Witness Reactions to Employee Mistreatment by Customers

User Generated

pevfgny14

Writing

Penn state university

Description

You will need to summarize an article of 10 pages in (1) single-spaced page. The article is about a research made by some college students.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of Applied Psychology 2017, Vol. 102, No. 11, 1528 –1544 © 2017 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000249 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. When Fellow Customers Behave Badly: Witness Reactions to Employee Mistreatment by Customers M. Sandy Hershcovis Namita Bhatnagar University of Calgary University of Manitoba In 3 experiments, we examined how customers react after witnessing a fellow customer mistreat an employee. Drawing on the deontic model of justice, we argue that customer mistreatment of employees leads witnesses (i.e., other customers) to leave larger tips, engage in supportive employee-directed behaviors, and evaluate employees more positively (Studies 1 and 2). We also theorize that witnesses develop less positive treatment intentions and more negative retaliatory intentions toward perpetrators, with anger and empathy acting as parallel mediators of our perpetrator- and target-directed outcomes, respectively. In Study 1, we conducted a field experiment that examined real customers’ target-directed reactions to witnessed mistreatment in the context of a fast-food restaurant. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 findings in an online vignette experiment, and extended it by examining more severe mistreatment and perpetrator-directed responses. In Study 3, we demonstrated that employees who respond to mistreatment uncivilly are significantly less likely to receive the positive outcomes found in Studies 1 and 2 than those who respond neutrally. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice. Keywords: deonance theory, third-party injustice, witnesses, workplace aggression, workplace incivility is negative behavior that may have an ambiguous (e.g., incivility, Andersson & Pearson, 1999) or clear (e.g., aggression, Neuman & Baron, 2005) intent to harm the target. Workplace mistreatment does not go unnoticed. Research has argued and found (Porath, MacInnis, & Folkes, 2010) that witnesses react negatively to the mistreatment of others. Witnessing mistreatment between employees can lead insiders to feel emotionally drained (Totterdell, Hershcovis, Niven, Reich, & Stride, 2012) and outsiders (e.g., customers) to form negative impressions of the firm and its employees (Porath et al., 2010). These reactions may ultimately harm business, which makes witness reactions to employee mistreatment a particularly important line of inquiry. But, how do customers react upon witnessing fellow customers mistreat employees? We contend that customers who witness this mistreatment may act to support and compensate employees, and punish perpetrators. According to deontic theory, people do not like to see others being mistreated, and feel the urge to rectify such injustices (Folger, 2001). Building on this theory, we argue that customers who witness fellow customers mistreat employees not only punish perpetrators, but also support targets and try to make amends. This research makes four key contributions. First, research to date has largely focused on witnessed reactions to mistreatment between employees. Drawing on deontic theory, we examine how customers (i.e., the witnesses) react toward employees (Study 1 and 2) and perpetrators (Study 2) when fellow customers mistreat the employees. Employee mistreatment by customers is important to consider for two reasons. First, organizations impose asymmetric constraints on employees in their dealings with customers. “Service with a smile” is a well-known edict for service employees, and display rules limit the types of emotions that employees are permitted to express during customer interactions. For instance, Grandey, Rafaeli, Ravid, Wirtz, and Steiner (2010) found “Customers are always right” is a mantra that many organizations espouse despite the deplorable ways in which some customers treat front-line service workers. Grandey, Kern, and Frone (2007) found that mistreatment by customers occurs more often than mistreatment by coworkers/supervisors, and that such mistreatment negatively affects employee well-being above mistreatment by insiders (i.e., other employees). Further, mistreatment negatively effects target well-being, attitudes, and performance (see Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). The service sector accounts for 120.64 million jobs in the U.S. (United States Department of Labor, 2014), which underscores the physiological and psychological damage that mistreatment can leave in its trail. Workplace mistreatment, which may include verbal abuse (e.g., Grandey et al., 2007), incivility (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001), or aggression, (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 2005) This article was published Online First July 27, 2017. M. Sandy Hershcovis, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary; Namita Bhatnagar, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Steve Granger, Lukas Neville, Valerie Shan, Nick Turner, and Justin Weinhardt for providing constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article. We thank Sarah McAmmond for her research assistance on the field experiment. We also thank Kevin Kelloway, Nicolas Roulin, and Yannick Griep for their assistance/advice with data collection and/or analysis. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Academy of Management and Frontiers in Service conferences. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. Sandy Hershcovis, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4. E-mail: m.hershcovis@ ucalgary.ca 1528 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT that while employees may express anger toward coworkers, and to a lesser degree toward supervisors, they may not display anger toward customers. In contrast, customers do not face such constraints and may mistreat employees without sanctions. Second, preexisting relationships (e.g., those rooted in power dynamics or friendships) between insiders may inhibit or encourage interventionist reactions among witnesses when mistreatment occurs internally. On the other hand, customers that witness other customers mistreat service employees are not bound by preexisting relationships and have greater freedom to act. These asymmetric constraints on employee and customer behaviors leave witnessing customers with a potentially large role to play in the justice restoration process of targeted employees. We aim to understand this role and in particular, the extent to which witnessing customers attempt to restore justice. Second, in Study 2 we build on deontic theory (Folger, 2001) by examining a target-focused path to justice restoration. Research to date has focused almost exclusively on perpetrator-directed reactions to witnessed mistreatment (see Reich & Hershcovis, 2015 and Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015 for exceptions). Deonance theory argues that witnesses of an injustice become angry, and strive to restore justice by punishing perpetrators. We suggest another approach to justice restoration via target-aiding. In particular, we examine three target-directed behaviors— cognitive, affective, and behavioral—to determine whether witnesses, in addition to punishing perpetrators, also help targets (O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011). This is an important avenue of research because, while previous research has examined perpetrator-directed punishment as a method for redressing injustice, target-aiding is a more constructive approach to justice restoration. Further, we introduce empathy, an other-focused emotion produced when people perceive that others are suffering (Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade, 1987), as the deontic mechanism underlying target-directed responses. Whereas anger is expected to explain perpetrator-directed deontic action, we posit that empathy explains target-directed deontic action. This study thus adds to deontic theory by considering a second—targeted-directed—pathway to justice restoration through empathy. Third, we make an empirical contribution by examining whether the magnitude of the mistreatment increases the magnitude of the response (Study 2). That is, when the mistreatment is strong, do witnesses engage in stronger target-aiding and perpetratorpunishing behaviors than when the mistreatment is weak? Research on workplace mistreatment has argued that different forms of mistreatment (e.g., incivility vs. aggression) are conceptually different. Incivility is low in intensity and ambiguous in intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), whereas aggression is intense and unambiguous (Neuman & Baron, 2005). However, meta-analytic research (Hershcovis, 2011) has found that regardless of the level of mistreatment, the magnitude of the relationship between mistreatment and its outcomes is the same. In a customer service context, it is important from an employee welfare standpoint to understand whether customer support would originate in all instances of mistreatment, or whether this support gets dampened in the face of ambiguity (e.g., incivility) or personal safety considerations (e.g., aggressive behavior). Finally, we examine whether target responses influence witness reactions (Study 3). The “customer is always right” mantra assumes that employees must remain respectful in the face of mis- 1529 treatment. We test this assumption empirically by comparing witness reactions when employees respond uncivilly versus neutrally to mistreatment from customers to understand the constraints on employee reactions. Given the inclination for employees to respond in kind (Gouldner, 1960), this study investigates whether employees risk losing support from witnesses if they become discourteous during an unpleasant customer interaction. Understanding this is important because, on the one hand, if employees are able to respond in kind to rude customers without harming their image in the eyes of witnesses, this may alleviate the need to engage in depleting emotional labor (Grandey et al., 2007; Sliter, Jex, & Wolford, 2010). On the other hand, if employees who respond in kind are perceived more negatively by witnesses, this highlights an important boundary condition for employee reactions in the face of customer mistreatment. In the next section we discuss deonance theory and develop hypotheses surrounding witness reactions toward employees who experience mistreatment from other customers. Deonance Theory and Customer Reactions to Mistreatment People care about justice not only out of self-interest, but also because it is the “right thing to do” (Folger, 2001). According to deonance theory, people have a morally rooted sense of how others ought to behave; they hold themselves and others accountable for moral behavior. Deontic reactions are morally based reactions, such as righteousness or indignation in response to perceptions of unfair treatment (Folger, 2001). In the present study, we consider workplace mistreatment to be a form of unfair treatment because it violates workplace norms (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and contravenes interpersonal justice, or the degree to which people are treated with respect and dignity at work (Bies & Moag, 1986). We examine two forms of workplace mistreatment: incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Porath & Erez, 2007) and aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005). Deonance theory argues that people have bounded autonomy in that moral norms restrict us from acting as we please (e.g., Folger, 2001; Folger, Ganegoda, Rice, Taylor, & Wo, 2013). Folger et al. (2013) described such norms as “informal behavioral control mechanisms that dictate the appropriateness of certain types of behavior