Investing to gain others' trust: Cognitive abstraction increases prosocial behavior and trust received from others.

Being trusted has many positive implications for one's wellbeing (e.g., a better career, more satisfying interpersonal relationships). Scholars have suggested that people actively attempt to earn trust. However, it is not clear what makes people invest in actions that may earn them trust. We propose that cognitive abstraction (more than concreteness) facilitates seeing the long-term benefits of performing behaviors (i.e., prosocial behaviors) for gaining trust. We conducted a survey among employees and their supervisors and two yoked experiments-total N = 1098 or 549 pairs. In support of our claim, we find that cognitive abstraction leads to more prosocial behavior, which subsequently increases trust received. Furthermore, the effect of abstraction on the performance of prosocial behavior is limited to situations where such behavior can be observed by others (and thus be a basis for gaining observers' trust). Our research shows when and why people decide to act in ways that may gain them trust and clarifies how cognitive abstraction influences the display of prosocial behavior and the subsequent trust received from fellow organization members.

Nostalgia in organizations.

Scholars have proposed that nostalgia plays various important roles in organizations. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of the role of nostalgia in this context. To help develop such an overview, we review research on personal nostalgia, insofar as it includes outcomes that are organizationally relevant, and research on organizational nostalgia. We propose a model that summarizes the processes through which nostalgia operates in organizations. In this model, we propose that threatening circumstances such as injustice or organizational change evoke organizational (and possibly personal) nostalgia, this evoked nostalgia subsequently counteracts the negative effects of threat on outcomes such as organizational identification and experienced work meaningfulness. We end by discussing implications and future research directions.

The impact of leader depletion on leader performance: the mediating role of leaders' trust beliefs and employees' citizenship behaviors.

The leadership role can be demanding and depleting. Using self-regulation and social exchange theory as a framework, we developed a three-step sequential mediation model that explains how feelings of depletion can degrade leaders' own performance level, via the reciprocating behavior of their employees. Specifically, we hypothesized that leader depletion is negatively related to their trust beliefs. This lack of trust is expected to be reciprocated by employees in such a way that they display less citizenship behaviors towards their leader. These lowered citizenship behaviors are, in turn, predicted to negatively impact leader performance. Additionally, we hypothesized that these negative effects of feeling depleted are more pronounced for leaders who believe that their willpower is limited. Studies 1 and 2 illustrated that leader depletion indirectly influences their own performance level through leaders' trust beliefs and employees' leader-directed citizenship behaviors. Study 3 extended these findings from the inter-individual to the intra-individual level, and demonstrated the predicted moderating role of belief in limited willpower. Together, our studies provide new and useful insights in the broader, more distal implications of leader depletion, which have not yet been considered in existing self-regulation models.

When Employees Experience Low Levels of Job Autonomy, Fair Procedures Buffer Unfair Outcomes.

Organizations play a key role in maintaining employee wellbeing. Some research suggests that one way to protect employee wellbeing is to treat them fairly (procedural justice), especially when fair job outcomes (distributive justice) cannot be ensured. Yet, previous studies have not consistently found this interaction effect between distributive and procedural justice. This study investigates job autonomy as a boundary condition to the Distributive Justice × Procedural Justice effect on wellbeing outcomes. To test our hypothesized three-way interaction between distributive justice, procedural justice, and job autonomy, we collected cross-sectional data among Dutch employees in two studies. We used validated self-report measures of our core constructs to test our hypothesis on two employee wellbeing indicators: job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Results show a significant three-way interaction effect on both job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in Study 1 (N = 411), and a significant three-way interaction effect on emotional exhaustion in Study 2 (N = 1117). Simple slopes analyses of the significant three-way interactions showed that distributive justice and procedural justice interact to predict wellbeing outcomes among employees with low job autonomy. Among employees with high job autonomy, distributive justice and procedural justice do not interact to predict wellbeing. The results contribute to the employee wellbeing literature by showing that job autonomy is a boundary condition to the Distributive Justice × Procedural Justice effect on wellbeing outcomes. We discuss other implications of our findings for the workplace and the ramifications for employees with low and high job autonomy.

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Punishment and Forgiveness in Organizational Contexts.

Punishment and forgiveness are two very different responses to a moral transgression that both have been argued to restore perceptions of moral order within an organization. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear what motivates organizational actors to punish or forgive a norm transgressor. We build on social cognitive theory to argue that punishment and forgiveness of a transgressor are both rooted in self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we argue that organizational actors are more likely to respond to intentional transgressions with punishment, and to unintentional transgressions with forgiveness. However, these effects of transgressor intentionality should be found in particular among actors for whom moral identity is central (vs. peripheral). We find support for these predictions in a laboratory experiment and a field study among organizational leaders. By simultaneously studying punishment and forgiveness in organizational settings, we provide crucial insight in their shared motivational bases, as well as into important differences between the two.

