The Effectiveness of Accounts Following Transgression

Blame the shepherd not the sheep: Imitating higher-ranking transgressors mitigates punishment for unethical behavior

“…Results also suggested that a high-ranking first actor's transgression does not reduce punishment for a similarly high-ranking imitator, but we discuss the balance of evidence for this claim in the discussion section below. 6 are known to perceive and respond to behavior differently as a function of the actor's rank (e.g., Becker, 1963;Hollander, 1958;Polman, Pettit, & Wiesenfeld, 2013;Riordan et al, 1983). Therefore, it is ambiguous whether the absence of a difference between these conditions reflects (a) the presence of the imitation effect in both conditions, (b) an imitation effect when the second actor is low ranking and less propensity to punish when the second actor is high ranking, or (c) some combination of the imitation effect and less propensity to punish the high ranking second actor.…”

“…Blame is a negative evaluation of an actor based on a judgment that the actor intentionally engaged in unwarranted, norm-incongruent, negative behavior (Malle et al, 2014). To assign blame, people perform a complex set of appraisals that consider whether the actor intentionally caused the event (e.g., Cushman, 2008;Fragale et al, 2009;Malle & Knobe, 1997;Shaver, 1985;Sloman, Fernbach, & Ewing, 2009) and whether there are mitigating circumstances or reasons that may justify the action (e.g., Malle, 2004;Riordan, Marlin, & Kellogg, 1983;Scanlon, 2008). 1 In sum, blame is a judgment about an actor rather than an evaluation of a behavior or an outcome, and observers may disapprove of an action, independent of whether they also condemn the actor.…”

“…These mechanisms should only engage when transgressors are members of the same organization. The first actor's behavior should only operate as a plausible reason or excuse that mitigates blame for the second actor when the two actors are linked by organizational membership; reasons and justifications for a particular behavior can mitigate blame (Malle, 2004;Riordan et al, 1983;Scanlon, 2008), but in the case of a transgression in the workplace, it is likely that observers would believe that following a supervisor's lead is a better justification than following the lead of someone unaffiliated with the organization. Likewise, the first actor's behavior only should affect the descriptive norms that apply to the second actor when the two actors are members of the same organization.…”

Untitled

“…The Evamix approach by Voogd (1982 and1983), and described in Nijkamp et al, (1990) and Martel and Matarazzo (2005), treats data in the assessment matrix differently, depending on whether it is qualitative (ordinal) or quantitative (cardinal). This is an important contribution of Evamix to MCA.…”

Applying adaptationism to human anger: The recalibrational theory.

“…The most reliable way to reduce anger yet found in the empirical literature is to apologize (Frantz & Benningson 2005;Goffman 1971;Harrell, 1980;Harrell & Hartnagel 1979;Ohbuchi, Kameda & Agarie 1989;Riordan, Marlin & Kellogg 1983;Schlenker 1980;Schwartz, Kane, Joseph & Tedeschi 1978;Zechmeister, et al 2004). The content of apologies varies, and a great deal of empirical work remains to be done on distinguishing "real" from "false" apologies, and why angry individuals are so sensitive to the difference (see Holtgraves, 1989).…”