Search results

The effect of ambiguity is investigated with regard to the success of a venture on the initial choice of interpersonal conflict management strategy of the venture's initiator. In the experiments reported here, subjects were asked to imagine a hypothetical situation in which the decision‐maker, in a capacity as an organization member, seeks the use of an organizational resource in order to initiate the venture. The conflict arises as another member of the organization also lays claim to the same resource. Subjects, taking on the role of the decision‐maker, show more collaboration in managing the conflict when experts disagree about the probability of successful outcome of the venture. Similar inclinations are revealed when the possible long‐term adverse consequences of the conflict are made explicit. These findings support the interpretation of ambiguity effect in terms of increased loss aversion due to personal responsibility.

The study examined the effects of two context variables, such as work experience and opponent's power on the styles of handling interpersonal conflict. 480 subjects were asked to consider a short critical incident describing an interpersonal conflict in an organization and to indicate their response to the situation in terms of the five conflict management styles: integrating, obliging, avoiding, dominating, and compromising. The results suggest that under the low‐power opponent condition there was a higher preference for dominating and a lower preference for avoiding, obliging, and integrating. Inexperienced subjects did not change their choice of using the different conflict management styles in view of their opponent's power. The results also showed significant interaction effects of the two independent variables. The implications for the study are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework for the assessment of subjective value of public goods. Public goods are not traded, so they do not have market prices, even if they may be of great importance for the well-being of citizens (e.g. green spaces, urban air). A procedure used to estimate the economic value of a public good is the contingent evaluation method: people are asked to state how much they are willing to pay to preserve or restore a public good. Many studies report that the subjective evaluation of public goods is affected by factors that, according to standard economics, should be irrelevant, such as the manipulation of frame and prime. On the other hand, factors that should be relevant, such as the magnitude of the expected benefit, are neglected. It appears that the evaluation of a public good cannot be reduced to a mere cost–benefit tradeoff evaluation. On the contrary, it seems that the subjective value of a public good is constructed. The authors argue that to accurately predict and describe how people valuate public goods, it is fundamental to study how people construct the associated mental representation.

This paper takes into account the cognitive and emotional aspects of the evaluation of public goods.

Subjective valuation of public goods is affected by irrelevant factors and is not affected by relevant factors.

This paper provides an accurate description and prediction of how people evaluate public goods.

The social implications of this paper include a better evaluation of public policies.

This paper is an original psychological perspective on the evaluation of public goods.