Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases

In this study a hierarchical legal model was presented to explain how observers arrive at decisions regarding culpability and disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual harassment. Subjects read a vignette describing a sexual advance. Information about the flagrance of the request, the victim's response, and the frequency of similar encounters were manipulated in order to examine their impact on dimensions of culpability. Subjects then completed a series of Likert-type scales designed to assess the critical dimensions in the model. The findings provided support for the model, suggesting that subject's decisions regarding physical causality and psychological causality are critical factors in attribution of responsibility and that these attributions impact subsequent disciplinary decisions.     

Who's Being Served? "Self-Serving" Attributions in Social Hierarchies

Making external attributions for negative events, though often considered “self-serving,” also implies that the attributor is not in control of critical resources. We hypothesized that making external attributions for negative events will lead to impressions of powerlessness. Because individuals in high-status roles are expected to have power and control, external attributions may violate these role expectations; thus, we further hypothesized that status would moderate the relationship between attributions and interpersonal outcomes. Specifically, more negative impressions and affect will be directed toward high-status individuals who make external attributions than toward their lower status counterparts. Three studies were conducted, one using a role-play methodology, one using an experimentally created hierarchy, and one using vignettes. The results supported our hypotheses: external attributions can be highly disserving for people in high-status positions.     

Does Outcome Favorability Affect Procedural Fairness as a Result of Self‐Serving Attributions?

In a situation indicating possible pseudo-participation, we examined whether outcome favorability affects perceived procedural fairness and resentment as a result of self-serving attributions for outcomes. Laboratory participants received a production target that was either substantially above (i.e., unfavorable outcome) or substantially below (i.e., favorable outcome) a target they had voiced to a supervisor. As hypothesized, outcome favorability was related to procedural fairness (positively) and resentment (negatively) among participants who lacked persuasive evidence of pseudo-participation. In support of the idea that these effects were a result of self-serving attributions, rather than instrumental concerns, they did not emerge among participants who had persuasive evidence of pseudo-participation.     

When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation

This study examines the trust repair implications of apologizing with an internal vs. external attribution after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. By considering theory regarding differences in the perceived diagnosticity of information about competence vs. integrity, we note that the conditions where external attributions would be more necessary for mitigating one’s blame are precisely the conditions where such external attributions are less likely to be believed. Moreover, empirical studies that have compared the relative benefits of external and internal attributions for repairing trust have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the response that should be used. We asked 189 college students to respond to videotaped scenarios in which they were asked to play the role of a manager and make decisions about hiring an accountant who had misfiled a tax return with a prior employer. Each participant was presented with one of four scenarios, which differed with respect to the type of violation (competence vs. integrity) and type of response (apology-internal vs. apology-external). The results revealed a significant interaction whereby trust was repaired more successfully when mistrusted parties apologized with an internal, rather than external, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of competence, but apologized with an external, rather than internal, attribution when the trust violation concerned matters of integrity. These findings suggest that being guilty of an integrity-based violation can be so detrimental for trust that any mitigating response, even one that perceivers are likely to question, may prove worthwhile.     

Manager behavior in a social context: the impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions

Two experimental studies were run to test the effects of subordinate impression management on the appraisals and responses of a manager, following an incident of poor performance. Two common impression management tactics, accounts and apologies, were manipulated in each of the studies. Subjects in both studies were experienced nursing supervisors. On the basis of the "discounting effect" reported in the attributional literature it was hypothesized that accounts of external causes for poor performance, i.e., excuses, would lead subjects to (1) attribute less responsibility to the subordinate, (2) be less personal in their responses, and (3) be less punitive in their responses. Apologies, because of their "equity restoration" effects, were expected to influence subjects' disciplinary responses to the poor performance, without necessarily affecting their attributions of responsibility. Experiment 1. which employed written stimulus materials and a repeated-measures design, provided strong support for all hypotheses. Experiment 2. which employed a film stimulus and between-subjects design, provided strong support for the accounts hypotheses but only minimal support for the apology hypotheses. The results highlight the importance of social information cues in the appraisal of performance.     

Performance‐based pay is fair,particularly when I perform better: differential fairness perceptions of allocators and recipients

We examined in two experiments the impact of the roles that people enact (allocator or recipient) and performance attributions (talent or effort) on fairness perceptions of pay systems (performance‐based pay or job‐based pay). To test the relative effects of the roles that people enact, in the control conditions, participants were asked to evaluate the fairness of both allocation norms from ‘behind a veil of ignorance’ (Rawls, 1971 ). As hypothesized, the results consistently demonstrate that whereas recipients were biased in their fairness perceptions, allocators tended to be non‐biased in their fairness perceptions. The self‐interest bias among recipients was particularly strong when talent rather than effort attributions were imposed on them. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Commitment to legal claiming: influences of attributions,social guidance,and organizational tenure

This study investigates antecedents of individuals' commitment to the legal-claiming process. Individuals were surveyed as they entered a district office of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file an employment discrimination claim. Respondents' attributions regarding who they blamed for their grievance, the social guidance received, their organizational tenure, and their commitment to legal claiming were assessed. Results showed that individuals who made strong external attributions had a higher commitment to legal claiming than did those who made weak external attributions. Social guidance and organizational tenure were significant moderators of the attribution-claiming relationship. Specifically, commitment to legal claiming was more strongly related to external attributions when social guidance was low and organizational tenure was high. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Causal Attributions of Ghanaian Industrial Workers for Accident Occurrence

This study confirms the self-defensive attribution hypothesis on causal attributions of accidents in Ghana's work environment. In this investigation, Ghanaian industrial workers and their supervisors assigned causality to industrial accidents, and their responses were compared. The results showed that the victims attributed their accidents to external causes to a greater extent than did the supervisors, and to internal causes to a lesser extent than did the supervisors. This finding reflects the tendency toward self-protective bias, whereby people tend to project blame for their failures onto external circumstances.     

MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING ABOUT EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE: A POLICY-CAPTURING APPROACH

This study examined how personnel managers ( n = 19) and line managers ( n = 28) make disciplinary decisions. Using a policy-capturing approach, subjects were asked to respond to disciplinary incidents that varied in terms of three factors likely to affect managerial attributions about the cause of the disciplinary problem (managerial provocation, personal problems, or tenure). The incidents also varied in terms of factors made relevant by the economic, institutional/legal, and hierarchical contexts. Of the six variables manipulated, the factor relating to the institutional/legal context had the largest impact on the decisions made by the personnel managers, and the factor relating to the hierarchical context had the largest impact on the decisions made by the line managers. While provocation was relatively important for both line and personnel managers, personal problems, tenure, and the economic implications of the decision had more modest impacts on managerial decisions. The results also suggest that there is substantial variation across managers in terms of the decision rules employed when responding to disciplinary cases.     

Union Influence on Internal Organizational Decisions: An Empirical Analysis

The development of appropriate models of organizational decision making requires a complete determination of the different groups that affect the decision-making process. The present investigation examines the influence of union officials as a group on internal organizational decisions. The rank and file membership of three local unions ( N = 1324) and their first level supervisors ( N = 205) were surveyed regarding the perceived influence of five different groups within the organizational hierarchy. A methodology developed by Tannenbaum (1968) and his associates was modified to include lower-level union representatives as one of five groups who potentially wield influence over organizational decisions. The results of this investigation determined that union representatives are seen as possessing significant levels of influence regarding microlevel organizational decisions. Additional analyses revealed that first-level supervisors believed that union representatives possessed more influence in organizational decisions than they possessed as a group. The implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

The moment of truth: Conceptualizing managerial work‐life policy allowance decisions

Organizational efforts of adopting, designing, and implementing work‐family policies converge into single, discretionary decisions of supervisors whether or not to ‘allow’ these policies to specific employees under their supervision. These decisions are referred to as allowance decisions. In order to close a theoretical gap in current work‐family literature, we present an integrated, conceptual model of managerial allowance decisions. We develop propositions regarding factors that influence a supervisor's allowance decision at three different levels of analysis and behavioural outcomes in employees. Building on organizational justice theory, moderating effects of employees' fairness perceptions of allowance decisions are discussed. Finally, we outline implications for future research and recommendations for managers in organizations.     

