Arenas, Daniel and Rodrigo, Pablo 2016. On Firms and the Next Generations: Difficulties and Possibilities for Business Ethics Inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133, Issue. 1, p. 165.
Pearson, Adam R. Schuldt, Jonathon P. and Romero-Canyas, Rainer 2016. Social Climate Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 11, Issue. 5, p. 632.
Radu Lefebvre, Miruna and Lefebvre, Vincent 2016. Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, Vol. 75, p. 66.
Donaldson, Thomas and Walsh, James P. 2015. Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, p. 181.
Francés-Gómez, Pedro Sacconi, Lorenzo and Faillo, Marco 2015. Experimental economics as a method for normative business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 24, p. S41.
Markowitz, Ezra M. Grasso, Marco and Jamieson, Dale 2015. Climate ethics at a multidisciplinary crossroads: four directions for future scholarship. Climatic Change, Vol. 130, Issue. 3, p. 465.
North, Michael S. and Fiske, Susan T. 2015. Intergenerational resource tensions in the workplace and beyond: Individual, interpersonal, institutional, international. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, p. 159.
Rottman, Joshua Kelemen, Deborah and Young, Liane 2015. Hindering Harm and Preserving Purity: How Can Moral Psychology Save the Planet?. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 10, Issue. 2, p. 134.
Weaver, Gary R. and Clark, Cynthia E. 2015. Debates of Corruption and Integrity.
Zaval, Lisa Markowitz, Ezra M. and Weber, Elke U. 2015. How Will I Be Remembered? Conserving the Environment for the Sake of One’s Legacy. Psychological Science, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 231.
Walker, Kent and Laplume, Andre 2014. Sustainability fellowships: the potential for collective stakeholder influence. European Business Review, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 149.
Honey-Rosés, Jordi Le Menestrel, Marc Arenas, Daniel Rauschmayer, Felix and Rode, Julian 2013. Enriching Intergenerational Decision-Making with Guided Visualization Exercises. Journal of Business Ethics,
Markowitz, Ezra M. and Shariff, Azim F. 2012. Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 2, Issue. 4, p. 243.
Sondak, Harris and Tyler, Tom R. 2012. The psychology of markets vs. hierarchies: The procedural fairness of alternative allocation procedures for benefits and burdens. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 48, Issue. 1, p. 310.
Joshi, Aparna Dencker, John C. and Franz, Gentz 2011. Generations in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, p. 177.
Pless, Nicola M. and Maak, Thomas 2011. Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98, Issue. S1, p. 3.
Fox, Matthew Tost, Leigh Plunkett and Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. 2010. The Legacy Motive: A Catalyst for Sustainable Decision Making in Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 20, Issue. 02, p. 153.
In six experiments, we investigated the role of resource valence in intergenerational attitudes and allocations. We found that, compared to benefits, allocating burdens intergenerationally increased concern with one’s legacy, heightened ethical concerns, intensified moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame), and led to feelings of greater responsibility for and affinity with future generations. We argue that, because of greater concern with legacies and the associated moral implications of one’s decisions, allocating burdens leads to greater intergenerational generosity as compared to benefits. Our data provide support for this effect across a range of contexts. Our results also indicate that the differential effect of benefits versus burdens in intergenerational contexts depends on the presence of two important structural characteristics that help enact concerns about legacies, including (1) future impact of decisions, and (2) a self-other tradeoff. Overall, our findings highlight how considering resource valence brings to the fore a number of key psychological characteristics of intergenerational decisions—especially as they relate to legacies and ethics.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.