Entity Justice and Entity Injustice

Cropanzano, Russell; Anthony, Erica L.; Daniels, Shanna R.; Hall, Alison

doi:10.4324/9781315648194-10

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Throughout the rest of this article, we describe NWB as the initiating behavior performed by one party (i.e., Party A) and negative reciprocity as a negative behavior performed in reciprocation by another party (i.e., Party B). Table 1 contains definitions of the main constructs that comprise NWB and negative reciproc-and content space measured by constructs with different labels but similar scale items (i.e., Andersson & Pearson, 1999;Carpenter & Berry, 2017;Cropanzano et al, 2017;Hershcovis, 2011). A consistent suggestion is that the field should focus on integration and synthesis of constructs, rather than differentiation, in order to effectively advance theory related to forms of NWB (Aquino & Thau, 2009;Hershcovis, 2011).…”

Section: Nwb and Negative Reciprocity In Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, we take an integrative approach in defining themes between constructs so they can be examined in a manner that advances theory related to negative interactions in the workplace. Drawing from Buss's (1961) and Baron and Neuman's (1996) seminal works on aggression, theories of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and social exchange (Cropanzano et al, 2017), and the voluminous literature on counterproductive work behavior (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997, we identified three critical dimensions in differentiating between types of NWB: severity, activity, and targets. First, NWB is most often differentiated based on its level of severity or intensity, ranging from minor (less intense, verbal) to severe (more intense, physical; Andersson & Pearson, 1999;Barling, 1996;Buss, 1961;Hershcovis, 2011;Robinson & Bennett, 1995).…”

Section: Nwb and Negative Reciprocity In Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These deleterious effects have driven researchers to devote considerable effort to examining antecedents and consequences of dysfunctional or negative behavior in the workplace, hereafter referred to as negative workplace behavior (NWB; Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, & Hall, 2017). Multiple theoretical frameworks articulate mechanisms through which individual and attitudinal variables relate to different types of NWB (Bennett & Robinson, 2000;Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003;Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008;Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002;Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005;Spector & Fox, 2005;Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On one hand, foundational texts on negative reciprocity rest on the idea of "an eye for an eye," that negative behavior will be returned in-kind (e.g., Gouldner, 1960;Helm, Bonoma, & Tedeschi, 1972). The primary rationale is that equity concerns exert a powerful force on human decision-making (e.g., Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000;Fehr & Schmidt, 1999), such that the behavior exchanged should be as similar as possible to the initiating action (i.e., homeomorphic reciprocity; Cropanzano et al, 2017;Lyons & Scott, 2012). On the other hand, some theoretical frameworks propose that negative behaviors escalate in intensity, or spiral, over time (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999;Baron & Neuman, 1996;Folger & Skarlicki, 1998;Hershcovis & Barling, 2010a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The overarching framework used to define relational contexts for negative reciprocity in the present paper is social exchange theory, which describes various social and relational contexts that govern interpersonal transactions or exchanges (Cropanzano et al, 2017;Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008;Emerson, 1976). Below we discuss the two key components of these exchanges, NWB (from Party A) and negative reciprocation (from Party B), followed by our specific research questions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An eye for an eye? A meta-analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations.

Greco¹,

Whitson²,

O’Boyle³

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most models of negative workplace behaviors (NWB) are individual in nature, focusing on individual attitudes (e.g., satisfaction) and general workplace perceptions (e.g., procedural justice) that motivate NWB. Less commonly considered are explorations of relationally based negative workplace behaviors—how NWB from Party A is related to reciprocation of NWB from Party B. Based on 2 competing conceptualizations in the literature, that behavior is reciprocated “in-kind” in an eye for an eye exchange or that behavior tends to escalate or spiral over time, we develop a framework for negative reciprocity that considers NWB in terms of severity, activity, and target. This framework addresses (a) whether Party A’s NWB is associated with behavior of a similar or greater level (i.e., activity and severity) from Party B; and (b) whether Party B’s reciprocating behavior is directed back at Party A (i.e., direct) or transferred onto others (i.e., displaced). We meta-analytically test these relationships with 246 independent samples (N = 96,930) and find strongest support for relationships indicating that NWB from Party A is largely returned in-kind, followed closely by relationships indicative of escalation. We also found that as the frequency of Party A’s NWB increases, so too does the frequency of reciprocity behavior of equal levels. Surprisingly, differences related to the target of the behavior as well as differences based on whether the data were cross-sectional or longitudinal were generally negligible.

show abstract