholar
  6. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2003). Reward allocation and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 251–268.Google Scholar
  8. Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., & Victorov, V. I. (1998). A comparison of Russian and U.S. pay allocation decisions, distributive justice judgements, and productivity under different payment conditions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 137–163.Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg, J., & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Equity and justice in social behaviour. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hassan, A., & Ahmed, K. (2001). Malaysian management practices: An empirical study. Kuala Lumpur: Leeds Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  14. Hundley, G., & Kim, J. (1997). National culture and the factors affecting perceptions of pay fairness in Korea and the United States. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(4), 325–341.Google Scholar
  15. Krishnan, L. (1998). Allocator/recipient role and resource as determinants of allocation rule preference. Psychological Studies, 43(1–2), 2129.Google Scholar
  16. Krishnan, L. (2000). Resource, relationship, and scarcity in reward allocation in India. Psychologia, 43(4), 275–285.Google Scholar
  17. Krishnan, L. (2001). Justice perception and allocation rule preferences: Does social disadvantage matter? Psychology and Developing Societies, 13(2), 193–219.Google Scholar
  18. Krishnan, L., Varma, P., & Pandey, V. (2009). Reward and punishment allocation in the Indian culture. Psychology and Developing Societies, 21(1), 79–131.Google Scholar
  19. Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: ‘‘Equity’’ and ‘‘parity’’ among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(4), 1–52.Google Scholar
  20. Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, J. G. (1976). Meritorious and emergence of forms of justice. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 133–162). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1982). How Chinese and Americans reward task-related contributions. Psychologia, 25(1), 32–39.Google Scholar
  22. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lin, Y. H. W., Insko, C. A., & Rusbult, C. L. (1991). Rational selective exploitation among Americans and Chinese: General similarity with one surprise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(14), 1169–1206.Google Scholar
  24. Mahler, I., Greenberg, L., & Hayashi, L. (1981). A comparative study of rules of allocation: Japanese versus American. Psychologia, 24(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  25. Marin, G. (1981). Perceiving justice across cultures: Equity versus equality in Columbia and United States. International Journal of Psychology, 16(13), 153–159.Google Scholar
  26. Mikula, G., & Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward allocations: Theoretical considerations of affects. In H. Brondstaller, J. H. Davis, & G. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamic of group decisions (pp. 229–250). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy-Berman, V., Berman, J. J., Singh, P., Pachauri, A., & Kumar, P. (1984). Factors affecting allocation to needy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1267–1272.Google Scholar
  28. Otto, K., Baumert, A., & Bobocel, S. R. (2011). Cross-cultural preferences for distributive justice principles: Resource type and uncertainty management. Social Justice Research, 24(3), 255–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0135-6.Google Scholar
  29. Pandey, J., & Singh, P. (1989). Reward allocation as a function of resource availability, recipients’ needs, and performance. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 115(4), 467–481.Google Scholar
  30. Pandey, J., & Singh, P. (1997). Allocation criterion as a function of situational factors and caste. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 121–132.Google Scholar
  31. Thibaut, N., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Wu, T.-F., Cross, S. E., Wu, C.-W., Cho, W., & Tey, S.-H. (2016). Choosing your mother or spouse: Close relationship dilemmas in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(4), 558–580.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationInternational Islamic University MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Management SciencesBaharia UniversityLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations