0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      1 , ,

      The Journal of applied psychology

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The authors used R. Folger and R. Cropanzano's (1998, 2001) fairness theory to derive predictions about the effects of explanation provision and explanation adequacy on justice judgments and cooperation, retaliation, and withdrawal responses. The authors also used the theory to identify potential moderators of those effects, including the type of explanation (justification vs. excuse), outcome favorability, and study context. The authors' predictions were tested by using meta-analyses of 54 independent samples. The results showed strong effects of explanations on both the justice and response variables. Moreover, explanations were more beneficial when they took the form of excuses rather than justifications, when they were given after unfavorable outcomes, and when they were given in contexts with instrumental, relational, and moral implications.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Appl Psychol
          The Journal of applied psychology
          0021-9010
          0021-9010
          Jun 2003
          : 88
          : 3
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Department of Management, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611-7165, USA. john.shaw@cba.ufl.edu
          Article
          12814294

          Comments

          Comment on this article