Attribution Processes and Stages of Adult Life Development Among Adult University Students1

This study investigated the relationship between stages of adult life development and causal attributions for attending college among a sample of nontraditional students. It was hypothesized that the meaning of attending school is reflected in the kinds of attributions that are given for attending school. It was also hypothesized that internal attributions are more common at later stages of adult life development. The findings confirmed the existence of internal and external (career and situational) cognitive attributional dimensions, with the internal dimension being the strongest. Coherent stages of adult life development were identified, which corresponded to a transitional stage, an early adult stage, and a mid-adult stage. Students in the transitional stage were less likely to give external situational attributions, and students in the mid-life stage were more likely to give external situational attributions. There was also a tendency for internal attributions to increase during the mid-life phase, although the relationship was not highly significant. The findings are discussed in the context of attribution theory and adult life development theory as well as in terms of implications for educational policy.     

HEARING IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE: THE INFLUENCE OF SOURCE, LEADER-RELATIONS, AND LEGITIMACY ON SURVIVORS' FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS

This study developed and tested a model of survivors' fairness perceptions. Data on leader-member relations and affective commitment was collected from 217 R&D professionals approximately 15 months prior to a major layoff. A second wave of data assessed source of layoff announcement, legitimacy of the organizational account, and procedural and distributive fairness 1 month after the layoff occurred. Results of path analysis confirmed hypothesized relationships, and the variance accounted for in distributive and procedural fairness was 24% and 48%, respectively. Procedural fairness was higher for survivors who were informed of impending layoffs by their managers. However, this effect was stronger for high than for low leader-member exchange (LMX) employees. Legitimacy of the account was positively related to procedural fairness. Distributive fairness was indirectly related to the independent variables through procedural fairness. Affective commitment of 78 of the original respondents was assessed approximately 24 months after the layoff. Post-layoff affective commitment was significantly related to procedural but not to distributive fairness perceptions. The findings underscore the critical role of direct supervisors in layoff announcements as well as providing evidence of the long-term effects of procedural fairness on survivor commitment.     

Postperformance attributions and task persistence among type A and B individuals: a clarification

We examined task persistence and postperformance attributions by Type As and Bs on tasks that varied in level of difficulty. On the basis of past research, we hypothesized that Type As would be more self-serving than Type Bs in their attributions for success and failure. We also hypothesized that task persistence would differ among Type As and Bs and would be dependent on task difficulty and perceived task diagnosticity. Type As and Bs attempted multiple sets of anagrams that were either easy or difficult. We measured persistence by the number of anagram sets attempted, and, after task performance, we assessed attributions for success and failure. Results supported both hypotheses. Type As took more credit for success than for failure, whereas Type Bs did not provide reliably different attributions for success and failure. Furthermore, Type As persisted longer at the task when it was difficult and when it was viewed as relatively low in information value. Type Bs persisted longer at the task when it was difficult but viewed as relatively high in information value. Results are discussed in the context of current debates regarding the responses of Type As and Bs to performance settings.     

Causal attribution and self-justification as explanations for the consensus expectation of one's social value orientation

This study focuses on explanations for the perceived consensus of one's own social value orientation. The prediction of the triangle hypothesis that the consensus expectation of individualistic and competitive people is higher than that of cooperative people was partially supported. Only individualists expected their own orientation more frequently of other people. According to a causal attribution explanation, it was expected that subjects' causal attributions for their own orientation to internal and external causes influenced their consensus expectations. Only attributions to internal causes differed significantly between subjects with different orientations and corresponded with their consensus estimates. Individualism was attributed least internally, cooperation most internally, and competition in between. Additionally, direct support for the effect of internal attributions on consensus expectations was found. Compared with subjects who attributed their own orientation more internally, subjects who attributed it less internally were more likely to expect their own orientation among other people. According to a self-justification explanation, it was hypothesized that the consensus expectations of individualists and competitors would be higher when first their own social orientation was assessed and then the orientation they expected to predominate among others than in the reversed order. This hypothesis was not supported.     

