13926 1

Demographic and Cultural Dissimilarity’s Effects on Responses to Offense

Karl Aquino College of Business Administration

Dept of Business & Economics U of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716 (302) 831-6144

aquinok@be.udel.edu

Rebecca Bennett Department of Management

College of Business Administration U of Toledo

Toledo, Ohio 43606 (419) 530-2967

Rebecca. Bennett@utoledo.edu

Debra L. Shapiro U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School

McColl Building, CB# 3490 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3490

919-962-3224 ShapiroD@unc.edu

Tae-Yeol Kim

U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Kenan-Flagler Business School

McColl Building, CB# 3490 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3490

919-843-8387 KimT@bschool.unc.edu

13926 2

Demographic and Cultural Dissimilarity’s Effects on Responses to Offense

Abstract

Two studies of different methodologies investigated ethnic and gender similarity’s effect on

responses to offense episodes. Despite the different methodologies, common findings were

obtained. Cumulatively, our findings show that: (1) victims of offensive workplace interactions

do not always choose revengeful responses; instead, they sometimes opt to forgive and/or

reconcile with their offender, and (2) the offender’s perceived similarity to the victim influences

the victim’s coping strategy. Additionally, we found that the importance that perceived

similarity has on people’s responses to workplace-offenses apparently differs across (at least

U.S. and Korean) cultures. Implications are discussed.

Key Words: Forgiveness, Revenge, Diversity

Short title: Dissimiliarity & Forgiveness

13926 3

The U.S. workforce is changing. It is no longer represented by a homogenous group of

mostly Caucasian men, but is becoming increasingly diverse in racial and ethnic makeup and in

gender composition as women and minorities drive over two-thirds of the growth in the

workforce. This mirrors demographic shifts in the entire U.S. population. For instance, by 2050,

people of Hispanic descent will represent 25 percent of the population, up from 10 percent in

1995. At the same time, the share for non-Hispanic whites will drop to around 50 percent from

70 percent in 1995 (Coy, 2000). More than half of all women are employed today, and half of

those expected to enter the workforce in the future are expected to be female (Labor Force 2006).

The rapid changes in the domestic workforce are paralleled by globalization and the integration

of world markets. As more companies become multinational, their employees often find

themselves working side by side with people of different nationalities and cultural backgrounds.

Together, these two shifts in the composition of the modern workplace make it likely that one’s

coworkers will differ from oneself in observable ways (e.g., gender, ethnicity).

Everyday, individuals in the workplace are offended by injustices, large and small.

Consider a subordinate who is publicly chastised by her boss for a mistake, a coworker who

spreads a rumor that besmirches a colleague’s reputation, or a supervisor who frequently uses

racial epithets. As workplace diversity increases, so too does the likelihood that these and other

types of offenses will be committed by someone who is visibly different from the victim.

Research has consistently shown that differences in so-called “surface level” characteristics like

ethnicity and gender influence social judgment (Fiske, 1993). Consequently, people’s judgments

regarding how to respond to workplace offenses may also be influenced by the (dis)similarity

they see between themselves and their offenders.

The reality of workplace diversity and globalization makes it important for organizational

researchers to understand how employees’ responses to offenses might be influenced by surface-

level characteristics like gender and ethnicity. Accordingly, this study investigates three coping

strategies that employees sometimes use in the aftermath of perceived injustice. The first—

revenge— has received considerable attention in the management literature within the last few

years (e.g., Bies, Tripp & Kramer, 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk,

1999). In contrast, the remaining two strategies– forgiveness and reconciliation– have been

relatively ignored (Kurzynski, 1998). Yet there is growing evidence that employees often choose

13926 4

one or both of these coping strategies as alternatives to revenge (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;

Bies & Tripp, 1996; Bradfied & Aquino, 1999).

Revenge has been defined as a response to some perceived harm or wrongdoing that is

intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible for

causing the harm (Aquino, et al., 2001). In contrast, forgiveness is a deliberate decision by the

victim to relinquish anger, resentment, and the desire to punish the party held responsible for

causing harm (e.g., Enright and the Human Development Study Group, 1991;

McCullough,Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; McCullough , Rachal, Sandage, Worthington,

Brown & Hight, 1998; North, 1987). Forgiveness may also be accompanied by reconciliation,

defined as an effort by the victim to extend acts of goodwill towards the offender in the hope of

restoring the relationship (Enright, et al., 1991; McCullough, et al, 1997). Some writers claim

that reconciliation is the ultimate goal of forgiveness (Enright, et al., 1991; Wade, 1989). It is

possible, however, to forgive without reconciling— illustrated by people who forgive and move

on with no desire to restore the relationship they have forgiven (cf. Woodstock Theological

Center, 1998). It is possible, also, to reconcile without forgiving— as occurs when people

attempt reconciliation even though they still harbor feelings of anger or resentment. This would

be the case if the victim needs the offender’s cooperation and finds it expedient to maintain a

relationship. The possibility of forgiving without reconciling, and vice-versa, is why we view

forgiveness and reconciliation as related but conceptually distinct responses to wrongdoing.

Purpose of the Paper

The above definitions suggest that forgiveness and reconciliation share the common

property of being de-escalatory and prosocial, meaning they can help restore or even improve the

relationship between parties. At the very least, they can help prevent conflicts from becoming

destructive feuds. Although forgiveness and reconciliation should be negatively related to

revenge, the relationship may not be perfect because some people may not treat these strategies

as an “either-or” choice; that is, some people might seek revenge and then attempt to reconcile

with their offenders. When offenses have been experienced in the workplace, do the

perpetrators’ perceived (dis)similarity with their victims influence victims’ choice of coping

strategy (i.e., their decision to engage in revenge, forgiveness, and/or reconciliation)? Are there

situational circumstances when a perpetrators’ (dis)similarity to their victims matters more or

less strongly? These are the central questions that the studies reported in this paper aim to

13926 5

address. In contrast to past studies on revenge and forgiveness, the studies reported here

examined both (rather than only one) of these coping-responses; additionally, each study

examined whether offense-victims expressed a desire to reconcile with their offender. As a

result, the studies’ findings promise to broaden understanding about the various ways people

may respond to offenses they experience in the workplace, and the factors that accentuate or

weaken their tendency to choose the coping-strategies that they do.

In Study 1, we test the general prediction that demographic dissimilarity predicts revenge,

forgiveness, and reconciliation using a survey design. Study 2 provides a further test of this

prediction in a new sample using an experimental design. Study 2 also extends Study 1 by

examining whether country-differences might moderate the relationship between victim-offender

dissimilarity and responses to offense.

Study 1

Theoretical Background And Hypotheses

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), self-categorization theory (Turner, 1984), and the

similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) are the conceptual foundations for our predictions

regarding the effects of demographic dissimilarity on responses to an offense episode. An

assumption of both social identity and self-categorization theory is that a person’s self-identity is

partly determined by his or her group memberships. Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1984)

posits that people use observable demographic characteristics like ethnicity and gender to

classify themselves and others. According to the theory, people evaluate self-defining categories

positively and attempt to maintain such evaluations. The positive evaluation of self-categories is

also associated with positive evaluations of those who fit within the same category (Jackson,

Stone, & Alvarez, 1993). Since characteristics like ethnicity and gender are highly salient and

accessible, categorization on these attributes is nearly automatic (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). So

too is the tendency to assign positive evaluations to members of one’s ingroup (Tajfel, 1981)--

that is, to those viewed as similar to oneself. The tendency for people to evaluate more similar

(rather than dissimilar) others more positively is the main premise, also, of the similarity-

attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971).

The psychological processes of self- and group-enhancement have implications for how

people are likely to interpret and respond to interpersonal offenses at work. It has been shown

that people are more likely to assign positive evaluations to co-workers who are demographically

13926 6

similar rather than dissimilar (Ashfoth & Mael, 1989; Brewer & Miller, 1984; Tsui & O’Reilly,

1989). For example, it was the more demographically-dissimilar (rather than demographically-

similar) team members who were evaluated more harshly for weaker rather than stronger team-

performance (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2001), and evaluated more harshly when they

expressed verbal insults (Bond, Wan, Leung, & Giacalone, 1985).

When people evaluate their offenders more positively, they are also more likely to

contemplate forgiveness as an alternative to revenge (Bradfield & Aquino, 1999). Moreover,

because people are attracted to those who are similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971), they may

place a higher value on maintaining a relationship in the aftermath of interpersonal conflict. This

can motivate them to prefer actions, such as forgiveness or reconciliation, that can help maintain

the relationship over those (such as revenge) that can potentially damage it. This preference

seems especially likely if the victims of others’ offensive actions also view their relationship as a

more (rather than less) valued one— hence a relationship they probably prefer to repair rather

than damage further. In summary, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Demographic similarity is positively related to forgiveness and

reconciliation and negatively related to revenge.

Hypothesis 2: The tendency for victims of workplace-offenses to engage in reconciliatory

actions with demographically-similar (rather than dissimilar) offenders (as predicted by

Hypothesis 1) will be greater when the victim’s relationship with the offender is more

(rather than less) close.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

The sample consisted of 130 Master’s students enrolled in introductory organizational

behavior classes at a Southeastern university. Data were collected using a self-administered

survey instrument in which respondents were asked to describe an offense episode and to report

their subsequent responses. The surveys were anonymous and participation was voluntary;

however respondents were offered extra credit for completing the survey. Students who agreed to

participate completed the questionnaires in-class and returned them directly to one of the

researchers. Of the 130 participants who returned the survey, 84 provided usable data on all

study variables (65 percent response rate). Fifty-three respondents were female. Sixty-seven

respondents were white, 6 were African-American, 8 were Asian, and 3 were Hispanic. Their

13926 7

average age was 30.4 years (SD=7.6) and they averaged 9.4 (SD = 7.5) years of work

experience.

Establishing a Context

A critical incident technique was used to elicit salient experiences of workplace offenses.

