Will I Cooperate? The Moderating Role of Informational Distance on Justice Reasoning

Melkonian, Tessa; Soenen, Guillaume; Ambrose, Maureen L.

doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2744-8

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data used in this article were collected as part of a broader data collection effort. Time 1 data were used to explore the moderating role of informational distance on the relative determinants of cooperation (see Melkonian, Soenen, & Ambrose, 2015). The only variable overlapping the two studies is time 1 overall justice, which is used here as an independent variable, while it is used as a control variable in the other study.…”

Section: Methods Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Shift or Not to Shift? Determinants and Consequences of Phase Shifting on Justice Judgments

Soenen

Melkonian

Ambrose

2017

AMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on fairness heuristic theory and dual-process theories of cognition, we examine individuals' perceptions of phase shifting. We define phase shifting as an individual perception that triggers a shift from type 1 to type 2 cognitive processes resulting in the reevaluation of justice judgments. In a longitudinal study of a merger, we empirically test the influence of phase-shifting perceptions on justice judgments, and we identify antecedents of phase-shifting perceptions. We find employees' perceptions of the change as a phase-shifting event moderates the relationship between overall justice judgments prior to change (time 1), and subsequent assessments of justice six months later (time 2). We study three situational antecedents (i.e., magnitude of change, managerial exemplarity, and coworker support for change) and one individual antecedent (i.e., dispositional resistance to change) of phase-shifting perceptions. The four hypothesized antecedents together predict 74% of employees' perceptions of the merger as a phase-shifting event. Implications for research and practice regarding organizational justice and organizational change are discussed.We are thankful to the APICIL Company and the Gordon J. Barnett Foundation for their support of this research.

show abstract

Section: Methods Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Shift or Not to Shift? Determinants and Consequences of Phase Shifting on Justice Judgments

Soenen

Melkonian

Ambrose

2017

AMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consumers form expectations in line with a level of performance so when service recovery performs well, then satisfaction is high [48,51]. Anticipatory justice has its root in handling organizational change (internal and external environmental change) [52]. That is, anticipatory justice is more case-related and refers to short-and medium-term efforts devoted by the firm.…”

Section: Service Failure and Recovery Effortsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anticipatory justice suggests that the fairness of the recovery procedures, the interpersonal communications and activities, and the outcome are the primary antecedents of customer evaluations in the context of changes (in this case service failure). Traditionally, anticipatory justice facets have been hypothesized identically with four perceived (experienced) forms of justice [52,56], which are a key concept in explaining the formation of customer evaluations of organizational responses to a service failure. For consumers to perceive fairness in service recovery, service firms take actions (or means) including acknowledging the failure, apologizing, promptly correcting the problem, supplying an explanation for the service failure, empowering staff to resolve problems on the spot, making offers of amends, being courteous and respectful, and showing empathy and attentiveness during the recovery process [7,24,57,58].…”

Section: The Relative Effect Of Anticipatory Justice Facetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, anticipatory (perceived) justice can provide the rationality and a critical role in repairing perceived legitimacy [21] following service failure recovery. Research showed that anticipatory justice affects individual attitudes and behavior toward changes (events) [52,56]. A service failure that becomes public via press and media coverage is likely to inflict direct damage on organizational legitimacy.…”

Section: Anticipatory Justice and Organizational Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fair or Unfair: The Moderating Effect of Sustainable CSR Practices on Anticipatory Justice Following Service Failure Recovery

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the relative effect of anticipatory justice on organizational legitimacy and consumer trust that further leads to consumer citizenship behavior following service failure recovery in Taiwan. Further, the moderating role of sustainable corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices is explored. A causal relationship and survey design with a valid sample of 269 respondents was applied. Findings indicated that organizational legitimacy and consumer trust can be restored through anticipatory justice, in particular interpersonal justice and then further mediated consumer citizenship behavior. As a moderator, a high level of sustainable CSR practices had a significantly stronger effect on anticipatory justice and organizational legitimacy than the low level one but only had an effect on interpersonal justice and consumer trust after service recovery. Practical implications are provided for service providers. The value of this research proposes an integrated model with organizational legitimacy and sustainable CSR practice that has not yet been tested in the model of service recovery. In addition, sustainable CSR practice is proposed as a moderator (high and low) that is compared in the level of strength of the relationships. This moderation effect has not been found previously in the process of service recovery.

show abstract

“…Second, we connect interactional justice enactment to construal level theory. Researchers are discovering the relevance of construal level theory for understanding many organizational phenomena (see Wiesenfeld, Reyt, Brockner, & Trope, 2017), including the study of justice (e.g., Carter, Bobocel, & Brockner, 2020; Cojuharenco & Patient, 2013; Cojuharenco, Patient, & Bashshur, 2011; Melkonian, Soenen, & Ambrose, 2016). Although interest in construal level and justice is expanding, empirical research to date has focused on the recipient and observer perspectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering bad news fairly: Higher construal level promotes interactional justice enactment through perspective taking

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary How can managers deliver bad news with greater interactional justice? We propose a novel cognitive pathway: Construing the activity at a higher (vs. lower) level increases actors' other‐oriented perspective taking, which in turn promotes the enactment of interactional justice. Three studies provide support. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated a beneficial effect of construal level on interactional justice enactment when explaining a hypothetical bad news decision. Study 2 also showed that other‐oriented perspective taking is the mechanism through which construal level promotes interactional justice enactment. Study 3 replicated and extended these findings with a different paradigm and the addition of a moderator variable (trait perspective taking), providing a converging test of the proposed mechanism. Overall, the present research suggests that how managers think about delivering bad news—whether at higher or lower levels of construal—affects the extent to which they think from the recipient's perspective, and in turn how they communicate the news. Our research generates novel avenues for future research on justice enactment, construal level theory, and perspective taking. It may also have implications for better understanding downstream consequences of interactional justice enactment for bad news deliverers themselves.

show abstract

Will I Cooperate? The Moderating Role of Informational Distance on Justice Reasoning

Cited by 7 publications

References 51 publications

To Shift or Not to Shift? Determinants and Consequences of Phase Shifting on Justice Judgments

To Shift or Not to Shift? Determinants and Consequences of Phase Shifting on Justice Judgments

Fair or Unfair: The Moderating Effect of Sustainable CSR Practices on Anticipatory Justice Following Service Failure Recovery

Delivering bad news fairly: Higher construal level promotes interactional justice enactment through perspective taking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About