Controladores en el usuario Jefe

I operationalized my theoretical arguments through testable hypotheses. These hypotheses were tested through the data collected from a vignette study, which explained in detail in the previous sections. In this section, I provide each dependent variable as a subsection and listed related hypotheses.

First Contribution

The first dependent variable in this study is the participants’ initial contribution to the group account (i.e. first contribution). Based on my theory, I assume that the community title creates a higher contribution expectation while the Wall Street title creates a lower contribution expectation to the group account. Additionally, I expect that the decision title creates a neutral contribution expectation. The personal endowment was $10.00, and participants were free to contribute any amount from $0.00 to $10.00 to the group account. Since the expectation for contribution is higher in the community task, I assume that the first contribution amount will be higher in the community group compared to the decision group and higher in the decision group compared to the Wall Street group. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:

H.1.a: Participants in the community group will give more money to the group account than participants in the decision group.

H.1.b: Participants in the decision group will give more money to the group account than participants in the Wall Street group.

Fairness Evaluation

The second dependent variable is the participants’ fairness evaluations for their hypothetical interaction with a low-contributor partner. When an actor makes fairness evaluations, s/he may take into account all available information. Very common factors can be how much s/he contributed and how much his/her partner contributed to the group account. My theory adds how information created by a social frame can have effects on fairness evaluations. The information created by frames leads actors to make different social comparisons. Since the community title creates a higher contribution expectation, the Wall Street tittle creates a lower contribution expectation, and the decision title creates a neutral contribution expectation to the group account, I assume that each social comparison will be different and consequently, fairness evaluations will vary across groups. I expect that participants who have a high expectation for contribution (e.g. the community group) will be more disappointed with others’ low contributions. In other words, injustice evaluation will be stronger in the community group relative to the decision group, and stronger in the decision group relative to the Wall Street group. Thus,

H.2.a: Injustice will be stronger in the community group than the decision group. H.2.b: Injustice will be stronger in the decision group than the Wall Street group.

Changes in the Second Contribution

The third dependent variable I analyzed is one of the subsequent behaviors: difference between the first contribution and the second contribution, in other words, changes in the second contribution. When participants experience justice or injustice, I assume that their second contribution will be a response to their justice or injustice experience. Therefore, I formulate the following hypothesis:

H.3.a: Participants who experience stronger injustice will decrease their second contribution more than participants who experience justice.

However, my theory specifically focuses on how framing influences justice evaluations by creating different standards for contribution. As discussed earlier, the community frame is assumed to create a high contribution expectation, the decision frame is assumed to create a neutral contribution expectation, and the Wall Street frame is assumed to create a low contribution expectation. When participants encounter a low- contributor partner, I expect that the community group will experience stronger injustice than the decision group, and that the decision group will experience stronger injustice than the Wall Street group. This variation among groups is likely to happen due to different contribution standards created through different frames. Having a high or low contribution expectation leads people to make different social comparisons. For instance, comparing one’s own contribution to a high standard and comparing one’s own contribution to a low standard could result in completely different justice evaluations. Consequently, I formulate the following hypotheses:

H.3.b: Participants in the community group will decrease their second contribution more than the decision group.

H.3.c: Participants in the decision group will decrease their second contribution more than the Wall Street group.

Tendency to Change Partner

The fourth dependent variable is another means to restore justice: participants’ willingness to switch partners for future rounds. I assume that changing partner, in other

words ending the relationship, is another response to the fairness evaluation. Therefore, I formulate the following hypothesis:

H.4.a: Participants who experience stronger injustice will be more willing to change partners than participants who experience justice.

However, as discussed in the previous subsection, my theory predicts that framing affects justice evaluations and thus, I expect that the community group will experience stronger injustice than the decision group, and that the decision group will experience stronger injustice than the Wall Street group. Thus,

H.4.b: Participants in the community group will be more willing to change partners than the decision group.

H.4.c: Participants in the decision group will be more willing to change partners than the Wall Street group.