Six studies explored the hypothesis that third parties are averse to resolving preference disputes with winner-take-all solutions when disputing factions belong to different social categories (e.g. gender, nationality, firms, etc.) versus the same social category. Studies 1—3 showed that third parties' aversion to winner-take-all solutions, even when they are based on the unbiased toss of a coin, is greater when the disputed preferences correlate with social category membership than when they do not. Studies 4—6 suggested that reluctance to resolve inter-category disputes in a winner-take-all manner is motivated by a desire to minimize the affective disparity—the hedonic gap—between the winning and losing sides. The implication is that winner-take-all outcomes, even those that satisfy conditions of procedural fairness, become unacceptable when disputed preferences cleave along social category lines.
The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Competition reviews and organizes the literature on the psychology of competition and brings together leading researchers studying competition across the field of psychology. This volume is a crucial interdisciplinary investigation into the variety of perspectives and approaches to the psychology of competition, facilitating new research and integration in the field.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries: