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.
Bigman, Yochanan E.; Wilson, Desman, Nordmo, Mads, Waytz, Adam & Gray, Kurt (2023)
Algorithmic Discrimination Causes Less Moral Outrage Than Human Discrimination
Journal of experimental psychology. General, 152(1), s. 4- 27. Doi: 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.
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.
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.
Arnestad, Mads Nordmo; Selart, Marcus & Lines, Rune (2019)
The causal effects of referential vs ideological justification of change
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.
Arnestad, Mads Nordmo (2019)
Politically Incorrect Statements Do Not Make Leaders Seem More Trustworthy: Randomized Experiments Exploring the Perceptual Consequences of Political Incorrectness
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.
Nordmo, Mads & Norman, Elisabeth (2018)
Spontanitet i leders tenkning gir inntrykk av moralsk motivasjon
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.
Nordmo, Mads; Selart, Marcus & Lines, Rune (2016)
The others are doing it so we are doing it too: Casual effects of different justifications when managers communicate change decisions.
International Journal of Psychology (IJP), 51(S1)
Nordmo, Mads & Norman, Elisabeth (2016)
Perceived mortality and perceived morality: Perceptions of value-orientation are more likely when a decision is preceded by a mortality reminder
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.
Heggernes, Tarjei Alvær & Nordmo, Mads (2019)
Mads Nordmo Arnestad, BI, om kunstig intelligens og ansettelser