The purpose of this study was to examine privilege in families and uncover the complexities of sibling relationships in adulthood. Through interviewing 13 adult siblings and 3 mothers from 4 families my goal was to gain a clearer picture of what privilege in families means. The sample consisted of a family with 3 sisters, a family with 3 brothers and a sister, a family with 4 brothers, and a family with 2 brothers and a sister. The adult siblings ranged in age from 30 to 60, with an average age of 42. The mothers ranged in age from 62 to 70, with an average age of 67. The study was guided by three theoretical frameworks: a life course, a phenomenological, and a feminist perspective. I conducted this study utilizing an integration of qualitative and feminist methodologies. I used a snowball sampling technique to recruit participants. Data were collected through the use of qualitative in-depth interviews. The interview guides were developed based on the research questions, the review of literature, and the theories guiding the study. I draw 5 conclusions from this study. First, there is a sense of devotion to family that is both expected and fulfilled by simply spending time together, being there for each other in times of need, and at times compromising personal needs or wants. Second, there is an overarching sense of justice that is discussed in everyday language, but at the same time referred to as "something we don't ever think about." Third, descriptions of having a continuous bond among siblings is verbalized as "being the same but different" or just feeling "something in the air," while at the same time mourning the absense of something that is "gone forever." Fourth, interviewing multiple family members extends the understanding of the difficulty of taking different stories heard by each family member and fitting them together into a "family photo." Finally, maintaining an awareness of what it is like to try to "speak for your family" has a different meaning when you also hold the knowledge that everyone else is doing the same thing--but different. / Ph. D.

Organizational justice has been the source of a great deal of recent research attention and has consequently been linked to a number of organizationally-relevant constructs, including organizational citizenship behaviors (Moorman, 1991), employee theft (Greenberg, 1990a), organizational commitment (Tyler, 1991), turnover (Dailey & Kirk, 1992) and job performance (Gilliland, 1994). However, researchers' ability to integrate findings from these diverse contexts is currently limited by the absence of a standardized operationalization of the justice construct. To compound this problem, little research has investigated the psychometric properties of existing organizational justice measures. For example, no research has empirically examined the dimensionality or the suggested context-sensitivity of this construct (cf., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Therefore, the purposes of the current study were to evaluate the psychometric properties of justice and to attempt to develop a global measure that could be applied across contexts. Study 1 involved three phases (1) screening a set of organizational justice items, (2) investigating the dimensionality of organizational justice and (3) examining justice for evidence of measurement stability. The set of items used in the current study was primarily collected from published research by Hauenstein, McGonigle and Flinder (1997). A set of 48 items with acceptable psychometric characteristics was identified. Phase 2 investigated the dimensionality of these items. Results indicated that none of the four a priori models of organizational justice dimensionality could adequately account for the dimensionality of these items. However, three alternative models were discovered. The first model includes the four dimensions suggested by Greenberg (1993b) in addition to a general organizational justice factor while the second model includes only justice and injustice factors in addition to the original organizational justice factor. Finally, the results of an exploratory factor analysis suggested three factors: Systemic Justice; Distributive Injustice; and Distributive Justice. Phase 3 then investigated the stability of this solution across subgroups while Study 2 compared exploratory factor structures across two work contexts. Results demonstrated some differences at both item- and construct-level in organizational justice across levels of job satisfaction and work experience. Further, some factorial instability across work contexts (e.g., selection, performance appraisal) was also observed. As a result, it was concluded that developing a global measure of organizational justice is difficult given the demonstrated context-sensitivity of the construct. Instead, a series of guidelines for developing future measures of organizational justice is proposed. / Ph. D.

This study explored the convergence between attributional egotism and felt injustice, and the consequences of these two constructs on subsequent reward allocations. Drawing from the work of Crosby (1984), Heider (1958), and Snyder, Stephan and Rosenfield (1978), it was contended that individuals who felt that they are victims of injustice use causal inferences similar to those characteristically employed for ego defense. This hypothesis was evaluated in an experimental paradigm which induced feelings of injustice and attributional egotism. Undergraduate participants (N=153) were provided with one of three descriptions of an experimental task. They were told that the task was used to assess the cognitive abilities of high school sophomores (a low prestige referent), college juniors (a high prestige referent), or merely that it was a standardized achievement test (control). Following this expectancy manipulation, subjects were given implicit success or failure feedback by being given an easy or difficult 30-minute task. When the 30-minutes had elapsed, subjects were asked to imagine that they were to provide feedback in the form of rewards to hypothetical students who had completed the same test the subject had just taken. Following the reward allocation exercise, subjects provided causal accounts for their performance and responded to a number of measures designed to assess their perceptions of the test and self-affect. Analyses revealed that the manipulations were successful, but that the attributional egotism and deprivation induction were of modest magnitude. Allocation policies across the six different conditions varied, in some cases supporting predictions, in others not. These findings support the contention that attributional defensiveness and deprivation are similar, but surprisingly show that enhancement biases and relative gratification can operate simultaneously. Discussion centered on the explanation of these findings and the implications for future research in this area. / Master of Science

