Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes最新文献

{"title":"The common behavior effect in norm learning: When frequent observations override the behavior of the majority","authors":"Thomas K.A. Woiczyk ,&nbsp;Rahil Hosseini ,&nbsp;Gaël Le Mens","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104441","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104441","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Prior research suggests that descriptive norms correspond to what most people do—the “behavior of the majority.” We examine norm perception in situations where the behavior of the majority differs from the most frequently observed behavior—the “common behavior.” In environments where individuals learn descriptive norms through repeated observations of a reference group, we propose that perceived norms align more closely with the common behavior than with the behavior of the majority. Consequently, individuals are more likely to follow the common behavior, even when it differs from what most people do. We argue that this ‘common behavior effect’ arises from a combination of two factors: the structure of the information environments in which the behavior of the majority and the common behavior differ, and imperfect source memory of the observed behaviors. We provide evidence for the basic phenomenon and test two moderators in four studies reported in the body of the article and two ancillary studies reported in the appendix. These findings are important for our understanding of social norms, because they challenge the assumption that norms simply reflect the behavior of the majority. They also cast light on phenomena such as pluralistic ignorance, majority illusions in online and offline environments or the spread of misinformation on social media. Finally, they have practical implications for how to shape norms in organizations.</div><div><strong>Organizational Relevance and Contribution Statement</strong></div><div>Organizations frequently rely on social norms to promote coordination, compliance, and shared expectations among employees, customers, or citizens. Our research shows that people often infer norms not from what most people do, but from what they observe most frequently — even when these behaviors are enacted by only a minority. This ”common behavior effect” highlights that perceptions of what is typical can be shaped by how information is encountered rather than by actual majorities. For managers and policymakers, this insight has direct implications. Efforts to influence behavior—such as encouraging ethical conduct, adoption of safety practices, or participation in diversity initiatives—may fail if interventions rely on communicating the behavior of the majority but neglect the behaviors people encounter most often. Norm-based strategies can be strengthened by structuring information environments so that desirable behaviors are both visible and repeatedly observed, even if they are not yet the majority choice. By clarifying when and why common behaviors override actual majorities in shaping norms, our findings help organizations design communication and training programs that more effectively guide employee and consumer behavior, reduce the persistence of harmful practices, and prevent misperceptions that contribute to misinformation or organizational drift.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104441"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145268740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The power of pausing in collaborative conversations","authors":"Alex B. Van Zant ,&nbsp;Jonah Berger ,&nbsp;Grant Packard ,&nbsp;Harry Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104455","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104455","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Communicators benefit from being perceived as helpful in collaborative conversations. While research has found that actions preceding such conversations can impact how communicators are perceived, less is known about how speaking style shapes such perceptions. Might <em>how</em> communicators talk (i.e., how often they pause) influence how helpful they seem? Though speakers who spend more time in silence while talking are often perceived negatively, we suggest that brief pauses while speaking can be beneficial. Specifically, we argue that pausing encourages verbal assents from conversation partners (e.g., “yeah” or “uh-huh”), which leads them to perceive speakers more positively. A multi-method study of collaborative conversations, including an analysis of customer service calls and two experiments manipulating pause frequency, supports this account. Although long silences can have impression management drawbacks, our findings indicate that, in collaborative conversations, brief pauses while speaking can make a person seem more helpful because they encourage conversation partners to assent.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104455"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145268741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scarcity undermines directed attention and pleasurable thinking","authors":"Sherry Jueyu Wu ,&nbsp;Nathan N. Cheek ,&nbsp;Eldar Shafir","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104449","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104449","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Thinking for pleasure, including fantasies and imagination, can be a source of joy, relaxation, and a mental escape from everyday adversity. We demonstrate that people intuitively expect those in poverty, who presumably have less access to other forms of welcome escape, to be better able and more highly motivated to find pleasure in imagination and fantasy (Study 1). Yet, thinking for pleasure involves the effortful direction of attention. We argue that persistent financial concerns can impair directed attention and thus interfere with pleasurable thinking. Using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, we first establish an association in everyday life between financial concerns and self-reported difficulty in directed attention and pleasurable thinking (Studies 2–3). In a subsequent experiment (Study 4), participants engage in pleasurable thinking experiences accompanied by lexical decision tasks. We find that, when financial concerns are salient, perceived financial scarcity predicts faster responses to money-related stimuli, slower responses to stimuli related to pleasurable thinking experiences, and a less pleasurable experience overall. Perceived financial scarcity appears to undermine the potential entertainment or relief that imagination can bring. Because imaginative thought underlies creativity and problem-solving, the attentional cost of financial constraint may impair performance in cognitively demanding roles. Our research adds to models linking compensation and performance, suggesting that reducing financial constraint may boost not only motivation, but also cognitive resources essential for innovation and productivity. For those experiencing persistent financial scarcity, intentional thinking, joyful as it can be, may prove a less effective tool for finding pleasure in work and daily life.