What algorithmic evaluation fails to deliver: respectful treatment and individualized consideration.

As firms increasingly depend on artificial intelligence to evaluate people across various contexts (e.g., job interviews, performance reviews), research has explored the specific impact of algorithmic evaluations in the workplace. In particular, the extant body of work focuses on the possibility that employees may perceive biases from algorithmic evaluations. We show that although perceptions of biases are indeed a notable outcome of AI-driven assessments (vs. those performed by humans), a crucial risk inherent in algorithmic evaluations is that individuals perceive them as lacking respect and dignity. Specifically, we find that the effect of algorithmic (vs. human) evaluations on perceptions of disrespectful treatment (a) remains significant while controlling for perceived biases (but not vice versa), (b) is significant even when the effect on perceived biases is not, and (c) is larger in size than the effect on perceived biases. The effect of algorithmic evaluations on disrespectful treatment is explained by perceptions that individuals' detailed characteristics are not properly considered during the evaluation process conducted by AI.

The power of rank information.

People, organizations, and products are continuously ranked. The explosion of data has made it easy to rank everything, and, increasingly, outlets for information try to reduce information loads by providing rankings. In the present research, we find that rank information exerts a strong effect on decision making over and above the underlying information it summarizes. For example, when multiple options are presented with ratings alone (e.g., "9.7" vs. "9.5") versus with ratings and corresponding ranks (e.g., "9.7" and "1st" vs. "9.5" and "2nd"), the presence of rank information increases preference for the top ranked option. This effect of ranking is found in a variety of contexts, ranging from award decisions in a professional sports league to hiring decisions to consumer choices, and it is independent of other well-known effects (such as the effect of sorting). We find that the influence of ranks is explained by the extent to which decision makers attend to the top ranked option and overlook the other options when they are given rank information. Because they invest a disproportionate amount of attention to the top ranked option when they are given rank information, decision makers tend to learn the strength of the top ranked option, but they fail to process the strengths of the other options. We discuss how rank information may operate as one of the processes by which those at the top of the hierarchy maintain a disproportionate level of popularity in the market. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The experience of secrecy.

The concept of secrecy calls to mind a dyadic interaction: one person hiding a secret from another during a conversation or social interaction. The current work, however, demonstrates that this aspect of secrecy is rather rare. Taking a broader view of secrecy as the intent to conceal information, which only sometimes necessitates concealment, yields a new psychology of secrecy. Ten studies demonstrate the secrets people have, what it is like to have a secret, and what about secrecy is related to lower well-being. We demonstrate that people catch themselves spontaneously thinking about their secrets-they mind-wander to them-far more frequently than they encounter social situations that require active concealment of those secrets. Moreover, independent of concealment frequency, the frequency of mind-wandering to secrets predicts lower well-being (whereas the converse was not the case). We explore the diversity of secrets people have and the harmful effects of spontaneously thinking about those secrets in both recall tasks and in longitudinal designs, analyzing more than 13,000 secrets across our participant samples, with outcomes for relationship satisfaction, authenticity, well-being, and physical health. These results demonstrate that secrecy can be studied by having people think about their secrets, and have implications for designing interventions to help people cope with secrecy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Members' needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance.

Focusing on "what people want in their group" as a critical antecedent of intragroup conflict, the present study theorizes and empirically investigates the relationships among the psychological needs of group members, intragroup conflict, and group performance. It attends to the within-group average and dispersion of members' psychological needs and examines the effects stemming from group composition of needs on multiple types of conflict. The analyses based on multisource data from 145 organizational teams revealed significant relationships between the groups' composition with respect to the members' need for achievement and task conflict, need for affiliation and relationship conflict, and need for power and status conflict. Some of these relationships were moderated by open communication among members. The analyses also demonstrated that when the 3 types of conflict were considered together, task conflict was a positive predictor of group performance, whereas relationship conflict was a negative predictor. The findings highlight the motivational aspects of intragroup conflict, revealing the multilevel dynamics of the psychological needs in social settings.