1
WHEN JUSTICE PROMOTES INJUSTICE: WHY MINORITY LEADERS WHO ACT
JUSTLY EXPERIENCE MORE BIAS THAN THOSE WHO ACT UNJUSTLY
ABSTRACT
Accumulated knowledge on organizational justice leaves little reason to doubt the notion that
organizational members benefit when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules. However,
upon considering how justice behaviors influence subordinates’ cognitive processes, we predict
that interpersonal justice has a surprising, unintended negative consequence. Supervisors who
violate interpersonal justice rules trigger subordinates to search for reasons why their supervisors
are threatening them, causing subordinates to be more attuned to supervisors’ individual
characteristics and therefore unlikely to use stereotypes when evaluating them. In contrast,
supervisors who adhere to interpersonal justice rules allow subordinates to divert attention away
from them, leading subordinates’ judgments of their supervisors to be influenced by stereotypes.
Consistent with these predictions, in a survey we found that minority supervisors faced bias
relative to Caucasian supervisors when supervisors adhered to—but not when they violated—
interpersonal justice rules. We replicated this effect in an experiment and established that it is
explained by an alternating pattern of stereotype activation and inhibition: participants viewed
minority supervisors to be more deceitful than Caucasians when supervisors adhered to—but not
when they violated—interpersonal justice rules. We then conducted exploratory analyses and
identified one factor (unit size) that mitigates this troubling pattern.
2
Accumulated knowledge on organizational justice points clearly to the conclusion that
organizational stakeholders fare better when supervisors exhibit interpersonal justice. When
supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules (i.e., treating subordinates respectfully when
making resource allocation decisions), subordinates experience increased organizational
commitment and greater job satisfaction (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013).
Likewise, supervisors benefit because just interpersonal behavior engenders higher quality social
exchange relationships, which ultimately elicit stronger employee task performance and more
helping behavior (for a review, see Colquitt et al., 2013). The practice of adhering to interpersonal
justice rules also prevents various forms of injury. In particular, it allows subordinates to
experience reduced levels of threat and uncertainty (Van den Bos, 2001), leaving them
unencumbered as they engage in their work. Above all, interpersonal justice rules represent
behaviors that are viewed almost universally as ethical and virtuous (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998).
In short, an adherence to interpersonal justice rules not only positively influences employee wellbeing, supervisor outcomes, and the exchange relationship between supervisor and subordinate
(Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000),
but also reflects the presence of noble-minded authority and the absence of exploitation and threat.
As a consequence of these reinforcing benefits, there exists little reason to question the notion that
organizations and their members fare better when supervisors adhere to, rather than violate,
interpersonal justice rules.
However, an unintended, negative consequence of interpersonal justice rule adherence
emerges when considering how one of the key benefits of justice—protection from threat—is
likely to influence the attention of subordinates. When subordinates do not construe their
supervisors as sources of illicit harm, such as when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice
rules, subordinates are likely to shift their attention away from their supervisors and toward other
foci (such as their co-workers). When perceivers do not pay close attention to a target individual’s
3
distinguishing characteristics, stereotypes can influence judgment if the target individual belongs
to a stigmatized minority group (Bargh, 2013; Fiske, 1998). Thus, the consequence of
interpersonally just treatment—a lack of attention to supervisors—may lead subordinates’ fairness
judgments to be influenced by stereotypes if their supervisors are stigmatized minority group
members (e.g., if they are Black or Hispanic). The upshot is that when supervisors adhere to
interpersonal justice rules, increased stereotyping will cause supervisors from stigmatized ethnic
groups to be perceived, on average, as less fair than Caucasian supervisors. In contrast, violations
of interpersonal justice rules cause subordinates to pay careful attention to their supervisors
because subordinates view them as sources of threat (Skitka, 2003). This decreases the likelihood
of stereotype usage, causing minority supervisors and Caucasian supervisors to be evaluated in the
same, albeit negative, way. In short, we expect a troubling pattern: bias against minority
supervisors occurs when they treat subordinates respectfully rather than disrespectfully.
With a research design that iterates back and forth between field and lab data—a template
that reflects “full-cycle research” (Chatman & Flynn, 2005)—we test the prediction that
subordinates will exhibit bias by (1) helping minority supervisors less than Caucasian supervisors
by engaging in less extra-role behavior and (2) hurting minority supervisors more than Caucasian
supervisors by engaging in more undermining behavior. Consistent with the arguments above, we
predict that this unequal treatment will occur when supervisors adhere to—but not when they
violate—rules related to the form of justice most directly tied to supervisor actions (interpersonal
justice). We also test the cognitive mechanism that drives this effect (the alteration between
stereotype activation and inhibition): when supervisors violate interpersonal justice rules, the
stereotype that minorities are more deceitful than Caucasians (Burton, Greenberger, & Hayward,
2005; Ogbu, 1985) will be inhibited, and when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules,
this stereotype will be activated to explain why minority supervisors are, on average, perceived as
less fair than Caucasian supervisors. To cap our effort, we conduct exploratory analyses and
4
identify a situation (when supervisors oversee a small number of subordinates) that mitigates
stereotyping by increasing the likelihood that subordinates will be aware of their supervisors’
individual characteristics, even when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules.
By using research on attention to integrate theory on stereotyping and justice, we redress
several distinct limitations in the organizational justice literature. While recent research has
suggested that certain forms of justice (e.g., procedural) can be depleting, interpersonal justice is
presumed to have only positive consequences (Johnson, Lanaj, & Barnes, 2014). Our focus on an
unintended consequence of interpersonal justice thus suggests that important nuance should be
introduced into the literature, complicating the conventional view that interpersonal justice is
uniformly beneficial. Above all, although it is known that positive actions occasionally have
unintended, negative consequences, our core finding represents an even more paradoxical situation
in which an ostensibly good phenomenon may ultimately undermine itself. That is, justice can
promote injustice.
This core finding has the greatest potential for addressing limitations associated with one
of the most widespread views in research on organizational justice, which is that supervisors and
subordinates operate based on principles of social exchange (Colquitt, 2012). Subordinates are
traditionally assumed to be the most vulnerable to unjust treatment within exchange relationships.
When treated poorly, they often have no recourse because they lack power, and therefore must
remain in a disadvantaged position relative to their more powerful bosses. In contrast, since
supervisors are in a position of power, it stands to reason that they will be the beneficiaries of
positive treatment and hard work from their subordinates as long as they treat them well. However,
we argue that minority supervisors are in a similarly vulnerable position. As they act more justly,
they may experience more bias. In this way, we provide initial evidence for a perspective that
challenges an assumption from social exchange theories of organizational justice, which is that
supervisors are likely to “get back” what they “put in” to their relationships with subordinates.
5
Additionally, we inform research on the cognitive underpinnings of fairness judgments. In
particular, our findings address a limitation in fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2000; Lind & Van
den Bos, 2002). According to this theory, subordinates rely on thin slices of justice-relevant
behavior to quickly make global judgments about whether their supervisors are generally fair or
unfair (Lind, 2000; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). We argue that justice rule adherence is likely to
trigger this type of heuristic-based processing more than justice violations. Further, we suggest
that scholars have not acknowledged an important downside to the rapidly formed judgments that
subordinates make in the context of justice rule adherence: they are vulnerable to unintended
influences from stereotypical thinking.
We also contribute to the literature on stereotyping and racial bias in several ways. Our
findings address a limitation in the literature on stereotyping, which is the underappreciated reality
that the actions of minority supervisors may be a source of stereotyping. That is, members of
stigmatized groups may unknowingly set themselves up to be the target of stereotyping when they
treat others with respect. We also spotlight an often overlooked form of racial bias: that which is
directed up the organizational hierarchy from subordinates toward supervisors—a form of bias that
is unique because subordinates do not have the benefit of authority. Additionally, our
incorporation of research on the activation and inhibition of stereotypes into theory on
organizational justice sheds new light on why bias against minority leaders remains so stubborn.
Research and legal proceedings have demonstrated numerous occurrences of bias against minority
supervisors in industries as varied as health care, finance, and sports (Anderson, 1993; Shavers,
Klein, & Fagan, 2012; Smith, 1999). A consequence is the presence of a glass ceiling: even though
they make up over 30% of the labor force, Black and Hispanic leaders represent less than 3% of all
Fortune 500 CEOs (diversity.com; bls.gov). If so many forces—including norms, ethical
standards, and an ingrained desire to simply treat others respectfully—lead minority supervisors to
exhibit the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate bias against them, then bias is highly
6
likely to persist (King, 2004; Pager & Shepherd, 2008). Indeed, since supervisors adhere to
interpersonal justice rules far more than they breach them, the mechanisms that we illuminate may
help explain why minority supervisors experience a general pattern of bias.
We culminate our analysis with a discussion of practical implications. First, our work can
be used to inform the trend toward using subordinates’ perceptions of overall supervisor fairness in
surveys used in corporate settings. Compared to perceptions of justice rule adherence, overall
fairness perceptions better capture the overarching “my supervisor is not fair!” impression
(Colquitt, 2012). However, our results suggest that subordinates who have supervisors from one
race may use their supervisors’ justice behaviors to inform their overall fairness judgments in a
way that is inconsistent with subordinates who have supervisors from another race. Second, our
findings can be used to construct recommendations for how to reduce bias against minority
supervisors. Whereas acting justly has long been considered a virtue with clear rewards, for
minorities it may be a double-edged sword: violating justice rules causes harm for subordinates
and for supervisors, yet adhering to justice rules can cause bias to be perpetuated. This “lose-lose”
scenario raises questions about vicious cycles in which all courses of action available to minority
supervisors may result in harmful outcomes. In the face of these troubling implications, we discuss
how findings from our exploratory analyses illuminate possible ways for organizations to break
the pattern in which minority supervisors’ just treatment of their subordinates leads to unjust
outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
In Figure 1, we present a theory that maps out the antecedents and consequences of fairness
perceptions for minority versus Caucasian supervisors. In our theorizing, we adopt the widely
accepted distinction between justice rules, which are circumscribed behaviors associated with
accepted norms of supervisor conduct, and overall fairness perceptions, which are general
impressions that subordinates have regarding their supervisors’ overall fairness (Colquitt, 2012).
7
We craft our arguments under the assumption that subordinates base perceptions of their
supervisors’ overall fairness on observations of their supervisors’ justice-relevant behavior
(Colquitt, 2012; Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). As shown in Figure 1, we position
overall fairness perceptions as a key mediator of the relationship between race and bias, and justice
rule adherence as a moderator of this mediating relationship. Before building our theoretical model
and hypotheses, we clarify several issues related to our terminology and assumptions.
---------------------------------Insert Figure 1 About Here
---------------------------------Terminology and Assumptions
The notion of “bias” presupposes that there is a reference point against which minority
supervisors experience disadvantage. In the remainder of our article, we refer to bias as actions
that disadvantage minority supervisors relative to Caucasian supervisors. Second, we use the term
“minority supervisors” to refer only to supervisors from two minority groups—Blacks and
Hispanics. Although there are nuanced differences in the precise type of stigma that Blacks and
Hispanics face, the evidence we review below shows that members from both of these races
experience the most stigma and stereotyping in organizations, and that the specific manifestation
of this stigma is similar for both ethnic groups. Third, we use the terms “race” and “ethnicity”
interchangeably (www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm). Finally, since 90% of employees have only
one supervisor (Brody, Rubin, & Maume, 2014), our theory is relevant to subordinates with a
single supervisor.
Organizational justice is often conceptualized as adherence to four types of justice rules:
distributive (equity, equality, and need-based rules used to determine work outcomes) (Adams,
1965; Homans, 1961); procedural (decision making process rules such as consistency, accuracy,
and bias-suppression) (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975); informational (truthfulness and
justification-based rules used to explain decision-making processes); and interpersonal (respect
8
and propriety-based rules of interpersonal treatment) (Bies & Moag, 1986). We expect that our
proposed effect will be restricted to interpersonal justice rule adherence. When compared to the
other three justice dimensions, supervisor discretion is greatest for interpersonal justice (Scott,
Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). Whereas cues that pertain to distributive, procedural, and even
informational justice rules often arise from ambiguous, impersonal, or indirect sources,
interpersonal justice involves direct treatment received from a supervisor, such as dignity,
politeness, and respect. In fact, interpersonal justice is arguably the rule least constrained by
formalized policies and practices within the organization, and therefore most dependent on
supervisor intentions (Scott et al., 2009).
Although interpersonal and informational justice rules are often examined concurrently,
unlike interpersonal justice, informational justice rule adherence is not always under the
supervisor’s control. For example, a supervisor may be forced to either provide or withhold
information from his or her subordinates as a matter of company policy (Gilliland & Schepers,
2003). As a result, subordinates are more likely to construe interpersonal justice rule adherence as
being inextricably linked to a specific supervisor when compared to adherence to other forms of
justice, including informational justice. This is important because ultimately it is this attribution
process that leaves supervisors prone to stereotyping. In addition, since they derive from ongoing
patterns of interpersonal treatment, encounters related to interpersonal justice rules can occur on a
daily basis, making them particularly salient and strong (Bies, 2005). Given that our arguments
center on how subordinates evaluate supervisors’ personal qualities, we isolate interpersonal
justice in our theorizing. Unless otherwise specified, our usage of “justice” can be interpreted as
referring to interpersonal justice. Further, we focus on entity-based justice in our theorizing
(Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), because we are interested in assessments made
about individual supervisors.
9
The Influence of Supervisor Race and Interpersonal Justice on Fairness Perceptions
Supervisors vary in the extent to which they exhibit justice rules—ranging from little
adherence (i.e., frequent and/or strong justice violations) at one pole to strong adherence (i.e., rare
or nonexistent justice violations) at the other pole. Although some justice scholars have
acknowledged that “perception can be at variance to reality” (Lind, 2001: 66), the literature still
seems to imply a relatively straightforward relationship between supervisors’ actual adherence to
justice rules and subordinates’ perceptions of overall fairness, such that supervisors who adhere
more strictly to justice rules are perceived to be fairer (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Colquitt &
Shaw, 2005; Kim & Leung, 2007; Lefkowitz, 2009). We suggest that this correspondence does not
always hold. Further, the occasions when it does not are systematically predictable.
When supervisors breach interpersonal justice rules, subordinates naturally perceive a
threat to their welfare. This causes them to devote more attention to the process of understanding
their supervisors’ intentions and motives (Kunda, 1990). Thus, subordinates are likely to vigilantly
monitor supervisor behavior in order to detect the extent to which their welfare is threatened
(MacLeod & Mathews, 1988; Mogg & Bradley, 2002). In this way, vigilance is self-protective. It
is also a natural response, as negative events trigger more sensemaking and a greater need for
attribution than positive events (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). In
particular, negative interpersonal treatment triggers active search rather than automatic processing
(Posten & Mussweiler, 2013). As noted by Roberson (2006: 179):
Consistent with the findings of attributional research which suggest that negative and
unexpected events prompt attributional search more often than do positive events (Hastie,
1984, Pyszczynski and Greenberg, 1981 and Wong and Weiner, 1981), outcome valence
and expectancy violation have been identified as triggers for attributional activity related to
fairness evaluations…researchers have suggested that unfair treatment, which can be
characterized by unfavorable outcomes or rule violation, will initiate similar processes
(Rutte & Messick, 1995). After experiencing unfairness, people will engage in
information-seeking behavior to determine the cause of such treatment.
10
Similarly, Mayer and Gavin (2005: 876) note that “[i]f the manager begins to take actions that
could damage the employee’s interests, by closely monitoring the manager, the employee can
more quickly take action to lessen the negative effects of the manager’s influence.” This line of
thinking is consistent with fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), which suggests that just
behavior leads to more superficial and automatic cognitive processing than unjust behavior.
When an individual focuses intently on a particular stimulus, object, or person, he or she is
more likely to make attributions that are specific to its individuating characteristics rather than rely
on general notions about the category to which it belongs (Pratto & Bargh, 1991). Thus, when an
employee is compelled to narrow attention to a source of threat or injury (a supervisor who is
violating justice rules), he or she will be more attuned to the supervisor’s individual
characteristics. As a result, subordinates with supervisors from stigmatized social groups are
unlikely to be influenced by stereotypes, whereby a stereotype is “a generalization about a group”
that “reflects faulty thought processes or overgeneralization, factual incorrectness, inordinate
rigidity, an inappropriate pattern of attribution, or a rationalization for a prejudiced attitude or
discriminatory behavior” (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996: 80). Rather than forming
an impression based on the supervisor’s membership in a social group, harmful behavior causes
subordinates to form an impression based on individual characteristics of the supervisor, reducing
the likelihood that subordinates with supervisors from minority ethnic groups evaluate their
supervisors differently than subordinates with Caucasian supervisors (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Along these lines, in a comprehensive review of the literature, Blair (2002: 250) observed that “[a]
well-supported finding is that stereotypes dominate unless the perceiver spends more time learning
about the person’s unique attributes.” Upon distinguishing among different ways that attention can
influence stereotyping, Blair (2002: 251-252) drew the following conclusion:
…many studies have found that stereotyping is more likely when perceivers cannot or do
not pay attention to the target…processes that counteract stereotypes can only operate with
11
sufficient attention…therefore a lack of attention makes it highly likely that judgment and
behavior will be biased by automatic stereotypes.
Consistent with the evidence just reviewed, subordinates who experience interpersonal
justice violations from supervisors who are stigmatized minorities are likely to evaluate their
supervisors in the same way as subordinates who experience interpersonal justice violations from
Caucasian supervisors. Note that we do not suggest that subordinates form “accurate” or
“unbiased” judgments. Such an assessment is difficult—perhaps impossible—to make, given the
subjective nature of fairness (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) as well as prior research suggesting that
individuals often fall victim to irrational judgment when experiencing threat (Staw, Sandelands, &
Dutton, 1981). Rather, our argument is that any biases that do exist will not be contingent on
ethnic stereotypes. Therefore, evaluations of supervisors will not vary depending on whether
subordinates have minority or Caucasian supervisors when justice violations have occurred.
In contrast, the lack of threat associated with respectful, dignified treatment allows
subordinates to direct their limited attentional resources to other foci, such as task responsibilities,
relationships with colleagues, and personal obligations (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1996). When
attention is diverted away from a stimulus, object, or person, a perceiver is still capable of forming
judgments about it, however these judgments are largely developed outside the purview of careful
processing (Fiske, 1998; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This reality of cognition makes subordinates’
judgments susceptible to beliefs that are unrelated to supervisors’ individual characteristics, such
as ingrained conceptions about stigmatized groups to which the supervisor may belong (e.g.,
ethnic stereotypes) (Pratto & Bargh, 1991). Further, Unkelbach, Forgas, and Denson (2008: 1410)
investigated the role of affect on stereotyping, noting that “[a]ccording to recent affect-cognition
theories…positive affect should trigger a more top-down, spontaneous and assimilative processing
style, increasing the influence of pre-existing schemata and stereotypes on responses.” Since
interpersonally just treatment triggers positive affect (Colquitt et al., 2013), stereotypes are likely
to influence evaluation when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules.
12
Thus, pre-existing stereotypes that distinguish minorities from Caucasians are likely to (1)
persist for supervisors who adhere to interpersonal justice rules, and (2) be inhibited for
supervisors who violate interpersonal justice rules. The notion that stereotyping can shift between
these two situations adapts and extends the idea that stereotypes are not rigid, but instead can be
activated to influence general beliefs and perceptions only in certain circumstances (Blair, 2002;
Kunda & Spencer, 2003). This activation and inhibition is typically done rapidly and
subconsciously. Our interest lies in how stereotypes influence comparisons between minority and
Caucasian supervisors—a focus that is consistent with the notion that stereotypes usually refer to
generalized judgments of the inferiority of certain racial groups relative to other racial groups.
Although minority supervisors may be perceived as less fair when they violate justice rules than
when they adhere to them, our core argument is that they are not perceived as less fair than
Caucasian supervisors when interpersonal justice rules are violated. This is because subordinates
are attuned to qualities that characterize supervisors as individuals (e.g., their personalities) rather
than qualities that indicate social group membership (e.g., race), and, in turn, subordinates are less
vulnerable to forming impressions based on supervisors’ social category membership. Instead, we
suggest—somewhat paradoxically—that subordinates perceive minority supervisors to be less fair
than Caucasians only when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules.
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor race will interact with supervisor justice rule adherence in
predicting perceptions of overall supervisor fairness, such that minority supervisors will be
perceived as less fair than Caucasians when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice
rules, but not when they violate interpersonal justice rules.
Since stereotypes that negatively differentiate minority supervisors from Caucasian
supervisors are activated when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules rather than violate
them, the stereotypes that do emerge must be consistent with actions that are positive (polite,
respectful, and dignified treatment) (Bies & Moag, 1986). On the surface, this may appear to be a
contradiction of sorts. How can minority supervisors from stigmatized groups be seen as worse
than Caucasian supervisors only in conditions when good things happen? To explain this tension,
13
one stereotype appears particularly relevant: the belief that stigmatized minorities are more
deceitful than Caucasians. When supervisors act rudely or disrespectfully, the recipients of such
treatment are likely to assume that supervisors genuinely feel derision toward them, as there is
little to be gained socially by acting disrespectfully toward others when such feelings are not
sincere. In contrast, supervisors who treat subordinates graciously may have ulterior motives.
Perhaps they display politeness and respect in an ingratiating manner in order to gain favor (Liden
& Mitchell, 1988), or they seek buy-in from subordinates in order to maintain harmony in the
workplace, build political clout, and create the appearance that their hold on power is legitimate
(Ferris et al., 2007).