Respondents were asked to answer the following question: “Think back over the last six months

to recall the most recent incident where another person seriously offended you at work. Please

write a two or three sentence description of the offense below. If you have not been offended by

another person within the last six months, think about the last time you were offended by another

person at work.” After describing the offense, respondents answered a series of questions about

their cognitive and behavioral responses to the offense.

Measures

All of the items measuring revenge, forgiveness, and reconciliation were answered using a

5-point (1= Not at all accurate, 5= Very accurate) Likert scale format in which respondents were

asked how accurately each statement described what they did after the offense. The items are

shown in Table 1.

Revenge. Five items from a study by Aquino, et al. (2001) were used to measure this

construct. A sample item is “I got even with them.” The items were averaged to form a scale

(∀=.90).

Reconciliation. Four items from Wade’s (1989) Conciliation subscale measured this

construct. The items were averaged to form a scale (∀=.67)

Forgiveness. We wrote two items – “I let go of my hate and desire for vengeance” and “I let

go of my hurt and pain” -- to measure the degree to which the victim forgave the offender by

releasing negative emotions evoked by the offense. The items were averaged to form a scale

(∀=.76)

Offender characteristics. We asked respondents to report two characteristics of their

offenders: gender and ethnicity. Gender was dummy coded (0=Male offender, 1=Female

Offender). For ethnicity, respondents were asked to classify the offender into one of the

following categories: “Caucasian,” “African-American,” “Asian-Pacific Islander,” “Hispanic,”

or “Not Sure.” We excluded respondents who were unsure of their offender’s ethnicity from our

analysis.

13926 8

Victim characteristics. We used respondents’ self-reports of their gender (0=Male,

1=Female) and ethnicity (i.e., Caucasian, African-American, Asian-Pacific Islander, Hispanic,

Other) to measure this construct. We excluded any respondents who listed their ethnicity as

“Other” from our analysis. We also collapsed respondents who did not identity themselves as

“Caucasian” into a single category. We then dummy coded respondents’ ethnicity (0=non-white,

1=white) for the regression analysis.

Demographic dissimilarity. We operationalized this construct by using dummy coding to

indicate whether respondents’ self-reports of their ethnicity and gender corresponded with their

reports of the offender’s ethnicity and gender (0=different gender/ethnicity, 1=same

gender/ethnicity).

Closeness of relationship. We asked respondents to categorize the closeness of their

relationship with the offender as “informational (just coworkers),” “collegial (coworkers and

friends, but not close)” or “special (close friends as well as coworkers).” We coded these

variables as “1”, “2”, and “3” respectively to indicate increasing levels of relationship closeness.

Control variables. We controlled for several variables that were not of direct interest in our

study but that might be plausibly related to our dependent variables. We controlled for offense

severity because severe offenses may elicit a more retributive response (Miller & Vidmar, 1981).

We measured this construct by asking respondents to indicate how “serious,” “hurtful,” and

“wrong” the offense was using a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all serious/hurtful/wrong, 7 =

Extremely serious/hurtful/wrong). These items were averaged to produce a scale score (∀=.75).

We controlled for age because older persons may be more sophisticated in their moral reasoning

about forgiveness and may therefore be more willing view it as an appropriate response to

injustice (Enright, Santos, & Al-Mabuk, 1989). Enright, et al. (1991) suggest that the motivation

to forgive may strengthen over time; hence, we asked respondents to indicate how many months

had passed since the offense they described occurred. Finally, we controlled for the possibility

that social desirability bias would affect the self-reports of forgiveness, revenge, and

reconciliation by including social desirability response tendency in our model tests. We

measured this construct using 12 items from the Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale

(Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The instrument was answered using a dichotomous (T/F) format,

hence the KR-21 formula was used to estimate reliability (?=.58).

13926 9

Results

The descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table

1. We used multiple regression analysis test the hypotheses. The results of the regression

analyses are displayed in Table 2.

---------------------------------------

Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here

----------------------------------------

Table 2 shows that ethnic similarity was positively related to the victim’s willingness to

reconcile with his or her offender (b= .38, p <.001), but not with revenge or forgiveness. Gender

similarity was unrelated to any of the responses. These findings provide partial support for

Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the data. Closeness of relationship did not result in a

significant interaction effect with demographic similarity to offender. However, this may have

been due to the low variance in the closeness variable (X=1.35, sd=.53). Apparently, few people

in these American businesses experienced close friendships at the office. Or at least, they did not

report being offended by these individuals.

