In the current paper, we examine the role of vertical individualism in determining revenge behavior following an injustice. Drawing on existing theory and research, we hypothesized that victims who are more vertically individualistic will be more likely than those who are less vertically individualistic to engage in revenge following the experience of injustice as a means of restoring self‐esteem. The results from three studies—employing different methodologies and operationalizations of revenge—support our reasoning. Moreover, two of the studies provide support for the proposed self‐esteem maintenance mechanism underlying the relation between vertical individualism and revenge. Although much research in psychology and organizational justice has demonstrated that the experience of injustice can threaten one's identity, our data are the first to demonstrate that responding to injustice can restore people's self‐esteem to homeostasis. The present studies thus demonstrate that in some instances revenge may have an intrapsychic benefit for the victim, which helps to explain why some people engage in revenge despite possible negative interpersonal consequences. We discuss implications of our findings for social and organizational justice theory and for potentially mitigating revenge reactions to injustice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Why are people with a stronger independent self-construal more opposed to affirmative action than those with a weaker independent self-construal? Drawing on prior research, we predicted that this is because the former endorse microjustice principles-which are perceived to be violated by affirmative actionand disregard macrojustice principles-which affirmative action seeks to ensure. In contrast, people with a weak independent self-construal endorse both microjustice and macrojustice. The results from three studies support our reasoning. Our research contributes to theorizing on affirmative action by illuminating the important role of both microjustice and macrojustice concerns in predicting opposition to affirmative action. We discuss the implications of our research within the North American context for increasing people's endorsement of macrojustice in an effort to mitigate opposition to social policies aimed at redressing societal injustice.

Drawing from theorizing about motivated self-protection, we report the results of four studies testing the idea that threatened state self-esteem reduces forgiving. In Study 1, primed self-esteem threat (versus a control condition) led to decreased forgiving intentions in hypothetical scenarios. In Study 2, primed self-esteem threat (versus two control conditions) negatively affected forgiveness motivations in relation to recalled personally experienced transgressions. Study 3 utilized a correlational recall design, demonstrating that threatened self-esteem directly associated with a personally recalled transgression is negatively related to forgiving motivations. Study 4 returned to a priming paradigm, providing evidence that the deleterious effect of self-esteem threat on forgiveness may be combated by enhancing state-level self-esteem. Theoretical and practical implications and ideas for future research are addressed.

No abstract