In self-defense: Reappraisal buffers the negative impact of low procedural fairness on performance.

Contrary to an often-found result in the organizational justice literature, we suggest that there may be circumstances under which organization members will not perform poorly in response to being on the receiving end of low procedural fairness. To explain the theoretical mechanism, we integrate the group engagement model of justice with the emotion regulation perspective. Specifically, we argue that the detrimental effect of lower procedural fairness on performance is attenuated when individuals engage in reappraisal. Moreover, this is the case because reappraisal makes lower procedural fairness less likely to undermine self-perceived standing in the organization. Three experiments and a multisource survey among employees reveal support for these predictions. This research contributes to the organizational justice literature by showing that reappraisal can help maintain performance when people have experienced low procedural fairness, extending the typical finding that low procedural fairness undermines performance. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Power and leadership.

Social collectives often grant power to leaders so they can facilitate collective performance. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of how power influences the effectiveness of different influence mechanisms leaders use to achieve this goal. To help develop such an overview, I review recent research on the positive and negative effects of power on some of these influence mechanisms: leaders' punishment of norm transgressions, concern for followers, and procedural fairness enactment. I also highlight the role of individual differences and contextual factors in these processes. I end by discussing implications and future research directions.

Make Me Want to Pay. A Three-Way Interaction Between Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, and Power on Voluntary Tax Compliance.

Tax compliance involves a decision where personal benefits come at the expense of society and its members. We explored the roles of procedural and distributive justice and citizens' perceptions of the tax authority's power in stimulating voluntary tax compliance. Distributive and procedural justice have often (but not always) been shown to interact in such a way that high distributive justice or high procedural justice is sufficient to predict positive responses to authorities and the social collective they represent. We examined whether this interaction predicts voluntary (but not enforced) tax compliance, in particular among citizens who perceive the tax authority's power as high (vs. low). The results of two field studies among Ethiopian (Study 1) and United States (Study 2) taxpayers supported our predictions. With this research we connect the roles of two core social psychological antecedents of tax compliance (i.e., distributive and procedural justice) with that of a deterrent factor (i.e., authority power) and obtain support for the psychological process underlying the Distributive Justice × Procedural Justice interaction in two diverging tax environments.

So Gross and Yet so Far Away: Psychological Distance Moderates the Effect of Disgust on Moral Judgment.

People morally evaluate norm violations that occur at various distances from the self (e.g., a corrupt politician vs. a cheating spouse). Yet, distance is rarely studied as a moderator of moral judgment processes. We focus on the influence of disgust on moral judgments, as evidence here has remained inconclusive. Based on feelings as information theory and the notion that disgust evolved as a pathogen avoidance mechanism, we argue that disgust influences moral judgment of psychologically distant (vs. near) norm violations. Studies 1 and 3 show that trait disgust sensitivity (but not trait anger and fear) more strongly predicts moral judgment of distant than near violations. Studies 2 and 4 show that incidental disgust affects moral judgment of distant (vs. near) violations and that the moderating role of distance is mediated by involvement of others (vs. the self) in the evaluator's conceptualization of the violation.

The trickle-down effects of perceived trustworthiness on subordinate performance.

We study when and why perceptions of trustworthiness trickle down the organizational hierarchy to influence the performance of subordinates. Building on social learning theory, we argue that when supervisors perceive their managers as trustworthy, subordinates are more likely to also perceive their supervisor as trustworthy, which in turn enhances subordinate performance. We further argue that this trickle-down effect of trustworthiness perceptions emerges especially when the manager invites the supervisor to participate in decision-making. Finally, we propose that social learning processes that lead to supervisors exhibiting more trusting behavior toward their subordinates mediate this trickle-down effect. We find support for our predictions across one multisource field study (Study 1) and two experiments (Studies 2 and 3) that both use a yoked design. This research represents the first attempt to examine trickle-down effects related to trustworthiness, its impact on performance, and the mediating mechanisms by which those effects emerge. This research also provides the first empirical evidence about the role that social learning processes play in explaining trickle-down processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Ranking low, feeling high: How hierarchical position and experienced power promote prosocial behavior in response to procedural justice.