Indeed, people often make the inaccurate, overgeneralized judgment that minorities from
stigmatized groups are more likely than Caucasians to act politely as an instrument to attain valued
ends, such as gaining political capital (Ogbu, 1985). This is consistent with research suggesting
that one of the most prevalent stereotypes of minorities is that they are deceitful. In an overview of
how Blacks have been viewed historically in the U.S., Holt (1986: 312) noted that it has long been
common to believe that “blacks are deceitful.” Outside the United States, Adejunmobi (2009: 312)
has similarly observed that a stereotype that “blacks are deceptive” persists. Indeed, nearly half of
participants in one study labeled Blacks as deviant, which is a key corollary of deceitful behavior
(Henricks, 2011). McCrate (2006) traces the history of this stereotype to Blacks being fashioned as
poorly disciplined and dishonest, with the implication being that they must rely on deceptive—
rather than diligent—routes to success. As a result of this historical inertia, the view of Blacks as
deceitful remains an enduring stereotype (Burton et al., 2005; Devine & Elliot, 1995; Sigall &
Page, 1971; Vala, Pereira, Lima, & Leyens, 2012; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997).
Similarly, Hispanics are stereotyped as “treacherous, deceitful, cunning” (Basler, 2010:
104; see also Berg, 1990). In one study, the stereotype of deceitfulness was seen as more relevant
to Mexicans than any other negative stereotype by three different social groups (white Americans,
14
Vietnamese, and Chinese) (Burton et al., 2005). Furthermore, Burton et al. (2005) found that
deceitfulness was the only negative attribute that White Americans considered to be closely
entwined with the identity of Mexican-Americans (African-Americans were viewed as the second
most deceitful social group by Whites). In another study, Hispanics were viewed as deceitful
because they were thought to be likely to lie or obscure information (Evans & Michael, 2014).
Other stereotypes reinforce the reality that Hispanics are likely to be viewed as deceitful. In one
sample, more than half of participants viewed Hispanics as ethically deviant (Henricks, 2011), and
in another study the second most common stereotype of Hispanics was that they were legally
deviant (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). Since Hispanics are considered to be deviant, as well
as lazy and unintelligent (Levy et al., 1998), a warped assumption is that they must rely on
cunning and guile—rather than intelligence and hard work—to succeed.
In line with evidence suggesting that both Blacks and Hispanics are likely to be stereotyped
as deceitful, subordinates are likely to perceive that positive interpersonal treatment from a
minority supervisor is the result of someone who is conniving and insincere. Given that
individuals in work settings are known to sometimes mask their true feelings when their roles call
for constant displays of respect toward others (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002), subordinates of
minority supervisors may have even greater reason to believe that respectful actions are not
authentic. Whereas subordinates may explain just treatment from stigmatized minorities with the
stereotype of deceitfulness, Caucasian supervisors are unlikely to be pegged as deceitful when they
adhere to justice rules, because this stereotype does not exist for Caucasians (Burton et al., 2005;
Ogbu, 1985).1 In turn, the belief that minority supervisors are deceitful is likely to negatively
influence fairness perceptions. To this point, Burton et al. (2005) found that deceitfulness was the
most condemned of twenty-eight stereotypes of minorities, including aggression, arrogance,
1
This stereotype may exist for other minorities, such as Asians, yet it is less powerful for these social groups than for
Blacks and Hispanics (Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000). Therefore, our main comparison point involves Blacks and
Hispanics versus Caucasians.
15
selfishness, and laziness. This suggests that the perception that a supervisor is deceitful is likely to
have a particularly negative effect on a subordinate’s judgment of his or her supervisor’s overall
fairness (i.e., how generally virtuous the supervisor is).
Consistent with our arguments on alternating patterns of stereotype activation and
inhibition, we predict that the attribution that minority supervisors are less fair than Caucasian
supervisors will be explained by perceptions that minorities from stigmatized groups are more
deceitful than Caucasians. We expect that this relationship will hold when supervisors adhere to
interpersonal justice rules, but not when they violate them. See the dashed lines in Figure 1.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between supervisor race and fairness perceptions will be
(1) mediated by the perception that the supervisor is deceitful and (2) conditional on
interpersonal justice, such that the perception that minority supervisors are more deceitful
than Caucasian supervisors will mediate the relationship between supervisor race and
fairness perceptions when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules, but not when
they violate interpersonal justice rules.
To further crystallize the logic behind Hypotheses 1 and 2, it is useful to consider why we
posit that race is an antecedent while interpersonal justice serves as a moderator (see Figure 1).
Race influences fairness perceptions through stereotyping because the content of any racial
stereotype is a direct result of a supervisor’s race. In contrast, we posit that interpersonal justice
rule adherence is a moderator because it provides the necessary condition for this stereotype to be
activated to influence subordinates’ fairness perceptions. In this vein, interpersonal justice does not
influence the content or social meaning of the stereotype of deceitfulness, but rather provides the
circumstance (reduced attention) that facilitates the onset of stereotyping and, in turn, the
attribution process that leads to the perception that supervisors are unfair.
Consequences of the Activation and Inhibition of Stereotypes
Although subordinates do not have the authority to punish supervisors directly and are
unlikely to substantially deviate from their work responsibilities because the consequences of such
action are likely to be too severe, they may exhibit bias against minority supervisors by
16
undercutting the social exchange relationship. There are two basic ways that subordinates can do
this. First, they can help minority supervisors less than Caucasians via reduced extra-role behavior
(Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Lee & Allen, 2002). Second, they can harm minority
supervisors more than Caucasians via increased undermining. Consistent with past research
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), greater
perceived fairness is often associated with more positive outcomes. This would suggest that
increased fairness perceptions will boost extra-role helping behavior and decrease undermining.
When integrating this logic with that of Hypothesis 1 (subordinates of minority supervisors will
perceive less fairness than subordinates of Caucasian supervisors only when supervisors of both
races adhere to interpersonal justice rules), we expect that subordinates with minority supervisors
will engage in less helping behavior and more undermining than subordinates of Caucasian
supervisors only in the context of interpersonal justice rule adherence, because they perceive
minority supervisors as less fair than Caucasian supervisors. This leads us to make the following
prediction (see the solid lines in Figure 1):
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between supervisor race and bias will be (1) mediated by
fairness perceptions and (2) conditional on interpersonal justice, such that fairness
perceptions will mediate the relationship between supervisor race and bias when
supervisors adhere to justice rules, but not when they violate them.
We predict that subordinates of minorities will perceive less supervisor fairness than
subordinates of Caucasians only when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules
(Hypothesis 1), and that this interactive effect will be explained by minority supervisors being
perceived as more deceitful than Caucasian supervisors (Hypothesis 2). Further, we predict that
minority supervisors will experience more bias than Caucasian supervisors when they adhere to
interpersonal justice rules, and that this effect will be explained by perceptions of overall
supervisor fairness (Hypothesis 3). When combining each of these effects, we predict an expanded
causal chain with two mediating effects and one moderating effect. Specifically, we expect the
relationship between perceptions of deceit and perceptions of fairness to mediate the relationship
17
between supervisor race and both helping and undermining (i.e., bias), and adherence to
interpersonal justice rules to moderate the path between perceptions of deceit and perceptions of
fairness. This prediction constitutes an integration of all of the relationships shown in Figure 1
(both the solid and dashed lines).
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between supervisor race, perceptions of deceit, fairness
perceptions, and bias in helping behavior/undermining (supervisor race  perceptions of
deceit  fairness perceptions bias) will be conditional on whether supervisors adhere to
interpersonal justice rules, such that the relationship will exist when supervisors adhere to
justice rules, but not when they violate them.
We first test our theory with field data (study 1) and then replicate this effect by testing it
in a controlled experiment (study 2). In this experiment we also extend the findings of study 1 to
test the role of stereotyping. Finally, we revisit our field data to understand how our study 1 and
study 2 findings work together to explain how bias against minority supervisors persists in the
context of justice and how the troubling effects we find can be mitigated.
STUDY 1: FIELD SURVEY
Method
Sample and procedure. In order to gain access to full-time employees from a diverse set
of industries (e.g., financial services, banking, information technology, engineering,
telecommunications, healthcare, and pharmaceuticals), we asked 149 business school students to
each recruit two potential participants for an online survey, of whom 117 (79%) agreed to do so.
This type of sampling procedure is widely used (e.g., Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell, 2006; Mayer,
Nishii, Schneider, & Goldstein, 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). We required participants to
have an immediate supervisor who was willing to complete an online survey.2 In an effort to
increase response rates, we sent out reminder emails one and two weeks after initial contact. This
2
To ensure anonymity, all identifying information was removed and the data were transmitted via Secure Sockets
Layer (SSL). In exchange for their participation, both subordinates and supervisors were given an equal chance of
winning one of five $100 Visa gift cards. To address potential problems associated with participant eligibility, we
asked for business email addresses, contacted potential participants directly, and visually inspected the data for
multiple indicators of suspicious responses.
18
resulted in responses from 239 subordinates (93%) and 202 supervisors (85%), leading to a total of
185 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Of those supervisors, 82.2% were Caucasian, 3.2% were
Hispanic, and 5.4% were African American. The average age was 38 years (SD = 13.15) for
subordinates and 45 years (SD = 11.37) for supervisors, respectively. 51% of subordinates and
41% of supervisors were female. Since our theory has the clearest implications for Caucasians,
Blacks, and Hispanics, we removed supervisors from other ethnic groups. Although the relatively
small number of minority supervisors in our sample is consistent with published work on minority
leaders and power positions (Elvira & Town, 2001; Hekman et al., 2010), we took several steps to
improve confidence in our estimates (as described below).
Measures. We use three sources of data (objective personal characteristics, supervisor
perceptions, and employee perceptions) to reduce the possibility of common method variance. We
collected both supervisor-reported and subordinate-reported perceptions of how well supervisors
adhered to interpersonal justice rules (i.e., respect and propriety) when carrying out decision
making procedures. All scales described below meet thresholds of reliability put forth by Kline
(2013). Supervisors completed four items adapted from Colquitt’s (2001) interpersonal justice
scale assessing their level of interpersonal justice rule adherence (Zapata, Olsen, & Martins, 2012)
on a scale from 1 (“To a Very Small Extent”) to 5 (“To a Very Large Extent”). Sample items
include: “Do you treat this subordinate in a polite manner?,” and “Do you treat this subordinate
with respect?” (.65). Subordinates indicated their perceptions of interpersonal justice received
from supervisors using four items from Colquitt’s (2001) scale (1 = “To a Very Small Extent” to 5
= “To a Very Large Extent”). Sample items include: “Has he/she treated you in a polite manner?,”
and “Has he/she treated you with respect?” (.89).
We measured subordinate fairness perceptions using a scale developed by Rodell and
Colquitt (2009). The survey asked subordinates to indicate their agreement with a series of
statements about their supervisor’s overall level of fairness. Sample items include: “How often
19
does your immediate supervisor act fairly toward you?” (1= “Almost Never” to 5 = “Almost
Always”), and “To what extent do you believe that your immediate supervisor is fair to you?” (1=
“To a Very Small Extent” to 5= “To a Very Large Extent”) (.89). We used a three-item scale
developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998) pertaining to extra-role behavior that a subordinate is
willing to invest in order to help his or her supervisor (e.g., “I am willing to apply extra efforts,
beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work goals”; “I do work for my
supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description”) on a scale from 1 (“Strongly
Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”) ( .77). Finally, supervisor race was dummy-coded 0 for
Caucasian and 1 for minorities.
Controls. We controlled for several factors that may affect the extent to which
subordinates would be either biased toward supervisors or likely to stereotype them. We controlled
for the supervisor’s tenure in the organization (in months), which should influence his/her social
ties and political capital. We controlled for the number of months the subordinate has reported to
the supervisor. We also accounted for dissimilarity between the supervisor and the subordinate on
the factors of race, age, and gender.3 When all variables were entered into the model, listwise
deletion resulted in the removal of 18 cases.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. We should note that the means for interpersonal
justice are consistent with past survey research (e.g., Colquitt et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2014).4
3
We also created dummy codes to represent all 28 industries in the sample. None of them had a significant influence
on the outcome. Since the number of dummy codes was so large, we excluded these fixed effects to preserve a
reasonable variable-to-observation ratio. However, results remained consistent when these fixed effects were included.
4
Given the relatively small number of minority supervisors in our data, we first checked our data for outliers.
Analyses using both multiple item and multiple construct identification techniques strongly suggested that there are no
error outliers in the dataset (Aguinis, Gottefredson, & Joo, 2013). In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses by
broadening the criteria we used for minorities by including Native Americans and Asians (which effectively doubles
the number of minority supervisors). Given that minorities other than Hispanics and Blacks are not as stigmatized as
Hispanics and Blacks (Burton et al., 2005), the results are unlikely to be as strong when Native Americans and Asians
are included. However, because they are still more stigmatized than Caucasians with respect to deceit (Burton et al.
2005), the pattern of results should remain consistent. We discuss the results of these sensitivity analyses below.
20
------------------------------------------Insert Tables 1 and 2 About Here
------------------------------------------We tested our hypotheses with hierarchical regression (see Table 2). To test our prediction
that supervisor race would interact with supervisor justice rule adherence to predict employee
perceptions of fairness (Hypothesis 1), we corrected for the skew of the dependent variable by
taking its natural log. To account for the likelihood that supervisors’ self-reported perceptions of
their adherence to justice rules and subordinates’ perceptions of their supervisors’ adherence to
justice rules are both vulnerable to biases, we included both measures in our model simultaneously
as separate indicators of supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules. The interaction term
was significant for both subordinate-reported justice rule adherence, B = -.10, t = -2.10, p < .05,
and supervisor-reported justice rule adherence, B = -.22, t = -2.30, p < .05. We calculated simple
slopes for the combined effects of subordinate-reported and supervisor-reported measures and
used the variance-covariance matrix of regression coefficients to ascertain standard errors. In line
with our expectations, subordinates perceived minority supervisors to be less fair than Caucasian
supervisors when they adhered to interpersonal justice rules (B = -.23, t = -3.79, p < .001), but not
when they violated them (p = .39). When considered independently, the subordinate-reported
justice and supervisor-reported justice measures had the same substantive patterns of significance
for their respective simple slopes (see Figures 2a and 2b for plots of these interactions).
------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 and Table 3 About Here
------------------------------------------------Finally, we tested our prediction that a positive relationship between supervisor race and
subordinate extra-role behavior would be (1) mediated by fairness perceptions and (2) conditional
on interpersonal justice rule adherence, such that perceptions of fairness would explain why
subordinates help minority supervisors less when supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice rules,
but not when they violate them (Hypothesis 3). Consistent with the solid lines in Figure 1, we
21
tested for mediated moderation, or a Stage 1 conditional indirect effect (Hayes, 2013). Similar to
our test of Hypothesis 1, we included both supervisor-rated and subordinate-rated perceptions of
justice rule adherence as indicators of the moderator, and we report effects of the combined tests
of both ratings (see Table 3). Analyses demonstrated that 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals
for the indirect effect (B = -.07) excluded zero (95% CI: -.23, -.01) when supervisors adhered to
justice rules, however when supervisors violated interpersonal justice rules, 95% bootstrapped
confidence intervals for the indirect effect (B = .02) did not exclude 0.5
Overall, the results from this study provide support for our argument that minority
supervisors would only experience bias from subordinates when they adhered to interpersonal
justice rules, and that the relationship between supervisor race and extra-role behavior would be
mediated by fairness perceptions.6 Further, the sample used in our analysis (supervisor-subordinate
dyads from a wide range of employers in various industries) suggests that our findings are
generalizable. Perhaps most troubling is that we found this bias when including measures of
subordinates’ own perceptions of their supervisors’ adherence to interpersonal justice rules (see
5
We took several steps to ensure that our results are robust. First, when we include Native Americans and Asians, the
race and interpersonal justice rule adherence interaction is significant for supervisor-rated justice and marginally
significant for subordinate-rated justice. In addition, the full conditional indirect effect is supported. Second, our usage
of bootstrapping allows inferences on indirect effects to be drawn from smaller samples than other approaches (Shrout
& Bolger, 2002). Third, our multi-source data reduced the likelihood of common method variance. Fourth, we tested
whether the positions of fairness perceptions and extra-role behavior (fairness perceptions  extra-role behavior)
could be reversed, such that extra-role behavior  fairness perceptions. However, confidence intervals for the
conditional indirect effect in this model did not exclude 0 either when supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice
rules or when they violated them. Fifth, supervisor race was not related to interpersonal justice rule adherence. Sixth,
although there could be some aspect of bi-directional causality in our data, we ruled out the possibility that race
predicts perceptions of interpersonal justice rule adherence through overall fairness perceptions (race  overall
fairness perceptions  perceptions of interpersonal justice). Seventh, we considered theoretical perspectives related to
the possibility that overall justice perceptions drive perceptions of justice rule adherence (Lind, 2001). Fairness theory
(Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) couches justice rules as antecedents to overall fairness perceptions. Further, Colquitt
(2012: 532) noted that “although this overall fairness could serve a number of roles, it is often discussed as
‘theoretically downstream’ from the specific justice dimensions …[F]rom this perspective, distributive, procedural,
interpersonal, and informational justice serve as antecedents of overall fairness, with overall fairness then serving as
an antecedent of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.”
6
Of the four justice rule dimensions, we assert that only adherence to interpersonal justice rules influences
stereotyping and fairness perceptions in the ways posited in our theory. To verify this, we conducted two separate
supplementary analyses. First, we reran all of the above analyses controlling for both subordinate-reported and
supervisor-reported measures for procedural, distributive, and informational justice rules. Results were consistent
when these factors were included. Second, we substituted each of the justice rule dimensions for interpersonal justice
and performed the same analyses. None of them replicated our findings for any of the hypotheses.
22
Figure 2a). The implication is that even when subordinates perceive that minority supervisors
adhere to interpersonal justice rules to the same degree as is reported by subordinates of Caucasian
supervisors, minority supervisors are still rated as less fair than Caucasian supervisors and, in turn,
their subordinates are less willing to go above and beyond for them.
This study is not without limitations. Although our measures and analyses reduced some
concerns related to reverse causality, the research design remains vulnerable to spurious effects
(though this should not impact our hypothesized interactions). Also, although we used scale items
and scale anchors consistent with existing research on justice in study 1, the anchor values make it
difficult to delineate clearly between zones of justice adherence and justice violation. However,
our conclusions can be preserved since behavior can be interpreted as less just and more just in a
relative sense. In addition, we examined entity-based rather than event-based interpersonal justice
rule adherence (for a review, see Cropanzano et al., 2001). We were unable to focus on a specific
justice event since we surveyed supervisor-employee dyads across several organizations.
However, this is consistent with a number of field studies that have included questions in which
subordinates are asked how frequently their supervisors adhere to justice rules in general rather
than during a specific event (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Rupp & Cropanzano,
2002; Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Given our focus on the justice dimension most
intertwined with the supervisor (i.e., interpersonal justice) (Bies, 2005; Scott et al., 2009) and our
emphasis on global attributions made about supervisor fairness, an entity-based focus was most
appropriate. It is also worth noting that Colquitt et al. (2013) demonstrated that meta-analytic
effect sizes do not depend on whether attributions are made about an event or entity. Finally,
although we took steps to ensure that our conclusions based on the number of minority supervisors
in study 1 were valid, the number of minorities could make our results vulnerable to noise.
To establish causal inference, rule out alternative explanations, and mitigate some of the
limitations of our field study, we conducted a controlled laboratory experiment that manipulates
23
supervisor race and a supervisor-initiated justice event (allowing for a roughly even number of
Caucasian and minority supervisors). By manipulating (in)justice, we provide participants with the
initial justice-relevant information needed to inform overall fairness perceptions, and by using
random assignment we minimize differences across conditions. We also expand our focus by
explicitly testing for the role of stereotyping and investigating whether our findings generalize
from withholding benefits from minority supervisors to undermining them.
STUDY 2: EXPERIMENT
Method
Sample and design. 307 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory organizational
behavior and human resource management classes at a university in the United States participated
in the experiment as one option to fulfill a course requirement. The final sample size was dictated
in part by a university rule that all students in the course must have the opportunity to enroll in the
experiment. The sample was 63% Caucasian, 5% Hispanic, 20% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7%
African American, and 5% “Other.” 53% of the participants were female. The experiment utilized
a two-by-two between-subjects factorial design: interpersonal justice (adherence/violation) by
supervisor race (Caucasian/minority). To reflect the field survey, we included both Blacks and
Hispanics in the minority supervisor condition. However, the experimental manipulation that we
describe below required us to manipulate Blacks separately from Hispanics.
Procedures. When the participants arrived, we instructed them to type their names into the
computer and informed them that we were interested in studying cognitive performance in an
anagram task. We told participants that they would be paired with another participant from a local
university via networked computers. The students were told that the strongest performer on an
initial trial would be designated the supervisor while the other participant would continue to solve
anagrams. The supervisor’s role would be to grade the participant’s anagram tasks in order to
determine his/her final performance. In actuality, there was no participant at the other institution.
24
Each participant was told that he/she scored lower than the participant from the other university,
and thus the participant from the other university would be the supervisor for the remainder of the
task. To increase believability regarding our use of a student supervisor, we told participants that
we were interested in understanding how people work with supervisors who do not belong to the
same institution and who they know little about. After the anagrams from the initial trial were
purportedly graded, we introduced our manipulation of supervisor race.