in organizational settings” (p. 909). A violation of moral norms, as conceptualized here, suggests that someone behaves in a way that they ought not to behave (Folger, 2001). Given its nature, workplace mistreatment arguably violates this norm; people ought not to behave in uncivil/aggressive ways toward others. Indeed, the definition of incivility includes that it is a violation of organization norms, and the definition of aggression states that targets are motivated to avoid it. Thus, both behaviors should be constrained by bounded autonomy. Therefore, people that witness customers mistreating service employees are expected to turn into deontic agents, or those who act in the name of fairness (Beugré, 2010). Folger (2001) conceptualized deonance theory as the motivational consequences that are instigated when people observe others who violate moral norms. This theory underpins a growing body of research that shows that third-parties react negatively to injustices, including workplace mistreatment (e.g., Porath & Erez, 2009; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). For example, Turillo et al. (2002) found that witnesses This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1530 HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR engaged in retributive actions against perpetrators, even at personal cost to themselves (i.e., sacrificing their own money). Similarly, Reich and Hershcovis (2015) found that witnesses evaluated mistreatment perpetrators more negatively, and punished them by assigning them more undesirable work than their more civil counterparts. The overall findings from this literature suggest that witnesses are perpetrator-focused and punitive in their responses. Though research has examined insider (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015) and outsider reactions (e.g., Porath et al., 2010) to mistreatment between employees, we know little about how customers react when other customers mistreat employees. We know that customers form more negative impressions of the organization when employees mistreat each other because such behavior is unprofessional (Porath et al., 2010). However, customer reactions to customer mistreatment is qualitatively different because when mistreatment originates from the customer, the violation is no longer one of professionalism, but one of fair treatment. Although deontic theory emphasizes perpetrator punishment as the primary deontic reaction, O’Reilly and Aquino (2011) argued that witnesses can also respond by aiding the target. In Study 1, we focus on target-aiding behaviors in customer service settings because customers are less able to punish other customers. Indeed, doing so may itself be a norm violation (i.e., that one should stay out of others’ business). Customers interact primarily with service providers, and have greater opportunity to engage in targetdirected aiding behaviors. We examine three types of target aiding: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. In terms of cognitive aiding, we examined customer evaluation of the employee’s service. This form of aiding provides long-term benefits to employees, especially when incentive programs used to motivate employees emphasize customer satisfaction (Hauser, Simester, & Wernerfelt, 1994). For our affective measure, we examined customer affective support. Affective support gives recipients the feeling that they are valued and cared for (Ducharme & Martin, 2000), and typically occurs soon after they experience an injustice. Research in the mistreatment literature (e.g., Sakurai & Jex, 2012) has found that support behaviors from others can buffer its negative effects on targets. Finally, we examine customer tipping as a behavioral measure. This form of aiding helps employees from a short-term financial perspective, and serves as a compensatory reward. With this type of aiding behavior, the customer sacrifices his or her own money to offset the bad behavior of a fellow customer. Research (e.g., Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986) has shown that when participants perceive an injustice, they are willing to sacrifice some of their own financial gain to punish the perpetrator and support the victim. In the present study, we build on this work to consider whether witnesses are willing to compensate the victim without the chance to simultaneously punish the perpetrator. That is, do witnesses try to restore justice through compensatory tipping? Based on the deonance arguments above, we expect that: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Customers who witness another customer mistreat a service provider will be more likely to: support the target (H1a), evaluate the target positively (H1b), and leave higher tips (H1c) than customers who do not. In the next sections, we describe our three studies. Study 1 examines target-directed witness reactions in the context of a field experiment. Building on Study 1, Study 2 examines the extent to which anger and empathy mediate the relationship between mistreatment and perpetrator- and target-directed reactions, respectively. We also investigate the magnitude of the mistreatment to determine whether more severe mistreatment has a stronger effect on witness reactions. Finally, in Study 3, we investigate employee reactions to mistreatment (uncivil vs. neutral), to understand the potential constraints on employee reactions to mistreatment. Study 1 Method Design and participants. We carried out a field experiment involving customer reactions to witnessing the purported neutral versus uncivil mistreatment1 of a service employee by another customer (both confederates). Participants were 85 actual customers (42% female, M age ⫽ 31.59 years, SD ⫽ 9.1, age range ⫽ 19 – 65) of a local fast food restaurant in a midsized North American city. We obtained access to this research site through a graduate student who worked at the restaurant. We discussed the details and rationale for the study, our expected findings, and potential risks with the owner, who provided written consent to conduct the study. The participants were not initially aware that they were part of a study, but were informed at the end when we thoroughly debriefed them, obtained consent, and thanked them with a $10 gift certificate to the restaurant. This procedure is consistent with institutional review board ethics guidelines that allow researchers to obtain consent after-the-fact under special circumstances. Obtaining consent prior to the study would have primed participants that the interaction they observed was false, and we would not have been able to test our research questions. We stopped one experiment as the participant began to yell at our confederate actor,2 and we removed a second case because the participant expressed suspicion that the interaction was contrived. Ethics was granted by the Joint Faculty Research Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba under the title “Witness Reactions to Customer Rudeness” (protocol number J2014-072). Procedure and manipulations. In this experiment, real customers (i.e., the participants) at a fast food restaurant witnessed a fellow customer (who was a confederate actor) behave either neutrally toward an employee (who was also a confederate) or mistreat the employee. We also placed a coder (blind to hypotheses) at a table near the front counter. The coder recorded the number of times the participant said “please” and “thank you,” and subjectively evaluated the support shown by the participant toward the target following the confederate interaction. The coder also 1 Our control condition may be interpreted as civil rather than neutral because the customer used pleasantries when addressing the server. We therefore conducted a post hoc script comparison between a potential neutral and civil script, by removing the civil language. For example, instead of “no thanks” in response to whether the customer would like guacamole, the customer replies “No.” In a sample of undergraduate students, we assessed participants’ (n ⫽ 101) perceptions of incivility, F(1, 99) ⫽ .75, p ⫽ .39, and lack of justice, F(1, 99) ⫽ .53, p ⫽ .47, using the manipulation checks used in Study 2. There were no significant differences between the civil and neutral conditions. 2 We thoroughly debriefed the customer to his satisfaction and gave him a gift certificate. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT recorded all verbal statements made by the witness related to the confederate interaction. The perpetrator and target remained the same throughout the study and both were female to control for possible gender effects (a cross-gender interaction might induce a power dimension).3 The coder did not code the interaction between confederates across the two conditions because this may have biased their subsequent coding of the dependent variables. We conducted the experiment during nonpeak restaurant hours because we wanted to ensure that only one customer witnessed the interaction at a time. We were concerned that multiple customers might lead to diffusion of responsibility on the part of the customer (Darley & Latane, 1968). A large window allowed the confederates to see when a customer was approaching. At this point, the actor playing the customer positioned herself in front of the counter, and pretended to read the menu until the real customer (hereafter the participant) stood behind her. The actor (hereafter the perpetrator) then began either a neutral or uncivil interaction with the confederate employee (hereafter the target). The condition was determined randomly before the participant entered the restaurant, by drawing either a “neutral” or “mistreatment” slip of paper. The target responded in the same neutral way regardless of condition. The script is the same across each of the neutral and mistreatment oriented interactions (see Appendix A), with minor verbal, intonation, and nonverbal changes (e.g., arms crossed) in the mistreatment condition. We drew on existing mistreatment scales (e.g., Baron & Neuman, 1996; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Cortina et al., 2001) to develop our script for the mistreatment interaction. Our script reflects mistreatment in several ways. For instance, the perpetrator ignores the target several times, is on her iPhone during the interaction, and walks out of the restaurant without saying “thank you.” Further, she is condescending (e.g., “This is a pretty simple order”) and sarcastic (e.g., “I said ‘to go,’ so obviously”) to the target. These examples map onto items such as “giving someone the silent treatment”, (Baron & Neuman, 1996), “acted rudely towards someone,” (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), and “put you down or was condescending to you,” (Cortina et al., 2001). In the neutral interaction, the perpetrator uses a similar script, but does not look at her iPhone, does not use the sarcastic tone, and responds to inquiries in a neutral manner. Following the interaction, the perpetrator leaves the restaurant and the target (i.e., employee) moves on to take the order of the participant (i.e., the real customer). After the participant pays, the target asks the customer whether he or she is willing to complete a short customer service survey while waiting for the order. All participants agreed to complete the survey, which they do privately at another counter, and then place it into a locked survey box. On the survey, participants evaluate the employee’s deservingness for an employee of the month award (see below) in addition to demographics and open-ended comments. Measures. Target support. We assessed target support using three measures (two quantitative and one qualitative). First, the coder counted the number of times the participant used the words “please” and “thank you” during each service interaction. Second, the coder evaluated the participant’s friendliness (1 ⫽ not at all friendly, 5 ⫽ extremely friendly) toward the target. Finally, the coder recorded all comments that the participant made to the target. These responses were coded for target support and we report the qualitative findings. 