ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES Vol. 67, No. 2, August, pp. 181–200, 1996 ARTICLE NO. 0073 Distributing Adventitious Outcomes: Social Norms, Egocentric Martyrs, and the Effects on Future Relationships JUDI MCLEAN PARKS WALLACE GATEWOOD JAMIE C. NEKICH Washington University Morgan State University California State University Sonoma TERRY L. BOLES KEVIN GIBSON PAUL STRAUB University of Iowa Marquette University University of Rio Grande DONALD E. CONLON JENNIFER J. HALPERN GEORGE WILSON University of Delaware Cornell University North Carolina Central University EROS DESOUZA DON C. LOCKE J. KEITH MURNIGHAN Illinois State University University of North Carolina University of British Columbia, at Asheville Vancouver, Canada and the divisibility of the outcome also affected alloca- tion rules and expectations for the future relationship. Research on the distribution of resources typically focuses on anticipated outcomes. This paper investi- The discussion highlights the irony associated with the finding that when an adventitious gain is not gates the social norms people use to distribute adventi- tious (unanticipated) outcomes. Participants in this shared with another, the future relationship between the two is expected to be less positive. Thus, adventi- study read a scenario where either they, or the person they were with (an acquaintance or a friend), received tious outcomes (and gains in particular) can be a dou- ble-edged sword.  1996 Academic Press, Inc. either an unexpected gain or loss which was or was not easily divisible. Participants were then asked to continue the story by describing what they believed The distribution of outcomes is an age-old problem. would happen after the adventitious event. We mea- Adam Smith (1776/1937) dealt with the notion of a fair sured if and how the outcome was divided between the wage; the field of finance often addresses issues con- two individuals involved as well as subjects’ and an outside observer’s perceptions of the fairness of these cerning the value of capital investment and the benefits divisions and any expectations they had about the ef- that risk takers can claim (e.g., Ross & Westerfield, fect of the event on the quality of the relationship be- 1988), and the legal and psychological approaches to tween the two. Results suggest that people endorse a distributive justice both involve the pursuit of fair dis- ‘‘losers weepers’’ norm more often than they do a tribution (e.g., Deutsch, 1975; Thibaut & Walker, ‘‘finders keepers’’ or ‘‘share and share alike’’ (equality) 1975). Many theoretical models address benefits of allo- norm, although all were endorsed. Egocentric distri- cating outcomes as a function of inputs of one kind or butions and expectations permeated the story continu- another (e.g., equity theory). They tend to be silent, ations. Although participants frequently suggest that however, with respect to the distribution of unex- they would share gains, they also expected that their pected— or adventitious — outcomes that occur follow- sacrifices (sharing their own gain or in another’s loss) ing little or no input. would help improve the future relationship between the two more than would similar sacrifices by the other Dictionary definitions of adventitious outcomes cen- (i.e., they were often egocentric martyrs). Friendship ter around the notion of an accidental event: adventi- tious outcomes are not earned; they are ‘‘added extrin- sically’’ (Webster, 1949, p. 13). Examples of positive This project began at the Summer Workshop on Dispute Resolution adventitious outcomes might include being a lucky one- at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stan- millionth customer, receiving free gifts in the mail, or ford, California, in 1992. The support of the Andrew Mellon Founda- tion is sincerely appreciated. We also thank Heatheryann McLean finding money on the street; examples of negative ad- Parks for her outstanding assistance with the data coding and help- ventitious outcomes might include any unexpected loss ful comments from David McPhillips, Tom Tyler, and two anonymous due to another’s action (e.g., theft), to natural disasters, reviewers, and support to the last author from the Social Science and or to inadvertent carelessness. Most unanticipated out- Humanities Research Council of Canada. Address reprint requests to comes provide little legal basis for outside claims un- J. Keith Murnighan, who is now at Northwestern University, KGSM/ OB/Leverone/360, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208. less a contract, a crime, or negligence (i.e., an input) is 181 0749-5978/96 $18.00 Copyright  1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.