Joel Brockner

Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model†:

An emerging trend within the organizational justice, social exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior literatures is that employees maintain distinct perceptions about, and direct different attitudes and behaviors toward, multiple foci such as the organization, supervisors, and coworkers. However, these multifoci developments have progressed, for the most part, independently of one another. Thus, to gain a more complete conceptualization of the employee experience, this review brings these respective literatures together. Specifically, the authors (a) review and organize multifoci research and theory in justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior, (b) develop a “target similarity” model to provide a theoretical framework for conceptualizing and integrating multifoci research, and (c) o fer suggestions for future multifoci research.

Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy.

Previous research conducted on a Westem sample has shown that people are less apt to exhibit in-group favoritism when they perform well individually while their in-group performs poorly. The authors evaluated whether this finding would be moderated by the cultural dimension of individualcollective primacy, which refers to whether people give more weight to their personal interests rather than their in-groups interests when forced to choose between the two. The authors hypothesized that relative to their counterparts from the United States, participants from the Peoples Republic of China would have more of a collective-primacy orientation and therefore would exhibit more in-group favoritism when they performed well individually while their in-group performed poorly. The results supported the hypothesis. Implications for the literatures on in-group favoritism and cross-cultural differences are discussed.

Factors affecting withdrawal from an escalating conflict: Quitting before it's too late

Abstract In an experimental study of “entrapping” conflicts —situations in which a decisionmaker may continue to expend resources in part to justify previous expenditures—subjects were given an initial stake of

Just laid off, but still a “good citizen?” only if the process is fair

4.00 and had the opportunity to win an additional

How to Reverse the Vicious Cycle of Low Self-Esteem: The Importance of Attentional Focus.

2.00 jackpot. Two independent variables (Process of Resource Allocation and Prior Limit-Setting) were combined in a 2 × 3 design. Once the subjects had started to invest, half of them had to make an “active” decision to continue. Unless they actively decided to continue, their investments automatically ceased and they were no longer eligible for the jackpot (Selfterminating condition). The other half only had to make a “passive” decision to continue. Unless they actively decided to dis continue, their investments for the jackpot automatically increased (Self-sustaining condition). In addition, before investments began, some subjects were asked to inform the experimenter of the nonbinding limit they had set on the amount they planned to invest (Public condition), some were asked to set a limit which they kept to themselves (Private condition), while a third group was not asked to set a limit (Control condition). Subjects invested significantly more money in the Self-sustaining condition. Also, investments were somewhat greater in the Control than the Public condition. Although the mean investments in the Public and Private conditions did not differ, those in the Public condition deviated significantly less from their earlier set limits, suggesting greater commitment to these limits. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Coping with a Layoff: A Longitudinal Study of Victims

Recent United States Congress legislation (the WARN Act of 1988) mandates that organizations must provide at least 60 days notice before a layoff of 50 or more employees can be instituted. As a consequence, individuals who are notified of their layoff often remain in their jobs for a significant period of time-and managers hope that these people will be good “organizational citizens” during thisremaining time. This article identifies different psychological factors that could explain why individuals would remain good citizens, even after notification of their impending termination. In a survey of 147 skilled employees who received notification of their layoffs, we found that the perceived fairness of the layoff process was the primary factor influencing their citizenship behavior. Additional analyses suggested that the perceived adequacy of the explanation of the layoffs, and whether the layoff victims were treated with respect and dignity, were the primary factors influencing the perceived fairness of the layoff process. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.

When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness

Recent research suggests that the cognitive processes of low self-esteem people (low SEs) perpetuate low self-esteem and its undesirable emotional and behavioral correlates. For instance, it has been suggested that low SEs are more “self-conscious” than high self-esteem people (high SEs) and that self-consciousness can impair task performance. It was reasoned that if low SEs were led to focus their attention away from themselves and onto the task, performance would improve relative to high SEs. In a 2 × 3 between-subjects factorial design, subjects high and low in chronic self-esteem performed a concept formation task under three conditions: (1) in the presence of an audience, where self-focused attention is presumably high; (2) in a control group, in which attention was not manipulated; and (3) with instructions to concentrate on the task diligently. A significant interaction effect was obtained, indicating that low SEs performed worse than high SEs in the audience condition (p < .025), no differently in the control, and better than high SEs (p < .01) when instructed to concentrate on the task. Although the latter results are unusual in the context of self-esteem research, they are strikingly parallel to recent findings in the study of test anxiety.

High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis

This article reports the results of a longitudinal study of layoff victims and how they cope with job loss. We examine whether the perceived fairness of layoff procedures, corporate and government assistance programs, and individual differences influence the choice of problem-focused and/or symptom-focused coping strategies. Our findings challenge traditionally held assumptions about factors that may be associated with successful coping. Specifically, perceptions of the fairness of layoff procedures and adequacy of government assistance programs were negatively related with problem-focused strategies used by layoff victims, and there was no relationship with corporate assistance programs and the choice of coping strategy. In addition, self-blame for the job loss was positively related to a symptom-focused strategy. Suggestions for future research on victims of layoffs are discussed.

UNPACKING COUNTRY EFFECTS: ON THE NEED TO OPERATIONALIZE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF CROSS-NATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Abstract Previous research on encounters between parties of differing status tend to examine the influence of the higher status party (e.g., managers) on the lower status party (e.g., their direct reports), rather than the other way around. We suggest that it is important to examine the reactions of both higher and lower status parties (e.g., their desire for future interaction) to their encounters with one another. Furthermore, both parties’ relative status is hypothesized to influence their desire for future interaction with one another, in conjunction with the outcome favorability associated with the encounter and the other’s procedural fairness. This hypothesis was tested in a pilot study as well as in two full-scale studies. All three studies showed that outcome favorability and procedural fairness interacted to influence participants’ desire for future interaction with the other party. However, the nature of the interactive relationship differed as a function of participants’ relative status. For lower status people, high procedural fairness reduced the positive relationship between outcome favorability and their desire for future interaction with the other party, relative to when procedural fairness was low. For higher status people, high procedural fairness heightened the positive relationship between outcome favorability and desire for future interaction, relative to when procedural fairness was low. Implications for the literatures on relationships in work organizations, organizational justice, and status are discussed.

Individual–collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: enhancement and protection effects

Abstract Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and procedural fairness often interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when procedural fairness is low, high procedural fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on people’s use of procedural fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.