1531 Target evaluation. We assessed participants’ evaluation of the target’s service on the customer service survey by asking “Does your server today deserve the employee of the month award?” (1 ⫽ definitely not, 10 ⫽ definitely). Tip percentage. We assessed tips by leaving a tip jar with precounted change at the front counter.4 After each condition, we emptied the tip jar and recorded the difference between the precounted cash and any additional tip. Similarly, when customers paid by debit/credit card, we recorded the tip amount. Tips were calculated as a percentage as tips vary based on the total bill. Manipulation check. Due to the nature of the study, we could not conduct a direct manipulation check during the experiment because it would have primed participants that they were involved in a study (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 2000). However, coders recorded the participants’ comments to the target following the interaction—these comments were indicative of perceived target mistreatment (reported below). We also conducted a manipulation check on the scripts used in our experiment (see Appendix A). We randomly assigned undergraduate participants at a midsize North American university (N ⫽ 98) to read either the neutral or the mistreatment script. We then asked participants, on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with five items (e.g., “the customer insulted the employee,” “the customer belittled the employee,” Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .98). These items are adapted from Cortina et al.’s (2001, 2013) measures, which include for example: “made insulting or disrespectful remarks about you,” “accused you of incompetence,” and a range of items capturing rudeness (e.g., “interrupted or spoke over you,” “doubted your judgement . . .”). Responses to the five items were averaged to form a customer mistreatment index. Results of an analysis of variance with the incivility condition as the independent variable and the mistreatment manipulation check as the dependent variable showed that participants in the mistreatment condition (n ⫽ 49) were significantly more likely to rate the customer as rude (M ⫽ 5.95, SD ⫽ .80) than those in the neutral condition (n ⫽ 49, M ⫽ 2.93, SD ⫽ 1.68), F(1, 96) ⫽ 128.71, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .57. Results Test of hypotheses. Quantitative results. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations appear in Table 1. To investigate our hypotheses, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using mistreatment condition (mistreatment vs. neutral) as our independent variable and target support, (please and thank you counts, friendliness), tip percent, and target evaluations as our dependent variables. The overall test was significant, F(5, 79) ⫽ 4.82, p ⫽ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .24, and we proceeded to examine the between-subjects 3 Coders and actors were trained for 15 hr prior to conducting the experiment. Two coders traded off shifts, but were trained together. After each practice experiment, we examined coder agreement, which was 100% for objective support (counting “please” and “thank you”) and about 80% for the subjective friendliness measure. In our analyses, there were no significant differences on the friendliness measure between coders. We also trained the server to react in the same neutral manner toward both the actor, and the real customer, regardless of condition. 4 Change was consistent across all participants and the confederate customer did not leave a tip. HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR 1532 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations (Study 1) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mistreatment condition Target support: Friendliness Target support: Please/thank you Target evaluation Tip percent Note. N ⫽ 85 p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. † ⴱⴱ M SD 1 2 3 4 — 2.65 4.24 8.95 8.00 — .96 2.56 1.65 11.00 — .42ⴱⴱ .21ⴱ .30ⴱ .19† .44ⴱⴱ .15 .18† ⫺.01 ⫺.08 .09 p ⬍ .001. effects. Given that our hypotheses are theory-driven and directional, we conducted one-tailed tests (Jones, 1954). In support of H1a, participants were more supportive of targets of mistreatment (M ⫽ 4.71, SD ⫽ 2.50, 90% CI [4.10, 5.34]) than nontargets (M ⫽ 3.75, SD ⫽ 2.55, 90% CI [3.09, 4.40]), using the “please and thank you” count, F(1, 83) ⫽ 3.07, p ⫽ .04, ␩2 ⫽ .04, Cohen’s d ⫽ .38. Similarly, using the coder’s evaluation of target support (friendliness), we found the same pattern of results, F(1, 83) ⫽ 14.32, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .14, Cohen’s d ⫽ .83, in the mistreatment (M ⫽ 2.96, SD ⫽ .80, 90% CI [2.77, 3.31]) and neutral (M ⫽ 2.35, SD ⫽ .66, 90% CI [2.16, 2.54]) conditions. In support of H1b, we found a significant effect of mistreatment condition on target evaluation F(1, 83) ⫽ 8.51, p ⫽ .005, ␩2 ⫽ .09, Cohen’s d ⫽ .63, such that customers gave higher evaluations to targets in the mistreatment condition (M ⫽ 9.64, SD ⫽ .89, 90% CI [9.16, 10.13]) than the neutral condition (M ⫽ 8.40, SD ⫽ 2.12, 90% CI [7.88, 8.92]). We also found a significant effect of mistreatment condition on tip percent, F(1, 83) ⫽ 3.21, p ⫽ .039, ␩2 ⫽ .04, Cohen’s d ⫽ .40. In support of H1c, customers gave a higher percentage of tips to targets in the mistreatment (M ⫽ 11%, SD ⫽ 14%, 90% CI [.08, .13]) than the neutral (M ⫽ 6%, SD ⫽ 7%, 90% CI [.03, .09]) condition.5 Qualitative results. The participant intervened in only five of the 45 mistreatment interactions (11%, three males and two females). In three instances, the participant spoke directly to the actor by stating, for example “that was very rude.” In two of the instances, the participant confronted the perpetrator using body language. For example, in one instance the participant stared at the perpetrator and got into her personal space to intimidate her into stopping. Although most of the participants failed to intervene, in 33 of the 45 uncivil interactions, the participant expressed support toward the target. These expressions of support took three forms: (a) empathy for the target, (b) anger at the perpetrator, and (c) mocking the perpetrator; these were sometimes expressed simultaneously (e.g., “some people should be embarrassed of themselves!” [anger] and “I am very sorry” [empathy]. In 14 instances (41%), the participant expressed empathy with comments such as “Sorry, that was terrible! I wanted to stop her.” In 10 instances (30%), the participant mocked the perpetrator, for example by joking “Don’t worry, I’m not in a hurry,” referencing the perpetrator’s snide opening comment (see script). Finally, participants expressed overt anger in 10 instances (30%; e.g., “What a bitch!”). Discussion Study 1 demonstrates that employees benefit both relationally and financially when customers are uncivil to them. Consistent with deonance theory, when employees were mistreated, witnessing customers provided verbal and nonverbal support, were friendlier, evaluated them more positively, and left them 83% higher tips than when employees were treated neutrally. Customers exhibited enhanced manners in the form of verbalized “please and thank you” and other supportive comments to the mistreated employee (e.g., expressions of empathy for the employee, and anger and mockery directed at the perpetrator). Despite the unpleasant experience of being mistreated by customers, employees may take some comfort from the support offered by other customers. That is, witnessing customers appear to compensate for the bad behavior of other customers. It is particularly interesting that employees did nothing, except maintain the often prescribed “the customer is always right” stance (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004), to gain these benefits. That is, by virtue of using the same neutral demeanor used within neutral interactions with customers, witnesses rewarded employees who were mistreated. Study 1 has a number of strengths. It is a naturalistic field experiment, with concomitant external validity, in which we observed how real customers responded after witnessing other customers mistreat employees. Moreover, we collected objective dependent variables and qualitative customer statements to assess our hypotheses. Despite these strengths, a number of questions remain from Study 1. First, we could not assess mediating mechanisms without revealing to customers that they were participating in an experiment. This is problematic because one might argue that equity theory (Adams, 1963) and not deonance theory explains our findings. That is, Study 1 showed that employees who coped with mistreatment by behaving neutrally to rude customers were rewarded for their efforts. This might mean that customers reward those who work harder, which is consistent with equity theory. Examining explanatory mechanisms would help determine whether deonance theory best explains our findings. Second, in Study 1, we examined low-intensity mistreatment (i.e., incivility) in comparison with a neutral condition, but due to ethical constraints, could not examine whether more intense and less ambiguous mistreatment yields stronger effects. Third, we focused only on target-directed outcomes to the exclusion of perpetrator5 A statistically significant difference between the means can exist even if the confidence intervals about the means overlap somewhat. For this reason, it is generally recommended that one not judge statistical significance by examining the overlap between confidence intervals as this results in an overly conservative test whether the null hypothesis is false (Austin & Hux, 2002). Greenland et al. (2016) caution that confidence intervals are only a first step and that p values should be used to assess statistical significance. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT directed outcomes because it would have been difficult to observe indirect forms of retaliation toward the perpetrator, especially because we constrained our study to one customer at a time. This prevented customers from talking to each other about the perpetrator. Fourth, because we used one actor to play the perpetrator and another to play the target, there is a risk that our effects are based on actor idiosyncrasies. Fifth, we could not conduct a direct check of our experimental manipulations but instead relied on post hoc script tests and qualitative reactions. Sixth, we held gender constant due to the potential power differences implied by gender. That is, women are historically seen as less powerful than men (Cortina, 2008), therefore, it is possible that participants perceive mistreatment directed from a male toward a female as more negative than the reverse. To address the first five limitations, we conducted a second study aimed at replicating Study 1 findings, and extending them by: (a) examining deontic mechanisms that explain witness reactions; (b) comparing neutral, uncivil, and aggressive conditions to determine whether the magnitude of mistreatment influences outcomes; and (c) introducing perpetrator-directed outcomes. Perpetrator treatment and retaliatory intent is therefore assessed in the vignette based Study 2 where participants can report on their reactions to witnessed mistreatment. Moreover, the use of a vignette prevents any actor idiosyncrasies from influencing the outcomes and allows us to conduct a direct manipulation check. To address the gender limitation, we conducted a pilot test to assess whether gender influences customer perceptions of justice and incivility, and found that it does not;6 therefore, our vignette descriptions omit gender in Study 2. Study 2 Moral Anger and Perpetrator-Directed Action As described earlier, deontic theory argues that certain actions violate moral norms, and that such violations are perceived to be unjust (Folger, 2001). Folger and colleagues (e.g., Folger, 2001; Folger et al., 2013) theorized that perceived injustice drives witnesses’ subsequent emotions and actions. The primary deontic emotion proposed by deontic theory is moral anger (Folger, 2001)—a temporary discrete negative emotion that arises in response to a perceived injustice (O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011). When people witness an injustice, such as workplace mistreatment, they intuit that something is wrong, and moral anger is roused. Anger is the driver of the deontic agents’ desire to act to restore justice. Thus, the focus of justice restoration in deontic theory is on the perpetrator. Folger (2001) argued that witnesses do not want violators to get away with unjust behaviors, and hold violators accountable by punishing them. Thus, this theory predicts that moral anger explains the relationship between witnessed mistreatment and perpetrator-targeted punitive outcomes. Research has found that moral anger mediates the relationship between witnessed mistreatment and perpetrator outcomes when perpetrators are employees (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015; Porath et al., 2010; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). However, in a service environment, perpetrator-directed outcomes may be less straightforward because customers have little occasion to interact with other customers. Understanding whether employee mistreatment influences intentions to punish offending customers is important as such reactions 1533 may adversely affect business. That is, both customers may leave the service interaction with a negative experience whether or not intentions to punish the perpetrator are followed through by actions. According to literature on customer-to-customer interactions (CCI), other customers influence the service experience of fellow customers within service contexts (Eiglier & Langeard, 1977). For instance, CCI has been found to influence customer satisfaction (Harris, Davies, & Baron, 1997) and loyalty (Moore, Moore, & Capella, 2005), with negative CCI being correlated with dissatisfaction (Wu, 2007). Thus, in the present study, we examine two perpetrator-directed outcomes: perpetrator positive treatment and retaliatory intentions. Deontic action can take one of several forms (do nothing, aid the target, or directly/indirectly punish the perpetrator; O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011). We examine worsened perpetrator positive treatment intentions as a form of indirect punishment because it involves a withdrawal of behavior (i.e., the choice to refrain from engaging in friendly and respectful interaction). We also examine retaliatory intentions as a more direct form of punishment, which corresponds with the notion of retributive justice. In deontic theory, retributive justice is a way to restore justice by punishing the perpetrator in a fair or symmetrical way (Folger, 2001). Given that witnesses in the present study observe mistreatment of the server, customers may think that retaliatory mistreatment of the perpetrator is a fair punishment. Thus we predict that: Hypothesis 2 (H2): Customers who witness customer mistreatment toward a service provider are less likely to hold positive treatment intentions (H2a) and more likely to hold retaliatory behavioral intentions (H2b) toward the perpetrator than customers who witness neutral treatment. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Moral anger will mediate the relationship between witnessed mistreatment and perpetrator-directed positive treatment intentions (H3a), and retaliatory intentions (H3b). Empathy and Target-Directed Action The crux of deontic theory is about witness reactions to a perceived injustice, and in particular, the altruistic desire to restore justice. Although the theory focuses on perpetrator-targeted emotion and punishment, researchers have suggested that witnesses may also aid the target (Mitchell et al., 2015; O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011). Indeed, O’Reilly and Aquino (2011) argue that one way to aid a victim is to lend him or her a sympathetic ear, which implies that witnesses may not only experience anger for the perpetrator, but also empathy for the target. Similarly, Mitchell et al. (2015) posited that “it may also be possible for third parties to experience sympathy, compassion, or empathy for the abused [target]” (p. 1050) and they suggest that future research should explore such 6 We conducted a 2 (customer gender: male vs. female) ⫻ 2 (employee gender: male vs. female) between subjects experiment using the same aggression vignette in Study 2, except with gender pronouns throughout. 97% of participants (n ⫽ 203) correctly recalled the gender of both the perpetrator and target. There were no significant main or interaction effects for lack of perceived justice or mistreatment F(2, 198) ⫽ .18, p ⫽ .84. There were also no significant effects for any of the mediators or dependent variables. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1534 HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR target-directed emotions. Furthermore, our own qualitative findings from Study 1 showed that witnesses experienced empathy (42%) more often than anger (30%). Empathy is defined as an other-focused emotion produced by witnessing another person’s suffering (Batson et al., 1987). Batson and colleagues (Batson et al., 1987, 1988) found that witnesses, upon perceiving others’ distress, experience vicarious emotional arousal in the form of empathy. This empathy motivates them to altruistically reduce this distress by helping the distressed individual. In other words, Batson et al. argued that, consistent with deonance theory, a key motivational rationale for witness intervention following an empathic reaction is altruism rather than self-interest. Integrating deonance theory, which argues that witnessing an injustice will evoke an angry response, with Batson et al. (1987) theory that witnessing another’s distress will evoke an empathetic response, we argue that witnesses are likely to experience empathy toward the target in addition to anger toward the perpetrator. As noted above, perpetrator-directed anger is likely to drive perpetrator-directed intentions; whereas, we expect target-directed empathy to drive target-directed reactions. Although customers may possess negative behavioral intentions toward perpetrators, this alone may not restore justice. The next best thing to intervention (which is rare as evidenced in Study 1 and in the literature on bystander intervention; Darley & Latane, 1968) would be for witnesses of mistreatment in a service context to support targets. Unlike internal mistreatment between coworkers where employees have the means to punish perpetrators, customers exit the service interaction at the end of the transaction, and are unlikely to see fellow customers again. Therefore, to restore justice, they are likely to also turn their attention to the target. Thus, we hypothesize the following. Hypothesis 4 (H4): Empathy will mediate the relationship between witnessed mistreatment and target-directed support (H4a), target evaluations (H4b), and tips (H4c). Severity of the Mistreatment Although mistreatment in not the norm, when it occurs it can range in severity, especially in the service industry where customers are not governed by organizational policies and reprimands in the same way employees would be. That is, whereas most organizations have policies regarding respectful workplace treatment that might help to curb internal employee aggression, customers do not face the same constraints. Therefore, employees may be victim to minor forms of mistreatment, such as incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), or more intense forms of mistreatment such as workplace aggression (Neuman & Baron, 2005). Researchers have argued for the conceptual differences between incivility and more severe forms of mistreatment. Incivility, unlike other forms of mistreatment, is low in intensity and ambiguous in intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). In contrast, workplace aggression has clear intent and is more severe. However, in a metaanalysis comparing workplace incivility with workplace bullying, Hershcovis (2011) found that the magnitude of the relationship between different forms of mistreatment and its outcomes are the same. Hershcovis (2011) argued that more severe forms of mistreatment may have more severe outcomes than workplace inci- vility, but due to measurement overlap between these two constructs, the data do not reflect these differences. Given that incivility is more frequent than more severe forms of workplace aggression, we were interested in whether the magnitude of witness reactions differed depending on the nature of the mistreatment. Based on the conceptualization of incivility as a less intense and more ambiguous form of mistreatment, we expect that witnesses will be less likely to engage in positive perpetratordirected action, and more likely to engage in positive targetdirected action, when they witness incivility versus workplace aggression, respectively. Hypothesis 5 (H5): Customers who witness workplace aggression will be significantly less likely to hold positive treatment intentions (H5a) and more likely to hold retaliatory behavioral intentions (H5b) toward the perpetrator than customers who witness incivility. Hypothesis 6 (H6): Customers who witness workplace aggression will be significantly more likely to support the target (H6a), more likely to evaluate the target positively (H6b), and leave higher tips (H6c) than customers who witness incivility. Method Participants. Participants were 183 people (50% female, M age ⫽ 34.87 years, SD ⫽ 10.92, age range ⫽ 18 – 68) recruited through an online panel provider (MTurk). Online panels have been described as reliable sources for access to diverse types of samples (e.g., Landers & Behrend, 2015; Roulin, 2015). Participants that resided in North America were invited to take part in a 15-min study in exchange for $2. Participants worked on average 37.62 (SD ⫽ 9.05) hr per week, and their mean tenure was 6.13 years (SD ⫽ 5.49). They held a wide range of positions such as: teacher, data analyst, construction supervisor, accountant, and engineer. Materials and procedure. We conducted an online vignette experiment in which we manipulated the neutral, uncivil, and aggressive treatment of an employee by a customer. Participants read a vignette in which they were asked to assume the role of a customer in a fictional coffee shop called Java Time. In this vignette, participants read about a neutral, uncivil, or aggressive interaction that they witnessed between the customer in front of them and the server, and then they answered questions aimed to assess the mediators (i.e., anger and empathy), the perpetratordirected dependent variables (i.e., customer treatment and customer retaliation), and target-directed dependent variables (i.e., target support, target evaluation, and tip percent; see Appendix B for the vignette scripts). Ethics was granted by the Joint Faculty Research Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba under an amendment to the title “Witness Reactions to Customer Rudeness” (protocol number J2014-072). Perpetrator positive treatment intentions. We assessed perpetrator positive treatment intentions with three items. An example item is “I would treat the customer in a friendly manner” (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Perpetrator retaliatory intentions. We assessed perpetrator retaliatory intentions with three items based on constructs from the broad aggression literature (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Neuman & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT Baron, 2005). An example item is “I would be rude to the customer” (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Target support. We assessed target support using four items adapted from Ducharme and Martin (2000). We chose this scale because it mapped onto our Study 1 item about