Observer reactions to interpersonal injustice: The roles of perpetrator intent and victim perception

Abstract

Summary The present research contributes to a growing literature on observer reactions to injustice experienced by others. In particular, we separated two variables that have previously been confounded in prior research, namely perpetrator intent to cause harm and victim perception of harm. We expected that injustice intent and injustice perceptions would have both unique and joint effects on observer reactions. The results of three experiments in which we manipulated perpetrator injustice intent and victim injustice perceptions supported our predictions. First, we found that observers had more negative reactions toward superiors who intended to inflict high versus low levels of interpersonal injustice toward a subordinate. Second, the injustice intent of the superior influenced observers' reactions more than did victim perceptions of injustice. Third, most novel, we found that the mere intent to cause injustice generated negative reactions in observers, even in the absence of a “true” victim—that is, when the subordinate perceptions of injustice were low. Together, our results emphasize the importance of examining observers' reactions to injustice and incorporating perpetrator intentions into the study of organizational justice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Whose Side Are You On? Exploring the Role of Perspective Taking on Third-Party’s Reactions to Workplace Deviance

“…Studies of thirdparty reactions to injustice have pointed to the importance of perceptions of the perpetrator's intention to harm the victim. Third-parties' perception of the intention to harm appears to influence punishment more than the victim's perception (Umphress et al 2013). Indeed, in criminal law, a person is judged liable depending on the degree of intentionality of the action (Malle, Guglielmo, & Monroe, 2014).…”

“…Moreover, research on perpetrator intentionality suggests that intent drives thirdparty's reactions much more than actual harm (Umphress et al, 2013) and that third-parties may keep separate the perpetrator's motives from the harm inflicted to the victim (Chui & Dietz, 2014). However, in our manipulation, we varied the intentionality of the perpetrator (e.g., perseverance in shooting) at the same time as the harm inflicted (e.g., wounded-not wounded), making it impossible to determine whether one factor could have suppressed the effect of the other.…”

Interactional justice, leader-member exchange, and employee performance: Examining the moderating role of justice differentiation

“…Our second contribution is to deontic justice theory and research on its implications for workplace dynamics. Extant research (Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki ; Skarlicki & Rupp ; Turillo et al ; Umphress, Simmons, Folger, Ren, & Bobocel ) has shown that individuals value justice not only for instrumental reasons (e.g., economic self‐interest and social standing within a group) but also for moral reasons (e.g., a belief that people should be treated fairly). In general, empirical findings have shown that people tend to have negative attitudinal, affective, and behavioral reactions toward those who violate the principled moral obligations of justice (Folger & Glerum ).…”

Different Interactional Injustice, Different Organizational Remedy? Evidence from China

“…Ferris, Spence, Brown, and Heller (2012) reported finding that daily interpersonal injustice was positively related to daily workplace deviance. Researchers have also reported finding that higher levels of perception of interpersonal injustice were correlated with higher levels of violations of moral duty (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;Umphress et al, 2013). It has been reported that covert aggressive behaviors are the most common forms of aggression in the workplace setting (Baron & Neuman, 1998;James et al, 2005).…”

“…Interactional injustice has two central elements: a) interpersonal injustice, and b) informational injustice. Interpersonal injustice refers to any treatment received by a subordinate from a superior in which a lack of respect and concern for the dignity of the individual is shown (Umphress, Simmons, Folger, Ren, & Bobocel, 2013). When employees are not provided with adequate explanations or information in a timely manner, informational injustice occurs.…”