“Stuck in the Middle with You?” Supervisory Level and Anger about Work

Although sociologists have long been interested in the stratification of emotions, the occupational stratification of anger has been investigated in only a few general population studies. Through analyses of data representative of workers in Toronto, we evaluate the hypothesis that workplace hierarchical position, defined by supervisory level, has an inverted u‐shaped association with the frequency of anger about work. We also evaluate the more specific hypothesis that the difference in work‐related anger between front‐line supervisors and nonsupervisory workers will be relatively larger among workers in the commodified services sector than other sectors. Results are generally consistent with our hypotheses. We find that both front‐line supervisors in the commodified services sector, and secondary supervisors in all employment sectors, report more frequent anger about work than do nonsupervisory workers. In contrast, higher level supervisors report anger about work at about the same frequency as nonsupervisory workers. These associations are only slightly reduced by controls for work stress and stressors. We discuss how supervisory relations might explain differences in anger about work among workers at different levels in organizational hierarchies.     

Building a Values‐Informed Mental Model for New Orleans Climate Risk Management

Individuals use values to frame their beliefs and simplify their understanding when confronted with complex and uncertain situations. The high complexity and deep uncertainty involved in climate risk management (CRM) lead to individuals’ values likely being coupled to and contributing to their understanding of specific climate risk factors and management strategies. Most mental model approaches, however, which are commonly used to inform our understanding of people's beliefs, ignore values. In response, we developed a “Values‐informed Mental Model” research approach, or ViMM, to elicit individuals’ values alongside their beliefs and determine which values people use to understand and assess specific climate risk factors and CRM strategies. Our results show that participants consistently used one of three values to frame their understanding of risk factors and CRM strategies in New Orleans: (1) fostering a healthy economy, wealth, and job creation, (2) protecting and promoting healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, and (3) preserving New Orleans’ unique culture, traditions, and historically significant neighborhoods. While the first value frame is common in analyses of CRM strategies, the latter two are often ignored, despite their mirroring commonly accepted pillars of sustainability. Other values like distributive justice and fairness were prioritized differently depending on the risk factor or strategy being discussed. These results suggest that the ViMM method could be a critical first step in CRM decision‐support processes and may encourage adoption of CRM strategies more in line with stakeholders’ values.     

Stock investors’ preference for short-term vs. long-term bonuses

Bonuses in the finance sector may be based on too short time intervals for environmental and social factors to be taken into account in investment decisions. We report two experiments to investigate whether investors prefer short-term to long-term bonuses. In Experiment 1 employing 27 undergraduates, preferences were measured for four short-term certain bonuses, evenly distributed across a time interval, and one certain long-term bonus at the end of the time interval. A majority chose the short-term bonuses, and in order for the long-term bonus to be equally preferred it had to be about 40% higher than the four added short-term bonuses. Experiment 2 employing another 36 undergraduates introduced outcome uncertainty that more accurately reflects the choices stock investors face. The participants again choose between a long-term bonus and four distributed short-term bonuses. It was shown that uncertainty made more participants prefer the long-term bonus to the added short-term bonuses than when the outcome was certain. A smaller increase of the long-term bonus of about 20% was now required to make it equally attractive as the four added short-term bonuses.