Mindfulness attenuates both emotional and behavioral reactions following psychological contract breach: A two-stage moderated mediation model.

Breach of the psychological contract between organization and employee often evokes employee hostility, which in turn can instigate deviant behaviors. We examine whether employee mindfulness attenuates these reactions to psychological contract breach. Specifically, we develop and test a two-stage moderated mediation model in which employee mindfulness moderates the mediational path from psychological contract breach via hostility to deviance by attenuating both emotional and behavioral reactions. Findings across four studies (with 872 employee participants) both measuring and manipulating breach and mindfulness demonstrate substantial support for the proposed model. Further analyses including alternative moderators, mediators, and dependent variables provide evidence for discriminatory and incremental validity. We discuss theoretical and practical implications as well as future research avenues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19, Coronavirus, Wuhan Virus, or China Virus? Understanding How to "Do No Harm" When Naming an Infectious Disease.

When labeling an infectious disease, officially sanctioned scientific names, e.g., "H1N1 virus," are recommended over place-specific names, e.g., "Spanish flu." This is due to concerns from policymakers and the WHO that the latter might lead to unintended stigmatization. However, with little empirical support for such negative consequences, authorities might be focusing on limited resources on an overstated issue. This paper empirically investigates the impact of naming against the current backdrop of the 2019-2020 pandemic. The first hypothesis posited that using place-specific names associated with China (e.g., Wuhan Virus or China Virus) leads to greater levels of sinophobia, the negative stigmatization of Chinese individuals. The second hypothesis posited that using a scientific name (e.g., Coronavirus or COVID-19) leads to increased anxiety, risk aversion, beliefs about contagiousness of the virus, and beliefs about mortality rate. Results from two preregistered studies [N(Study 1) = 504; N(Study 2) = 412], conducted across three countries with the first study during the early outbreak (April 2020) and the second study at a later stage of the pandemic (August 2020), found no evidence of any adverse effects of naming on sinophobia and strong support for the null hypothesis using Bayesian analyses. Moreover, analyses found no impact of naming on anxiety, risk aversion, beliefs about contagiousness of the virus, or beliefs about mortality rate, with mild to strong support for the null hypothesis across outcomes. Exploratory analyses also found no evidence for the effect of naming being moderated by political affiliation. In conclusion, results provide no evidence that virus naming impacted individual's attitudes toward Chinese individuals or perceptions of the virus, with the majority of analyses finding strong support for the null hypothesis. Therefore, based on the current evidence, it appears that the importance given to naming infectious diseases might be inflated.

What goes up must . . . Keep going up? Cultural differences in cognitive styles influence evaluations of dynamic performance.

Past research on dynamic workplace performance evaluation has taken as axiomatic that temporal performance trends produce naïve extrapolation effects on performance ratings. That is, we naïvely assume that an individual whose performance has trended upward over time will continue to improve, and rate that individual more positively than an individual whose performance has trended downward over time-even if, on average, the 2 individuals have performed at an equivalent level. However, we argue that such naïve extrapolation effects are more pronounced in Western countries than Eastern countries, owing to Eastern countries having a more holistic cognitive style. To test our hypotheses, we examined the effect of performance trend on expectations of future performance and ratings of past performance across 2 studies: Study 1 compares the magnitude of naïve extrapolation effects among Singaporeans primed with either a more or less holistic cognitive style, and Study 2 examines holistic cognitive style as a mediating mechanism accounting for differences in the magnitude of naïve extrapolation effects between American and Chinese raters. Across both studies, we found support for our predictions that dynamic performance trends have less impact on the ratings of more holistic thinkers. Implications for the dynamic performance and naïve extrapolation literatures are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

More than just the mean: moving to a dynamic view of performance-based compensation.

