Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T02:30:50.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Language of Fairness: how Cross-Linguistic Norms in Spanish and English Influence Reactions to Unfair Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2016

Sam J. Birk  and
Edgar E. Kausel
Sam J. Birk
Affiliation:
University of Arizona (USA) and Full Measure Education, LLC (USA)
Edgar E. Kausel*
Affiliation:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Chile) and Universidad de Chile (Chile)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edgar E. Kausel, Escuela de Administración, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and Departamento de Administración, Universidad de Chile, Santiago (Chile). E-mail: ekausel@uc.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We integrate recent findings from the linguistics literature with the organizational justice literature to examine how the language used to encode justice violations influences fairness perceptions. The study focused on the use of non-agentive syntax to encode mistakes in Spanish (“The vase was broken”) versus using agentive syntax in English (“She broke the vase”) influences event fairness perceptions. We hypothesized that when justice violations are encoded using Spanish, because the non-agentive syntax makes the responsible party less salient, the event would be perceived as less unfair. In Study 1 (n = 111), English-speaking participants rated the fairness of an event in which a mistake was made and an employee received a negative outcome. They rated it as more unfair (p < .01, η2 = .06) when the scenario was presented in agentive syntax. Experiment 2 (n = 70) used native English- and Spanish-speakers who watched a video of manager making a mistake. We found that Spanish-speakers used less agentive syntax (p < .01, η2 = .21), perceived the event as less unfair (p < .001, η2 = .23), and were more willing to help the manager who made the mistake. In Experiment 3 (n = 101) we replicated this effect controlling for cross-cultural differences and native language; further, we found an interaction between entity fairness (event vs. entity) and native language (Spanish vs. English) on citizenship intentions (p < .01, η2 = .08). These results extend our understanding of how language may influence relevant workplace attitudes.

Keywords

agentive syntaxcross-linguistic differencesfairnessorganizational justiceperception
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E79
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013203 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 Google Scholar
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016 Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Z. S., & Miller, B. K. (2009). Is justice the same for everyone? Examining fairness items using multiple-group analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 51–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9091-7 Google Scholar
Choi, J. P. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees’ reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 513–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.513 Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2009). Typological differences in syntactic expressions of Path and Causation. In Gathercole, V. M. (Ed.), Routes to language: Studies in honor of Melissa Bowerman (pp. 169–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.Google Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958 Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., & Chertkoff, J. M. (2002). Explaining injustice: The interactive effects of explanation and outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation. Journal of Management, 28, 591–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800502 Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 165–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791 Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 644–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 150–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5 Google Scholar
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg, J. & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Rev., 3 rd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1099–1116. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732600 Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasof, J., & Lee, J. Y. (1993). Implicit causality as implicit salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 877–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.877 Google Scholar
Kausel, E. E. (2015). Mastering ’metrics: The path from cause to effect. (Book Review). Personnel Psychology, 68, 931–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12116_2 Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (2016). Mediation. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, A., Evans, J., Christian, M. S., Gilliland, S. W., Kausel, E. E., & Stein, J. H. (2011). The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 268–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.003 Google Scholar
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 Google Scholar
Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an attribution-of-blame model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.184 Google Scholar
Naquin, C. E., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2004). Human reactions to technological failure: How accidents rooted in technology vs. human error influence judgments of organizational accountability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 129–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicklin, J. M., Greenbaum, R., Mcnall, L. A., Folger, R., & Williams, K. J. (2011). The importance of contextual variables when judging fairness an examination of counterfactual thoughts and fairness theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 127–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.007 Google Scholar
Nicklin, J. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Reactions to others mistakes an empirical test of fairness theory. Journal of Psychology, 143, 533–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRL.143.5.533-558 Google Scholar
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256591 Google Scholar
Otto, K., Baumert, A., & Bobocel, D. R. (2011). Cross-cultural preferences for distributive justice principles: Resource type and uncertainty management. Social Justice Research, 24, 255–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0135-6 Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
Parker, K. (2010). Obama: Our first female president. The Washington Post, A17.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asympotic and resampling procedures for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Google Scholar
Rand, D. G. (2012). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.03.004 Google Scholar
Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/254974 Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434 Google Scholar
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 664–676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.12.003 Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job-satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2016). WHO Glossary of terms used. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/hia/about/glos/en/index1.html Google Scholar