Content uploaded by Russell Cropanzano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Russell Cropanzano on Apr 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Self-Interest
... On this view, the concern is not limited to justice. Rather, people appear to be incapable of motivated behavior that is not self-interested (for a review and critique, see Cropanzano et al. 2007). ...
... The research evidence we have reviewed here supports these contentions. Justice, as well as ethics more generally, is a central concern in human existence (Cropanzano et al. 2007). For this reason, justice matters beyond particular individuals. ...
According to deontic justice theory, individuals often feel principled moral obligations to uphold norms of justice. That is, standards of justice can be valued for their own sake, even apart from serving self-interested goals. While a growing body of evidence in business ethics supports the notion of deontic justice, skepticism remains. This hesitation results, at least in part, from the absence of a coherent framework for explaining how individuals produce and experience deontic justice. To address this need, we argue that a compelling, yet still missing, step is to gain further understanding into the underlying neural and psychological mechanisms of deontic justice. Here, we advance a theoretical model that disentangles three key processes of deontic justice: The use of justice rules to assess events, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy. Together with reviewing neural systems supporting these processes, broader implications of our model for business ethics scholarship are discussed.
... Finally, as indicated earlier, recent experiments have determined that self-interest can be ruled out as the sole source of the motivation behind third-party punishment (Turillo et al., 2002; for further discussions concerning how behavior can deviate from self-interest, see, e.g., Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003Cropanzano, Stein, & Goldman, 2007;Folger & Salvador, in press). We highlight a caveat, however, about generalizing too hastily from such studies to make predictions about workplace dynamics. ...
... Zaposlenici koji ostaju u organizaciji mogu reagirati negativno čak i u situaciji kada nisu osobno pogođeni smanjivanjem broja zaposlenika (Brockner, 1990;Brockner, DeWitt, Grover i Reed, 1990). Ovi nalazi pokazuju da je doživljaj pravednosti pojedinca djelomično zavisan o tretmanu koji doživljavaju drugi (Cropanzano, Stein i Goldman, 2007). Navedeni učinci treće strane imaju tendenciju biti veći kada je žrtva član pojedinčeve in-grupe (Hafer i Olson, 2003). ...
Pravednost je ljudima važna u različitim ulogama, a posebice u radu. Organizacijsku
pravednost znanstvenici su tradicionalno istraživali na individualnoj razini analize baveći se
pojedinačnim procjenama pravednosti zaposlenika. Iako ova perspektiva ostaje važna, pravednost
se može istraživati i na grupnoj razini analize. Klima pravednosti predstavlja zajednički doživljaj
pravednosti članova tima. Uobičajeno nastaje učenjem od drugih, odnosno razmjenom socijalnih
informacija. Također, zajedničke percepcije pravednosti mogu proizići i iz procesa kojis vremenom
čine suradnike sličnijima. Pojedinci i timovi zapravo procjenjuju tri stvari: ishode (distributivna
pravednost), procese donošenja odluka (proceduralna pravednost) te interpersonalni tretman
(interakcijska pravednost). Timovi, kao i pojedinci, mogu pripisati (ne)pravednost brojnim izvorima
dokle god pojedini izvor drže odgovornim za tretman koji doživljavaju. Stoga zaposlenici mogu
procjenjivati (klime) pravednosti formalnih autoriteta, poput rukovoditelja ili organizacije u cjelini,
ali isto tako i (klime) pravednosti onih koji nad njima nemaju formalni autoritet, odnosno suradnika
ili klijenata. Sukladno tomu, zaposlenici mogu istovremeno jedan izvor procjenjivati pravednim, a
drugi u potpunosti nepravednim. Percepcije pravednosti, kako individualne, tako i grupne, povezane
su s brojnim organizacijski relevatnim ishodima iskazanim u obliku stavova ili ponašanja.
Interakcija različitih izvora (klime) pravednosti također ima značajne učinke na (zajedničke)
reakcije zaposlenika. Klima pravednosti, kao kolektivni konstrukt, na različite se načine
operacionalizira na višoj razini: aditivnim kompozicijskim modelom, modelom direktnog
konsenzusa, modelom promjene referentnog okvira, modelom disperzije te modelom procesne
kompozicije. U radu je dan pregled dosadašnjih nalaza te smjernice za daljnja istraživanja klime
pravednosti.