Compensation decisions have important consequences for employees and organizations and affect factors such as retention, motivation, and recruitment. Past research has primarily focused on mean performance as a predictor of compensation, promoting the implicit assumption that alternative aspects of dynamic performance are not relevant. To address this gap in the literature, we examined the influence of dynamic performance characteristics on compensation decisions in the National Basketball Association (NBA). We predicted that, in addition to performance mean, performance trend and variability would also affect compensation decisions. Results revealed that performance mean and trend, but not variability, were significantly and positively related to changes in compensation levels of NBA players. Moreover, trend (but not mean or variability) predicted compensation when controlling for future performance, suggesting that organizations overweighted trend in their compensation decisions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Toward interactive, Internet-based decision aid for vaccination decisions: better information alone is not enough.

Vaccination decisions, as in choosing whether or not to immunize one's small child against specific diseases, are both psychologically and computationally complex. The psychological complexities have been extensively studied, often in the context of shaping convincing or persuasive messages that will encourage parents to vaccinate their children. The computational complexity of the decision has been less noted. However, even if the parent has access to neutral, accurate, credible information on vaccination risks and benefits, he or she can easily be overwhelmed by the task of combining this information into a well-reasoned decision. We argue here that the Internet, in addition to its potential as an information source, could provide useful assistance to parents in integrating factual information with their own values and preferences - that is, in providing real decision aid as well as information aid. We sketch one approach for accomplishing this by means of a hierarchy of interactive decision aids ranging from simple advice to full-scale decision analysis.

Understanding performance ratings: dynamic performance, attributions, and rating purpose.

The present two studies integrate and extend the literatures on dynamic performance, performance attributions, and rating purpose, making several important contributions. First, examining attributions of dynamic performance, Study 1 predicted that performance mean and trend would affect judged ratee ability and effort and that performance variation would affect locus of causality; both predictions were supported by the results. Second, investigating the interaction between dynamic performance and rating purpose, Study 2 predicted that performance mean would have a stronger impact on administrative than on developmental ratings, whereas performance trend and variation would have a stronger impact on developmental than on administrative ratings; again, both predictions were borne out by the results. Third, both studies found that performance trend interacted with performance mean and variability to predict overall ratings. Fourth, both studies replicated main effects of dynamic performance characteristics on ratings in a different culture and, in Study 2, a sample of more experienced managers.

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility.

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed.

Evaluating dynamic performance: the influence of salient Gestalt characteristics on performance ratings.

It is well recognized that performance changes over time. However, the effect of these changes on overall assessments of performance is largely unknown. In a laboratory experiment, we examined the influence of salient Gestalt characteristics of a dynamic performance profile on supervisory ratings. We manipulated performance trend (flat, linear-improving, linear-deteriorating, U-shaped, and inverted U-shaped), performance variation (small, large), and performance mean (negative, zero, positive) within subjects and display format (graphic, tabular) between subjects. Participants received and evaluated information about the weekly performance of different employees over a simulated 26-week period. Results showed strong main effects on performance ratings of both performance mean and performance trend, as well as interactions with display format. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Regret in cancer-related decisions.

Decision-related regret is a negative emotion associated with thinking about a past or future choice. The thinking component generally takes the form of a wish that things were otherwise and involves a comparison of what actually did or will take place with some better alternative--a "counterfactual thought." For predecisional (anticipated) regret, the thinking involves a mental simulation of the outcomes that might result from different choice options. Prior research has focused on regret associated with decision outcomes, addressing especially (a) the comparison outcome selected and (b) whether the outcome resulted from action or inaction. More recent research examines regret associated with the choice itself and with the preceding decision process. Interest here has focused on the justifiability of the choice made or the process used. In this article, the authors review current regret research and propose directions for extending it to cancer-related decisions.

Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: the effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value.

Two experiments explored the hypothesis that the impact of activating gender stereotypes on negotiated agreements in mixed-gender negotiations depends on the manner in which the stereo-type is activated (explicitly vs. implicitly) and the content of the stereotype (linking negotiation performance to stereotypically male vs. stereotypically female traits). Specifically, two experiments investigated the generality and limits of stereotype reactance. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that negotiated outcomes become more one-sided in favor of the high power negotiator when masculine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In contrast, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that negotiated outcomes are more integrative (win-win) when feminine traits are explicitly linked to negotiator effectiveness. In total, performance in mixed-gender negotiations is strongly affected by the cognitions and motivations that negotiators bring to the bargaining table.