Discussion

Study 1 provides some evidence that demographic similarity influences peoples’ responses

to offensive workplace-experiences. However, the data supported our hypothesis for only one of

the three coping responses (i.e., reconciliation) and then only for dissimilarity that is ethnicity-

based (rather than also gender-based). There are a number of limitations in the design and sample

of Study 1 that may explain the null results. For one, the sample size was fairly small, which

reduces the power of our statistical tests. This can be a significant liability in field data where

interactions are much more difficult to detect. A second limitation is that because everyone in the

sample experienced a workplace offense, there may have been insufficient variance in the

predictor-variable (i.e., offense-related dynamics) to allow us to observe more significant

patterns in the study’s dependent variables. A third limitation of the study is that most of the

victims and offenders were Caucasian. Although we were able to find a significant effect of

dissimilarity in spite of this, the fact that the sample was not more diverse may have prevented us

from detecting some additional effects of dissimilarity. Also, by measuring similarity by people’s

categorizations of gender and ethnicity, we may have missed the effects that perceived

13926 10

(dis)similarity has when this perception is guided by other sources of (dis)similarity, such as

differences in perceived values. Lastly, while we controlled for a number of variables that could

presumably be related to revenge, forgiveness, and reconciliation, we did not control for

personality characteristics that might also influence these responses.

To address these limitations, we did several things in Study 2. First, we utilized a larger

sample in Study 2, whose participants were full-time managers enrolled in executive MBA

programs. Second, we varied (via a scenario-based experiment) whether study participants

experienced a workplace offense. Third, we randomly distributed one of four possible scenarios

to participants in Korea and the U.S., thereby ensuring cultural variance among the study

participants and increasing the probability that relational closeness in the workplace would be

more significantly felt by some (i.e., Asians) than by others (i.e., U.S. Americans). Fourth, we

measured perceived similarity more broadly, using measures of this used in previous cross-

cultural studies. Finally, we controlled for personality variables found in previous studies (cf.

Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 1999) to be related to people’s desire to engage in

vengeful behaviors. Next, we elaborate on the theoretical foundation guiding Study 2.

Study 2

Theoretical Background And Hypotheses

Employees expect their supervisor to treat them with respect in interpersonal

relationships (Bies & Moag, 1986). When they are treated rudely, the employees generally

perceive what Bies and Moag termed “interactional injustice,” and what others have called

“interpersonal injustice” (Greenberg, 1993), and “disrespect” (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Under

such circumstances, researchers (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki, et al., 1999) have

found that employees generally engage in negative (e.g., revengeful) rather than positive work

behaviors. Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 3: The more rudely a supervisor appears to be treating employees, the more

likely it is that employees will respond with revenge toward the supervisor and the

organization.

The reasoning motivating Study 1 as well as its findings suggest that the latter hypothesis

is overly simplistic, however. Indeed, we view it as a building-block to our subsequent

predictions. Consistent with the theoretical rationale provided in Study 1, we again predict that

certain characteristics will moderate the “mistreatment-revenge effect” predicted by Hypothesis

13926 11

1 above. One of these characteristics is the perceived (dis)similarity of a supervisor to his/her

employees. Specifically, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: After experiencing an offensive interaction in the workplace, victims will

be more likely to engage in forgiveness and/or reconciliation and less likely to engage in

revenge when they perceive the offender (i.e., the supervisor) to be more (rather than

less) similar to them.

Unlike Study 1 in which all participants were U.S. American, in Study 2 our participants

will be natives of either Korea or the U.S. One of the cultural characteristics that has been said

to distinguish U.S. Americans from Asians (and thus probably also from Koreans) is the extent

to which employees view others in the workplace as members of a common collective. Viewing

work colleagues as members of one’s own collective is more common in Asia than in the U.S.

For example, when the third-author visited a plant in the Philippines, she overheard employees

calling coworkers and supervisors by familial names even though none of them were actually

blood-related. As a result, it seems that employees from Korea will be more likely than those

from the U.S. to feel relationally close with (rather than distant from) their supervisor. This

likelihood, coupled with the cultural tendency for Asians to view people at work as part of a

common collective, leads us to predict:

Hypothesis 4: The tendency for victims of workplace-offenses to engage in reconciliatory

actions with demographically-similar (rather than dissimilar) offenders (as predicted by

Hypothesis 1) will be greater in Korea than in the U.S.

Methods

Sample and General Procedure

Sample. A total of 520 surveys were distributed, both in the U.S. and in Korea, to fulltime

managers who were enrolled in executive MBA courses; 217 of these surveys were returned,

making a response-rate of 41.7%. Of the 217 questionnaires returned, 20 were excluded from

our analyses due to missing data; thus, our analyses regard a sample size of 197— 37.6% of

whom were U.S. Americans and 34.9% of whom were female. Participants’ average years of

work experience at their current organization and with their current supervisor was 5.4 and 2.3

years, respectively. Gender and tenure did not differ significantly across the countries.

General Procedure. All participants received a survey within their evening management

course from the researchers (who were not the course instructor) and were told that the survey

13926 12

was a voluntary exercise. The researchers explained that, to ensure their anonymity, respondents

were not to place their name anywhere on the survey. The surveys were initially written in

English and translated (by people blind to the study’s hypotheses) into Korean (for the Korean

participants) using the procedure advised by Brislin (1986). All surveys began by asking

respondents to name something in their current (real) work situation that they desired but had yet

to receive. All were told that the resource they just named as desirable would be referred to as

“X” in the scenario that they were to read on the next page. Participants then read one of four

possible scenarios describing an employee’s interaction with a supervisor after the employee

knocked on the supervisor’s door to inquire why a resource the employee requested had been

given to a coworker whose tenure with the organization was less than his/her own.