Improving the Performance of Failing Students by Overcoming Their Self-Serving Attributional Biases

The causal impact of attributions on academic performance was examined by changing low-scoring students' attributions regarding their poor performances. Initially, when students who were failing a college course identified the cause of the performance, they emphasized external, uncontrollable causes. Because these self-serving attributions could have perpetuated poor performance on subsequent examinations, students in the experimental condition were exposed to information that suggested that grades in college are caused by internal, controllable factors such as effort and motivation. As predicted, on subsequent tests and on the final examination, these students earned higher grades than control students who received no attributional information. These findings lend support to an attributional model of academic achievement and also suggest that educational interventions that shift attributions away from a self-serving pattern to a performance-facilitating pattern may improve academic outcomes.     

“I Am Moral,But You Are Deterred”: Differential Attributions About Why People Obey the Law1

This research examined the different attributions that individuals make for law‐abiding behavior by different people. Experiment 1 reveals that individuals believe that they and other highly moral people are motivated to obey laws because of internal reasons (e.g., laws reflect valued rules and moral behavior), whereas they believe that criminals are motivated by external reasons (e.g., fear of punishment). However, Experiment 2 shows that even some criminals are seen as motivated to obey laws regarding particular types of crimes because of internal factors. Experiment 3 replicates these general findings using a between‐subjects design. Finally, Experiment 4 shows that individuals believe that they are motivated to obey laws regarding minor transgressions (e.g., speed limits) for both internal and external reasons. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for both psychological theory and social policy.     

Using Attributions to Understand the Effects of Explanations on Applicant Reactions: Are Reactions Consistent With the Covariation Principle?1

Research has shown that explanations for selection decisions may influence a variety of applicant perceptions and behavior, but an understanding of how and why this occurs remains largely unknown. This study attempts to understand the effects of explanations by adopting Kelley's (1967, 1972) covariation model of the attribution process. Specifically, explanations that vary on consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency covariation information should produce predictable effects on applicant perceptions and attributions. Results from 2 studies, the first a laboratory study and the second a field study with actual applicants, support the utility of the covariation model for understanding the influence of explanations for selection decisions on locus attributions, fairness, self‐perceptions, and organizational attractiveness. These results suggest that the covariation model may be a useful means to construe the explanation‐attribution‐perception relationship, and thus provide a number of theoretical and practical implications.     

The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions

Purpose

Drawing mainly upon Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART), we clarify and underscore the role of attribution dimensions (personal control, external control, and stability) in forming applicant fairness perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral reactions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Students seeking (or about to seek) jobs (N = 264) participated in an experimental study in which procedural justice rules and outcome favorability (selected or rejected) were manipulated. Participants reported their attributions, fairness perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Hypotheses were tested through SEM and bootstrapping.

Findings

Applicant attributions were predicted by outcome favorability and the extent to which the interview process satisfied/violated procedural justice rules. In line with AART, process fairness perceptions mediated relationships between applicant attribution dimensions and both organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Organizations should satisfy justice rules in employee selection processes because such rules affect applicant attributions, which in turn predict perceptions and behavioral intentions. In addition to identifying antecedents and consequences of fairness perceptions, antecedents and consequences of applicant attributions should be investigated, as both relate to important organizational outcomes.

Originality/Value

This study is one of a very few to test propositions from AART. Through an experimental design of high internal validity, we show that outcome favorability and the satisfaction/violation of justice rules predict job applicant attributions (personal control, external control, and stability). We further show that applicants’ attributions explain unique variance in their perceptions of the employing organization and in their behavioral intentions (e.g., recommend organization to others; litigate) beyond that explained by selection outcome and fairness perceptions.