我是下一个吗?男性和女性在遭受替代性虐待后对正义的不同认识。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1037/apl0001109
Emily M David, Sabrina D Volpone, Derek R Avery, Lars U Johnson, Loring Crepeau
{"title":"我是下一个吗?男性和女性在遭受替代性虐待后对正义的不同认识。","authors":"Emily M David, Sabrina D Volpone, Derek R Avery, Lars U Johnson, Loring Crepeau","doi":"10.1037/apl0001109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Though we would like to believe that people universally consider workplace mistreatment to be an indicator of injustice, we describe why bystanders can react to justice events (in this study, vicariously observing or becoming aware of others being mistreated) with diverging perceptions of organizational injustice. We show that a bystander's gender and their gender similarity to the target of mistreatment can produce identity threat, which affects whether bystanders perceive the overall organization to be rife with gendered mistreatment and unfairness. Identity threat develops via two pathways-an emotion-focused reaction and a cognitive-focused processing of the event-and each pathway distally relates to different levels of bystanders' justice perceptions. We test these notions in three complementary studies: two laboratory experiments (<i>N</i> = 563; <i>N</i> = 920) and a large field study (<i>N</i> = 8,196 employees in 546 work units). Results generally show that bystanders who are women or similar in gender to the target of mistreatment reported different levels of emotional and cognitive identity threat that related to psychological gender mistreatment climate and workplace injustice following the incident as compared to men and those not similar in gender to the target. Overall, by integrating and extending bystander theory and dual-process models of injustice perceptions, through this work, we provide a potentially overlooked reason why negative behaviors like incivility, ostracism, and discrimination continue to occur in organizations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Am I next? Men and women's divergent justice perceptions following vicarious mistreatment.\",\"authors\":\"Emily M David, Sabrina D Volpone, Derek R Avery, Lars U Johnson, Loring Crepeau\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Though we would like to believe that people universally consider workplace mistreatment to be an indicator of injustice, we describe why bystanders can react to justice events (in this study, vicariously observing or becoming aware of others being mistreated) with diverging perceptions of organizational injustice. We show that a bystander's gender and their gender similarity to the target of mistreatment can produce identity threat, which affects whether bystanders perceive the overall organization to be rife with gendered mistreatment and unfairness. Identity threat develops via two pathways-an emotion-focused reaction and a cognitive-focused processing of the event-and each pathway distally relates to different levels of bystanders' justice perceptions. We test these notions in three complementary studies: two laboratory experiments (<i>N</i> = 563; <i>N</i> = 920) and a large field study (<i>N</i> = 8,196 employees in 546 work units). Results generally show that bystanders who are women or similar in gender to the target of mistreatment reported different levels of emotional and cognitive identity threat that related to psychological gender mistreatment climate and workplace injustice following the incident as compared to men and those not similar in gender to the target. Overall, by integrating and extending bystander theory and dual-process models of injustice perceptions, through this work, we provide a potentially overlooked reason why negative behaviors like incivility, ostracism, and discrimination continue to occur in organizations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001109\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001109","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管我们愿意相信,人们普遍认为工作场所的虐待是不公正的表现,但我们描述了为什么旁观者会对正义事件(在本研究中,指间接观察或意识到他人受到虐待)做出反应,并对组织的不公正产生不同的看法。我们的研究表明,旁观者的性别及其与虐待对象的性别相似性会产生身份威胁,从而影响旁观者是否认为整个组织充斥着性别虐待和不公平。身份威胁通过两种途径产生--以情绪为中心的反应和以认知为中心的事件处理--而每种途径都与旁观者不同程度的正义感相关。我们在三项互补研究中检验了这些概念:两项实验室实验(N = 563;N = 920)和一项大型实地研究(N = 546 个工作单位的 8196 名员工)。研究结果普遍表明,与男性和与虐待对象性别不相似的旁观者相比,女性或与虐待对象性别相似的旁观者在事件发生后会报告不同程度的情绪和认知认同威胁,这些威胁与心理性别虐待氛围和工作场所不公正有关。总之,通过整合和扩展旁观者理论和不公正感知的双重过程模型,我们通过这项工作提供了一个可能被忽视的原因,即为什么不礼貌、排斥和歧视等负面行为会在组织中持续发生。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Am I next? Men and women's divergent justice perceptions following vicarious mistreatment.

Though we would like to believe that people universally consider workplace mistreatment to be an indicator of injustice, we describe why bystanders can react to justice events (in this study, vicariously observing or becoming aware of others being mistreated) with diverging perceptions of organizational injustice. We show that a bystander's gender and their gender similarity to the target of mistreatment can produce identity threat, which affects whether bystanders perceive the overall organization to be rife with gendered mistreatment and unfairness. Identity threat develops via two pathways-an emotion-focused reaction and a cognitive-focused processing of the event-and each pathway distally relates to different levels of bystanders' justice perceptions. We test these notions in three complementary studies: two laboratory experiments (N = 563; N = 920) and a large field study (N = 8,196 employees in 546 work units). Results generally show that bystanders who are women or similar in gender to the target of mistreatment reported different levels of emotional and cognitive identity threat that related to psychological gender mistreatment climate and workplace injustice following the incident as compared to men and those not similar in gender to the target. Overall, by integrating and extending bystander theory and dual-process models of injustice perceptions, through this work, we provide a potentially overlooked reason why negative behaviors like incivility, ostracism, and discrimination continue to occur in organizations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
期刊最新文献
Looking inside the black box of gender differences in creativity: A dual-process model and meta-analysis. A longitudinal meta-analysis of range restriction estimates and general mental ability validity coefficients: Better addressing overcorrection amid decline effects. Rudeness and team performance: Adverse effects via member social value orientation and coordinative team processes. Employee benefit availability, use, and subjective evaluation: A meta-analysis of relationships with perceived organizational support, affective organizational commitment, withdrawal, job satisfaction, and well-being. Fulfilling moral duty or prioritizing moral image? The moral self-regulatory consequences of ethical voice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1