No / A recent paper in Accounting and Business Research by Lau et al. (2008) offers systematic evidence to explain whether managers’ perceptions on fairness of performance evaluation procedures affect attitudes such as job satisfaction; and if it does, the different behavioural processes involved. Our paper re‐examines Lau et al.’s model and hypotheses to assess the external validity of their findings, based on a very different sample of managers. Drawing on recent organisational justice literature, it further develops the model and examines the potential interaction effects of fairness of performance evaluation procedures and other variables on job satisfaction. Finally, it extends the outcome variable to include manager performance. Using survey responses from 165 managers, supported by 24 interviews, drawn from three major organisations in the manufacturing and financial services sectors, we find that Lau et al.’s results on the indirect effects of fairness of performance evaluation procedures on job satisfaction are generalisable to other organisational settings and managerial levels. However, using their model we do not find support for the outcome‐based effects through distributive fairness. Developing a revised model we observe that the effects of distributive fairness on job satisfaction are indirect via organisational commitment. When the model is further developed to incorporate performance as the outcome variable, we observe similar findings.

Yes / This study investigates whether participation in goal-setting within performance measurement and evaluation processes affects goal commitment and if so, whether the effect is mediated by procedural fairness and interpersonal trust. Using a sample of 54 managers within a UK financial services organisation, this study finds that participation in goal-setting is positively associated with goal commitment. Further analysis arising from introducing procedural fairness and interpersonal trust as mediating variables reveals that the association is significantly mediated by procedural fairness. Overall, these findings offer empirical evidence on the importance of procedural fairness on the relationship between participation and goal commitment.

Yes / Based on a robust analysis of the existing literature on performance appraisal (PA), this paper makes a case for an integrated framework of effectiveness of performance appraisal (EPA). To achieve this, it draws on the expanded view of measurement criteria of EPA, i.e. purposefulness, fairness and accuracy, and identifies their relationships with ratee reactions. The analysis reveals that the expanded view of purposefulness includes more theoretical anchors for the purposes of PA and relates to various aspects of human resource functions, e.g. feedback and goal orientation. The expansion in the PA fairness criterion suggests certain newly established nomological networks, which were ignored in the past, e.g. the relationship between distributive fairness and organization‐referenced outcomes. Further, refinements in PA accuracy reveal a more comprehensive categorization of rating biases. Coherence among measurement criteria has resulted in a ratee reactions‐based integrated framework, which should be useful for both researchers and practitioners.

Public policies in a pluralistic society should be able to clarify and cope with the complicated nature of public issues dominated by ¡§multiple parties, multiple values, and subjective judgment.¡¨ (Farkas & Anderson, 1974) Therefore, instead of merely concluding with the outcome, we should also take input into account when evaluating resource allocation or assessing policy effectiveness. In addition, since the public and the government differ in their judgment criteria and indicators, and multiple parties also have different understandings, the controversy of ¡§inequity¡¨ thus arises. In short, to conduct fairness measurement, we should focus on defining the parties as well as the input and outcome indicators. This research adopted the Public Affairs Management framework to analyze Cijin Seaside Park in Kaohsiung City and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf in New Taipei City. We have conducted a fairness measurement and cross-domain analysis to explore the equity perception in three aspects: economic equity, social fairness, and procedure justice. Moreover, we conducted a secondary data analysis, analyzed expert interviews, and generalized the carrier condition and factual judgment of the PAM framework. Furthermore, we explored the value judgment and interpersonal judgment in PAM framework with fairness measurement of the information integration theory. Our theory is based on the equity rule proposed by Anderson, which also emphasizes the individual and interpersonal comparison of individual input and outcome. Our results are demonstrated as follows: 1. In the individual value analysis of economic equity, both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf have over 10 local stores and tourists that fits one-factor rule of the tourist number factor. 2. In the individual value analysis of social fairness, Cijin Seaside Park has 10 local stores that support one-factor rule of the public support factor. However, Cijin Seaside Park has over eight tourists that fit the adding rule of public support factor and actual request factor, whereas Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf has over eight local stores and tourists that fit the same rule. 3. In individual value analysis of procedure justice, both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf have over 14 local stores and tourists that fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor and administrative cooperation factor. 4. In interpersonal comparison of economic equity, the experimental result shows that the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the integration of their tourist number factors. Also, the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the integration of their revenue (consumption) factors. Moreover, the local stores and tourists in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf both fit the adding rule of their respective tourist number factor and revenue (consumption) factor. This result also supports the ¡§rule of inequity integration.¡¨ 5. In interpersonal comparison of social fairness, the local stores in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the public support factor. They also fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the actual request factor. As for the tourists, those in both two places fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the public support factor. Also, they fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the actual request factor. 6. In interpersonal comparison of procedure justice, the local stores in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor. They also fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the administrative cooperation factor. As for the tourists, those in both Cijin Seaside Park and Tamshi Fishers¡¦ Wharf fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of policy support factor. Also, they fit the unequal-weight averaging rule of the administrative cooperation factor. We continued to conduct a cross-domain analysis to integrate the above research results, as well as the results of secondary data analysis and expert interviews. As a result, we thereby propose related suggestions and generalize the operation steps of fairness measurement.