... Finally, as indicated earlier, recent experiments have determined that self-interest can be ruled out as the sole source of the motivation behind third-party punishment (Turillo et al., 2002; for further discussions concerning how behavior can deviate from self-interest, see, e.g., Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003Cropanzano, Stein, & Goldman, 2007;Folger & Salvador, in press). We highlight a caveat, however, about generalizing too hastily from such studies to make predictions about workplace dynamics. ...
... Nevertheless, as a general rule, the component constructs of organizational justice have long-established construct validity (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Moreover, the study of deontic justice makes a valid case for the inherent morality of organizational justice , see Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Johnston, 2011). ...
Even though scholars in the disciplines of legal justice and organizational justice both maintain that they investigate justice, even a casual reading of the scholarship and application of " justice, " in these disciplines indicates that the two set of scholars are not speaking the same language. The purpose of the paper is to expose the backgrounds, development, assumptions, and approaches of each of legal and organizational justice. Moreover, the chapter provides guidance for organizational justice scholars and researchers to better use, develop, and integrate legal justice into their research. Finally, it provides insights for future research integrating both areas of justice scholarship.
... Nevertheless, as a general rule, the component constructs of organizational justice have long-established construct validity (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Moreover, the study of deontic justice makes a valid case for the inherent morality of organizational justice , see Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Johnston, 2011). ...
Even though scholars in the disciplines of legal justice and organizational justice both maintain that they investigate justice, even a casual reading of the scholarship and application of " justice, " in these disciplines indicates that the two set of scholars are not speaking the same language. The purpose of the paper is to expose the backgrounds, development, assumptions, and approaches of each of legal and organizational justice. Moreover, the chapter provides guidance for organizational justice scholars and researchers to better use, develop, and integrate legal justice into their research. Finally, it provides insights for future research integrating both areas of justice scholarship.
... Nevertheless, as a general rule, the component constructs of organizational justice have long-established construct validity (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Moreover, the study of deontic justice makes a valid case for the inherent morality of organizational justice , see Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Johnston, 2011). ...
Even though scholars in the disciplines of legal justice and organizational justice both maintain that they investigate justice, even a casual reading of the scholarship and application of " justice, " in these disciplines indicates that the two set of scholars are not speaking the same language. The purpose of the paper is to expose the backgrounds, development, assumptions, and approaches of each of legal and organizational justice. Moreover, the chapter provides guidance for organizational justice scholars and researchers to better use, develop, and integrate legal justice into their research. Finally, it provides insights for future research integrating both areas of justice scholarship.
... Nevertheless, as a general rule, the component constructs of organizational justice have long-established construct validity (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Moreover, the study of deontic justice makes a valid case for the inherent morality of organizational justice , see Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Johnston, 2011). ...
... This extends prior research that has acknowledged the importance and potential consequences of self-interest (e.g., Moore and Lowenstein 2004;Schweitzer et al. 2004), but has not empirically studied the relationship between self-interest and morally disengaged reasoning (Bersoff 1999). Further, by exploring the countervailing force of situational harm to others, we answer calls for additional work that goes beyond a singular focus on self-interest as a driver of ethical reasoning (e.g., Cropanzano et al. 2007). ...
Self-interest has long been recognized as a powerful human motive. Yet, much remains to be understood about the thinking behind self-interested pursuits. Drawing from multiple literatures, we propose that situations high in opportunity for self-interested gain trigger a type of moral cognition called moral disengagement that allows the individual to more easily disengage internalized moral standards. We also theorize two countervailing forces—situational harm to others and dispositional conscientiousness—that may weaken the effects of personal gain on morally disengaged reasoning. We test our hypotheses in two studies using qualitative and quantitative data and complementary research methods and design. We demonstrate that when personal gain incentives are relatively moderate, reminders of harm to others can reduce the likelihood that employees will morally disengage. Furthermore, when strong personal gain incentives are present in a situation, highly conscientious individuals are less apt than their counterparts to engage in morally disengaged reasoning.