Unbeknownst to the participants, however, the scenarios varied in terms of whether the

supervisor was: (1) similar or dissimilar to them (e.g., in terms of country citizenship), and (2)

rude or polite when explaining why their resource-request had been denied. After reading the

scenario, the survey assessed participants’ reactions. The intercorrelations of Study 2’s

measures, as well as the scaled measures’ alpha-coefficient for reliability, are shown in Table 3.

-------------------------------------------

INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

--------------------------------------------

Measures

Rudeness of Supervisor Treatment. To vary whether the study participants experienced a

rude (rather than polite) exchange with a supervisor, we did the following: After reading that the

employee had knocked on the supervisor’s door, participants in the Rude Condition read that the

supervisor: (1) opened the door and stood in the doorway so that many other employees could

hear; (2) answered in an angry voice; (3) called you an insulting name; and (4) said “I do not

understand why you are upset.” Each of the latter phrases was described in an opposite fashion

for the participants in the Polite Condition.

Similarity between Victims and Offenders. To vary the participants’ perceptions of a

similar or dissimilar offender, in the scenarios that respondents received, the description of the

supervisor (i.e., offender) differed. Participants in the Similar Condition read that: (1) you are

similar to your supervisor; (2) you and your supervisor have similar backgrounds; (3) your

supervisor grew up in the region in which you lived; and (4) you share many things in common

13926 13

with your supervisor such as the same local dialect, customs, and ways of thinking. The latter

descriptors were virtually the same in the study by Earley (1993). Each of the latter phrases was

described in an opposite fashion for the participants in the Dissimilar Condition.

Revenge. On a 7-point scale (where 1= extremely unlikely and 7= extremely likely), we

asked participants how likely they would be to engage in various revenge-behaviors previously

measured by Skarlicki and Folger (1997). We changed Skarlicki and Folger’s items slightly,

however, in two ways. First, we changed the referent in each item to be “supervisor” whenever

some of the Skarlicki and Folger items referred instead to “coworkers.” In addition, we

separated into two items the item that they had phrased “purposely damage equipment or

interfere with work process.” To test how the retaliation items (totaling 18 items) factored, we

conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA). EFA showed that a two-factor solution was

appropriate, the substance of which consisted of actions that were organization-directed (10

items) or supervisor-directed (5 items). The items loading on the latter factor tend to describe

behaviors that directly harm the wrongdoer, that is, the supervisor (e.g., talk back to the

supervisor). In contrast, the items loading on the first factor tend to describe behaviors that hurt

something that the supervisor values (e.g., purposely damage equipment). We deleted the three

items that loaded highly on each factor— “speak poorly about the organization when asked,”

“fail to give required information to the supervisor,” and “refuse to work weekends or overtime

when asked by the supervisor.”

Forgiveness. To assess participants’ forgiveness for the supervisor’s mistreatment, we

selected the items that McCullough et al.’s (1997) used to measure this. Specifically, we asked

the participants the extent to which they were likely (where 1= extremely unlikely and 7=

extremely likely), after being treated like the employee in the scenario, to: (1) wish the

supervisor well; (2) disapprove of the supervisor (R); (3) think favorably of the supervisor; (4)

condemn the supervisor (R); and (5) forgive the supervisor.

13926 14

Reconciliation. On a 7-point scale (where 1= extremely unlikely and 7= extremely likely),

we assessed how likely respondents would be to engage in three conciliatory behaviors

previously measured by Ohbuchi et al. (1999). Specially, respondents were asked how likely

they would be, after being treated like the employee in the scenario, to: (1) calmly and patiently

attempt to persuade the supervisor to give you what you had requested; (2) bargain or

compromise with the supervisor; and (3) alleviate the supervisor’s anger or anxiety.

Control Variables. Variables that are not central to our theory, but have been found to

influence employee retaliation, were treated as control variables. Consistent with Study 1, we

controlled for participants’ age and gender. Additionally, we measured personality variables of

negative affectivity and agreeableness, each with questions used to assess this by Skarlicki et al.

(1999).

Results

Before testing our hypotheses, we did several things. First, we examined whether the

perceived rudeness of the supervisor was significantly different across our country-samples. In a

regression equation with country as the independent variable and rudeness as the dependent

variable, no such country-effect was observed (Beta= .02, n.s.). Therefore, we can infer that any

country-differences we observe when testing our hypotheses are not due to people in only one

country experiencing a workplace offense. Secondly, we performed manipulation checks, which

we describe in the next section. Additionally, it is important to note that the eight experimental

cells (Rude x Similar x Country) ranged in number from 16 to 34 participants. To cope with

unequal cell sizes, we followed the advice of Tabachnick and Fidell (1989) and used Pillai's trace

criterion (rather than Wilks's lambda) to evaluate multivariate significance in MANCOVA.