Research shows that power can lead to prosocial behavior by facilitating the behavioral expression of dispositional prosocial motivation. However, it is not clear how power may facilitate responses to contextual factors that promote prosocial motivation. Integrating fairness heuristic theory and the situated focus theory of power, we argue that in particular, organization members in lower (vs. higher) hierarchical positions who simultaneously experience a high (vs. low) sense of power respond with prosocial behavior to 1 important antecedent of prosocial motivation, that is, the enactment of procedural justice. The results from a multisource survey among employees and their leaders from various organizations (Study 1) and an experiment using a public goods dilemma (Study 2) support this prediction. Three subsequent experiments (Studies 3-5) show that this effect is mediated by perceptions of authority trustworthiness. Taken together, this research (a) helps resolve the debate regarding whether power promotes or undermines prosocial behavior, (b) demonstrates that hierarchical position and the sense of power can have very different effects on processes that are vital to the functioning of an organization, and (c) helps solve ambiguity regarding the roles of hierarchical position and power in fairness heuristic theory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Out of control!? How loss of self-control influences prosocial behavior: the role of power and moral values.

Lack of self-control has been suggested to facilitate norm-transgressing behaviors because of the operation of automatic selfish impulses. Previous research, however, has shown that people having a high moral identity may not show such selfish impulses when their self-control resources are depleted. In the present research, we extended this effect to prosocial behavior. Moreover, we investigated the role of power in the interaction between moral identity and self-control depletion. More specifically, we expected that power facilitates the externalization of internal states, which implies that for people who feel powerful, rather than powerless, depletion decreases prosocial behavior especially for those low in moral identity. A laboratory experiment and a multisource field study supported our predictions. The present finding that the interaction between self-control depletion and moral identity is contingent upon people's level of power suggests that power may enable people to refrain from helping behavior. Moreover, the findings suggest that if organizations want to improve prosocial behaviors, it may be effective to situationally induce moral values in their employees.

Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome fairness and procedural fairness.

Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and procedural fairness. Moreover, outcome and procedural fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of "process/outcome" interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the "low-low" interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the "high-high" interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the "low-low" interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the "high-high" interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people's experience of outcome and procedural fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.

Cooperating when "you" and "I" are treated fairly: the moderating role of leader prototypicality.

We developed a model predicting that leaders are most effective in stimulating follower cooperation when they consistently treat all group members in a fair manner and are prototypical (i.e., representative of the group's values and norms). In support of this idea, we consistently found that group members cooperated most when prototypical leaders treated themselves as well as their coworkers fairly across a laboratory experiment and 3 cross-sectional field studies. These findings highlight the important role of others' fairness experiences and perceptions in influencing one's own reactions and also the role of leaders as representing the group's values and norms. We discuss implications for fairness theory and the leader prototypicality literature.

The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects.

Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.

When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees' work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty.

Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees' work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees' tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people's uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers' reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries.

When does self-sacrificial leadership motivate prosocial behavior? It depends on followers' prevention focus.

In the present set of studies, the authors examine the idea that self-sacrificial leadership motivates follower prosocial behavior, particularly among followers with a prevention focus. Drawing on the self-sacrificial leadership literature and regulatory focus theory, the authors provide results from 4 studies (1 laboratory and 3 field studies) that support the research hypothesis. Specifically, the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and prosocial behavior (i.e., cooperation, organizational citizenship behavior) is stronger among followers who are high in prevention focus. Implications for the importance of taking a follower-centered approach to leadership are discussed.

Question order in the assessment of misperception of physical activity.

BACKGROUND: People often have misperceptions (overestimation or underestimation) about the health-related behaviours they engage in, which may have adverse consequences for their susceptibility to behavioural change. Misperception is usually measured by combining and comparing quantified behavioural self-reports with subjective classification of the behaviour. Researchers assume that such assessments of misperception are not influenced by the order of the two types of measurement, but this has never been studied. Based on the precaution adoption model and the information processing theory, it might be expected that taking the subjective measurement after a detailed quantified behavioural self-report would improve the accuracy of the subjective measurement because the quantified report urges a person to think more in detail about their own behaviour. METHODS: In an experiment (n = 521), quantified self-report and subjective assessment were manipulated in a questionnaire. In one version, the quantified self-report was presented before the subjective assessment, whereas in the other version, the subjective assessment came first. RESULTS: Neither subjective assessment nor overestimation of physical activity were biased by the order of the questions. Underestimation was more prevalent among subgroups of the group which answered the subjective assessment after the quantified self-report. CONCLUSION: Question order in questionnaires does not seem to influence misperceptions concerning physical activity in groups relevant for health education (overestimators: those who do not meet the guidelines for physical activity while rating their physical activity as sufficient or high). The small order effect found in underestimators is less relevant for health education because this subgroup already meets the guideline and therefore does not need to change behaviour.