Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice

Blader, Steven L.; Wiesenfeld, Batia M.; Fortin, Marion; Wheeler-Smith, Sara L.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.004

Cited by 58 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reactions of third parties represent a case in point for why the distinction may be important. Rupp and Paddock suggested that third parties are likely to have a milder affective response to injustice than victims, as they have less “skin in the game.” On the other hand, research finds that third parties' fairness judgments are easily swayed by their social emotions (Blader, Wiesenfeld, Fortin, & Wheeler‐Smith, ), and Jones and Skarlicki () argued that third parties may be quicker in blaming the perpetrator because observers are more prone to make internal attributions regarding the perpetrator's behavior. Research should investigate whether third parties assign blame to perpetrators more quickly than victims when their reaction is cognition‐based and more slowly than victims when their reaction is affect‐based.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceOrganizational justice is an important determinant of workplace attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. However, understanding workplace fairness requires not only examining what happens but also when it happens, in terms of justice events, perceptions, and reactions. We organize and discuss findings from 194 justice articles with temporal aspects, selected from over a thousand empirical justice articles. By examining temporal aspects, our findings enrich and sometimes challenge the answers to three key questions in the organizational justice literature relating to (i) when individuals pay attention to fairness, including specific facets, (ii) how fairness judgments form and evolve, and (iii) how reactions to perceived (in)justice unfold. Our review identifies promising avenues for empirical work and emphasizes the importance of developing temporal theories of justic

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, in the organizational perspective, observers (third party) evaluate the reactions of organizational authorities toward consumers, on behalf of which they shape their behavior and attitudes toward the organizations. Many factors including economic interests, past experience, and personal relationships with decision addresses influence the third party's emotions and judgment (Blader, Wiesenfeld, Fortin, & Wheeler‐smith, ).…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesis Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived public condemnation and avoidance intentions: The mediating role of moral outrage

Shah

Chu

Qaisar

et al. 2019

Journal of Public Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of intrapersonal emotion on consumers' behavior have long been studied, but the effects of interpersonal emotions on public's intentions remain poorly understood. People often get angry when they observe injustice with others but not themselves. Drawing on emotions as social information theory, we investigated how perceived public condemnation (knowledge that other also condemn a particular norm violation by an organization) affects the moral outrage of public and their future intentions toward the organization. A quantitative study was empirically examined through a sample of 107 users of a leading riding service in Pakistan. Data were analyzed through statistical tools (IBM SPSS & AMOS 21). Finding shows that perceived public condemnation was positively correlated with moral outrage and avoidance intentions of individuals. However, moral outrage mediates the association between perceived public condemnation and avoidance intentions of the public. The implications highlight the importance of a community's social norms and values to gauge the organization's reputation in people's eyes.

show abstract

“…Thus, employees are more likely to adopt the moral perspective of a friend than a non‐friend peer who is involved in a workplace transgression, especially if the employee has a Machiavellian orientation (Ruiz‐Palomino et al, ). For example, employees may judge unfair treatment or unethical behaviour less harshly when there is perceived similarity between the observer and the wrongdoer (Blader et al, ; Schmidtke, ). Although not yet studied in the context of friend‐reporting dilemmas, unconscious bias may also play a role in shaping friend‐reporting choices by creating “moral blind spots” when it comes to recognizing a friend's failings (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, ; Gino & Bazerman, ; Gino et al, ; Greenberger et al, ; Umphress & Bingham, ).…”

Section: Literature Review and Theoretical Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research shows that employees are far less likely to report their friends than acquaintances for misconduct (Curphy et al, 1998;King, 1997;Taylor & Curtis, 2010), but our understanding of how and why friendship inhibits reporting remains critically underdeveloped. We know that employees may hesitate to raise concerns about their friends to protect their relationships (Brass, Butterfield, & Skaggs, 1998;Jones, 1991;Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003), to demonstrate loyalty (Pershing, 2003;Taylor & Curtis, 2010), to avoid upsetting group harmony (Bird & Waters, 1989) or due to unconscious bias (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011;Blader, Wiesenfeld, Fortin, & Wheeler-Smith, 2013;Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009;Gino & Bazerman, 2009;Umphress & Bingham, 2011). Despite these advances in our understanding, important questions remain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct

Hess

Treviño

Chen

et al. 2019

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do employees fail to report a friend's misconduct, and if they do not report, how else do they cope with this ethical dilemma? Through two field studies, we offer a more nuanced understanding of the range of alternative responses between the extremes of silence (ignoring misconduct) and compliance (reporting), and we illuminate the underlying reasons for these choices. Our results reveal that most employees are inclined to attempt to resolve a friend‐reporting situation themselves, and further, that many employees hesitate to report a friend's misconduct for ethical reasons. Specifically, we show how an ethic of care expressed through empathy for the transgressor may play an important and previously unexamined role in friend‐reporting decisions, drawing attention to the consideration of empathy as a key emotion that can reduce compliance with reporting programmes. In addition to these important contributions to the literature, practitioners should also find this study useful, as it suggests new approaches to help employees better align their choices with the compliance goals of the organisation without sacrificing their valued friendships.

show abstract

Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice

Cited by 58 publications

References 43 publications

It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects

It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects

Perceived public condemnation and avoidance intentions: The mediating role of moral outrage

Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About