Manipulation-Checks

As expected, the participants in the Similar Condition reported that the supervisor's

similarity to them was greater (Mean= 4.81) than did the participants in the Dissimilar Condition

(Mean= 2.62); and this difference was significant (F(1,194)=215.98, p<.001, R2=.53). Likewise,

participants in the Rude Condition perceived the supervisory behavior to be more rude than did

the participants in the Polite Condition (Means=5.84 versus 2.54, respectively). This difference

was significant (F (1,195) = 566.53, p < .001, R2=.74). Both manipulations thus succeeded.

13926 15

Hypothesis-Test Results

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, a MANCOVA consisting of age, gender, negative affectivity,

and agreeableness as control variables and supervisory rudeness as the independent variable

found a significant main effect of supervisory rudeness on respondents’ reported likelihood of

engaging in supervisor-directed and organization-directed revenge (F(2,188)=39.25, p< .001,

Pillai’s Trace=.30). More specifically, a greater amount of supervisor-directed revenge was

expressed by participants in the Rude Condition (Mean= 3.48) rather than Polite Condition

(Mean= 2.24), which the univariate F showed to be statistically significant (F(1,189)=73.39, p <

.001, η2=.10). This same pattern was observed for organization-directed revenge (Means were

2.36 and 1.73 in the Rude and Polite Conditions, respectively), and this difference was

significant (F(1,189)=30.10, p < .001, η2=.13).

To test Hypothesis 2, we ran a multiple regression equation consisting of the control

variables noted above and of supervisory rudeness, similarity, and a Rudeness x Similarity

interaction term as the independent variables. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, we found a

significant rudeness x similarity interaction for supervisor-directed revenge (beta= .12, p < .05).

A simple effects test showed that significantly more supervisor-directed revenge was expressed

in the Rude rather than Polite Condition when the supervisor was dissimilar to the respondents

(Means=3.96 vs. 2.48, respectively; F(1,191)=72.96, p< .001); but when the supervisor was

similar to them, respondents’ supervisor-directed revenge was less noticeably greater in the Rude

rather than Polite Condition (Means=2.88 vs. 1.95, respectively; F(1, 191)=23.21, p< .001). This

pattern also occurred for organization-directed revenge but was only marginally-significant

(beta=.12, p< .08).

Although neither forgiveness nor reconciliation was affected by the Rudeness x Similarity

interaction, forgiveness was significantly affected by the main-effect of similarity. Specifically,

study participants reported a significantly greater likelihood of forgiveness when they perceived

a greater similarity between themselves and the supervisor (beta= .19, p < .01). Hypothesis 2

was therefore partially supported.

To test Hypothesis 3, via a multiple regression equation we tested whether reconciliation

was affected by a three-way (rudeness x similarity x country) interaction and thus added to the

equation described above, a dummy-coded country-variable (where Korea=0 and U.S.= 1) and

the two-way and three-way interaction terms comprising this. Although we did not find a

13926 16

significant three-way interaction effect, we did find significant two-way interactions whose

patterns seem to suggest that perhaps Koreans are influenced more than U.S. Americans are by

their supervisor’s similarity to them, and that perhaps U.S. Americans are influenced more than

Koreans are by the rudeness of their supervisor’s behavior.

The latter speculation is based on our finding a significant similarity x country interaction

effect on reconciliation (Beta=.21, p<.05) whose simple effects test showed that among the

Korean participants, significantly more reconciliation was expressed toward supervisors they

perceived to be similar rather than dissimilar from them (Means= 4.31 vs. 3.88, respectively;

F(1,183)= 3.99, p < .05); but among U.S. participants, reconciliation was nearly equally

expressed toward similar and dissimilar supervisors (Means= 3.59 vs. 4.01, respectively; F(1,

183)=2.28, n.s.).

Our speculation above is based, also, on our finding a significant rudeness x country

interaction-effect on reconciliation (Beta=-.21, p<.05) whose simple effects test showed that

among the Korean participants, reconciliation was expressed nearly equally in the Polite and

Rude Conditions (Means=4.14 vs. 4.05, respectively; F(1,183)= .01, n.s.); but among the U.S.

participants, significantly more reconciliation was expressed in the Rude rather than Polite

Condition (Means=4.17 vs. 3.42, respectively; F(1, 183)=10.28, p< .01).

General Discussion And Implications

Taken together, the findings from Study 2 as well as Study 1 lead us to make several

conclusions. First, after experiencing workplace-offenses, victims respond in revengeful ways

that are more observable (i.e., via supervisor-directed actions) and less observable (i.e., via

organization-directed actions). Second, victims of offensive workplace interactions do not

always choose revengeful responses; instead, they sometimes opt to forgive and/or reconcile

with their offender. Third, one of the factors that influences how offense-victims respond is the

similarity they see between themselves and their offender. And fourth, the importance that

perceived similarity has on people’s responses to workplace-offenses apparently differs across

(at least U.S. and Korean) cultures. As the workplace becomes increasingly (racially, ethnically,

and internationally) diverse, the possibility that people respond differently to Similar- rather than

Different-Others, and that this may be more true for some cultures than others, has practical as

well as theoretical importance. Next, we elaborate on the implications associated with each of

these conclusions.