... These findings suggest that one's own sense of fairness is partially contingent on the treatment that others experience (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003Cropanzano, Stein, & Goldman, 2007), though these third-party effects are apt to be larger when the victim is a member of one's own in-group (cf. Clayton & Opotow, 2003;Hafer & Olson, 2003). ...
Like many constructs within the managerial sciences, organizational justice has traditionally been conceptualized as an individual-level phenomenon. In recent years, this has begun to change, as a number of research studies have explored justice as a collective or group-level construct. The authors provide a review of this literature, historically tracing the growth of this research tradition, reviewing measurement issues, and discussing available research findings. The authors argue that there are at least two viable treatments of unit-level justice. Justice climate pertains to the manner in which a team is treated by outside agents, such as an authority figure. Intraunit justice climate pertains to the manner in which teammates treat one another. Although much more research is needed, evidence suggests that both justice climate and intraunit fairness are useful predictors of work attitudes and behavior.
This study investigated the relationships between blame, victim and offender status, and the pursuit of revenge or reconciliation after a personal offense. Results from a sample of 141 government agency employees showed that blame is positively related to revenge and negatively related to reconciliation. In addition, victim-offender relative status moderated the relation between blame and revenge such that victims who blamed sought revenge more often when the offender's status was lower than their own. The victims' own absolute hierarchical status also moderated this relation such that lower, not higher, status employees who blamed sought revenge more often.
Justice, equity, and fairness are central concerns of everyday life, whether we are assessing the fairness of individual acts, social programmes, or institutional policies. This book explores how the distribution of costs and benefits determine our intuition about fairness and why individual behaviour sometimes deviates from normative theories of justice. To make any comparison, one must first state how fair distributions of resources or burdens should be made. Here, competing theories, such as utilitarianism and economic efficiency, are discussed. The chapters cover many topics including an investigation of various rules and heuristics that people use to make fair distributions; the motivation for people to conform to rules of fairness even when they conflict with self-interest; differences between the views of liberals and conservatives; societal rules for the distribution or allocation of critical or scarce resources; and implications for public policy. This mixture of theoretical and applied perspectives provides a balanced look at the psychology of justice.
This study explores the conditions under which experimentally primed anger influences both attributions of responsibility and the processes by which people make such attributions. Drawing on social functional theory, it was hypothesized that people are best thought of as ‘intuitive prosecutors’ who lower their thresholds for making attributions of harmful intent and recommending harsh punishment when they both witness a serious transgression of societal norms and believe that the transgressor escaped punishment. The data support the hypotheses. Anger primed by a serious crime ‘carried over’ to influence judgments of unrelated acts of harm only when the perpetrator of the crime went unpunished, notwithstanding the arousal of equally intense anger in conditions in which the perpetrator was appropriately punished or his fate was unknown. Participants in the perpetrator-unpunished condition also relied on simpler and more punitive attributional heuristics for inferring responsibility for harm. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Four studies investigated whether people feel inhibited from engaging in social action incongruent with their apparent self-interest. Participants in Study I predicted that they would be evaluated negatively were they to take action on behalf of a cause in which they had no stake or in which they had a stake but held stake-incongruent attitudes. Participants in Study 2 reported both surprise and anger when a target person took action on behalf of a cause in which he or she had no stake or in which he or she held stake-incongruent attitudes. In Study 3, individuals felt more comfortable engaging in social action and expected others to respond more favorably toward their actions if the issue was described as more relevant to their own sex than to the opposite sex. In Study 4, the authors found that providing nonvested individuals with psychological standing rendered them as likely as vested individuals to undertake social action. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the relationship between vested interest, social action, and attitude-behavior consistency.
describe the key phenomenological differences between shame and guilt / review the extant theoretical and empirical literature relating shame and guilt to depression / describe results from several independent studies bearing on the relationship of shame and guilt to depression
study 1 demonstrates that the states of shame, guilt, and depression represent distinct phenomenological experiences / studies 2 and 3, however, indicate that a dispositional tendency to experience shame, but not guilt, is an important correlate of depressive symptomatology, above and beyond that accounted for by attributional style / [subjects were aged 17–64 years] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)