ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Impression management in distributive justice: balancing fairness and social perception.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distributive justice involves choices between principles such as strict equality and merit-based equity. This study examined whether individuals use these principles strategically to manage impressions, signaling warmth or competence in resource allocation. In Experiment 1, allocation choices differed according to evaluator orientation, although evaluator selections were also linked to monetary incentives. In Experiment 2, after evaluator-linked monetary incentives were removed, a similar but attenuated descriptive pattern emerged; however, the critical interaction effects were not statistically significant. Thus, the findings suggest that social-evaluative orientation may influence allocation preferences, but this apparent influence was weaker without evaluator-linked monetary incentives and requires confirmation in more adequately powered studies. Furthermore, exploratory analyses tentatively suggested that individual differences in fear of negative evaluation and subjective interoceptive sensitivity might be preliminarily associated with variability in allocation choices across evaluator conditions, highlighting potential avenues for future targeted replication. These findings suggest that impression management influences fairness decisions, highlighting the social motivation underlying distributive preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.