Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Abstract

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...

Why Seemingly Trivial Events Sometimes Evoke Strong Emotional Reactions: The Role of Social Exchange Rule Violations

“…THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Our findings are entirely consistent with other research on reactions to unfairness, selfishness, and disrespect (e.g., Allen & Leary, 2010;Bembenek et al, 2007;Brebels et al, 2008;Cohen et al, 1996;Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;Miller, 2001;Stephenson et al, 2011) but extend previous thinking. From our perspective, perceived unfairness and disrespect evoke strong reactions to otherwise trivial events because they are among the most common-and perhaps the most potentially harmful-violations of social exchange rules.…”

“…First, people become angry when they perceive that others have treated them unfairly (Bembenek, Beike, & Schroeder, 2007;Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides, 2008). People sometimes react to unfairness even when it does not matter (Allen & Leary, 2010), and perceptions of procedural justice and fairness are enhanced when people have an opportunity to voice their views even when their input cannot affect the outcome (Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990;Tyler, 1987;Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985).…”

The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goal pursuit.

“…2 The use of difference scores is a common approach for the data analyses of regulatory orientation questionnaires (e.g., Brebels & De Cremer, 2008;Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004;Fransen, Fennis, Pruyn, & Vohs, 2011;Higgins et al, 2001;Keller, & Bless, 2006;Lockwood et al, 2002;Santelli et al, 2009). In our experiments, we decided to use the difference scores approach because, from a theoretical point of view, regardless of the strength of each orientation, it is the relative strength that determines, across situations, the sensitivity to promotion or prevention suggestions.…”

“…Urging caution in the interpretation of findings for the Lockwood et al (2002) instrument, Summerville and Roese (2008) suggested that this instrument "functions like a measure of approach and avoidance (the BIS/BAS [Behavioral Inhibition Scale/Behavioral Activation Scale])" (Carver & White, 1994). We nevertheless employed the Lockwood et al instrument because (a) it has good face validity, with items that are clearly linked to the theoretical definitions of promotion and prevention orientation; (b) it has good psychometric properties, with demonstrated reliability and validity; and (c) it is one of the most frequently employed means of assessing dispositional regulatory orientation (e.g., Brebels & De Cremer, 2008;Keller & Bless, 2006;Lockwood, Marshall, & Sadler, 2005;McGregor, Gailliot, Vasquez, & Nash, 2007;Murray, Derrick, Leder, & Holmes, 2008;Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007). Two additional points are relevant to the Summerville and Roese cautionary note: (d) In prior work we have found that associations with promotion and prevention as assessed using the Lockwood et al instrument are not attributable to approach or avoidance tendencies (BIS/BAS scores; Righetti et al, 2010); and importantly, (e) the existence of moderate associations of promotion and prevention with approach or avoidance and/or positive versus negative affect should not be regarded as problematic, but rather as inherent properties of these constructs.…”

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

“…Recently it has been argued that these and other findings suggest that affective reactions to fair and unfair events probably have something to do with processes of self-regulation (e.g., Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides, 2008;Miedema, Van den Bos, & Vermunt, 2006;Van den Bos, Ham, Lind, Simonis, Van Essen, & Rijpkema, 2008;Van den Bos & Lind, 2002Van Prooijen & Zwenk, 2009). For example, Miedema et al (2006) proposed that fairness can be a means of selfdefense and that situations that are threatening to the self therefore should lead people to react in stronger affective terms to fair and unfair events.…”