Too much of a good thing? A multilevel examination of listening to music at work.

Music listening has proliferated in the workplace, yet its effects have been overlooked, and classic investigations offer conflicting results. To advance our understanding, we draw from self-regulation and resource allocation theories to suggest that listening to music has curvilinear effects on attentional focus and performance on work tasks and that willpower belief is a key boundary condition. We test these hypotheses across three studies: a pilot study of 108 employees from a software company who took part in a 2-week experience-sampling methodology study and self-rated their music listening and performance, a laboratory study (Study 1) of 252 undergraduate students in which task attentional focus and objective performance on proofreading tasks were captured across repeated trials while listening to music, and a 3-week experience-sampling methodology study (Study 2) of 247 employees that included a within-person manipulation of music listening (little to no music vs. 1 hr longer than usual vs. 3 hr longer than usual), daily self-ratings of task attentional focus and task performance, and weekly coworker ratings of task performance. We find mixed support for our hypotheses. Time spent listening to music exhibited an inverted, U-shaped relationship with self-rated (pilot study) and objective (Study 1) task performance. Individuals with higher willpower belief maintained higher levels of task attentional focus regardless of the amount of music they listened to (Studies 1 and 2), and the curvilinear relationship of reported music listening with self-rated task performance was more pronounced for individuals who believe that willpower is limited (pilot study and Study 2). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

When is straightforwardness a liability in negotiations? The role of integrative potential and structural power.

Negotiations present individuals with a paradox. On the one hand, individuals are expected via social norms and formal regulations to be honest and straightforward in their negotiations. On the other hand, individuals who mislead their negotiation counterpart are often rewarded with more favorable settlements. The authors investigate this paradox by examining the relationship between negotiators' dispositional straightforwardness and concessions made during a negotiation. Drawing from the dual concern model (D. G. Pruitt & J. Z. Rubin, 1986), the authors show how dispositional straightforwardness leads individuals to develop a greater concern for their counterpart's interests, which in turn leads to greater concession making during the negotiation. The authors then show how this individual-level relationship is moderated by features of the negotiation task, namely integrative potential and power.

Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective.

Why do employees perceive that they have been treated fairly by their supervisor? Theory and research on justice generally presumes a straightforward answer to this question: Because the supervisor adhered to justice rules. We propose the answer is not so straightforward and that employee justice perceptions are not merely "justice-laden." Drawing from theory on information processing that distinguishes between automatic and systematic modes, we suggest that employee justice perceptions are also "ethics-laden." Specifically, we posit that employees with more ethical supervisors form justice perceptions through automatic processing with little scrutiny of or attention paid to a supervisor's justice acts. In contrast, employees with less ethical supervisors rely on systematic processing to evaluate their supervisor's justice enactment and form justice perceptions. Thus, we propose that ethical leadership substitutes for the supervisor's justice enactment. Our results demonstrate support for the interactive effect of supervisor justice enactment and ethical leadership on employee justice perceptions, and we further demonstrate its consequences for employees' engagement in discretionary behaviors (citizenship and counterproductive behaviors). Our findings highlight an assumption in the justice literature in need of revision and opens the door to further inquiry about the role of information processing in justice perceptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Skewed task conflicts in teams: What happens when a few members see more conflict than the rest?

Task conflict has been the subject of a long-standing debate in the literature-when does task conflict help or hurt team performance? We propose that this debate can be resolved by taking a more precise view of how task conflicts are perceived in teams. Specifically, we propose that in teams, when a few team members perceive a high level of task disagreement while a majority of others perceive low levels of task disagreement-that is, there is positively skewed task conflict, task conflict is most likely to live up to its purported benefits for team performance. In our first study of student teams engaged in a business decision game, we find support for the positive relationship between skewed task conflict and team performance. In our second field study of teams in a financial corporation, we find that the relationship between positively skewed task conflict and supervisor ratings of team performance is mediated by reflective communication within the team. (PsycINFO Database Record

Gender differences in justice evaluations: Evidence from fMRI.

Justice research examining gender differences has yielded contrasting findings. This study enlists advanced techniques in cognitive neuroscience (fMRI) to examine gender differences in brain activation patterns in response to procedural and distributive justice manipulations. We integrate social role, information processing, justice, and neuroscience literature to posit and test for gender differences in 2 neural subsystems known to be involved in the appraisal of self-relevant events. Results indicate that the relationship between justice information processing and neural activity in areas representing these subsystems is significantly influenced by gender, with greater activation for females than males during consideration of both procedural and distributive justice information. In addition, we find evidence that gender and distributive injustice interact to influence bargaining behavior, with females rejecting ultimatum game offers more frequently than males. Results also demonstrate activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and ventral striatum brain regions during procedural justice evaluation is associated with offer rejection in females, but not in males. Managerial implications based on the study's support for gender differences in justice perceptions are discussed.

Personality similarity in negotiations: Testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes.

