Grounded on uncertainty management theory, the current research examines the role of employee justice perceptions in explaining the distinct effects of two forms of pay transparency—process versus outcome pay transparency—on counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). Study 1, a field study of 321 employees, revealed that process pay transparency is inversely related to CWB targeting the organization (i.e., less CWB-O), with this effect explained by enhanced employee procedural justice perceptions. It also indicated, however, that among employees perceiving their pay position as being lower than that of referent others, outcome pay transparency is positively associated with both CWB-O and CWB-I (i.e., CWB targeting other employees), with this effect explained by reduced employee distributive justice perceptions. Study 2, using an online simulation-based experiment conducted on 394 employees and assessing actual deception behaviors (targeting both the agency sponsoring the study and other participants in the study), replicated these findings and extended our understanding of the negative consequences of outcome pay transparency on CWB. Specifically, when pay allocations were transparent (vs. secretive) and participant’s pay was manipulated to be lower (vs. higher) than that of teammates, participants reported lower distributive justice perceptions leading to heightened deception behaviors, with this effect explained by a more negative emotional state. Theoretical and practical implications of both the positive and negative consequences of pay transparency on CWB are discussed.

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members' needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup's moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup's moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup's morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantagedand disadvantaged-group members' responses to social inequality. AbstractGuided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group-members' needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N =819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power.Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup's moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup's moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup's morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged-and disadvantaged-group members' responses to social inequality.

Members of conflicting groups often engage in ‘competitive victimhood’, that is, they are motivated to gain acknowledgment that their ingroup is the conflict's ‘true’ victim. The present study found that compared with a control group, Israeli Jews and Palestinians reassured that their ingroup had won the victim status showed increased willingness to reconcile with the outgroup and held less pessimistic, fatalistic views of the conflict. Moreover, for members of the stronger party—Israeli Jews—winning the victim status also led to increased group efficacy and consequent readiness to take action toward resolution. These findings extend previous theorizing about the positive effects of addressing group members' need for acknowledgement of their victimization. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This research examined the effects of structural conditions on perceptions of and responses to an apology offered by an advantaged majority group to a disadvantaged minority group. We used the dramatic regional changes of the Arab Spring to manipulate the instability of status relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews. In two studies, we found that under instability (vs. control), both Israeli Jews (advantaged group members; Study 1) and Israeli Arabs (disadvantaged group members; Study 2) perceived an apology offered to the Arab minority by the Israeli Prime Minister as insincere and manipulative (i.e., intended to serve the Jews rather than the Arabs). Perceived insincerity, in turn, led to reduced forgiveness and conciliatory tendencies among Israeli Arabs (Study 2). These findings shed light on how structural factors might render group apologies counterproductive in promoting positive intergroup relations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.