The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment

Fairness heuristic theory was used to examine how information from one's peers affects an individual's interpretation of, and reactions to, an authority's subsequent behavior. Participants (N=105) overheard their peers discuss an experimenter's reputation (fair, unfair, or absent) before interacting with the experimenter who behaved more versus less fairly. Results showed that the social cues biased participants' subsequent information processing: controlling for the experimenter's behavior, interactional justice mediated the effect of social cues on retaliation. Social cues and the authority's behavior also interacted to predict retaliation. Participants who were treated less fairly retaliated more after being led to expect fair treatment than did participants who heard no prior information about the experimenter.     

When explanations for layoffs are not enough: Employer's integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation

Victims of downsizing often perceive their layoff as being unfair, which can lead to various forms of retaliation. Informational justice, defined as providing employees with adequate explanations in a timely manner, has been prescribed as a way to mitigate the retaliation tendencies associated with unfairness perceptions. Few studies, however, have examined contexts in which informational justice might be more vs. less effective in this regard. In the present research, we explored whether employees' perception of the employer's integrity moderates the relationship between informational justice and retaliation among layoff victims. Results from a field and laboratory study suggest that informational justice helps manage retaliation only when layoff victims perceived that their employer had high (vs. low) integrity prior to the layoff. In Study 2, we found that perceived sincerity mediated the impact of informational justice by integrity interaction on retaliation.     

Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation

Although organizational justice scholars often describe unfairness as an emotionally laden experience, the role of emotion is underresearched. In a study of individuals who experienced being laid off (N = 173), the authors found that outcome favorability interacts with both procedural and interactional justice to predict participants' emotions. The pattern of interaction differed for inward-focused (i.e., shame and guilt) and outward-focused (i.e., anger and hostility) negative emotions. Attributions of blame mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and outward-focused negative emotion. Outward-focused emotion mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and retaliation.     

When Social Accounts Backfire: The Exacerbating Effects of a Polite Message or an Apology on Reactions to an Unfair Outcome1

We examined the effects of ex ante polite or apologetic messages on an individual's responses to a low (unfair) outcome offered in an ultimatum (take‐it‐or‐leave‐it) situation. Results show that these 2 messages (a) increased, rather than decreased, participants' perceptions of unfairness; and (b) decreased, rather than increased, their acceptance of the outcome. Moreover, participants engaged in more punishing behaviors when the outcome was accompanied by either of the messages than when no account was provided. Further analysis revealed that perceived manipulative intent mediated participants' reactions to the polite message and to the apology. These results indicate that if a message seems insincere and manipulative, it can exacerbate an individual's negative reactions to an unfair outcome accompanying the message.