We build on the small but growing literature documenting personality influences on negotiation by examining how the joint disposition of both negotiators with respect to the interpersonal traits of agreeableness and extraversion influences important negotiation processes and outcomes. Building on similarity-attraction theory, we articulate and demonstrate how being similarly high or similarly low on agreeableness and extraversion leads dyad members to express more positive emotional displays during negotiation. Moreover, because of increased positive emotional displays, we show that dyads with such compositions also tend to reach agreements faster, perceive less relationship conflict, and have more positive impressions of their negotiation partner. Interestingly, these results hold regardless of whether negotiating dyads are similar in normatively positive (i.e., similarly agreeable and similarly extraverted) or normatively negative (i.e., similarly disagreeable and similarly introverted) ways. Overall, these findings demonstrate the importance of considering the dyad's personality configuration when attempting to understand the affective experience as well as the downstream outcomes of a negotiation. (PsycINFO Database Record

From acclaim to blame: evidence of a person sensitivity decision bias.

In a series of studies, the authors established empirical support for a general decision-making bias that they termed a person sensitvity bias. Specifically, a person sensitivity bias consists of a person positivity bias (D. O. Sears, 1983) under positive performance conditions and a person negativity bias under negative performance conditions. The authors conducted the first empirical studies of a direct comparison between individuals and objects performing the same task under both positive and negative performance conditions. Two additional studies tested the boundaries of the sensitivity bias within negatively framed decision dilemmas. The results are discussed in terms of their relevance toward a more comprehensive theory of person-object evaluation differences.

Putting the cart before the horse: the benefits of arbitrating before mediating.

The authors examined the impact of 2 hybrid dispute resolution procedures (mediation-arbitration [med-arb] and arbitration-mediation [arb-med]) and 3 disputant dyadic structures (individual vs. individual, individual vs. team, and team vs. team) on various dispute outcomes. Consistent with W. H. Ross and D. E. Conlon (2000), the authors found that disputants in the arb-med procedure (a) settled in the mediation phase of their procedure more frequently and (b) achieved settlements of higher joint benefit than did disputants in the med-arb procedure. These results suggest that arb-med may be a dispute resolution procedure with broader applicability than originally imagined.

Understanding customer reactions to brokered ultimatums: applying negotiation and justice theory.

There has been little research examining customer reactions to brokered ultimatum game (BUG) contexts (i.e. exchanges in which 1 party offers an ultimatum price for a resource through an intermediary, and the ultimatum offer is accepted or rejected by the other party). In this study, the authors incorporated rational decision-making theory and justice theory to examine how customers' bids, recommendations, and repatronage behavior are affected by characteristics of BUG contexts (changing from an ultimatum to negotiation transaction, response timeliness, and offer acceptance or rejection). Results indicated that customers attempt to be economically efficient with their bidding behavior. However, negotiation structures, long waits for a response, and rejected bids create injustice perceptions (particularly informational and distributive injustice), negatively influencing customers' recommendations to others and their repatronage. The authors then discuss the practical and theoretical implications of their results.

Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.

Although a flurry of meta-analyses summarized the justice literature at the turn of the millennium, interest in the topic has surged in the decade since. In particular, the past decade has witnessed the rise of social exchange theory as the dominant lens for examining reactions to justice, and the emergence of affect as a complementary lens for understanding such reactions. The purpose of this meta-analytic review was to test direct, mediating, and moderating hypotheses that were inspired by those 2 perspectives, to gauge their adequacy as theoretical guides for justice research. Drawing on a review of 493 independent samples, our findings revealed a number of insights that were not included in prior meta-analyses. With respect to social exchange theory, our results revealed that the significant relationships between justice and both task performance and citizenship behavior were mediated by indicators of social exchange quality (trust, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, and leader-member exchange), though such mediation was not apparent for counterproductive behavior. The strength of those relationships did not vary according to whether the focus of the justice matched the target of the performance behavior, contrary to popular assumptions in the literature, or according to whether justice was referenced to a specific event or a more general entity. With respect to affect, our results showed that justice-performance relationships were mediated by positive and negative affect, with the relevant affect dimension varying across justice and performance variables. Our discussion of these findings focuses on the merit in integrating the social exchange and affect lenses in future research.

The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator: personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes in negotiation.

The authors developed and tested a model proposing that negotiator personality interacts with the negotiation situation to influence negotiation processes and outcomes. In 2 studies, the authors found that negotiators high in agreeableness were best suited to integrative negotiations and that negotiators low in agreeableness were best suited to distributive negotiations. Consistent with this person-situation fit argument, in Study 1 the authors found that negotiators whose dispositions were a good fit to their negotiation context had higher levels of physiological (cardiac) arousal at the end of the negotiation compared with negotiators who were "misplaced" in situations inconsistent with their level of agreeableness, and this arousal was in turn related to increased economic outcomes. Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1, finding that person-situation fit was related to physiological (heart rate), psychological (positive affect), and behavioral activation (persistence) demonstrated during the negotiation, and these measures in turn were related to the economic outcomes achieved by participants.