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104449"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145098997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The power and peril of first offers in negotiations: a conceptual, meta-analytic, and experimental synthesis","authors":"Hannes M. Petrowsky ,&nbsp;Lea Boecker ,&nbsp;Yannik A. Escher ,&nbsp;Marie-Lena Frech ,&nbsp;Malte Friese ,&nbsp;Adam D. Galinsky ,&nbsp;Brian Gunia ,&nbsp;Alice J. Lee ,&nbsp;Michael Schaerer ,&nbsp;Martin Schweinsberg ,&nbsp;Meikel Soliman ,&nbsp;Roderick Swaab ,&nbsp;Eve S. Troll ,&nbsp;Marcel Weber ,&nbsp;David D. Loschelder","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Is it advantageous to make the first offer and to do so ambitiously? Although initial studies suggested clear advantages across cultures and contexts, recent findings have challenged the robustness of this first-mover advantage. A preregistered meta-analysis of 374 effects from 90 studies (Study 1; <em>N</em> = 16,334) revealed three beneficial effects of making the first offer: (a) a general first-mover advantage (<em>g</em> = 0.42, <em>m</em> = 80), (b) a positive correlation between first-offer magnitude and agreement value (<em>r</em> = 0.62, <em>g</em> = 1.56, <em>m</em> = 53), and (c) an advantage of ambitious (vs. moderate) first offers on agreement value (<em>g</em> = 1.14, <em>m</em> = 187). The meta-analysis also identified two detrimental outcomes of ambitious first offers: (d) fewer deals (i.e., more impasses; <em>g</em> = −0.42, <em>m</em> = 13) and (e) worse subjective value experienced by recipients (<em>g</em> = −0.40, <em>m</em> = 41). Two preregistered experiments (Study 2a-2b; <em>N</em> = 2,121) replicated both the beneficial and detrimental meta-analytic effects and simultaneously tested multiple psychological mechanisms driving these effects. Across the experiments, selective accessibility drove the effect of first-offer magnitude on counteroffers, while anger drove the effects on impasses and subjective value. Across both the meta-analysis and the experiments, negotiation complexity moderated both the beneficial and detrimental effects of first offers; as the number and type of issues (i.e., complexity) increased, the effects of first offers became smaller, and the mechanisms changed. Overall, the current meta-analysis and experiments collectively illuminate the direction, size, psychological pathways, and boundaries of first-offer effects in negotiations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"191 ","pages":"Article 104448"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145098996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Reviewer’s PACT: A guide and commitment to high-quality reviewing","authors":"Michael D. Baer","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104450","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104450","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104450"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144932165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Not all workplace gossip is equal: A moral-emotions perspective on how gossip type shapes recipients’ reactions to gossipers","authors":"Rui Zhong ,&nbsp;Stephen H. Lee ,&nbsp;Yingxin Deng","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104440","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104440","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Existing research has presented mixed perspectives and evidence on how gossip recipients react to gossipers. Our work reconciles these discrepancies by proposing that the answer depends on the type of workplace gossip the recipient receives and the moral emotion each type generates. Building on <span><span>Lee and Barnes’ (2021)</span></span> typology—which distinguishes between two types of negative gossip (i.e., derogation-based and protection-based) and two types of positive gossip (i.e., endorsement-based and communion-based)—and drawing on moral emotion theory, we argue that the four types of workplace gossip lead recipients to exhibit divergent responses toward the gossiper by eliciting different moral emotions. Specifically, we hypothesize that derogation-based gossip leads to avoidant behavior through moral disgust, protection-based gossip leads to helping behavior through gratitude, endorsement-based gossip leads to endorsement emulation through moral elevation, and communion-based gossip leads to socializing behavior through companionate love. To test these hypotheses, we first developed measures following a pre-registered procedure to capture the receipt of the four types of workplace gossip with three separate samples of employees. We then conducted three pre-registered studies using complementary methods: a multi-wave survey study, a recall-based experiment, and a scenario-based experiment. The results fully supported our hypotheses. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104440"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144895479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The idea endorser’s dilemma: How status dynamics disincentivize creative idea endorsement","authors":"Wayne Johnson ,&nbsp;Brian J. Lucas","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104439","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104439","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Employees’ creative ideas often require managerial endorsement to be implemented. It is therefore important to understand factors that impact managers’ willingness to endorse their employees’ creative ideas. We investigate the role of social status dynamics and test two main hypotheses. First, we find managers lose more status for endorsing an idea that fails than they gain for endorsing an idea that succeeds (asymmetric status change hypothesis). Second, we find managers’ status gain for endorsing an idea that succeeds is smaller than the idea generating employee’s status gain, producing a status distance loss (status distance hypothesis). We characterize these findings as the <em>idea endorser’s dilemma</em>. Study 1 tested these hypotheses and Studies 2A-B tested boundary conditions of perceiver role and idea creativity. Study 3 investigated an attribution search mechanism, finding that the status change patterns were attenuated by a prompt that drew attention to the manager’s contributions. Study 4 found that managers are intuitively aware of these status dynamics and anticipate not only no status loss for rejecting an idea, but also a status distance gain over the employee whose idea they rejected. We discuss implications for creativity research and for implementing creative ideas in organizations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104439"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144723347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When less confident forecasts signal more expertise","authors":"Mauricio Palmeira,&nbsp;Timothy Heath","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104431","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104431","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The confidence heuristic indicates that people infer greater expertise from forecasters who express higher confidence. In the present research, we identify two key conditions under which this heuristic breaks down and even reverses. First, we find that cognitive reflection plays a moderating role: less reflective thinkers (as measured by the Cognitive Reflection Test; <span><span>Frederick 2005</span></span>) interpret high confidence as a sign of expertise, whereas more reflective thinkers tend to view it as a signal of incompetence—unless contextual cues suggest high situational certainty. We demonstrate this reversal in both evaluations of a single forecaster and choices between forecasters. Second, we show that when advisors make multiple predictions, variability in their expressed confidence serves as an additional cue to expertise. As a result, advisors can even appear more expert by lowering their average confidence while increasing the variability. We provide evidence for these effects across diverse domains, including financial advice, product performance, and sports outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"190 ","pages":"Article 104431"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144633357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When sellers care about caretakers: Seller attachment shapes who gets to the bargaining table","authors":"Alice J. Lee ,&nbsp;Daniel R. Ames","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104420","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104420","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Negotiation research has often emphasized the active bargaining phase (including offers, concessions, and settlements), paying less attention to the preceding processes that bring parties together. This paper investigates how sellers’ emotional attachment to their possessions influences the negotiation “sales funnel”—the process through which sellers engage and sort through the field of potential buyers to determine which ones “get to the table” and to whom they ultimately sell. We propose that sellers with higher attachment assign greater importance to a buyer’s caretaking attributes (e.g., intentions to care for and preserve the possession) and devote more time and effort to seeking out such buyers. Across four preregistered studies involving over 1,500 participants, we examined whether attachment led to such “caretaker effects” in real-world transactions and a controlled experiment. Study 1 surveyed recent sellers from online marketplaces, finding that those with higher attachment invested more effort in vetting buyers and weighing buyer caretaking attributes more heavily in their decisions. Studies 2 and 3 examined home sales, with surveys of recent home sellers and real estate agents replicating the caretaker effects in high-stakes transactions. Study 4 experimentally manipulated seller attachment in a novel simulated inbox paradigm, establishing a causal link between attachment and search/engagement behavior. Together, our findings go beyond the traditional emphasis of “how much” in negotiation research to focus instead on the “who,” demonstrating that seller attachment shapes the negotiation process by influencing how sellers search for, engage with, and select potential buyers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 104420"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144549317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Opening up about money: The unexpected benefits of personal financial disclosure","authors":"Matt Meister,&nbsp;Joe J. Gladstone,&nbsp;Emily N. Garbinsky","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104430","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104430","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Financial anxiety is a pervasive societal problem affecting mental health, physical well-being, and performance at work. This research investigates whether disclosing personal financial information to others can alleviate this anxiety. Through a multi-method approach encompassing longitudinal experiments, large-scale surveys, and natural language processing of online discussions, we provide converging evidence that repeatedly talking about money can significantly reduce financial anxiety. Our findings highlight perceived financial control as a key mechanism driving this effect. Consistent with this process, financial anxiety declines most when people share more controllable aspects of their finances, such as budgeting and spending, and when they share online, where asynchronous editable disclosure increases feelings of control. These findings identify financial disclosure as a low-cost, scalable strategy for enhancing financial well-being.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"189 ","pages":"Article 104430"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144572490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}