Supervisor race manipulation. A full-cycle research design mandates that the
characteristics of a controlled experiment should mirror the characteristics of the external setting
(Chatman & Flynn, 2005). Since our study 1 analyses included Caucasians, Blacks, and Hispanics,
we included the same ethnic groups in the experiment. We manipulated supervisor race through a
pre-programmed message to participants, informing them that they would continue in their role as
participants and that their supervisor had either a Caucasian-sounding name (Todd/John) or a
minority-sounding name (Tyrone/Juan). Given that all participants were asked to provide their
names in the beginning of the experiment, it was credible that the supervisor’s name was given at
this point. Although including pictures could have strengthened our race manipulation, we sought
to manipulate race with a minimum possible number of cues in order to reduce the likelihood that
participants would be distracted or guess the purpose of the study (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell,
2002). Previous research suggests that certain names are perceived to be principally used by
certain ethnicities (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2012; Rosette,
Leonardelli, & Phillips, 2008), therefore we manipulated race using only names.
We paired “Tyrone” and “Todd” based on Rosette et al. (2008: 766-767), who validated
the use of these names in a depiction of CEOs in a study that examined bias in favor of Caucasian
leaders. Milkman, Akinola, and Chugh (2012) discovered that “Juan” is viewed as one of the two
most highly representative names of the Hispanic ethnic group. Further, “Juan” is the name of
many prominent Hispanic leaders in government and business. “John” is highly representative of
25
the Caucasian racial group, has the same number of letters as “Juan,” and etymologically is the
Caucasian equivalent of the name “Juan.” Participants were randomly assigned to each condition
with the following message, in which participants either saw “Todd,” “John,” “Tyrone,” or “Juan”
in the bracketed space:
Based on your performance on the last set of anagrams, you have been assigned the role of:
Participant. The assigned leader for the current run of the study is: [leader name]. The
leader will be responsible for grading your anagrams, which will determine your bonus
eligibility.
Manipulation of justice rule adherence. Given that the supervisors purportedly
controlled performance evaluation and compensation (participants scoring in the top 25% received
a bonus $5 Starbucks gift card), participants were likely to be sensitive to justice or injustice.
During the task, the supervisors and participants were able to send a message to each other. When
coupled with justice-related decisions, the presence of this interaction made interpersonal justice
relevant. After completing the second anagram task, the supervisor sent a message to the
participant, which, in reality, was pre-determined by the experimenters. This message manipulated
interpersonal justice, which relates to displays of politeness, dignity, and respect in the context of
resource allocation decisions (Bies, 2005; Bies & Moag, 1986). Participants in the interpersonal
justice rule adherence condition received the following message: “I assume the potential bonus is
important to you so I want you to know that I’m taking my job of grading your anagrams
seriously.” Participants in the interpersonal justice rule violation condition received the following
message: “My job as the leader is tougher than solving these easy anagrams. Your potential bonus
is the last thing on my mind.” After receiving this message, the participants completed a final
anagram task consisting of 12 anagrams, and were then asked to fill out the survey questionnaire
while the supervisor purportedly compiled the results of the anagram tasks. Embedded within the
questionnaire was an attention check that asked participants to indicate whether they had received
a message (i.e., our manipulation) from the supervisor. The eleven participants who indicated that
26
they had not received a message from the supervisor were removed from the analyses, leaving a
final sample of 296 participants.
Mediators. We measured the stereotype of deceitfulness by asking participants, “To what
extent do you think the leader is deceptive?” using the following scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to
5 = “Strongly Agree”). Stereotype research involving interpersonal interactions between pairs of
individuals (such as in this experiment) presents a dilemma. While stereotypes involve
overgeneralizations about social groups, our experiment involved a participant encountering a
single individual. Prior research has resolved this dilemma by (1) ensuring that participants are
aware of a target’s social group membership, (2) employing questionnaire items about the target
(in this case, the supervisor) and then (3) extrapolating the existence of stereotyping from
between-groups differences that emerge in the analyses (Blair, 2002). This way, questionnaire
items tap into the actual experience of participants (an individual level experience) while the
analyses tap into the construct of stereotyping (overall differences in how group members are
perceived). We also assessed participants’ fairness perceptions utilizing a three-item scale
developed by Zapata-Phelan et al. (2009), which adapted the items we used in Study 1 to the
experimental context (.97).
Dependent variables. To extend beyond the study 1 finding on the withholding of extrarole behavior, we sought to assess whether subordinates would inflict harm on minority
supervisors via social undermining. Undermining involves “behavior intended to hinder, over
time, a worker’s ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related
success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006: 105). We used
the three categories invoked in Duffy et al.’s (2006) above-stated definition (reputation,
interpersonal relationships, and work-related success) as a framework to guide our identification of
three factors that are vulnerable to being undermined. Because blame spreads negative information
about a supervisor’s character and motivations, casting blame toward a supervisor will undermine
27
that supervisor’s reputation. In addition, given that trust is one of the most central elements of
functional relationships, a subordinate’s expressions of distrust will undermine the supervisor’s
ability to establish positive interpersonal exchange relationships. Finally, since rewards and credit
are central to career advancement, the discouragement of a supervisor’s ability to receive rewards
will undermine his or her work-related success.
To measure blame-throwing, the participants were given items adapted from a scale
developed by Nicklin, Greenbaum, McNall, Folger, and Williams (2011) that pertained to whether
they would explicitly blame the supervisor or hold him responsible for how their performance was
assessed (e.g., “the leader should have done something different”) (.78). Second, to assess
outward displays of distrust, we gave participants a four-item scale on distrust, adapted from
Mayer and Gavin (2005) (e.g., “I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on the leader”)
(.77). Finally, after the task was completed, participants were given the opportunity to
recommend (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”) to the experimenter whether the
supervisor should be eligible for the bonus. To increase the likelihood that participants would
believe that they could actually influence the awarding of the supervisor’s bonus, we highlighted
the fact that the supervisor had not completed any anagrams during the final performance trial, so
the only way to assess his/her performance was to survey the other participant.
Manipulation checks. In order to determine whether our interpersonal justice rule
adherence manipulation was successful, we asked participants to indicate the extent of their
agreement (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”) with three items (e.g.., “The leader
gave me feedback in a respectful manner”) (.92). To check the effectiveness of our supervisor
race manipulation, we asked participants to describe what race they thought the leader is.
Participants could select one of the following options: Caucasian, Black or African American,
Hispanic, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Other. At the end of our study we asked
participants (1) whether they thought they had guessed the purpose of the study, and (2) if so, what
28
they thought the purpose was. None of the participants guessed that the purpose of the study had to
do with the supervisor’s race.
Results and Discussion
We ran a multivariate analysis of variance to check our manipulations and ensure that there
were no spillover effects. Participants identified whether they experienced interpersonal justice
rule adherence or violations in a way consistent with our manipulations, F(1,289) = 152.74, p <
.001. Participants also identified the race of the supervisor in a way consistent with our
manipulations, F(1,289) = 30.89, p < .001. In addition, the justice manipulation did not predict
perceptions of supervisor race (p = .83) and the race manipulation did not predict perceptions of
interpersonal justice (p = .56). For all analyses, we tested models both including and excluding
participant race. We report results for models in which participant race is included. However, all
results remain robust when leaving participant race out of the model.
Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 4. To test whether the findings from study 1
would replicate, we ran an analysis of variance. As with Study 1, our prediction that supervisor
race would interact with supervisor adherence to interpersonal justice rules in predicting fairness
perceptions (Hypothesis 1) was supported, F(1,287) = 5.81, p < .05. Further, tests of simple
effects revealed that there was a marginally significant discrepancy in fairness perceptions when
supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules (B = -.25, t = -1.86, p = .06), but not when they
violated interpersonal justice rules. Caucasian supervisors who adhered to interpersonal justice
rules were evaluated as fairer (M = 3.84) than minority supervisors who adhered to interpersonal
justice rules (M = 3.59). In contrast, the difference in fairness perceptions between Caucasian
supervisors (M = 3.37) and minority supervisors (M = 3.58) was not significant when they violated
interpersonal justice rules. Thus, results provide partial support for our prediction that when
supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules, subordinates would perceive minority
supervisors to be less fair than Caucasian supervisors. See Figure 2c for a plot of this interaction.
29
--------------------------------Insert Table 4 About Here
--------------------------------We then tested our prediction that this interaction would be explained by the stereotype
that minorities are more deceitful than Caucasians (Hypothesis 2). In line with Figure 1, we tested
this with moderated mediation, or a stage 2 conditional indirect effect, whereby adherence to
interpersonal justice rules moderated the indirect effect of supervisor race  stereotype activation
 fairness perceptions (Hayes, 2013). In essence, this analysis tested whether a pre-existing
stereotype is activated only when minority supervisors adhere to justice rules. Consistent with this
prediction, when supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules, analyses demonstrated that
bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect (B = -.09) excluded zero (95% CI: .02, -.19). When supervisors violated interpersonal justice rules, analyses demonstrated that
bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect (B = -.05) did not exclude 0.
We then sought to test the prediction (Hypothesis 4) that the relationship between
stereotype activation and fairness perceptions would mediate the relationship between supervisor
race and undermining when supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules, but not when they
violated them. This constitutes the full test of Figure 1. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a
conditional path analysis. We first tested whether this effect held for blame-throwing. When
supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules, analyses demonstrated that bootstrapped 95%
confidence intervals for the indirect effect (B = .03) excluded zero (95% CI: .01, .09). When
supervisors violated interpersonal justice rules, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the
indirect effect did not exclude 0. We then tested whether this effect held for displays of distrust.
When supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice rules, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for
the indirect effect (B = .02) excluded zero (95% CI: .01, .07). When supervisors violated
interpersonal justice rules, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect did not
exclude 0. Finally, we tested whether this indirect effect would hold for whether participants
30
recommend that leaders not be given bonuses. When supervisors adhered to interpersonal justice
rules, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect (B = .04) excluded zero (95%
CI: .01, .13). When supervisors violated interpersonal justice rules, bootstrapped 95% confidence
intervals for the indirect effect did not exclude 0. In sum, and as shown in Table 5, the conditional
path analysis was supported for all three types of undermining, providing strong support for our
theoretical model.
---------------------------------Insert Table 5 About Here
---------------------------------In this study we replicated all of the findings from study 1 while extending them in several
important ways. First, we established causality. Second, we manipulated supervisor justice rule
adherence and violation rather than relying on self-reported or other-reported perceptions. Third,
we showed that our theory generalized from decreasing extra-role behaviors to inflicting harm via
undermining. Fourth, we established the explanatory role of stereotype activation and inhibition by
demonstrating that stereotyping emerged when supervisors adhered to justice rules, but not when
they violated them. In the context of justice rule adherence, individuals used ingrained beliefs
about the inferiority of minority supervisors to color their perceptions of fairness and, in turn,
engage in undermining. However, stereotyping (and the link between stereotyping, fairness
perceptions, and bias) disappeared when they needed to attend to supervisor behavior in order to
make sense of why supervisors violated interpersonal justice rules. To be clear, although justice
violations suppress the use of stereotypes, given the well-known downsides of justice rule
violations (Colquitt et al., 2013), we do not suggest that minorities should violate justice rules.
