On the Robustness of Outcome Bias: No Constraint by Prior Culpability

Mazzocco, Philip J.; Alicke, Mark D.; Davis, Teresa L.

doi:10.1080/01973533.2004.9646401

Cited by 60 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We expect this process to hold true also when the negative effects of irresponsible corporate behavior are appraised. At the same time, ''outcome-bias'' suggests that culpability is influenced by the quality of the outcomes generated (Lowe and Medway 1976;Mazzocco et al 2004) so that questionable practices are more likely to be judged as unethical when they generate negative outcomes (Gino et al 2010). This is also consistent with the accounts of attribution theory in consumer research (Folkes 1988).…”

Section: Appraising the Damage: Perceived Severitysupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Considering the close relationships between anger and moral outrage, we use the existing literature on the former emotion to develop a model comprising the cognitive antecedents of consumer outrage. This literature identifies blame (Aquino et al 2001;Barclay et al 2005), greed (Grégoire et al 2010), and severity of the violation (Mazzocco et al 2004;Tripp et al 2007) as key appraisals associated with anger. To test whether outrage is uniquely associated with reactions to moral failures, we test two models.…”

Section: Moral Outrage and Angermentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of literature documents the important role played by moral outrage or moral anger in stakeholders' reactions to cases of corporate social irresponsibility. Existing research focuses more on the consequences of moral outrage than a systematic analysis of how appraisals of irresponsible corporate behavior can lead to this emotional experience. In this paper, we develop and test, in two field studies, an extended model of moral outrage that identifies the cognitions that lead to, and are associated with, this emotional experience. This research contributes to the existing literature on reactions to corporate social irresponsibility by explaining how observers' evaluation of irresponsible corporate behavior leads to reactions of moral anger. The paper also helps clarify the difference between moral outrage and other types of anger and offers useful insights for managers who have to confront public outrage following cases of irresponsible corporate behavior. Finally, the analysis of the causes of stakeholders' anger at irresponsible corporations opens important avenues for future research that are presented in the paper.

show abstract

Section: Appraising the Damage: Perceived Severitysupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Moral Outrage and Angermentioning

confidence: 96%

An Extended Model of Moral Outrage at Corporate Social Irresponsibility

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although it is often considered morally unjustified to punish an offender on the basis of the victim's reputation (Mazzocco et al, 2004), we anticipated that participants would nevertheless be influenced by the victim's reputation if their judgment was made automatically, under restricted cognitive capacity (low processing depth). If automatic judgments are guided by emotional reactions, then victims with a good rather than a poor reputation should trigger more Soc Just Res (2010) 23:290-307 293 empathy and a greater desire to defend or seek redress for the victim.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Severity of injury probably has considerable significance for an intuitively formed moral judgment since it triggers intuitions of injustice and threat by others (Mazzocco et al, 2004).…”

Section: Overview Of the Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lay people's judgments about punishment are, however, also biased by the influence of several other variables, such as the reputation of the victim, even if the offender could not have had any knowledge of this reputation (Mazzocco, Alicke, & Davis, 2004), the offender's ethnicity (ForsterLee, ForsterLee, Horowitz, & King, 2006;Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000, 2001, his or her gender (Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006) and attractiveness (Stewart, 1980;Zebrowitz, & McDonald, 1991). Such systematic influences have also been called ''extralegal'' since they put either the victim or the defendant at a disadvantage, and because they violate legal rules or ethical principles (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automatic Judgment and Reasoning About Punishment

Oswald

Stucki

2010

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies provide evidence that judgments on punishment are influenced by variables that are more or less independent of guilt considerations. It is postulated that these so called extralegal variables, such as the victim's reputation or outcome severity that occurs accidentally and without intention by the offender, in particular influence judgments that are made under restricted cognitive capacity (low processing depth). Two studies, using a vignette methodology, explore whether participants are able to correct the biasing influences of extralegal variables if they are motivated to elaborate their judgments under the most optimal conditions (high processing depth). Study 1 investigates the influence of victim's reputation, and Study 2 the combined influence of victim's reputation and accidentally occurring outcome severity under either low or high depth of information processing. Results show that the influence of extralegal variables can be corrected. However, corrections are either limited or excessive, and are sometimes even inappropriate.

show abstract