13926 17

Implications

Our first conclusion above highlights the fact that revengeful behaviors can take different

forms (i.e., supervisor-directed and organization-directed actions). Although others have already

identified the fact that a person or organization can be the target of counterproductive actions (cf.

Robinson & Bennett 1995), until now these different target-aimed actions tend to be merged into

one measure of revenge (sometimes called “retaliation”) in empirical studies. If indeed these two

forms of revenge are not identically motivated, as our findings suggest, then we risk not fully

understanding how to prevent or reduce their occurrence. Bennett and Robinson (2001) have

developed a measure of workplace deviance which distinguishes between these distinct targets;

however, it is not designed as a measure of revenge, per se.

Our second conclusion regards our finding that, even in circumstances of recalled or

experienced offense, people choose non-revenge-related ways to respond. One of the factors

leading them to do so, our third empirically-guided conclusion suggests, is the similarity to

themselves that offense-victims see in their offenders. More specifically, the findings of Study 1

demonstrated that more reconciliation was generally expressed toward similar- rather than

dissimilar-offenders. Consistent with this, our findings in Study 2 showed that less revenge was

reportedly desired by those who saw themselves as more rather than less similar to a rudely-

behaving supervisor. Consequently, the in-group-favoritism-effect (cf. Gomez et al., 2000)

apparently operates in circumstances of workplace-offenses. The increasing diversity of the

workforce (Jackson, et al, 1992), especially internationally (cf. Shapiro & Von Glinow, 1999),

means that perceptions of dissimilarity between employees are likely to increase. If retaliatory-

responses to unpleasant exchanges are indeed more likely to be aimed at dissimilar others, and if

forgiveness and/or reconciliation is/are more likely to be aimed at similar others, this poses a

problem— especially if “rudeness” is unintended or a perception that is culturally-influenced.

Finally, our last conclusion reminds us that some cultures may care more than others how

similar an offender is to those who are being rudely treated. One reason why our Korean (but

not U.S. American) participants may have differentiated their desire to reconcile with similar

versus dissimilar supervisors is that Asians generally view work colleagues as extended family,

or as part of an important collective— and U.S. Americans do not. If feelings of collectivism

indeed enhance the chance that, even in dire circumstances, employees will feel forgiving and a

13926 18

desire to reconcile (rather than revenge the supervisor or the organization), then managers as

well as management scholars may benefit from understanding how to cultivate collectivism.

In summary, in two studies with two different methodologies we found a like-pattern—

namely, similarity to offenders influences how offense-victims respond. This finding, though

stronger in Korea than in the U.S., illuminates the need for diversity researchers and conflict

researchers to talk to each other. Doing so will probably accelerate understanding about the

circumstances in which retaliatory-, forgiveness, and/or reconciliatory-reactions are displayed

against similar versus dissimilar others in the workplace.

13926 19

References

Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. 2001. How employees respond to personal offense: The

effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and

reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology ,86, 52-59.

Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. 1989. Social Identity Theory & the Organization, Academy of

Management Review, Vol 14, 20-39.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L., 2000. The Development of a Measure of Workplace

Deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.

Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.

Research in Negotiation in Organization, 1: 43-55.

Bies, R.J., Tripp, T.M., & Kramer, R.M. 1997. At the breaking point: Cognitive and social

dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial

Behavior in Organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bond, M., Wan, K., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R.A. 1985. How are responses to verbal insult

related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 16(1): 111-127.

Bradfield, M. & Aquino, K. 1999. The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on

revenge and forgiveness in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 607-631.

Bradfield, M. & Aquino, K. 1999. The effects of blame attribution and offender likableness on

revenge and forgiveness in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25: 607-631.

Brewer, M.B. & Miller, N. 1984. Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on

desegregation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (eds) Groups in contact: The psychology of

desegregation, 281-302. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Brislin, R.W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner and

Berry J.W. (Eds.) Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp.137-164). Beverly Hills:

Sage Publications.

Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Coy, P. 2000. The creative economy, Business Week, August 28, 76-82.

Crowne, D.P. & Marlowe, D. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24: 349-354.

13926 20

Enright, R.D. & The Human Development Study Group. 1991. The moral development of

forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewritz (Eds.) Handbook of moral behavior and

development (Vol. 1, pp. 123-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Enright, R.D., Santos, M.J., & Al-Mabuk, R. 1989. The adolescent as forgiver. Journal of

Adolescence, 12, 99-110.

Fiske, S.T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American

Psychologist, 48: 631-628.

Fiske, S.T. & Neuberg, S. 1990. A continuum of impressoin formation, from category-based to

individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and

interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 23,

1-74. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gomez, C., Kirkman, B.L., & Shapiro, D.L. 2000. Reward allocation preferences in Mexico and

the United States: The effects of ingroup/outgroup status and collectivism. The Academy

of Management Journal, 43(6): 1097-1106.

Greenberg, J. 1993. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of

organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching

fairness in human resource management: (pp.79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jackson, S.E., Stone, V.K. & Alvarez, E.B. 1999. Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of

demographics on work team old-timers and newcomers. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 15: 45-109, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kurzynski, M.J. 1998. The virtue of forgiveness as a human resource strategy. Journal of

Business Ethics, 17, 77-85.