There are limitations with this study. Although our experiment allows us to make causal
inferences, it relied on a supervisor who was not physically present. Though electronic
communication is now one of the most prevalent forms of interpersonal interaction in the
workplace, such exchanges lack various characteristics that make interactions rich. We also
31
suggest caution with interpreting the simple slope in our test of Hypothesis 1. The significance test
(p = .06) suggests that there is a 6% possibility of the finding being due to chance rather than the
5% possibility that serves as conventional protocol in the social sciences (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken, 2003).
COMPLETING THE CYCLE: REVISITING STUDY 1 DATA
Consistent with full-cycle research, we use the findings from the experiment to re-interpret
the field data from Study 1 (Chatman & Flynn, 2005).
The Relationship between Stereotype Activation/Inhibition and Overall Bias Against
Minorities
A key nuance of our theory is that stereotypes do not reverse when supervisors violate
interpersonal justice rules. That is, minorities are never perceived as fairer than Caucasians (or,
more precisely, less unfair than Caucasians). Rather, stereotypes are simply attenuated (a buffering
effect), such that minorities and Caucasians are evaluated in the same way. This nuance has
critical implications for the perpetuation of stereotypes and bias against minority supervisors.
Since stereotypes persist in some situations and merely disappear in others, the upshot is that bias
in how minority supervisors are perceived relative to Caucasian supervisors is, on balance,
perpetuated. Even if some situations cause bias against minority supervisors to disappear, the net
effect is that stereotype activation causes biased perceptions to persist.
This is especially likely to be the case when considering the prevalence of justice rule
adherence relative to the prevalence of justice rule violations. Probing the mean levels of justice
rule adherence in our survey data, we found that about 15% of supervisors failed to adhere to
interpersonal justice rules somewhat frequently.7 This frequency aligns with other research that
has found similar baseline levels of injustice in organizations (King, 2004; Pager & Shepherd,
This was calculated by assessing the proportion of respondents who responded “somewhat” to “to what extent does
the supervisor engage in [justice behavior]?”
7
32
2008). When coupled with our findings, this large adherence-to-violation ratio means that
subordinates may discriminate against the majority of minority supervisors. These patterns led us
to expect an overall indirect effect in our survey data: subordinates will perform extra-role
behaviors for Caucasian supervisors more than minority supervisors, and this effect will be
mediated by perceptions of fairness. Consistent with this prediction, analyses demonstrated that
bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effect between race, perceptions of fairness,
and helping behavior (B = -.04) excluded zero (95% CI: -.10, -.01). This finding suggests that
subordinates generally exhibit bias against minority supervisors because they deem them to be less
fair than Caucasians.
How Can Stereotyping and Bias from Just Treatment be Mitigated?
As noted earlier, Blair (2002: 250) observed that “[a] well-supported finding is that
stereotypes dominate unless the perceiver spends more time learning about the person’s unique
attributes.” Thus, stereotyping is reduced when subordinates view supervisors in terms of their
unique, individuating characteristics (e.g., personality) rather than in terms of over-generalizations
related to their social categories (i.e., racial stereotypes). For this reason, the relationship between
interpersonal justice rule adherence and stereotyping may be attenuated by factors that help
increase subordinates’ awareness of their supervisors’ individual characteristics. A key factor that
determines the extent to which subordinates get to know their supervisors individually is how
closely they work with them. One of the primary drivers of the intensity of interaction patterns is
the organization’s structure. In particular, interaction intensity is dependent on how many
subordinates supervisors oversee (i.e., the size of supervisors’ units). Supervisors who directly
oversee small work units will have more time to spend with each subordinate and fewer competing
demands. Given the opportunity to build strong relationships with subordinates, supervisors who
oversee small units are likely to take a keen interest in each subordinate and assume responsibility
for their development and success. By building an intense working relationship, subordinates are
33
likely to be more familiar with their supervisors’ unique personal qualities. Even if subordinates
who have minority supervisors do not pay close attention to their supervisors when they adhere to
justice rules (and therefore do not pose a threat), subordinates’ prevailing familiarity with the
idiosyncratic characteristics of their supervisors will likely override attributions that would
otherwise be made purely on the basis of stereotypes.
Overall, then, it could be the case that supervisors with small units are not subjected to
stereotyping when they exhibit justice. Using the study 1 survey data, we found results consistent
with this possibility. With our usage of a variable capturing unit size, listwise deletion resulted in a
sample size of 158. We found a three-way interaction between race, interpersonal justice rule
adherence, and unit size on overall fairness perceptions for both subordinate perceptions of
interpersonal justice rule adherence, B = -.01, t = -1.98, p = .05, and supervisor perceptions of
interpersonal justice rule adherence, B = -.03, t = -2.17, p < .05. In both cases, the interaction
between race and interpersonal justice was significant in large work units (about 22 members) and
not significant in small work units (about 2 members). Note that we did not find an overall main
effect for unit size. That is, it is not necessarily better for supervisors to work in smaller, more
intimate environments. Instead, the influence of unit size is best understood in the moderating role
we identify above.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our findings are consistent with the logic that when supervisors adhere to interpersonal
justice rules, subordinates feel less threat from their supervisors and turn their attention toward
other foci (Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Roberson, 2006), ultimately leading them to rely on
stereotypical beliefs about minorities. Across a survey and an experiment we provided support for
the notion that this stereotyping leads to bias against Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting that our
findings apply to multiple stigmatized racial minority groups. To shed light on this troubling
result, we integrated two constructs from organizational justice (interpersonal justice rule
34
adherence and fairness perceptions) and two constructs from research on racial bias (stereotyping
and upward-directed bias). The findings drawn from our integrated framework contribute back to
research in both of these domains.
Contributions to Theory on Organizational Justice
A new look at social exchange perspectives on justice. Social exchange is perhaps the
most frequently used theoretical framework for understanding the beneficial effects of
organizational justice rule adherence (Colquitt, 2012). Drawing from prior research on power
asymmetry in the context of social exchange, it stands to reason that (1) possessing authority over
others and (2) treating others respectfully typically protects against harmful treatment from those
same people (Colquitt et al., 2001). When both of these forces are combined, it would appear that
supervisors who exhibit interpersonal justice will be in a strong position to get back what they
invest in their relationships with subordinates (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Indeed, research
has found that subordinates generally reciprocate their supervisors’ adherence to interpersonal
justice rules by displaying positive attitudes and behaviors (e.g., supervisor-focused citizenship)
(Colquitt et al., 2013).
By identifying occasions when the expectation that supervisors will get back what they put
in to the exchange relationship goes unfulfilled, we add important nuance to social exchange-based
perspectives on justice. Rather than giving more to subordinates and then getting better treatment
in return, minorities encounter a troubling reality. When compared to Caucasian supervisors,
minority supervisors who give more often get worse treatment in return. Further, the nature of this
lack of reciprocation suggests that justice has the potential not only to lead to negative outcomes,
but to undermine itself: supervisor behaviors that are taken for granted as representing justice lead
to subordinate behaviors that impair the ability for minority supervisors to be treated the same way
as Caucasian supervisors. Given the power inherent in their positions in the organizational
hierarchy, the prospect that respectful supervisors experience more bias from their subordinates
than disrespectful supervisors is surprising. If this finding is confirmed in additional studies across
35
diverse settings and samples, then it can challenge the longstanding consensus that supervisors
who treat subordinates respectfully will be the beneficiaries of positive outcomes. In this vein, it
would suggest that there are important boundary conditions to perspectives on organizational
justice that are informed by social exchange.
Our findings also suggest that theory on attention can help determine when and why
supervisor-subordinate relationships may not be characterized by reciprocal exchange. When
subordinates do not pay attention to their supervisors, they engage in stereotyping and ultimately
do not reciprocate their supervisor’s just behavior. Since it represents the mechanism that likely
causes stereotyping, attention can also be used to understand which situational factors (e.g., unit
size) attenuate bias. In sum, attention provides a unified theoretical framework for incorporating
factors from the literature on racial bias and organizational structure into theory on social
exchange to understand (1) what explains and (2) what attenuates the negative consequences of
adherence to interpersonal justice rules. In this way, an attention-based view provides a
parsimonious and integrative way to unpack the cognitive and situational mechanisms that
characterize social exchange relationships in the context of justice and racial diversity.
The downside of the fairness heuristic. Although subordinates are capable of consciously
distinguishing between specific facets of supervisor justice behavior (e.g., procedural versus
distributive versus interpersonal), scholars have suggested that the attention required to make such
fine-grained assessments is likely to be depleting. As a result, subordinates often form global
judgments about whether their supervisors are generally fair or unfair (Lind & van den Bos, 2002).
Known as the fairness heuristic, this judgment process occurs rapidly and subconsciously, such
that subordinates use thin slices of justice-relevant behavior (e.g., respectful actions) to make
global assessments of supervisor fairness (Lind, 2001). One major downside of this type of high
level, automatic processing is that it remains vulnerable to distorted thought patterns, such as
stereotypes. Although all perceptual measures, including justice measures “can be at variance to
reality” (Lind, 2001: 66), the ramifications of this downside have not been fully acknowledged in
36
the justice literature. Our findings suggest that, when individuals do not have a reason to pay
careful attention to their supervisors (when they experience a lack of threat), the fairness heuristic
is more likely to be employed, subsequently allowing stereotypes to seep in and bias fairness
judgments. This updated view of the bias inherent in fairness judgments explains why
subordinates’ fairness perceptions are sometimes warped and, ultimately, when and why
subordinates direct biased behavior toward minority supervisors.
Contributions to Theory on Stereotyping and Racial Bias in Supervisor Evaluations
Our findings provide a novel view of both stereotyping and racial bias. With respect to
stereotyping, we have demonstrated why stereotyping remains prevalent in seemingly benign
environments—wherein minorities are stereotyped more when they treat others with respect.
Although it is known that inattention drives stereotyping, we have identified an enabler of
inattention (lack of threat from supervisors) that is novel because it is nested in supervisor
behavior. This, in turn, suggests that supervisors are unwittingly participating in the very behavior
that unleashes stereotyping against them.
With respect to theory on racial bias, we helped shed light on a phenomenon that has
remained largely uninvestigated in research associated with discrimination: upward-directed bias.
This form of bias reflects how minority supervisors face a disconcerting, paradoxical tension
between the power and status they have earned while climbing the organizational hierarchy and
the lack of power and status they have inherited by virtue of their membership in historically
stigmatized ethnic groups. Our results corroborate the prediction that stereotype activation
perpetuates two different ways that subordinates exhibit bias against minority supervisors relative
to Caucasian supervisors: providing less help and engaging in more undermining. Given that a
supervisor’s success largely depends on his or her legitimate hold on power, upward-directed bias
is likely to be debilitating for minorities.
