How organizational politics and subjective social status moderate job insecurity–silence relationships

Drawing upon the conservation of resources theory and self-determination theory, this study examines the subjective social status (SSS) of employees and how it moderates the two-way interaction effect of job insecurity and perceived organizational politics on the types of silence (i.e., acquiescent, and defensive silence [DS]). Using data of about 350 employees in South Korea, it was found that the relationship between job insecurity and employees' acquiescent silence (AS) was stronger for individuals who perceived their organizations as highly political. The results also indicated a three-way interaction between job insecurity, perceived organizational politics, and employees' SSS on employees' AS, such that in a highly political work environment, the relationship between job insecurity and employees' AS was stronger especially for employees with low social status. However, the same pattern did not exist between job insecurity and DS.

Effects of perspective switching and utilitarian thinking on moral judgments in a sacrificial dilemma among healthcare and non-healthcare students.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals have often faced moral challenges, which required them to choose between endorsing self- or other-sacrifice for the greater good. Drawing on the altruistic rationalization hypothesis and trait-activation theory, this study investigates (a) whether healthcare students' endorsement of utilitarian solutions to sacrificial moral dilemmas varies when they are confronted with the minority group, majority group, or third-person perspective on the given dilemma and (b) whether individual differences in utilitarian thinking, as measured by the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (both instrumental harm and impartial beneficence), predict endorsement of utilitarian solutions to moral dilemmas. The study population was divided into a group of healthcare students and a group of non-healthcare students. It was found that the members of both groups expressed a stronger pro-utilitarian position when making moral dilemma judgments from a majority perspective than from the two other perspectives. However, a difference was observed with healthcare students being more reluctant to endorse the utilitarian action than their non-healthcare counterparts in the self-in-majority context. The instrumental harm component was a significant predictor of utilitarian judgments in the healthcare group, but impartial beneficence significantly predicted utilitarian judgments in the non-healthcare group in the self-in-majority context. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04380-z.