friendliness, and it was also consistent with the kinds of supportive comments that witnesses made toward the target (e.g., “You handled that very well”). The items were: “I would make the employee feel appreciated,” “I would let the employee know they are doing a good job,” “I would be friendly towards the employee,” and I would take a personal interest in the employee” (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Target evaluation. We used the same measure used in Study 1. Tip percent. Following Study 1, we assessed tips by asking what percentage tip the employee would leave (from 0% to 50% in 5% increments). Tipping norms in North American coffee shops suggest that this range would adequately capture the possible range of tipping percentages plus allow the witness the opportunity to compensate. Anger. We asked participants three items used by O’Reilly, Aquino, and Skarlicki (2016) following the stem “To what extent did the interaction between the customer and the employee make you feel the following . . .” The response items were “angry at the customer,” “upset with the customer,” “and “irritated with the customer” (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .96). Empathy. We measured empathy using five items adapted from Batson et al. (1988). Participants were asked “To what extent did the interaction between the customer and the employee make you feel the following towards the employee . . .” (1 ⫽ not at all to 7 ⫽ very much so): “empathy for the employee,” “pity for the employee,” “concern for the employee,” “protective towards the employee,” and “sorry for the employee.” Analytic strategy. As with Study 1, we tested our main effects with one-tailed tests using MANOVA. To test our mediation effects we conducted structural equation modeling using Bayesian estimation, which is appropriate for dealing with small sample sizes (see Kruschke, Aguinis, & Joo, 2012). We conducted a full and partial mediation model and determined which model fit the data better using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC; Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin, & van der Linde, 2002) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Aiken & West, 1991). The DIC represents the likelihood of the model as a function of the actual number of parameters, whereas BIC represents the balance between the parameters (i.e., model complexity) and the fit of the 1535 model to the data. In both cases, the lowest value indicates the best fitting model. The mediation effects were tested using the product-ofcoefficients approach and we used 10,000 Markov Monte Carlo iterations to be 90% confident that fifth and 95th percentiles are estimated with an error smaller than .0005 (Hox, 2010). We linked the regression coefficients of incivility and aggression to target support, evaluation, and tip percent via empathy, and to perpetrator-directed positive treatment and retaliation via anger. We tested both mediating mechanisms simultaneously in the same mediation model. Note however that due to the categorical nature of our independent variable, we were required to run the analyses on two conditions at a time. That is, we conducted two separate structural models on the: (a) neutral and uncivil condition, and (b) neutral and aggressive condition. Results Manipulation checks. We conducted two manipulations checks in Study 2. First, we used the same mistreatment manipulation check as we used in Study 1 (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .97). Second, given that we base our hypotheses on deontic theory, we checked participants’ justice perceptions about the mistreatment interaction. We measured interpersonal justice (Bies & Moag, 1986) using Colquitt’s (2001) interpersonal justice measure. Participants were presented with the stem “In this scenario, the customer . . .” followed by four items: “treated the employee in a polite manner,” “treated the employee with dignity,” “was disrespectful towards the employee,” and “made inappropriate remarks/ comments to the employee” (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha is .90. Manipulation checks were significant in the expected direction F(2, 180) ⫽ 156.42, p ⬍ .001, and mean differences are presented in Table 2. Measurement model. Confirmatory factor analysis shows that the hypothesized model (Model 1) fits the data very well, ␹2(151) ⫽ 295.01, p ⬍ .001, CFI ⫽ .97, TLI ⫽ .96, RMSEA ⫽ .07, SRMR ⫽ .07. We compared the seven-factor structure to two alternative structures. The hypothesized model was significantly better than Model 2, which combines empathy and anger into one latent variable, ⌬ ␹2(6) ⫽ 226.71, p ⬍ .001 [␹2(157) ⫽ 521.73, CFI ⫽ .91, TLI ⫽ .89, RMSEA ⫽ .11, SRMR ⫽ .07]. The hypothesized model is also better than Model 3, which combines customer positive treatment and retaliation, ⌬ ␹2(6) ⫽ 357.08, p ⬍ Table 2 Manipulation Checks and Main Effects for Study 2 Outcomes Neutral Uncivil Aggressive Variable M SD 90% CI M SD 90% CI M SD 90% CI Target support Target evaluation Tip percent Perpetrator positive treatment intent Perpetrator retaliation intent Rudeness manipulation check Lack of interpersonal justice manipulation check 5.14 5.62 17.58 5.99 1.87 1.93 2.64 1.06 2.10 12.87 .89 1.21 1.24 1.24 [4.93, 5.35] [5.19, 6.04] [15.00, 20.16] [5.60, 6.40] [1.51, 2.24] [1.65, 2.22] [2.35, 2.94] 5.71 6.32 20.40 5.02 2.72 4.76 5.44 1.02 2.01 11.68 1.54 1.41 1.24 1.07 [5.51, 5.92] [5.91, 6.74] [17.87, 22.94] [4.64, 5.40] [2.35, 3.08] [4.48, 5.05] [5.15, 5.73] 6.12 6.97 25.58 4.44 3.39 6.47 6.17 1.02 1.84 12.04 1.91 1.67 .88 1.16 [5.92, 6.33] [6.55, 7.40] [23.00, 28.16] [4.06, 4.82] [3.02, 3.75] [6.18, 6.75] [5.88, 6.47] Note. Neutral n ⫽ 60; Uncivil n ⫽ 61; Aggressive n ⫽ 61. HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1536 .001 [␹2(157) ⫽ 652.04, CFI ⫽ .88, TLI ⫽ .85, RMSEA ⫽ .13, SRMR ⫽ .10]. Test of hypotheses. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations appear in Table 3. Main effects for target-directed outcomes. To investigate H1a to H1c, we conducted a MANOVA using mistreatment conditions (neutral, uncivil, aggressive) as our independent variable and target support, target evaluation, and tip percentage as our dependent variables. The overall test was significant, F(3, 179) ⫽ 9.27, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .13; therefore, we proceeded to examine the between-subjects effects. Means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals are reported in Table 2. Target support. In support of H1a, participants were more likely to support the target in the uncivil (p ⫽ .002) and aggression (p ⬍ .001) conditions than the neutral condition, F(2, 180) ⫽ 12.10, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .12, Cohen’s d ⫽ .88 and .55 for the difference between the aggression and neutral mistreatment conditions and the uncivil and neutral conditions, respectively. Moreover, in support of H6a, the difference between the aggression and uncivil condition was significant (p ⫽ .01), Cohen’s d ⫽ .34. Target evaluation. In support of H1b, participants were more likely to positively evaluate the target in the aggression (p ⬍ .001) and in the uncivil (p ⫽ .05) than in the neutral condition, F(2, 180) ⫽ 6.52, p ⫽ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .07, Cohen’s d ⫽ .66 and .34 for the difference between aggression and neutral and uncivil and neutral conditions, respectively. Moreover, in support of H6b, the difference between the aggression and uncivil condition was significant (p ⫽ .04), Cohen’s d ⫽ .31. Tip percent. We found a significant effect of mistreatment condition on tip percentage, F(2, 180) ⫽ 5.98, p ⫽ .002, ␩2 ⫽ .06. Participants were more likely to endorse a higher tip percentage for employees in the aggression than in the neutral (p ⬍ .001) condition, but there was no significant difference between the neutral and uncivil (p ⫽ .10) condition. Cohen’s d ⫽ .61 and .23 for the difference between aggression and neutral and uncivil and neutral conditions, respectively. Thus, H1c was partially supported. Further, in support of H6c, the difference between the aggression and uncivil condition was significant (p ⫽ .02), Cohen’s d ⫽ .40. Main effects for perpetrator-directed outcomes. To investigate H2a and H2b, we conducted a MANOVA using mistreatment conditions (neutral, uncivil, aggressive) as our independent variable and perpetrator positive treatment and retaliation intentions as our dependent variables. The overall test was significant, F(2, 180) ⫽ 21.95, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .20; therefore, we proceeded to examine the between-subjects effects. Perpetrator positive treatment intentions. In support of H2a, we found that participants were less likely to endorse positive perpetrator treatment in the aggression (p ⬍ .001) and uncivil (p ⬍ .001) conditions than in the neutral condition, F(2, 180) ⫽ 16.38, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .15, Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.05 and .78 for the difference between the aggression and neutral and uncivil and neutral conditions, respectively. Moreover, in support of H5a, there was a significant difference between the aggressive and uncivil condition (p ⫽ .03), Cohen’s d ⫽ .33. Perpetrator retaliation intentions. In support of H2b, we found that participants were more likely to endorse perpetrator retaliation intentions in the aggression (p ⬍ .001) and uncivil (p ⫽ .001) conditions than in the neutral condition, F(2, 180) ⫽ 16.75, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .16, Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.04 and .65 for the difference between the aggression and neutral and uncivil and neutral conditions, respectively. Moreover, in support of H5b, the difference between the aggressive and uncivil condition was significant (p ⫽ .001), Cohen’s d ⫽ .43. Mediation analyses. To investigate the indirect effect of witnessing mistreatment on perpetrator-directed outcomes through anger, we relied on a structural equation model using Bayesian estimation. Both incivility and workplace aggression used the control (neutral) group as its referent. We examined anger and empathy as parallel meditators. Before presenting the mediation results for all our mediation hypotheses, we set out to determine whether a full or partial mediation model offered the best fit to the data. When comparing the BIC and the DIC values, we noticed that the full mediation model fit the data best compared to a partial mediation model for all mediations. The BIC and DIC values were lower in the full mediation model when examining the uncivil and neutral conditions at 7984.58 and 7766.04, respectively, compared with 8002.46 and 7772.21 in the partial mediation model. Similarly, the BIC and DIC values were lower in the full mediation model when examining the aggressive and neutral conditions at 7858.07 and 7644.34, respectively compared with 7878.54 and 7646.14 for partial mediation. Thus, our model suggests full me- Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations (Studies 2 and 3) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. MStudy 2/ MStudy 3 SDStudy 2/ SDStudy 3 1 Mistreatment condition — — — Anger 3.91/5.88 2.19/1.35 .79ⴱⴱ Empathy 4.40/5.68 2.11/1.10 .76ⴱⴱ Perpetrator positive treatment intent 5.15/4.47 1.63/1.75 ⫺.39ⴱⴱ Perpetrator retaliation intent 2.66/3.16 1.56/1.55 .40ⴱⴱ Target evaluation 6.29/5.26 2.04/2.36 .26ⴱⴱ Target support 5.64/5.47 1.09/1.20 .34ⴱⴱ Tip percent 21.07/21.43 12.53/14.32 .25ⴱⴱ Gender — — .03 Age 35.87/33.30 10.92/9.59 .04 2 3 ⴱ ⫺.23 .96/.96 .87ⴱⴱ ⫺.47ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.04 4 ⴱⴱ ⫺.40 .55ⴱ .96/.89 ⫺.36ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 .02 .09 .28ⴱⴱ ⫺.30 .97/.98 ⫺.58ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.06 ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .01 .09 5 ⫺.04 .14 .23ⴱ ⫺.60ⴱⴱ .93/.88 .16ⴱ .16ⴱ .17ⴱ .01 ⫺.15ⴱ 6 7 ⴱⴱ 8 ⴱⴱ 9 ⴱⴱ ⫺.45 ⫺.31 ⫺.28 ⫺.06 .21ⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .24ⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .71ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.13 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.09 .20ⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 — .45ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .05 .50ⴱⴱ .82/.84 .49ⴱⴱ .17 .47ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ — .002 ⫺.07 .06 ⫺.02 — ⫺.11 .07 .00 .06 10 ⫺.03 .05 ⫺.11 .13 ⫺.17 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 ⫺.09 .14 — Note. N ⫽ 182. Alpha coefficients appear along the diagonal with Study 2 appearing first and Study 3 appearing second. Study 2 correlations appear below the diagonal and Study 3 correlations appear above the diagonal. Alpha coefficients appear on the diagonal in italics. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT diation is a better fit to the data. All results reported below are standardized. Anger. In support of H3a and H3b, witnessed uncivil mistreatment was positively related to anger (b ⫽ .72, p ⬍ .001), and anger was negatively related to perpetrator positive treatment intentions (b ⫽ ⫺0.27, p ⬍ .002), and positively related to perpetratordirected retaliation intentions (b ⫽ 0.25, p ⫽ .001). In addition, anger mediated the relationship between witnessing uncivil mistreatment and perpetrator-directed positive treatment intentions (PE7 ⫽ ⫺.19, SE ⫽ .08, 90% CI [⫺.33, ⫺.07]), and perpetratordirected retaliatory intentions (PE ⫽ .18, SE ⫽ .08, 90% CI [.07, 0.32]). Further, anger fully mediated the relationship between witnessing aggressive mistreatment and perpetrator-directed positive treatment intentions (PE ⫽ ⫺.78, SD ⫽ .19, 90% CI [⫺1.11, ⫺.50]) and perpetrator-directed retaliation intentions (PE ⫽ 0.76, SD ⫽ .19, 90% CI [.48, 1.08]). Witnessed aggressive mistreatment was positively related to anger (b ⫽ 2.88, p ⬍ .001), and anger was negatively related to perpetrator positive treatment intentions (b ⫽ ⫺0.28, p ⬍ .001) and positively related to perpetrator-directed retaliation intentions (b ⫽ 0.27, p ⬍ .001). Empathy. In support of H4a, H4b, and H4c, witnessed uncivil mistreatment was positively related to empathy (b ⫽ .39, p ⬍ .001), and empathy was positively related to target support (b ⫽ 0.60, p ⬍ .001), target evaluation (b ⫽ 0.98, p ⬍ .001), and tip percent (b ⫽ 4.07, p ⬍ .001). In addition, empathy mediated the relationship between witnessing uncivil mistreatment and target support (PE ⫽ .23, SD ⫽ .07, 90% CI [.13, 0.35]), target evaluation (PE ⫽ .38, SD ⫽ .11, 90% CI [.21, 0.59]), and tip percent (PE ⫽ 1.52, SD ⫽ .60, 90% CI [.72, 2.66]). Further, empathy also mediated the relationship between witnessing aggressive mistreatment and target support (PE ⫽ 0.68, SD ⫽ .17, 90% CI [.41, .96]), target evaluation (PE ⫽ 1.11, SD ⫽ .31, 90% CI [.61, 1.62]), and tip percent (PE ⫽ 5.06, SD ⫽ 1.86, 90% CI [2.17, 8.25). Witnessed aggressive mistreatment was positively related to empathy (b ⫽ 3.12, p ⬍ .001), empathy was positively related to target support (b ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .001), target evaluation (b ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001), and tip percent (b ⫽ 1.64, p ⫽ .002). Discussion Study 2 replicated Study 1 by demonstrating that customers who witness employee-directed mistreatment from other customers, were more likely to compensate for their fellow customers’ bad behavior by being more supportive toward the employee, rating them higher on customer service, and leaving higher tips. Study 2 also extended Study 1 in a number of ways. First, we found that witnesses develop negative behavioral intentions toward perpetrators, consistent with research on witness reactions to insider workplace mistreatment (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). Specifically, witnesses were less likely to endorse positive treatment intentions and more likely to endorse retaliatory intentions against perpetrators. This may have negative implications for customer experiences, because research shows that other customers can influence a customer’s satisfaction (Wu, 2007). Second, we found that anger mediated this relationship. That is, consistent with deontic theory, witnessing another customer mistreat a server gave rise to anger in response to the moral violation, and led witnesses 1537 to develop negative behavioral intentions toward the perpetrator. This extends prior research that has found that anger mediates the relationship between insider mistreatment and perpetrator-directed outcomes (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015), by showing that unfair interactions anger other organizational patrons, and this anger could translate to negative reactions by customers toward other customers. This finding is important because it has negative implications for the service experience of both customers. Third, we examined a new deontic mediator, target-directed empathy, and found that it mediated the relationship between witnessing mistreatment and target-directed outcomes. Research to date has largely focused on both consequences and emotions directed at the perpetrator. This study extends the deontic relationship to the target, and acknowledges that benevolent affect directed at the target yields positive target-directed outcomes. That is, there are two possible means of redressing unfair treatment, one can punish the perpetrator or one can aid the target, and different affective mechanisms explain each of these outcomes. Moreover, this finding helps to show that our results are not likely to be explained by equity theory. Witnesses are not simply reducing perpetrator and restoring target outcomes out of anger or inequity, but also out of an other-oriented positive empathetic emotion directed at targets. Finally, we found that an increase in magnitude of the mistreatment generally corresponds to an increase in the magnitude of the outcome. That is, witnesses of both incivility and aggression were more likely than witnesses of a neutral situation to develop negative behavioral intentions toward the perpetrator and positive intentions toward the target (except for the case of tipping where a significantly higher tip percentage resulted from aggressive but not uncivil misbehavior). Moreover, there were also significant differences between the aggression and uncivil conditions such that aggression yielded stronger negative responses toward perpetrators and supportive responses toward targets among witnesses. Research has argued that there are conceptual differences between incivility and aggression, but that these differences do not bear out in the current measurement (Hershcovis, 2011). The present study shows that with an increase in the intensity and intent of mistreatment, and a decrease in ambiguity, witness reactions are stronger. However, it is important to note that even minor forms of mistreatment yielded significant negative consequences for perpetrators and positive outcomes for targets (in the form of supportive behavioral intentions and target evaluations). Although Studies 1 and 2 collectively demonstrate that customers punish perpetrators and compensate targets on behalf of badly behaved fellow customers, a limitation of both studies is that we do not vary the response of the target. In both studies, targets respond neutrally regardless of customer treatment. Our results thus assume that employees must maintain “service with a smile” to accrue the “benefits” from customer mistreatment. In our final study, we test this assumption by examining how witnesses react when targets reciprocate uncivil treatment. Reciprocity is a universally held social norm (Gouldner, 1960), and negative reciprocal notions of “tit for tat” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) or an “eye for an 7 PE stands for point estimate. HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1538 eye” personify many social exchanges. In the domain of customer service interactions, van Jaarsveld, Walker, and Skarlicki (2010) argue that mistreatment from customers can beget mistreatment from employees. Perceptions of unfairness can instigate targets to respond by also treating perpetrators disrespectfully. Customerdirected mistreatment can harm service provision and outcomes such as customer retention (e.g., Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Niles-Jolly, 2005). Moreover, empathy is a deontic emotion that explains why witnesses react more positively toward targets. If targets take justice restoration into their own hands by behaving rudely, we expect that witnesses will be less empathetic toward targets and thus, less likely to offer support and compensation to employees mistreated at the hands of other customers found in the previous studies. Therefore, we hypothesized that: Hypothesis 7 (H7): Customers who witness customer mistreatment toward a service provider will: be less likely to support the target (H7a), less likely to evaluate the target positively (H7b), and more likely to leave lower tips (H7c) when employees respond uncivilly than when they respond neutrally. Hypothesis 8 (H8): Target-directed empathy will mediate the above relationships such that customers who witness customer mistreatment toward a service provider will be less empathetic and thus less likely to support the target (H8a), evaluate the target positively (H8b), and leave higher tips (H8c) when employees respond uncivilly than when they respond neutrally. Moreover, we also expect that when employees fail to maintain the “customer is always right” mantra, and instead behave uncivilly back to the customer, the employee has effectively punished the perpetrator him- or herself. Therefore, moral anger is diminished and the deontic desire to hold the perpetrator accountable for his or her misdeeds is likely to diminish, and we should see a reduction in the witness’s negative behavioral intentions toward the perpetrator. Hypothesis 9 (H9): Customers who witness customer mistreatment toward a service provider will: be more likely to develop positive treatment intentions (H9a), and less likely to develop retaliatory intentions toward the perpetrator (H9b) when employees respond uncivilly than when they respond neutrally. Hypothesis 10 (H10): Perpetrator-targeted anger will mediate the above relationships such that customers who witness customer mistreatment toward a service provider will be less angry and thus more likely to develop positive treatment intentions (H10a), and less likely to develop retaliatory intentions toward the perpetrator (H10b) when employees respond uncivilly than when they respond neutrally. Study 3 Method Participants. Following Study 2, participants were 119 people residing in North America (51.4% female, M age ⫽ 34.7 years, SD ⫽ 11.97, age range ⫽ 18 –73) recruited through the same online panel provider (MTurk) in exchange for $2. Participants who completed Study 2 were excluded from also being allowed to complete Study 3. Participants worked on average 38.91 (SD ⫽ 8.56) hr per week, and their mean tenure was 6.54 years (SD ⫽ 6.03). They held a wide range of job titles such as social worker, occupational therapist, taxi dispatcher, electrician, and security consultant. Materials and procedure. We conducted an online vignette experiment in which we held the mistreatment condition constant, and manipulated the employee response to be neutral versus uncivil. Participants read a similar vignette as the vignette used in Study 2, except we manipulated the server’s response. In this vignette, participants read about a customer’s aggressive treatment of a server at a coffee shop, and either a neutral or uncivil response to this treatment by the employee. We chose the aggressive condition because it would be the most stringent test of our hypotheses as employees who respond uncivilly in response to aggression may be more understandable than employees who respond uncivilly to a more minor form of mistreatment. Participants then answered a series of questions aimed to assess our dependent variables (see Appendix C for the