Mads Nordmo Arnestad

Journal of Managerial Psychology 38(7) s. 541-557 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2021-0542

Purpose: Previous studies have demonstrated that perceived job insecurity climate denotes an individual-level stressor. The present study reiterated this notion and investigated whether leadership responsibility moderated the association between perceived job insecurity climate and work-related strain about one year into the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Design/methodology/approach: A sample of full-time workers (N = 1,399) in the USA was recruited, comprising 663 leaders and 763 non-leaders. Employing a cross-sectional design, the authors hypothesized that perceived job insecurity climate would be associated with work-related strain (i.e. burnout, absenteeism and presenteeism) and that these associations were stronger for employees with leadership responsibilities compared to non-leaders. Findings: Findings revealed main effects of perceived job insecurity climate on burnout but not on absenteeism or presenteeism. Furthermore, leadership responsibility moderated the associations between perceived job insecurity climate and two out of three burnout measures in the hypothesized direction. The findings also revealed interaction effects regarding absenteeism and presenteeism, indicating that these associations are only positive and significant for employees with leadership responsibilities. Practical implications: Perceptions of widespread job insecurity engender strain among leaders while simultaneously implying a heightened need for effective leadership. Organizations and practitioners should take the present findings into consideration when implementing preventive and restorative measures to address leaders' health and organizational competitiveness when job insecurity increases. Originality/value: This study found that, as an individual stressor, perceived job insecurity climate is more detrimental to employees with leadership responsibility than to non-leaders.

Journal of experimental psychology. General 152(1) s. 4-27 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250

Companies and governments are using algorithms to improve decision-making for hiring, medical treatments, and parole. The use of algorithms holds promise for overcoming human biases in decision-making, but they frequently make decisions that discriminate. Media coverage suggests that people are morally outraged by algorithmic discrimination, but here we examine whether people are less outraged by algorithmic discrimination than by human discrimination. Eight studies test this algorithmic outrage deficit hypothesis in the context of gender discrimination in hiring practices across diverse participant groups (online samples, a quasi-representative sample, and a sample of tech workers). We find that people are less morally outraged by algorithmic (vs. human) discrimination and are less likely to hold the organization responsible. The algorithmic outrage deficit is driven by the reduced attribution of prejudicial motivation to algorithms. Just as algorithms dampen outrage, they also dampen praise—companies enjoy less of a reputational boost when their algorithms (vs. employees) reduce gender inequality. Our studies also reveal a downstream consequence of algorithmic outrage deficit—people are less likely to find the company legally liable when the discrimination was caused by an algorithm (vs. a human). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results, including the potential weakening of collective action to address systemic discrimination.

Frontiers in Psychology 12 s. 1-10 Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637339

In some jobs, the correlation between effort and output is almost zero. For instance, money managers are primarily paid for luck. Using a controlled lab experiment, we examined under which conditions workers are willing to put in effort even if the output (and thus their employer’s earnings) is determined by pure luck. We varied whether the employer could observe the workers’ effort, as well as whether the employer knows that earnings were determined by luck. We find that, workers believed that the employer will reward their effort even if their effort does not affect earnings. Consequently, workers work harder if the employer could observe their (unproductive) effort. Moreover, even when the employer only saw earnings and not effort, workers labored harder if the employer did not know that earnings were determined by luck.

Frontiers in Psychology 11 s. 1-10 Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00355

Physical and emotional intimacy between humans and robots may become commonplace over the next decades, as technology improves at a rapid rate. This development provides new questions pertaining to how people perceive robots designed for different kinds of intimacy, both as companions and potentially as competitors. We performed a randomized experiment where participants read of either a robot that could only perform sexual acts, or only engage in non-sexual platonic love relationships. The results of the current study show that females have less positive views of robots, and especially of sex robots, compared to men. Contrary to the expectation rooted in evolutionary psychology, females expected to feel more jealousy if their partner got a sex robot, rather than a platonic love robot. The results further suggests that people project their own feelings about robots onto their partner, erroneously expecting their partner to react as they would to the thought of ones’ partner having a robot.

Journal of Organizational Change Management 32(4) s. 397-408 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2018-0323

Purpose This paper details an experimental study (n=197) that explores how different types of managerial change justifications affect employees’ reactions. The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of managerial justification of a controversial decision in referential terms, ideological terms or a combination of the two. Design/methodology/approach A randomized controlled experiment was used applying case-based video clips to ensure vividness and realism in the experimental manipulation. Findings The results show that referential justification caused a drop in the perceived trustworthiness of management, such that it reduced employees’ perceptions of the manager’s integrity. The effect was most pronounced in participants having elevated levels of dispositional resistance to change. The drop in perceived integrity was indirectly associated with reduced intention to support the change together with adverse affective and cognitive reactions to change. Originality/value A robust test of different change justifications in a randomized, controlled setting, which also highlights the psychological mechanisms through which referential change justifications reduce follower trust. This result should help managers more readily understand the components of successful communication in organizational change.

