No abstract

Three studies examined the relationship between moral identity and procedural justice enactment and explored the moderating role of regulatory focus in this relationship. In Study 1, an experimental scenario study, leaders with a strong moral identity were more likely to enact decisions accurately in an employee performance evaluation procedure. This effect emerged in the prevention focus condition, but was absent in the promotion focus condition. In Study 2, an organizational field survey, organizational supervisors' moral identity related to self-reported voice granting, and this effect was pronounced among those with strong (as opposed to weak) dispositional prevention focus. In Study 3, another field study, organizational supervisors' moral identity related to co-worker ratings of voice granting and this effect was again pronounced among supervisors with strong (as opposed to weak) prevention focus. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of a moral self-regulation account of justice enactment.

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do unfair-treatment recipients sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. We proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, preventionfocus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.Keywords: retaliation, unfair treatment, procedural fairness, regulatory focus, self-activation This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 3 Retaliation as a Response to Procedural Unfairness: A Self-Regulatory ApproachFor many people, unfair treatment in group or organizational settings is a recurrent experience; it is also an aversive experience (Mikula, 1986;Miller, 2001;Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007). Aversion would be expected to result in retaliation (e.g., revenge, stealing, antisocial resource allocation). Indeed, justice researchers have considered perceived unfairness a key predictor of retaliation in employee-supervisor relationships, and they have carried out field studies to test this idea (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997;Blader, Chang, & Tyler, 2001;Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997;Greenberg, 1993;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). When these studies were metaanalyzed (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), however, a rather surprising conclusion emerged: perceived unfairness was an inconsistent predictor of retaliation. This conclusion was echoed by subsequent bodies of research (Bembenek, Beike, & Schroeder, 2007; Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006;Posthuma, Maertz, & Dworkin, 2007). In the words of Colquitt et al. (2006), "a substantial amount of variation exists in these relationships, and … moderators could explain much of that variation (p. 111)." It appears, then, that researchers lack a clear understanding of when perceived unfairness translates into retaliation and why unfairness recipients pursue or inhibit retaliation.Some justice research has looked into affect as an explanation for the inconsistent relation between unfair treatment and retaliation (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bembenek et al., 2007;Bies & Tripp, 1996;De Cremer, 2007). This research has shown that negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment) accompany retaliation as a response to perceived unfairness, but the research has not addressed when and why people sometimes pursue and sometimes inhi...

"Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership." [authors abstract

The present research explores whether adhering to cultural conservative beliefs elevates self-esteem in older people. In a sample of 311 retired persons it was found that conservatism was positively related to self-esteem, and that this relationship was especially strong in the oldest age group. Statistical control for narcissism did not undermine this moderation effect between age and conservatism on self-esteem. In the discussion, we argue that conservatism among older people seems to go together with a focus on putting personal history in social-cultural context. Conservatism and self-esteemFirst copyedit complete. IntroductionAn assumption common to lay persons is that older people tend to be more conservative (e,g., Glenn, 1974), with each new generation becoming less tolerant as it grows older. Many studies have indeed shown a shift towards increased conservatism and right-wing political preferences in older age (e.g., Cornelis, Van Hiel, Roets, & Kossowska, 2009; Truett, 1993; Wilson, 1973). More specifically, older people show higher levels of cultural conservatism, exhibiting increased resistance to change, which encompasses the endorsement of traditional values, social rules and norms, as opposed to the freedom to arrange one's individual life as one sees fit. Most studies on right-wing beliefs tend to focus on negative outcomes, like deficient cognitive style and threat proneness (see, Jost et al., 2003), and these studies thus do not seem to be particularly informative to answer the question what can be gained from right-wing beliefs. Moreover, despite the observation that older people are more conservative, not many studies on right-wing beliefs have focused on samples of the elderly.One of the few studies including a sample of older individuals was conducted by Van Hiel and De Clercq (2009). They reported that authoritarianism is a buffering factor for stress, and particularly that increased levels of authoritarianism (as opposed to those showing lower levels of authoritarianism) curb the impact of negative life-events on health outcomes. One of the explanations offered by these authors for this beneficial effect of authoritarianism was According to this theory, people cope with the anxiety engendered by the awareness of their own death by adhering to the dominant views in a given society, that is, by adopting and fulfilling the norms and values of one's culture. In sum, adherence to one's culture -as may be reflected by right-wing beliefs -thus provides meaning, organization and continuity to life, which might enable people to cope not only with one's own death, but also with negative lifeevents (Van Hiel & De Clercq, 2009).Importantly for the present study, TMT also stresses the role of self-esteem in coping with one's own death, either as a buffer for this anxiety, or as a coping mechanism. Hence, according to TMT, then, compliance with cultural values enhances one's self-esteem. These observations align well with the idea that self-esteem is construed within a social context. Leary (...