vignette scripts). We assessed perpetrator-directed positive treatment intentions, perpetrator-directed retaliatory intentions, target-directed support, target evaluation, tip percent, anger, and empathy using the same measures as those used in Study 2. Ethics was granted by the Joint Faculty Research Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba under an amendment to the title “Witness Reactions to Customer Rudeness” (protocol number J2014-072). Results Manipulation check. To test whether our manipulations worked, we used the same two checks used in Study 2, except the referent was the employee instead of the customer. We also had to eliminate one item from the incivility manipulation check (i.e., “the employee made the customer feel incompetent”), because this item did not make sense with the customer as the frame of reference (␣ ⫽ .95 for incivility and .89 for lack of justice). We conducted a MANOVA with employee incivility as our independent variable and both manipulation checks as our dependent variable. The overall test was significant, F(2, 116) ⫽ 60.08, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .51; therefore, we proceeded to examine the between-subjects effects (see Table 4). Table 4 Manipulation Checks and Main Effects for Target-Directed Outcomes (Study 3) Target support Condition Neutral Uncivil n M SD 90% CI Target evaluation M SD 90% CI M Tip percent Rudeness manipulation check Lack of interpersonal justice manipulation check SD M M 90% CI SD 90% CI SD 90% CI 59 5.84 .98 [5.60, 6.09] 6.34 1.90 [5.88, 6.80] 25.51 13.89 [22.53, 28.49] 1.22 .63 [.97, 1.46] 1.60 .82 [1.37, 1.83] 60 5.10 1.29 [4.85, 5.34] 4.20 2.31 [3.75, 4.65] 17.42 14.46 [13.89, 20.40] 2.98 1.49 [2.73, 3.23] 3.74 1.27 [3.57, 3.97] This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT Test of hypotheses. Main effects for target-directed outcomes. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations appear in Table 3. To investigate Hypotheses 7a–7c, we conducted a MANOVA using employee response condition (uncivil vs. neutral) as our independent variable and tip percentage, target support, and target evaluation as our dependent variables. The overall test was significant, F(3, 115) ⫽ 11.01, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .22; therefore, we examined the between-subjects effects. As in Studies 1 and 2, we conducted one-tailed tests. Means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals are presented in Table 4. Target support. In support of H7a, we found a significant effect of the employee response condition on target support F(1, 118) ⫽ 12.64, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .10, Cohen’s d ⫽ .65. Target evaluation. In support of H7b, we found a significant effect of the employee response condition on target evaluation F(1, 118) ⫽ 30.46, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .04, Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.01. Tip percent. In support of H7c, we found a significant effect of the employee response condition on tip percent, F(1, 118) ⫽ 10.24, p ⫽ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .08, Cohen’s d ⫽ .59. Main effects for perpetrator-directed outcomes. To investigate H9a and H9b, we conducted a MANOVA using employee response condition (uncivil vs. neutral) as our independent variable and perpetrator positive treatment and retaliatory intentions as our dependent variables. Contrary to our hypotheses, the overall test was nonsignificant F(2, 116) ⫽ 0.52, p ⫽ .60. It therefore appears that even when the employee reacts to customer aggression uncivilly, witnesses, despite tempering the support they express to the targeted employee, retain their treatment and retaliatory intentions toward the perpetrator. That is, although the injustice has been rectified and equity has been restored by the employee, the deontic emotion toward the perpetrator remains. We further test this assumption by examining the extent to which anger mediates our relationships. Mediation analyses. To test mediation we used Preacher and Hayes process macros (Hayes, 2013, Model 4). In support of H8a, empathy mediated the relationship between employee response and employee-directed support (PE ⫽ ⫺.59, SE ⫽ .15, 90% CI [⫺.88, ⫺.37]). Employee rudeness negatively related to empathy (b ⫽ ⫺.87, p ⬍ .001) and empathy positively related to employee treatment (b ⫽ .68, p ⬍ .001). In support of H8b, empathy mediated the relationship between employee rudeness and employee-directed evaluation (PE ⫽ ⫺.70, SE ⫽ .23, 90% CI [⫺1.13, ⫺.38]). Employee rudeness negatively related to empathy (b ⫽ ⫺.87, p ⬍ .001) and empathy positively related to employee evaluation (b ⫽ .81, p ⬍ .001). In support of H8c, empathy mediated the relationship between employee rudeness and employee tips (PE ⫽ ⫺3.55, SE ⫽ 1.33, 90% CI [⫺5.82, ⫺1.40]). Employee rudeness negatively related to empathy (b ⫽ ⫺.87, p ⬍ .001) and empathy positively related to employee tips (b ⫽ 4.09, p ⬍ .001). We failed to support H10a and H10b as anger did not mediate the relationship between employee response and perpetrator-directed outcomes. Discussion While Study 1 and Study 2 demonstrated that customers engage in compensatory reactions to targets, and hold punishment intentions toward perpetrators, Study 3 examined the added effects of employee reactions to the mistreatment. It is human nature to 1539 reciprocate negative treatment in kind (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Results of this study demonstrate that when targets are rude in response to rude customers, witnessing customers are less willing to support targets. These results demonstrate that people feel less empathy toward victimized employees who are rude in kind. Rather, they are more likely to support targets who are unable/unwilling to defend themselves. This finding is consistent with prior research which shows that witnesses are more likely to act on vicarious injustice (e.g., help the target) when the target is helpful/likable (De Cremer & Van Hiel, 2006). Thus, the behaviors and reactions of a target appears to influence whether or not a witness will offer support. In addition, our results showed that when employees were uncivil in response to aggressive treatment, witness empathy goes down. That is, compared with the neutral response condition, witnesses were less empathetic toward employees and were therefore less likely to engage in target-directed supportive and compensatory behaviors. This finding lends further support to the deontic argument over the equity theory argument, because empathy is a deontic emotion focused on the well-being of the target. Interestingly, however, the server’s uncivil response did not affect witness negative reactions toward the misbehaving customer. That is, although the target’s uncivil reaction was enough to reduce target-directed supporting behaviors, it was not enough to reduce perpetrator-directed punishing behaviors. Moreover, anger did not mediate the relationship between employee incivility and perpetrator-directed outcomes. These combined findings suggest that target compensation is not sufficient to reduce anger and restore justice. That is, while customers may have felt less of a need to support and compensate targets for their mistreatment when targets punished perpetrators directly, the target’s reactions were not enough to diminish their anger and their desire to punish the poor behavior of a perpetrator. General Discussion Previous research has focused on mistreatment between employees and found that witnesses tend to punish perpetrators (e.g., Mitchell et al., 2015; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010; Turillo et al., 2002). Research in the service domain has also examined mistreatment between employees and found that when customers witness mistreatment, they evaluate the organization and its employees negatively (Porath et al., 2010). The present research is the first to examine how customers react toward targeted employees and perpetrators when they witness other customers mistreat these employees. This research significantly contributes to the literature in several ways. First, our studies demonstrate a key role for customers in the restoration of justice when a fellow customer mistreats an employee. Whereas mistreatment between employees causes customers to perceive the organization more negatively, mistreatment by customers toward employees appears to elicit greater positive affect toward employees in the form of empathy, and negative affect toward the perpetrating customer. Our results show that customers are willing to help restore justice, both by rewarding and supporting the target, and by punishing (or intending to punish) the perpetrator. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1540 HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR Second, we make a theoretical contribution to the literature by examining a target-directed pathway to justice restoration. Deonance theory argues that people ought to behave in certain ways, and when they do not follow prescribed norms, witnesses will become morally affronted (angry) and want to take action in the form of perpetrator punishment. Thus, research on witnessing mistreatment has focused on witness reactions toward perpetrators; and the few studies that have examined witness reactions toward targets (Mitchell et al., 2015; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015) have found mixed results. Mitchell et al. (2015) found that witnesses sometimes supported targets of supervisor mistreatment, but only if they felt the mistreatment was unjustified. Reich and Hershcovis (2015) found that witnesses did not support targets, but instead punished perpetrators. However, Reich and Hershcovis (2015) examined only anger as an explanatory mechanism. Consistent with deontic arguments, we show that witnesses do indeed experience anger in response to transgressions and this anger translates into perpetrator-directed reactions (e.g., less positive and more retaliatory treatment). This may have negative implications for the customer’s experience because negative CCI can adversely affect customer satisfaction (Wu, 2007). However, we also introduce a second deontic emotion: target empathy. This emotion is consistent with deontic reasoning because it motivates altruistic action to reduce target distress. Thus, whereas moral anger yields punitive perpetrator-directed action, moral empathy yields targetdirected action in the form of affective, cognitive, and behavioral support aimed at redressing injustice. We contribute to deonance theory by showing that deontic action may also take a positive form (i.e., target support), and that empathy plays a role in explaining the relationship between an injustice and target-aiding. Moreover, the pathway from witnessed mistreatment to targetand perpetrator-directed outcomes via empathy and anger, respectively, demonstrate that this is not an equity argument. Witnesses are not simply rewarding mistreated employees for working harder to deal with difficult customers. Rather, customer affective responses in the form of empathy and anger suggest an otheroriented process. The very fact that witnesses were angry and empathetic about a fairness issue that had nothing to do with them supports a deontic explanation for the findings. Third, our results contribute empirically by showing that even minor forms of mistreatment such as incivility trigger witness reactions. That is, even when mistreatment was low in intensity and ambiguous in nature, witnesses supported targets, and evaluated them more positively. These findings were even stronger when targets experienced aggression. Targets in the aggressive group received more affective support, higher evaluations, and higher tips than those in the neutral or uncivil group. This finding contributes to the debate in the literature that questions whether different forms of mistreatment yield different outcomes. Hershcovis (2011) argued that although mistreatment constructs are conceptually