Labor Force 2006: Slowing Down and Changing Composition, Monthly Labor Review,

November 1997, p. 34.

McCullough, M.E., Worthington, E.L., & Rachal, K.C. 1997. Interpersonal forgiving in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321-336.

McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L., Brown, S.W, & Hight, T.L.

1998. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and

measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586-1603.

13926 21

Miller, D., & Vidmar, N. 1981. The social psychology of punishment reactions. In S. Lerner &

M. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 145-167). New York:

Plenum Press.

North, J. 1987. Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Philosophy, 62, 499-508

Ohbuchi, K., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J.T. 1999. Cultural values in conflict management:

Goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 30: 51-71.

Shapiro, D.L. & Von Glinow, M.A. 1999. Negotiation in multicultural teams: New world, old

theories? In R.J. Bies, R.J. Lewicki, & B.H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in

organizations (Vol. 7: 231-262). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Skarlicki, D.P. & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

Skarlicki, D., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. 1999. Personality as a moderator in the relationship

between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. 1989. Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins

Publishers.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge and New York : Cambridge

University Press.

Tsui, A.S. & O'Reilly,C.A. III. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of

relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. AMJ, 32: 402-423.

Turner, J.C. 1984. Social identification and psychological group formation, in H. Tajfel (ed.) The

Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tyler, T.R. & Blader, S.L. 2000. Cooperation in groups. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Wade, S.H. 1989. The development of a scale to measure forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, California.

Woodstock Theological Center. 1998. Forgiveness and conflict resolution: Reality and utility.

Washington, D.C: Woodstock Center.

13926 22

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Revenge 1.51 .84 .90

2. Reconciliation 2.00 .80 -.18** .67

3. Forgiveness 3.07 1.17 -.30** .34** .76

4. Social Desirability

4.80 2.41 .23* .19 .16

5. Months Since Offense

7.93 10.56 -.12 .24* -.01 .01 ---

6. Offense Severity

4.98 1.50 .11 -.25* .08 .07 -.07 .76

7. Age 30.42 7.58 -.02 .02 -.01 .22* .27* .09 ---

8. Victim-Offender Relationship

1.35 .53 -.28* .15 .20 -.12 -.05 -.14 -.17 ---

9. White Victim .80 .40 -.38* .03 .16 .23* .06 .16 .01 .05 ---

10. Female Victim

.63 .49 -.02 .16 -.01 -.07 .10 -.10 -.13 -.11 .11

11. Same Gender .39 .49 .04 .04 .03 .03 -.15 -.01 -.09 .03 -.02

12. Same Ethnicity

.75 .43 -.19 .31** .24* -.21 .16 -.01 -.11 .17 .53***

Note: (N=84). * p < .05, ** p <.01, *** p < .001. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are shown along the diagonal.

13926 23

TABLE 2

Results of Regression Analysis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenge Forgiveness Reconciliation Independent Variables b t b t b t

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Social Desirability .14 1.25 .27 2.37* .28 2.67* Months Since Offense -.11 -.94 -.05 -.42 .15 1.43 Offense Severity .11 1.02 .09. .78 -.19 -1.82 Age -.07 -.63 -.00 -.03 .03 .24 Victim-Offender -.27 -2.46* .24 2.11* .14 1.32 Relationship (VOR) White Victim -.35 2.70** .10 .72- .09 -.74 Female Victim -.01 -.06 .02 .20 .17 1.60 Same Ethnicity (SE) .12 .87 .16 1.12 .38 2.96** Same Gender (SG) -.09 .79 .00 .01 .01 .06 R2 .23* .15 .30** SE X VOR .08 .68 -.21 -1.79 .09 .86 SG X VOR -.07 -.58 .19 1.63 .08 .76 ) R2 .01 .05 .02 Adjusted R2 .12* .08 .21*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01

TABLE 3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, CORRELATIONS, AND ALPHA COEFFICIENTS

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Rude 2. Similar .02 3. Country .02 .00 4. Age .10 .04 .31** 5. Gender .02 .09 .06 -.09 6. Negative affectivity 3.17 1.03 .08 .07 .06 -.08 .03 (.78) 7. Agreeableness 5.38 .72 .03 -.12 .46** .21** .19** -.23** (.80) 8. Forgiveness 3.97 1.14 -.47** -.21** -.34** -.10 -.07 -.23** -.07 (.74) 9. Reconciliation 3.97 1.24 -.12 .05 -.08 .10 -.05 -.21** .01 .32** (.60)10. Supervisor Retaliation 2.91 1.19 .53** .37** -.07 -.02 .03 .19** -.13 -.49** .41**11. Organization Retaliation 2.07 .91 .35** .19** -.02 -.14 -.06 .18* -.24** -.35** .13

Note: Reliabilities are shown in parentheses. N=197 (Korea=123, the U.S.=74) * p < .05 ** p < .01