To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations

被引:251
作者
Shaw, JC [1 ]
Wild, E [1 ]
Colquitt, JA [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Warrington Coll Business Adm, Dept Management, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
The authors used R. Folger and R. Cropanzano's (1998, 2001) fairness theory to derive predictions about the effects of explanation provision and explanation adequacy on justice judgments and cooperation, retaliation, and withdrawal responses. The authors also used the theory to identify potential moderators of those effects, including the type of explanation (justification vs. excuse), outcome favorability, and study context. The authors' predictions were tested by using meta-analyses of 54 independent samples. The results showed strong effects of explanations on both the justice and response variables. Moreover, explanations were more beneficial when they took the form of excuses rather than justifications, when they were given after unfavorable outcomes, and when they were given in contexts with instrumental, relational, and moral implications.
引用
收藏
页码:444 / 458
页数:15
相关论文
共 108 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1989, MANAGING C INTERDISC
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1998, MERRIAM WEBSTERS COL, V10th
[3]  
ARMOUR S, 2002, USA TODAY 0404, pA1
[4]  
Ball G.A., 1993, SOC JUSTICE RES, V6, P39, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF01048732, 10.1007/BF01048732]
[5]  
BALL GA, 1994, ACAD MANAGE J, V37, P299, DOI 10.5465/256831
[6]   COUNTERING THE EFFECTS OF DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM - THE RELATIVE EFFICACY OF 4 INTERVENTIONS [J].
BARON, RA .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 75 (03) :235-245
[7]  
Bies R.J., 1993, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBIL, V6, P227, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF01419446, 10.1007/BF01419446]
[8]  
Bies R.J., 1987, SOC JUSTICE RES, V1, P199, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01048016
[9]  
Bies R.J., 1986, Research on negotiation in organizations, V1, P43, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1559-1816.2004.TB02581.X
[10]  
Bies R. J., 1987, REPRESENTATIVE RES S, V17, P3