different, they are operationally similar, yielding the same outcomes. The present study shows that when we operationalize the differences such that conceptual definitions match operationalizations, the outcomes do indeed differ. This finding suggests that researchers need to pay more attention to how workplace mistreatment is being operationalized. Distinctions between different forms of mistreatment are not being captured in existing measurement, which has led to potentially inaccurate results. Fourth, our research makes a practical contribution by demonstrating that targets may unwittingly benefit from being victims of mistreatment, but only if they maintain a neutral demeanor. Organizations reinforce the message that “customers are always right,” which requires employees faced with rude customers to plaster a smile on their face and take the abuse. Service sector organizations often regulate employees’ externalized emotions via “display rules” to enhance the customer experience (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987), which can lead to employee burnout (Grandey, 2003). The present research shows that, if employees are able to engage in emotional labor by being neutral to uncivil customers, they may be rewarded by other customers who witness the mistreatment; however, these rewards are tempered if they fail to regulate their emotions and respond to rude customers in kind. It is possible that the knowledge of these benefits (disseminated through training) may make it easier for employees to endure unpleasant interactions—future research is needed to assess this possibility. In addition, our research contributes by examining our questions in the customer service context. Few studies have examined customer reactions to mistreatment, and those that have, considered reactions to ostensibly justifiable employee-on-employee incivility (e.g., delayed service, Porath et al., 2010) and found that customers evaluate the organization and its employees negatively. Others such as Mattila, Hanks, and Wang (2014) examined the impact of observing other customers’ service failure on witnessing customers’ reactions and found that customer return intentions were lower when they witnessed other customers’ poor past service experience and recovery. Fairness and justice perceptions (Porath et al., 2010) as well as co-customers’ demonstrated behaviors (e.g., Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Kim & Lee, 2012) are key in customer service evaluations. Miao and Mattila (2013) show that negative customer behaviors (e.g., not keeping kids in line) negatively impacts other customers’ emotional responses. Building on this research, we contribute to this conversation by showing that customers punish fellow customers who mistreat service employees, and compensate mistreated employees to make up for the injustice. That is, the negative behaviors of fellow customers impact the customer’s experience enough that they are willing to take action. More broadly, this research has the potential to contribute to research in the workplace mistreatment literature by considering the role of empathy as a pathway to constructive intervention. Previous research has found little or no relationship between witnessed mistreatment and target-directed positive action (e.g., Reich & Hershcovis, 2015), and Mitchell et al. (2015) even found that witnesses may exclude targets from their scope of justice. Our findings demonstrate that witnesses may engage in target-aiding behavior when they feel empathy toward targets. Thus, the next step is to investigate what organizations can do to encourage empathetic responses to mistreatment, and how to translate empathy into constructive responses that support targets and discourage perpetrators. Strengths and Limitations There are a number of strengths to the study. First, to our knowledge, Study 1 provides the first field experiment that studies workplace mistreatment. This design allows us to draw strong inferences about causality, and is likely to be generalizable to most service interactions. Our findings with respect to tips were particularly interesting because the service interaction occurred in a fast-food restau- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. EMPLOYEE MISTREATMENT rant where tipping is not the norm. These results may underestimate the tipping behaviors that would occur in a full service restaurant. Moreover, the results may extend to other service environments (e.g., retail), albeit such environments do not yield the same financial rewards (i.e., tips). It would be interesting to investigate whether—in nontip contexts— customers are more likely to make purchases from employees who are mistreated by other customers. In addition, we replicated our findings in a vignette design, and extended them by examining affective mechanisms. Finally, we showed a boundary condition to our effects; that is, customers only reward targets if they maintain the “customer is always right” mantra. Regardless of employee reaction however, customers maintained their intent to punish the perpetrator. These results are not without limitations, most of which we discussed previously. In Study 1, we restricted our examination to interactions where one customer was present (to minimize diffusion of responsibility); however, this choice might affect generalizability because other customers are often present and may influence each other’s responses either positively or negatively. Study 2 and Study 3 used service vignettes that involved the presence of other customers (there was a line-up), and compensatory target outcomes and punitive perpetrator outcomes were found. Vignette designs are limited in terms of their ecological validity because they ask participants to imagine what they would do. In a real setting where there are strong normative constraints on how customers react, it is possible that witnesses would react in a more constrained manner. On the other hand, real settings may in fact enhance a witness’s response because people are likely to experience stronger emotional reactions to real than imagined scenarios. Future research in busier retail settings in the field can confirm whether witnesses would react the same way when other customers are present, intensify these behaviors as a consequence of contagion or mob effects, or whether diffusion of responsibility would hinder reactions to employee mistreatment. It is also possible that in very busy stores, where employees are doing their best to cope with heavy workloads, customers feel more empathetic toward mistreated employees and angry at the offending customers. Future research that manipulates social presence in the form of no other customers, some other customers, and many other customers would shed light on these relationships. Further, these studies examined only two possible employee reactions, neutral or uncivil. However, the server might instead call a supervisor for help, refuse service, or apologize to the customer to appease him/her. Future research should examine how different reactions influence witness responses. And, we manipulated injustice but our manipulation check measured interpersonal justice rather than injustice. Our incivility manipulation check confirmed that participants perceived a negative interaction, but follow-up research should specifically use a measure of injustice. Finally, services research demonstrates that the service scape (Schmidt & Sapsford, 1995) and store atmospherics (Moore et al., 2005) may influence the types of customer-to-customer interactions that ensue. Additional research can examine the design of appropriate service scapes. For instance, the presence versus absence of in-store signage that highlights respectful treatment of service employees and the denial of service in the face of mistreatment may positively impact witnessing customers’ willingness to actually intervene and buffer employees against lowered support when they retaliate against mistreatment in kind. 1541 Conclusion This is the first study to link customer mistreatment of employees with witnessing customer reactions toward victimized employees. Our findings show that customers support mistreated employees affectively, cognitively, and behaviorally, suggesting that although customers are not always right, treating them as if they are may have hidden benefits. References Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422– 436. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/h0040968 Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452– 471. Austin, P. C., & Hux, J. E. (2002). A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36, 194 –195. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence of their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:3⬍161::AID-AB1⬎3.0.CO;2-Q Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.55.1.52 Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00426.x Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349. Beugré, C. D. (2010). Resistance to socialization into organizational corruption: A model of deontic justice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 533–541. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, 43–55. Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990). The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54, 71– 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252174 Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097 Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579 –1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10768998.6.1.64 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 –900. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0025589 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 1542 HERSHCOVIS AND BHATNAGAR De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2006). Effects of another person’s fair treatment on one’s own emotions and behaviors: The moderating role of how much the other cares for you. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 231–249. Ducharme, L. J. & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 27, 223–243. Eiglier, P., & Langeard, E. (1977). Services as systems: Marketing implications. In P. Eiglier (Ed.), Marketing consumer services: New insights (pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (pp. 3–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Folger, R., Ganegoda, D. B., Rice, D. B., Taylor, R., & Wo, D. X. H. (2013). Bounded autonomy and behavioral ethics: Deonance and reactance as competing motives. Human Relations, 66, 905–924. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/0018726713482013 Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2092623 Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on:” Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86 –96. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040678 Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397– 418. http://dx .doi.org/10.1002/job.252 Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi again, please find attached. Don' hesitate to seek clarification. Thanks!

Running Head: WITNESS REACTIONS

1

Witness Reactions
Student’s Name
Course Number – Name of Course
Institution
Instructor’s Name
Date

WITNESS REACTIONS

2
Summary

The article uses three experiments to examine how customers show their reactions when
they witness a fellow client mistreat an employee. Based on the deontic model of justice, the
authors (Sandy and Namita) present their argument that when a customer mistreats an employee,
the other customers who witness would support the workers and evaluate them positively.
According to Hershcovis & Bhatnagar (2017), customers are often perceived to be right but they
misuse the privilege to mistreat front-line service workers. For the research conducted in the
article, there are four key contributions that define the topic of study. The first contribution is
that there are several witnessed reactions to the mistr...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags