Dear colleagues,
I'm excited to show you OBHDP's first issue in 2013, which includes 10 very interesting articles!
I would also like to introduce OBHDP's "new" Associate Editor team to you:
Douglas Brown (University of Waterloo)
Steven Farmer (Wichita State University)
Francesca Gino (Harvard University)
Paul Levy (University of Akron)
Madan Pillutla (London Business School)
Eric van Dijk (Universiteit Leiden)
Linn Van Dyne (Michigan State University)
Thank you and we look forward to your submissions to OBHDP!
Xiao-Ping
| New articles in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes available on ScienceDirect |
| | | 2. | Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups Original Research Article
Pages 1-14
Peter H. Kim, Cecily D. Cooper, Kurt T. Dirks, Donald L. Ferrin Highlights ► We investigate how trust repair might differ with groups vs. individuals. ► Repairing trust is generally more difficult with groups than individuals. ► Both individuals and groups trust less after denying low competence or apologizing for low integrity. ► But the relative difficulty of trust repair w/ groups vs. individuals also depends on interaction. ► Ensuing group assessments affect initial individual assessments but not the reverse. | | | | 3. | The donor is in the details Original Research Article
Pages 15-23
Cynthia E. Cryder, George Loewenstein, Richard Scheines Highlights ► In three experiments, details about charitable interventions significantly increased donations. ► Mediational analyses show that perceived impact explains this effect. ► Past work links sympathy to generosity; this work links perceived impact to generosity. | | | | 4. | On the relative importance of linear model and human judge(s) in combined forecasting Original Research Article
Pages 24-36
Matthias Seifert, Allègre L. Hadida Highlights ► Empirical study of combined model-judge forecasts in a unique field setting. ► Interactive effect of task structure and expertise on forecasting effectiveness. ► Reconciles contradictory findings on predictive accuracy of models versus judges. ► New insights into the optimal split assigned to model and manager inputs. ► Empirical evidence of the value of aggregating judgments. | | | | 5. | Defensive reactions to slim female images in advertising: The moderating role of mode of exposure Original Research Article
Pages 37-46
Fang Wan, Tamara L. Ansons, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Jason P. Leboe Highlights ► The use of idealized body images in marketing communications can backfire. ► Blatant exposure to idealized body images can elicit defensive coping. ► Defensive coping leads to a more positive self-evaluation. ► Defensive coping leads to a lower attitude toward a brand endorsed by a model with an idealized image. ► Subtle exposure to idealized images leads to lower self-views and higher endorsed brand attitudes. | | | | 6. | The generalist bias Original Research Article
Pages 47-61
Long Wang, J. Keith Murnighan Highlights ► We introduce a new concept, the generalist bias. ► This is a tendency for organizations to hire generalists. ► Even though they benefit more from the complementary value of specialists. ► Five studies using mixed methods in a variety of contexts test the bias. ► Joint evaluations accentuate the bias; separate evaluations attenuate it. | | | | 7. | Peaking at the right time: Perceptions, expectations, and effects Original Research Article
Pages 62-72
Brian R. Murtha Highlights ► We introduce the notion of peaking at the right time. ► We identify four key triggers of peaking at the right time perceptions. ► We show how observers and participants react to peaking at the right time teams. ► We note differences between expected and actual outcomes for a team's next game. | | | | 8. | Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment Original Research Article
Pages 73-86
Paul D. Windschitl, Aaron M. Scherer, Andrew R. Smith, Jason P. Rose Highlights ► The paper focuses on information selection and confidence about outcomes. ► We found that irrelevant desirability of an outcome influences information search. ► The biased search thereby inflates confidence regarding outcome. ► We distinguish among bracing, stake-likelihood, and desirability hypotheses. | | | | 9. | Emotional agency appraisals influence responses to preference inconsistent information Original Research Article
Pages 87-97
Nidhi Agrawal, DaHee Han, Adam Duhachek Highlights ► Emotions affect judgments and decisions about preference inconsistent information. ► These effects depend on valence and agency-appraisal differences in emotions. ► We examine these effects by way of judgments in a persuasion context. ► Anger (pride) increased resistance to preference inconsistent information. ► Shame (gratitude) encouraged acceptance of preference inconsistent information. | | | | 10. | Bonds and boundaries: Network structure, organizational boundaries, and job performance Original Research Article
Pages 98-109
Xi Zou, Paul Ingram Highlights ► Networks inside and across the organizational boundaries have distinct effects. ► More structural holes across the boundary lead better creativity performance. ► More structural holes across the boundary lead better decision-making. ► Few structural holes inside the organization lead to better task execution. ► Few structural holes inside the organization lead to better teamwork. | | |
| Access the ScienceDirect Info site if you have questions about this message or other features of this service. |
| This email has been sent to you by ScienceDirect, a division of Elsevier B.V., Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel.+31 20 485 3911. ScienceDirect respects your privacy and does not disclose, rent or sell your personal information to any non-affiliated third parties without your consent, except as may be stated in the ScienceDirect online privacy policy. By using email or alert services, you agree to comply with the ScienceDirect Terms and Conditions. To unsubscribe to alert services, please go to the Alerts page. Copyright © 2013 ScienceDirect. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, or transfer of this message or its contents, in any medium, is strictly prohibited. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Delivery Job ID: 2997:488677512:11259:410805106 |