Management Communication Quarterly 33(3) s. 363-387 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919839787

Several political analysts, communication strategists, and academics have speculated that leaders who openly defy the norms of political correctness may gain a reputation for honesty and integrity, which may make them come across as more trustworthy. The present article reports the results from two randomized vignette-based experiments exploring the potential link between managers’ political incorrectness and perceived trustworthiness. The results offer no support for the notion that managers who make politically incorrect statements will come across as more trustworthy. On the contrary, the levels of perceived trustworthiness were found to be substantially lower for managers who express politically incorrect views, compared with those who express contrasting politically correct views.

Magma forskning og viten 21(4) s. 59-67

Nyere forskning tyder på at når vi skal finne ut hva noens egentlige motiv er, gjøres dette ofte ved at man evaluerer personens kognitive stil. Beslutninger med rot i spontane innfall tolkes gjerne som et uttrykk for genuin moralsk motivasjon, mens veloverveide og gjennomtenkte beslutninger fremstår som mer strategiske og egoistiske. Når ledere kommuniserer bedriftens tiltak for bærekraft og samfunnsansvar, vil tilhørere vurdere hvilke motiv som ser ut til å ligge bak tiltakene. Tiltak som er motivert av genuint moralsk ansvar, vurderes positivt, mens tiltak som tilsynelatende er motivert av økonomisk egennytte, vurderes nøytralt eller negativt. I denne studien undersøker vi mulige faktorer som kan fremme eller hemme inntrykket av genuin moralsk motivasjon. Vi rapporterer resultatene fra to kontrollerte eksperiment (N = 148) der en leder presenterte et tiltak for samfunnsansvar. Vi manipulerte graden av kognitiv spontanitet som lederen uttrykte i forbindelse med tiltaket. Lederen som signaliserte en delvis spontan kognitiv stil, ble oppfattet som mer åpen enn lederen som hadde tenkt grundig før hun bestemte seg for tiltakene, og med en lavere intensjon om å overtale. Dette var indirekte assosiert med større støtte til lederen og tiltakene. Det andre eksperimentet viste derimot at en leder som hevdet å ha kommet på tiltakene gjennom total kognitiv spontanitet, ble evaluert negativt. Samlet sett viser resultatene at ledere som fremstår som delvis spontant tenkende i sine beslutninger, kan oppnå enkelte fordeler.

Frontiers in Psychology 7 Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00233

The questions addressed in this paper are whether and how reported mortality reminders can function as an indication of sincerity when communicating ambiguously motivated decisions. In two experiments, participants were exposed to a fictitious CEO who announced a decision to implement new organizational measures that were both environmentally and financially beneficial. In the experimental condition, the CEO attributed her new ideas to a recent mortality reminder. In the active control condition, the CEO attributed her decision to a non-lethal dentistry health scare, and in the passive control condition the CEO did not give any account of events preceding her decision. When a CEO implemented new corporate initiatives after a mortality reminder, her motivation for doing so was perceived as somewhat more motivated by intrinsic values, and significantly less motivated by financial gains. This change in attribution patterns was demonstrated to be indirectly related to a positive evaluation of the CEO, as well as an increased willingness to pay for the organization’s services. The second experiment further demonstrated that the reduced attribution to financial motivation associated with mortality awareness persisted even when the CEO in question was known for placing a high personal priority on financial goal attainment. The findings underscore the importance of perceived value-oriented motivation when communicating climate change mitigating policies, and the role of mortality awareness as one of many ways to induce such attributions.

International Journal of Psychology (IJP) 51(S1) s. 336-336

Frontiers in Psychology 6 Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01324

In two experimental studies we explore to what extent the general effects of positive and negative framing also apply to positive and negative persuasion. Our results reveal that negative persuasion induces substantially higher levels of skepticism and awareness of being subjected to a persuasion attempt. Furthermore, we demonstrate that in positive persuasion, more claims lead to stronger persuasion, while in negative persuasion, the numerosity of claims carries no significant effect. We interpret this finding along the lines of a satiety-model of persuasion. Finally, using diluted, or low strength claims in a persuasion attempt, we reveal a significant interaction between dispositional reactance and dilution of claims on persuasion knowledge. The interaction states that diluted claims increase the awareness of being subjected to a persuasion attempt, but only for those with a high dispositional level of reactance.