This article researches factors that influence price fairness judgments. The empirical literature suggests several factors: reference prices, the costs of the seller, a self-interest bias, and the perceived motive of sellers. Using a Dutch sample, we find empirical evidence that these factors significantly affect perceptions of fair prices. In addition, we find that the perceived fairness of prices is also influenced by other distributional concerns that are independent of the transaction. In particular, price increases are judged to be fairer if they benefit poor people or small organizations rather than rich people or big organizations.
DOCUMENT
Supply chain collaboration, in which two or more autonomous firms work together to plan and execute supply chain operations, is becoming ever more important to remain competitive in business. Yet, through collaboration concerns arise about whether the benefits and risks of collaboration are split in an acceptable and fair manner. This research illustrates the role of fairness (organizational justice theory) in creating and appropriating value from supply chain collaborations. We therefore analyze an extensive case study in the Dutch floricultural industry, in which six companies enter a supply chain collaboration. We conclude that fairness considerations are very important for explaining the outcomes of supply chain collaborations. Asymmetries in perceived value appropriation can be offset if the collaboration is deemed fair on distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice dimensions. Firms may improve the success rate of supply chain collaborations if the fairness perceived is considered to be adequate.
LINK
Content moderation is commonly used by social media platforms to curb the spread of hateful content. Yet, little is known about how users perceive this practice and which factors may influence their perceptions. Publicly denouncing content moderation—for example, portraying it as a limitation to free speech or as a form of political targeting—may play an important role in this context. Evaluations of moderation may also depend on interpersonal mechanisms triggered by perceived user characteristics. In this study, we disentangle these different factors by examining how the gender, perceived similarity, and social influence of a user publicly complaining about a content-removal decision influence evaluations of moderation. In an experiment (n = 1,586) conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, and Portugal, participants witnessed the moderation of a hateful post, followed by a publicly posted complaint about moderation by the affected user. Evaluations of the fairness, legitimacy, and bias of the moderation decision were measured, as well as perceived similarity and social influence as mediators. The results indicate that arguments about freedom of speech significantly lower the perceived fairness of content moderation. Factors such as social influence of the moderated user impacted outcomes differently depending on the moderated user’s gender. We discuss implications of these findings for content-moderation practices.
DOCUMENT