In addition to examining a different form of racial bias, we uncovered a novel causal
process that helps to explain the well-documented stubbornness of racial bias in organizational
37
settings. There remains an incomplete understanding of why racial bias remains so prevalent in
spite of the social, ethical, and institutional forces that work against it. Since (1) interpersonal
justice rules are relevant to many interactions, and (2) supervisors adhere to interpersonal justice
rules in most of these interactions, an extension of our finding would be that bias persists against
most minority supervisors most of the time. Consistent with this idea, we reported an indirect
effect demonstrating that minorities generally experience more bias than Caucasian supervisors
because they are perceived to be less fair. In sum, the pressure on supervisors to adhere to
interpersonal justice rules paradoxically undercuts the ideal of a just meritocracy. Since the type of
behavior that triggers bias is deemed to be inherently good, bias is likely to sustain.
Managerial Implications
We uncovered the disturbing pattern that supervisors are more likely to be stereotyped
when they treat their subordinates with dignity than with derision. In this way, interpersonal justice
rule adherence is a double-edged sword for minorities, who can either act unjustly and be treated
equally, or act justly and be treated unequally. Given the numerous benefits that interpersonally
just supervisors provide for their organizations and the various deleterious outcomes that result
from unjust behavior (Colquitt et al., 2013), we do not in any way suggest that justice violations
are preferable to justice adherence. Rather, we suggest that our identification of this “no win”
situation for minorities puts the onus on organizations, which are faced with multi-layered
questions regarding fairness and equity.
Our finding that unit size mitigates the influence of interpersonal justice on racial bias can
help surface potential solutions because it suggests that structural and situational factors can
influence the psychological mechanism (inattention to supervisors’ individual characteristics) that
triggers stereotyping (Blair, 2002). Given that direct attempts to change employees’ beliefs are
challenging since stereotypes are often deeply ingrained, interventions that focus on the structural
and situational attributes that influence attention may be especially useful. When assigning
supervisors fewer direct reports is not possible, other alterations to the physical environment can
38
make the presence of supervisors more salient. For instance, supervisors can be located more
proximally to subordinates. Organizational routines can also have an impact. To illustrate, frequent
interaction gleaned from one-on-one meetings or small group caucuses may make supervisor
characteristics more apparent. As another alternative, routines that lead to relationship building
may cause supervisors to reveal personal characteristics that make their individuality more readily
come to mind. For example, after-hour social activities or outings that involve partners and family
members may allow subordinates to see their supervisors in a different light.
As a final way to redress the troubling pattern identified in this paper, we suggest that the
design of the survey instruments used within organizations to assess supervisor fairness be
reconsidered. For instance, when individuals assess supervisors in 360 degree feedback surveys,
there are often questions about overall fairness. Even in settings such as education, instructor
evaluation forms frequently include questions that tap into global perceptions of instructor
fairness. To take another example, two thirds of the calculations for the annual list of the Fortune
100 Best Places to Work are based on an employee assessment called a trust index, which
assesses, among other things, how fairly supervisors treat employees. An overreliance on global
measures of fairness is problematic because our data indicate that when employees are asked to
make assessments about overall fairness, employees who have supervisors from one race make
judgments in ways that are inconsistent with employees who have supervisors from another race.
We therefore suggest that company surveys include questions that tap into specific justice
behaviors rather than ask employees to make high-level, overarching assessments about the
fairness of their supervisors. In support of this view, the interaction between race and interpersonal
justice rule adherence was not significant for the interpersonal justice manipulation check in study
2 (p = .953). Perhaps this consistency is due to the nature of the questions, which lead subordinates
to focus intently on specific behaviors rather than rely on general impressions, which are more
vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes.
39
Limitations and Future Directions
There are natural limitations extending from our paper’s scale and scope. Although our
survey sample included supervisor-subordinate dyads from various organizations and industries,
lending the results a strong element of generalizability, we did not focus on a single work context,
nor did we include multiple subordinates from each organization in our sample. This prevents the
identification of the role of group and interpersonal factors in shaping the relationship between
interpersonal justice rule adherence and fairness perceptions (Lind, Kray, & Thompson, 2001).
Future research can assess such social dynamics by accounting for when bias may snowball due to
social contagion effects and when it may be buffered by third-parties who speak out against it
(Rosette, Carton, Bowes-Sperry, & Hewlin, 2013).
In addition, we examined two stigmatized racial groups concurrently even though they are
different in several respects. That said, there is strong support for Blacks and Hispanics both being
characterized by the stereotype of deceit (e.g., Burton et al., 2005). More importantly, our results
generalize to a broader construct (stigmatized group membership) rather than a single racial group.
In terms of our study 1 methodology, we did not test a within-person design in which individuals
had multiple supervisors of different races. As a result, we cannot unequivocally claim that the
same individual would treat supervisors differently based on race. However, about 90% of
employees have a single dominant supervisor in organizations (Brody et al., 2014), therefore
limiting this concern and suggesting that our results do possess external validity. Finally, we did
not test multiple supervisor-subordinate pairs from the same organization.
There are a number of potentially fruitful avenues for future research. As one alternative,
scholars could examine whether expectations for unjust behavior vary based on supervisor race. If
expectations are lower for minority supervisors, then employees may “see” more injustice
(Shapiro & Kirkman, 2001). Of all possible directions, perhaps the most promising involves the
role of attention. Our findings suggest that attention can be used to incorporate factors from
research domains (stereotyping and organizational structure) that (1) have to date been
40
disconnected and (2) have not been extensively considered in tandem with justice. As a key
component of organizational life, attention influences many distinct factors—from communication
to decision making to information transfer (Ocasio, 1997). Since interpersonal justice appears to
be relevant to such a foundational organizational construct, we suggest that interpersonal justice
rule adherence may be associated with a more expansive set of psychological, social, and
institutional forces than previously thought. By putting a broader array of factors in play, an
attention-based view of interpersonal justice increases the potential precision with which scholars
can explain the influence of interpersonal justice on important outcomes while expanding its scope
and relevance to new areas of inquiry. This increases the likelihood that important new insights
will emerge. Further, since such insights would stem from a common mechanism, they could be
understood in a theoretically integrated fashion.
CONCLUSION
For supervisors from stigmatized minority groups, the standards associated with
interpersonal justice rules are a double-edged sword. If supervisors violate interpersonal justice
rules, then subordinates suffer and the subordinate-supervisor relationship is damaged. Yet if they
adhere to interpersonal justice rules, then they operate at a disadvantage relative to Caucasian
supervisors. When supervisors treat their subordinates justly, they paradoxically set themselves up
to face bias in return. Findings from our exploratory analyses suggest that this bias can be
mitigated when characteristics in the organizational context create the conditions needed for
subordinates to get to know their supervisors personally. Yet despite this potential mitigating
factor, we found that minorities experience more overall bias than Caucasian supervisors, and that
this bias is perpetuated by the lack of threat that subordinates experience following positive
interpersonal treatment. Hence, our results suggest the existence of a troubling reality: justice can
promote injustice.
41
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.
Adejunmobi, M. 2009. Claiming the field: Africa and the space of indian ocean literature.
Callaloo, 32(4): 1247-1261.
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for defining,
identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 270-301.
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(2): 491-500.
Anderson, D. 1993. Cultural diversity on campus: A look at intercollegiate football coaches.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17(1): 61-66.
Bargh, J. A. 2013. Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental
processes. New York: Psychology Press.
Basler, C. R. 2010. Latinos/as through the lens. In J. Sutherland, & K. Feltey (Eds.), Cinematic
sociology: Social life in film: 99-108. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. 2001. Bad is stronger than good.
Review of General Psychology, 5(4): 323-370.
Berg, C. R. 1990. Stereotyping in films in general and of the Hispanic in particular. Howard
Journal of Communications, 2(3): 286-300.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and
Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic
Review, 94(4): 991-1013.
Bies, R. J. 2005. Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J.
Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: 85-112. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research
on Negotiation in Organizations, 1(1): 43-55.
Blair, I. V. 2002. The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality & Social
Psychology Review, 6(3): 242-261.
Brody, C. J., Rubin, B. A., & Maume, D. J. 2014. Gender structure and the effects of management
citizenship behavior. Social Forces, 92(4): 1373-1404.
42
Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. 2002. Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two
perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1): 17-39.
Burton, M. L., Greenberger, E., & Hayward, C. 2005. Mapping the ethnic landscape: Personal
beliefs about own group’s and other groups’ traits. Cross-cultural Research, 39(4): 351379.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2005. Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research.
Organization Science, 16(4): 434-447.
Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. 2000. When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual
performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological
Science, 11(5): 399-402.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2): 278-321.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A. 2012. Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The oxford handbook of
organizational psychology, Vol. 1: 526-547. New York: Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. 2012. Explaining the
justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty
reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1): 1-15.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson,
M. J. 2013. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social
exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2): 199-236.
Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. 2005. How should organizational justice be measured? In J.
Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice: 113-152.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Publishers.
43
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(2): 164-209.
Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. 1995. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy
revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 1139-1150.
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. 1996. Stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination: Another look. In N. C. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Stereotypes and stereotyping, Vol. 276: 319. New York: The Guilford Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. 2006. The social context of
undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
101(1): 105-126.
Eddleston, K. A., Veiga, J. F., & Powell, G. N. 2006. Explaining sex differences in managerial
career satisfier preferences: The role of gender self-schema. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2): 437-445.
Elvira, M., & Town, R. 2001. The effects of race and worker productivity on performance
evaluations. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 40(4): 571-590.
Evans, J. R., & Michael, S. W. 2014. Detecting deception in non‐native English speakers. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 28(2): 226-237.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1990. Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management,
16(4): 705-721.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. 2007.
Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 290-320.
Fiske, S. T. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 1 and 2: 357–411. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. 1990. A continum of impression 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, CA: Academic Press.
44
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg, &
R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice, Vol. 1: 1-55. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Folger, R. G., & Cropanzano, R. 1998. Organizational justice and human resource management.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hekman, D. R., Aquino, K., Owens, B. P., Mitchell, T. R., Schilpzand, P., & Leavitt, K. 2010. An
examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 238-264.
Henricks, K. 2011. The soft material significance of race: An examination of white stereotypes.
Sociological Insight, 3: 146-168.
Holt, E. 1986. "A Coon Alphabet" and the comic mask of racial prejudice. Studies in American
Humor, 5: 307-318.
Homans, G. C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
World.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. The good and bad of being fair: Effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99: 635-650.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 1996. A self-regulatory skills perspective to reducing cognitive
interference. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Saraon (Eds.), Cognitive interference:
Theories, methods, and findings: 153-171. New York: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. 2007. Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural
comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1): 83-95.
