Pay-for-performance and low back pain with interaction of overwork: findings from the cross-sectional Korean working conditions survey.

Background: Pay-for-performance (PFP) is a type of incentive system where employees receive monetary rewards for meeting predefined standards. While previous research has investigated the relationship between PFP and health outcomes, the focus has primarily been on mental health. Few studies have explored the impact of PFP on specific physical symptoms like pain. Methods: Data from the Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) was analyzed, encompassing 20,815 subjects with information on PFP and low back pain (LBP). The associations between types of base pay (BP) and PFP with LBP were examined using multivariate logistic regression models, taking into account a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The interaction of overtime work was further explored using stratified logistic regression models and the relative excess risk for interaction. Results: The odds ratio (OR) for individuals receiving both BP and PFP was statistically significant at 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.35) compared to those with BP only. However, when the DAG approach was applied and necessary correction variables were adjusted, the statistical significance indicating a relationship between PFP and LBP vanished. In scenarios without PFP and with overtime work, the OR related to LBP was significant at 1.54 (95% CI 1.35-1.75). With the presence of PFP, the OR increased to 2.02 (95% CI 1.66-2.45). Conclusion: Pay-for-performance may influence not just psychological symptoms but also LBP in workers, particularly in conjunction with overtime work. The impact of management practices related to overtime work on health outcomes warrants further emphasis in research.

Beating the rival but losing the game: How the source of alternative offers alters behavior and outcomes in negotiation.

Decades of negotiations research has emphasized the importance of having alternatives. Negotiators with high-value outside offers tend to have greater power and claim higher values in the focal negotiation. We extend this line of work by proposing that the source of alternatives-that is, who negotiators receive an alternative offer from-can significantly shape their negotiation behavior and outcomes. Specifically, we examine how negotiators' behavior changes when they face a counterpart who has an offer from their rival. Four studies demonstrate that this situation enhances negotiators' motivation to outperform their counterpart's alternative by reaching an agreement with the counterpart. This in turn leads the focal negotiator to make less aspirational first offers and eventually claim less value in final agreements. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the existing relationships among actors directly and indirectly involved in a negotiation, reveal a novel motive that can guide negotiators' behavior and outcomes, and uncover a previously unexplored negotiation strategy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Beliefs About Linear Social Progress.

Society changes, but the degree to which it has changed can be difficult to evaluate. We propose that people possess beliefs that society has made, and will make, progress in a linear fashion toward social justice. Five sets of studies (13 studies in total) demonstrate that American participants consistently estimated that over time, society has made positive, linear progress toward social issues, such as gender equality, racial diversity, and environmental protection. These estimates were often not aligned with reality, where much progress has been made in a nonlinear fashion. We also ruled out some potential alternative explanations (Study 3) and explored the potential correlates of linear progress beliefs (Study 4). We further showed that these beliefs reduced the perceived urgency and effort needed to make further progress on social issues (Study 5), which may ultimately inhibit people's willingness to act.

The unexpected power of positivity: Predictions versus decisions about advisor selection.

In almost any profession, selecting a good advisor is crucial for success. The current research examines the discrepancy between predicted versus actual advisor selection decisions. We found that individuals make consistent predictions that they would rely primarily on competence-based characteristics (e.g., expertise, experience) when selecting an advisor (Studies 1, 2, and 4). This predicted preference remained even when all potential advisors had relatively similar levels of expertise (Study 4). Using data from the reality competition The Voice, we examined whether this prediction translates into actual, high-stakes decision-making (Study 3). The results showed that, contrary to predictions, individuals were more likely to select advisors who expressed high amounts of positivity toward them. We then extended our investigation by testing predicted versus actual advisor selections in a single experiment, again finding evidence that people failed to anticipate the influence that expressed positivity would exert on their selection of an advisor (Study 5). Finally, we examined the performance consequences of this pattern of advisor selection, demonstrating that reliance on expressed positivity over expertise when selecting an advisor can inhibit advisees' performance improvements (Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Paying for performance: Performance incentives increase desire for the reward object.

The current research examines how exposure to performance incentives affects one's desire for the reward object. We hypothesized that the flexible nature of performance incentives creates an attentional fixation on the reward object (e.g., money), which leads people to become more desirous of the rewards. Results from 5 laboratory experiments and 1 large-scale field study provide support for this prediction. When performance was incentivized with monetary rewards, participants reported being more desirous of money (Study 1), put in more effort to earn additional money in an ensuing task (Study 2), and were less willing to donate money to charity (Study 4). We replicated the result with nonmonetary rewards (Study 5). We also found that performance incentives increased attention to the reward object during the task, which in part explains the observed effects (Study 6). A large-scale field study replicated these findings in a real-world setting (Study 7). One laboratory experiment failed to replicate (Study 3). (PsycINFO Database Record