<p>Candidates’ attitudes towards various personnel selection methods get attention of organizational and work psychology specialists because of various reasons. The most important reason is that individuals’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods influence their latter behavior. Although there is a substantial amount of studies carried out in different countries, there is no data from Lithuanian and Swedish samples. The aim of current study was to analyze the attitudes towards personnel selection methods among Lithuanian students, Lithuanian employees and Swedish students. The participants (197 students and 86 employees) filled in a questionnaire, which includes short descriptions of 10 personnel selection methods as well as items about fairness of these methods. According to the results of the study, work-sample tests were ranked as the fairest personnel selection method in the Lithuanian sample. The fairest personnel selection methods in Swedish sample were work-sample tests, interview, resumes, and personal references. Lithuanian students ranked the fairness of written ability test and honesty test more favorably than Swedish students, but Swedish students tended to rank as more favorable interview, resumes, personal references and personal contacts. Personal contacts and graphology were ranked the lowest on fairness dimension in Lithuanian sample, and Swedes ranked only graphology as the least fair personnel selection method. Lithuanian employees ranked personal references, personal contacts and graphology more favorably than Lithuanian students. In Lithuanian students sample, perception of personnel selection method as a scientifically proved, logic and precise or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest connection with favorability ranking of personnel selection method’s fairness. In the Lithuanian employees and the Swedish students samples, perception of the method as logic or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest link with fairness.</p>

Candidates’ attitudes towards various personnel selection methods get attention of organizational and work psychology specialists because of various reasons. The most important reason is that individuals’ attitudes towards personnel selection methods influence their latter behavior. Although there is a substantial amount of studies carried out in different countries, there is no data from Lithuanian and Swedish samples. The aim of current study was to analyze the attitudes towards personnel selection methods among Lithuanian students, Lithuanian employees and Swedish students. The participants (197 students and 86 employees) filled in a questionnaire, which includes short descriptions of 10 personnel selection methods as well as items about fairness of these methods. According to the results of the study, work-sample tests were ranked as the fairest personnel selection method in the Lithuanian sample. The fairest personnel selection methods in Swedish sample were work-sample tests, interview, resumes, and personal references. Lithuanian students ranked the fairness of written ability test and honesty test more favorably than Swedish students, but Swedish students tended to rank as more favorable interview, resumes, personal references and personal contacts. Personal contacts and graphology were ranked the lowest on fairness dimension in Lithuanian sample, and Swedes ranked only graphology as the least fair personnel selection method. Lithuanian employees ranked personal references, personal contacts and graphology more favorably than Lithuanian students. In Lithuanian students sample, perception of personnel selection method as a scientifically proved, logic and precise or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest connection with favorability ranking of personnel selection method’s fairness. In the Lithuanian employees and the Swedish students samples, perception of the method as logic or providing an opportunity to show one’s skills, had the strongest link with fairness.

This study examined how marital conflict and marital environment contribute to change in marital status over time; while controlling for gender and other demographic characteristics. The current study used all three waves, 1987-1988, 1992-1994, 2001-2002, of the nationally representative dataset National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). Four longitudinal models were tested using path analysis and the Bayesian estimation technique. Findings indicate there is no effect of marital conflict on change in marital status when demographic and marital environment variables are in the model. Age has the strongest direct and indirect effects. An increase in number of times married consistently increases the chance of a change in marital status. Variables measuring the marital environment—with the exception of the effects of unfairness of chores and spending money in the male models—primarily, contribute direct and mediating effects on the two measures of marital conflict. Overall, when considering all models, the variable with the strongest direct and indirect effects, is age of the respondent. This finding indicates that the dominate influence on marital environment and marital conflict, and, ultimately, change in marital status, is that of age as a proxy for developmental change over the lifecycle.