Publications Database
Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!
The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:
- Faculty Member’s Name;
- Area of Expertise;
- Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
- Journal Name; and
- Date Range.
At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.
If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Search Results
Zenkić, J., Kobe Millet, and Nicole L. Mead (2023). "Fairness is Based on Quality, Not Just Quantity", Judgment and Decision Making, 18(e22), 1-10.
Abstract
According to decades of research, whether negotiations succeed depends on how much of the stake each person will get. Yet, real-world stakes often consist of resources that vary on quality, not just quantity. While it may appear obvious that people should reject qualitatively inferior offers, just as they reject quantitatively unequal offers, it is less clear why. Across three incentive-compatible studies (N = 1,303) using the ultimatum game, we evaluate three possible reasons for why people reject qualitatively unequal negotiation offers (that are 50% of the stake): fairness, mere inequality, or badness. Data across the three studies are consistent with the fairness account. Casting doubt on the possibility that people reject qualitatively unequal offers merely because they are ‘bad’, Studies 1 and 2 found that participants were more likely to reject the same coins when these were inferior (e.g., 200 × 5¢ coins) to the negotiation partner’s coins (e.g., 5 × $2 coins) than when both parties received the same undesirable coins (e.g., both received 200 × 5¢ coins). Supporting a fairness explanation, rejection rates of the qualitatively inferior offer were higher when the proposal came from a human (vs. a computer), suggesting that rejection stemmed in part from a desire to punish the negotiation partner for unfair treatment (Study 3). Nevertheless, some participants still rejected the unequal offer from a computer, suggesting that mere inequality matters as well. In sum, the findings highlight that quality, not just quantity, is important for attaining fair negotiation outcomes.Kanagaretnam, K. and A. Thevaranjan (2021). "The Value of Trust and Fairness in Alliances: An Economic Perspective", Theoretical Economics Letters, 11, 166-185.
Abstract
In this paper, we develop an analytical model to illustrate the role of trust and fairness in alliances and quantify their economic value to alliance partners. We show that alliance profits and the individual firms’ profits are greatest when partners trust and deal fairly with each other. Moreover, trusting and fair dealing partners benefit the most from the synergies of joint production. We also show that when partners do not trust each other, the alliance profits are reduced by a large amount. The alliance potential is further destroyed if partners do not deal fairly with each other in addition to not trusting each other. The lack of trust and fair play causes firms to fight for control. The fight may result in conflict between the two partners or the emergence of a dominant partner. In the dominant partner case, we show that only alliances with high levels of synergy will be formed. But even then, the dominant partner will realize only a small portion of the benefits from synergy.Folger, R., Rupp, D.R., Shao, R., Shapiro, D.L. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2017). "A Critical Analysis of the Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Justice: Is It Time for Reassessment?", Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919-959.
Abstract
This paper provides a historical review of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice. We demonstrate how, over time, a dominant norm for conceptualizing and measuring justice has emerged. We posit that although consistent conceptualization and measurement across justice studies can enable the accumulation of knowledge, if the dominant approach is incomplete, this can impede the accumulation of knowledge and risk construct reification. We suggest that these risks are high given that (a) contemporary approaches to measuring fairness perceptions fail to capture the full domain of organizational justice as it was initially conceptualized by early scholars; (b) despite a foundation of “classic” theories, our field has yet to systematically map the justice domain; and (c) the normative operationalizations of organizational justice are based on observations that predate the 21st century workplace. We offer suggestions for future research and new approaches to assessing workplace fairness. Our paper’s goal, ultimately, is to reconsider how justice is conceptualized and measured so that the findings obtained from future empirical justice studies can go beyond the constraints of the current paradigm.Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A. (2016). "Agency Theory and Bounded Self Interest", Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 276-297.
Keywords
Abstract
Agency theory draws attention to certain behaviors of CEOs and boards that, in aggregate, create losses for society. The empirical literature, however, characterized by contentious findings, suggests that the current form of agency theory is not supporting a clear understanding of these behaviors and their costs. We propose a change to one assumption, with potentially profound implications. Expanding on the assumption of narrow self-interest underlying agency theory, we apply an empirically well-established refinement that self-interest is bounded by norms of reciprocity and fairness. The resulting logic is that perceptions of fairness mediate the relationships derived from standard agency theory through positively and negatively reciprocal behaviors. This mediating variable provides a parsimonious new way to help explain extreme results found in prior studies. Rather than aiming to limit CEOs’ self-serving behaviors, boards that apply these arguments improve social welfare by initiating positive reciprocity and avoiding unnecessary, welfare-reducing “revenge” behaviors.Farrar, J. and Thorne, L. (2016). "Written Communications and Taxpayers’ Compliance: An Interactional Fairness Perspective", Canadian Tax Journal, 64(2), 351-370.
Abstract
Written communication is the primary means used by tax authorities to communicate with taxpayers. Prior research shows that the content of written communications by tax authorities can influence taxpayers’ compliance by appealing to interactional fairness. Interactional fairness refers to the quality of treatment that individuals receive from an authority figure and has two dimensions, tone and information. In written communications from a tax authority, inadvertently or by design, both tone and information are conveyed. In our study, we examine the impact of both dimensions on taxpayers’ compliance through an experiment involving 287 taxpayers. We find an interaction between tone and information, such that compliance is highest in the presence of high information and an authoritative tone. We also find that compliance is positively associated with information. Our findings have practical implications for tax authorities in determining how best to use written communications to encourage taxpayers’ compliance.Bell, C., Crawshaw, J.R. and Cropanzano, R. (2013). "Organizational Justice: New Insights From Behavioural Ethics", Human Relations, 66(7), 1-20.
Abstract
Both organizational justice and behavioural ethics are concerned with questions of ‘right and wrong’ in the context of work organizations. Until recently they have developed largely independently of each other, choosing to focus on subtly different concerns, constructs and research questions. The last few years have, however, witnessed a significant growth in theoretical and empirical research integrating these closely related academic specialities. We review the organizational justice literature, illustrating the impact of behavioural ethics research on important fairness questions. We argue that organizational justice research is focused on four reoccurring issues: (i) why justice at work matters to individuals; (ii) how justice judgements are formed; (iii) the consequences of injustice; and (iv) the factors antecedent to justice perceptions. Current and future justice research has begun and will continue borrowing from the behavioural ethics literature in answering these questions.Jones, K., Liao, H. Rupp, D.E. and Shao, R.. "The Utility of a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Organizational Justice: A Meta-analytic Investigation into the Consideration of Normative Rules, Moral Accountability, Bandwidth-fidelity, and Social Exchange", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159-185.
Keywords