King, R. 2004. The corporate antitrust problem. Workforce Management: 22.
Kline, P. 2013. Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480-498.
Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. 2003. When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color
judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application.
Psychological Bulletin, 129(4): 522-544.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 131-142.
45
Lefkowitz, J. 2009. Promoting employee justice: It's even worse than that. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 2(2): 221-225.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27-55. New York: Springer.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. 1998. Stereotype formation and endorsement: The
role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1421-1436.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1): 43-72.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. 1988. Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of
Management Review, 13(4): 572-587.
Lind, E. A. 2000. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzo (Eds.), Advances in
organizational justice. Lexington, MA: New Lexington.
Lind, E. A. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in
organizational relations. Advances in organizational justice, 56: 88.
Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. 2001. Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing
predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 85(2): 189-210.
Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. 2002. When fairness works: Toward a general theory of
uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 24: 181-223.
MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. 1988. Anxiety and the allocation of attention to threat. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(4): 653-670.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 738-748.
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. 2007. The precurors and products of justice
climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel
Psychology, 60(4): 929-963.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. 2005. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop
while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 874-888.
46
McCrate, E. 2006. Why racial stereotyping doesn’t just go away: The question of honesty and
work ethic. Working paper no. 115, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, MA.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 35(3): 626-637.
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. 2012. Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit
study in academia. Psychological Science, 23(7): 710-717.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. 2002. Selective orienting of attention to masked threat faces in social
anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(12): 1403-1414.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(6): 845–855.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing
and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1321-1339.
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(2):
127-141.
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
18: 187-206.
Ogbu, J. U. 1985. A cultural ecology of competence among inner-city Blacks. In M. B. Spencer,
G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development
of Black children: 45–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. 2008. The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in
employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34:
181-209.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 19: 123-205. New
York: Academic Press.
Posten, A.-C., & Mussweiler, T. 2013. When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing
effects of distrust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4): 567-584.
47
Pratto, F., & Bargh, J. A. 1991. Stereotyping based on apparently individuating information: Trait
and global components of sex stereotypes under attention overload. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 27(1): 26-47.
Roberson, Q. M. 2006. Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence
of justice climates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2):
177-192.
Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. 2009. Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: the role of
anticipatory justice in an organizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(4): 989-1002.
Rosette, A. S., Carton, A. M., Bowes-Sperry, L., & Hewlin, P. F. 2013. Why do racial slurs remain
prevalent in the workplace? Integrating theory on intergroup behavior. Organization
Science, 24(5): 1402-1421.
Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. 2008. The White standard: racial bias in leader
categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4): 758-777.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. 2002. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1): 925-946.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. 2009. An actor-focused model of justice rule
adherence and violation: the role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(3): 756.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Justice as a dependent variable:
subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1597-1609.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. 2001. Anticipatory injustice: The consequences of expecting
injustice in the workplace. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in
organizational justice: 152-178. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Shavers, V. L., Klein, W. M., & Fagan, P. 2012. Research on race/ethnicity and health care
discrimination: Where we are and where we need to go. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(5): 930-932.
48
Sigall, H., & Page, R. 1971. Current stereotypes: A little fading, a little faking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18(2): 247-255.
Skitka, L. J. 2003. Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4): 286-297.
Smith, D. B. 1999. Health care divided: Race and healing a nation: University of Michigan
Press.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational
behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501-524.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillside, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Unkelbach, C., Forgas, J. P., & Denson, T. F. 2008. The turban effect: The influence of Muslim
headgear and induced affect on aggressive responses in the shooter bias paradigm. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5): 1409-1413.
Vala, J., Pereira, C. R., Lima, M. E. O., & Leyens, J. 2012. Intergroup time bias and racialized
social relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4): 491-504.
Van den Bos, K. 2001. Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on
reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(6): 931-941.
Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. 1997. Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level
and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(2): 262-274.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. 2009. Procedural justice,
interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1): 93-105.
Zapata, C. P., Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. 2012. Social exchange from the supervisor’s
perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational
justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1): 1-12.
49
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Model
Supervisor adherence
to interpersonal justice
rules
Supervisor
race
Perceptions of
fairness
Bias against
supervisor
Perception of
supervisor
deceit
a
. Solid lines represent effects tested in both Study 1 and Study 2. Dotted lines represent effects tested only in Study 2.
50
FIGURE 2
Interaction between Race and Interpersonal Justice on Overall Fairness Perceptions
Figure 2a: Study 1
Employee-rated Perceptions
Figure 2b: Study 1
Supervisor-rated Perceptions
4.94
5
5
4.67 4.69
Caucasian
supervisor
Minority
supervisor
4.01
4
3
Perceptions of Fairness
4.25
Perceptions of Fairness
4.62
4.36
2
4.08
4
Caucasian
supervisor
Minority
supervisor
3
2
Supervisors Violate
Justice Rules
Supervisors Adhere to
Justice Rules
Supervisors Violate
Justice Rules
Supervisors Adhere to
Justice Rules
Figure 2c: Study 2
Experimental Manipulation
Perceptions of Fairness
5
Caucasian
supervisor
3.84
4
3.58
3.59
3.37
Minority
supervisor
3
2
Supervisors Violate
Justice Rules
a
Supervisors Adhere to
Justice Rules
. In all three figures, the difference between Caucasian and minority supervisors is significant when supervisors
adhere to justice rules, but not when they violate them. In Figure 2c, this difference is marginally significant.
b
. For each plot, the variance-covariance matrix of regression coefficients was used to ascertain the standard errors.
c
. In figures 2a and 2b, values of interpersonal justice are taken at one standard deviation above and below the mean.
d
. The pattern for supervisor-rated perceptions was plotted with data from the coefficient from each interaction term
when controlling for subordinate-rated perceptions. Likewise, the pattern for subordinate-rated perceptions was
plotted with data from the coefficient from each interaction term when controlling for supervisor-rated perceptions.
e
. In Figure 2c, 95% confidence intervals are indicated with vertical bars.
f
. The means in Figure 2c are adjusted for the covariates listed in the method section.
g
. Although analyses were conducted with the natural log of fairness perceptions, the plots were created with the
original metric in order to allow the means to be interpreted according to the original 1 to 5 scale.
51
TABLE 1
Study 1 Descriptive Statistics
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
1. Helping Behavior
4.17
0.65
2. Perceptions of overall supervisor fairness
4.61
0.62
.21**
3. Supervisor race
0.08
0.27
-.04
-.21**
4. Subordinate reported interpersonal justice
4.52
0.64
.19*
.60**
-.13
5. Supervisor reported interpersonal justice
4.64
0.48
.16*
.03
.05
.19*
6. Supervisor-subordinate age difference
-6.47
13.38
.03
-.09
.17*
-.02
.08
7. Supervisor-subordinate gender difference
0.22
0.42
.07
-.04
-.05
-.12
-.02
-.02
8. Supervisor-subordinate race difference
0.18
0.39
.02
.07
.27**
.01
.08
-.03
.01
*
.04
-.11
-.15
.06
-.04
.00
-.11
.15
.07
-.13
9. Supervisor tenure (months)
117.27
96.99
-.05
.06
-.15
10. Length of subordinate-supervisor relationship
39.27
46.72
-.04
.01
.04
a
. N = 167
. *p < .05 **p < .01
b
5
6
7
8
9
.40**
52
TABLE 2
Study 1: Results of Regression Analysis
Perceptions of Overall Supervisor Fairness
Variable
B
SE(B)
t
Constant
0.89
0.12
7.74**
Controls:
Supervisor tenure
Length of subordinate-supervisor relationship
Supervisor-subordinate age difference
Supervisor-subordinate gender difference
Supervisor-subordinate race difference
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
-0.22
0.47
-0.71
0.32
1.96
Main Effects:
Supervisor race
Subordinate-reported interpersonal justice
Supervisor-reported interpersonal justice
1.33
0.15
-0.01
0.50
0.02
0.02
2.64**
8.64**
-0.53
Interaction Effects:
Supervisor race x Subordinate-reported interpersonal justice
Supervisor race x Supervisor-reported interpersonal justice
-0.10
-0.22
0.05
0.09
-2.10*
-2.30*
R2
. Note: N = 167.
b
. Race was dummy-coded 0 = Caucasian and 1 = ethnic minorities.
c
. *p < .05 **p < .01
a
0.40**
53
TABLE 3
Study 1: Conditional Indirect Effects of Supervisor Race on Helping Behavior via Perceptions of Overall Supervisor Fairness
Interpersonal Justice Rule Adherence (+1 SD)
Interpersonal Justice Rule Violation (-1 SD)
Coefficient
95% Confidence
Interval
-0.07
0.02
(-0.23, -0.01)
(-.10, .23)
Note:
a
. N = 167.
. Race was dummy-coded 0 = Caucasian and 1 = ethnic minorities.
c
. Values of independent variable are one standard deviation above and below the mean.
b
54
Variable
1. Blame-throwing
2. Displays of distrust
3. Recommendation against bonus
4. Perceptions of overall supervisor fairness
5. Supervisor race
6. Interpersonal justice
7. Subordinate race (Caucasian)
8. Subordinate race (Black)
9. Subordinate race (Asian)
10. Subordinate race (Other)
11. Presumed race
a
. N = 296.
. *p < .05 **p < .01
b
M
3.01
3.22
2.93
3.60
0.50
0.52
0.64
0.06
0.19
0.04
0.09
TABLE 4
Study 2 Descriptive Statistics
SD
1
2
3
0.81
0.75
.42**
1.26
.47**
.50**
0.85
-.38** -.31** -.34**
0.50
.08
.03
.02
**
**
0.50
-.36
-.28
-.30**
0.48
-.02
-.03
-.02
0.25
.06
.04
.09
0.39
-.04
-.01
-.03
0.21
-.08
-.04
-.04
0.29
-.02
-.02
-.02
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-.03
.14*
.03
.07
-.09
.02
.12*
.01
.06
-.07
-.07
.05
-.12*
.02
-.08
.05
.07
.05
-.35**
-.65**
.06
-.12*
-.13*
.01
.06
-.02
.17**
.04
55
TABLE 5
Study 2: Conditional Indirect Effects of Supervisor Race on Bias via Serial Mediation through Perceptions of Supervisor
Deceit and Overall Supervisor Fairness
Blame-throwing
Displays of distrust
Recommendation against bonus
B
95% Confidence Interval
B
95% Confidence Interval
B
95% Confidence Interval
Interpersonal Justice Rule
Adherence
.03
(.01, .09)
.02
(.01, .07)
.04
(.01, .13)
Interpersonal Justice Rule
Violation
.02
(-.001, .06)
.01
(-.001, .05)
.02
(-.001, .08)
a
. N = 296. Race was dummy-coded 0 = Caucasian and 1 = ethnic minorities.
. Values of independent variable are one standard deviation above and below the mean.
b