Cognitive operations associated with individual differences in affect intensity

There are wide individual differences in the characteristic intensity of affective response to the same emotion-evoking event. The processes whereby individuals come to experience strong or mild emotional responses when exposed to the same affect-provoking stimuli are still unclear. In these studies, we propose that individual differences in affect intensity are associated with certain cognitive operations used during exposure to emotion-relevant stimuli. Specifically, cognitive operations that involve personalizing, generalizing, and selective abstraction were hypothesized to discriminate subjects high and low in affect intensity. Two studies replicated support for the hypothesis that subjects high on the affect-intensity dimension engage in more personalizing/empathic and more generalizing/elaborative cognitive operations than do subjects low on the affect-intensity dimension. The same cognitive operations discriminated groups high and low in affect intensity in response to both positive and negative emotional stimuli. Also, the cognitions that discriminated subjects high and low in affect intensity occurred only in response to affective stimuli; neutral stimuli did not evoke divergent cognitive operations for these two groups. Finally, a high degree of consistency was found in the use of emotion-relevant cognitive operations across positive and negative affective stimuli.     

Dynamic models of well-being: implications of affective events theory for expanding current views on personality and climate

Research investigations into employee well-being (EWB) have tended to take a between-individual approach, which highlights differences among people. This traditional paradigm has been complemented by examinations of intraindividual EWB, which explores within-person variation over periods of time. Drawing on affective events theory (AET), we further elaborate the implications of intraindividual EWB for two reasonably stable sets of constructs—personality traits and affective climates. We argue that the intraindividual paradigm challenges scholars to rethink what they mean by stability, concluding that stability can be conceptualized in two ways—as reasonably consistent levels of affect and predictable patterns of affective change.     

Evaluating dynamic performance: the influence of salient Gestalt characteristics on performance ratings

It is well recognized that performance changes over time. However, the effect of these changes on overall assessments of performance is largely unknown. In a laboratory experiment, we examined the influence of salient Gestalt characteristics of a dynamic performance profile on supervisory ratings. We manipulated performance trend (flat, linear-improving, linear-deteriorating, U-shaped, and inverted U-shaped), performance variation (small, large), and performance mean (negative, zero, positive) within subjects and display format (graphic, tabular) between subjects. Participants received and evaluated information about the weekly performance of different employees over a simulated 26-week period. Results showed strong main effects on performance ratings of both performance mean and performance trend, as well as interactions with display format. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening

In this paper we seek to accomplish two objectives. First, we review and describe a phenomenon we call the justice dilemma. We argue that workers often perceive valid assessment practices to be unfair. By using these techniques, employers risk incurring hidden costs that are associated with perceived injustice. Thus, it is sometimes impractical to utilize an assessment technique even though the procedure has good validity evidence. Our second purpose is to propose and test one way that organizations can resolve the justice dilemma. We do this in the context of workplace drug screening. We argue that employees are often more tolerant of controversial assessment techniques to the extent that these procedures do not result in particularly negative outcomes. In a field study examining employee reactions to a drug screening program, this proposition was generally supported.     

Resolving the justice dilemma by improving the outcomes: The case of employee drug screening

In this paper we seek to accomplish two objectives. First, we review and describe a phenomenon we call the justice dilemma. We argue that workers often perceive valid assessment practices to be unfair. By using these techniques, employers risk incurring hidden costs that are associated with perceived injustice. Thus, it is sometimes impractical to utilize an assessment technique even though the procedure has good validity evidence. Our second purpose is to propose and test one way that organizations can resolve the justice dilemma. We do this in the context of workplace drug screening We argue that employees are often more tolerant of controversial assessment techniques to the extent that these procedures do not result in particularly negative outcomes. In a field study examining employee reactions to a drug screening program, this proposition was generally supported.     

The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness

This study explored the relationship between 3 dimensions of organizational structure--centralization, formalization, and size--and perceptions of procedural and interactional fairness. Data from 11 organizations (N = 209) indicated that, as predicted, centralization was negatively related to perceptions of procedural fairness, and organizational size was negatively related to interactional fairness. However, contrary to predictions, formalization was not related to perceptions of procedural fairness. Results suggest that organizational structure and design should play a more prominent role in our thinking about organizational fairness.     

A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions

Most organizational justice research takes a cross-sectional approach to examining the relationship between perceived fairness and individuals' attitudes. This study examines the effect of procedural and distributive justice over time. It is suggested that individuals acquire more information and experience with procedures and outcomes over time. These changes in information and experience affect the influence of procedural and distributive justice on organizational attitudes. Faculty perceptions of tenure and promotion decisions were assessed 3 times (preallocation, short-term postallocation, long-term postallocation) over a 2-year period. Results generally supported the hypotheses. Procedural justice was most influential prior to and soon after outcome decisions were made. Distributive justice was most influential 1 year later.     

Organizational justice and extrarole customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work

The purpose of this article is to propose and test a model of extrarole customer service (ERCS). We propose that organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) promotes well-being at work (low burnout and high engagement). Well-being at work, in turn, engenders more effective ERCS. Thus, well-being at work is considered a mediator of the relationships from organizational justice to ERCS. This fully mediated model was compared to an alternative fully direct model. The sample consisted of 317 contact employees who were working in the Spanish service sector. The results of structural equation modelling supported the importance of the mediating role of the positive side of well-being at work (engagement) in the relationship between organizational justice and ERCS. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications.     

How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions

Judgments of fairness take into account at least two pieces of information—the outcome received and the process by which the outcome was assigned. Generally speaking, low levels of fairness are apt to be reported when the outcome is unfavorable and the allocation process is deemed inappropriate. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can further our understanding of the process by outcome interaction. Specifically, when individuals are working to add to their earnings (a promotion focus) the typical effect is observed. However, when individuals are focused on maintaining something that is their own (a prevention focus) the most negative emotion occurs when individuals are allocated an unfavorable outcome through a process that contains procedural safeguards.