UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Do organizational justice theories generalize cross culturally? : a study within China and a comparison… Shao, Ruodan 2011

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2011_fall_shao_ruodan.pdf [ 1.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0102441.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0102441-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0102441-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0102441-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0102441-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0102441-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0102441-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0102441-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0102441.ris

Full Text

DO ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORIES GENERALIZE CROSS CULTURALLY? A STUDY WITHIN CHINA AND A COMPARISON STUDY OF CANADA AND CHINA  by  RUODAN SHAO Bachelor of Economics, Nankai University, 2000 Master of Science, University of Lethbridge, 2005  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Business Administration)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER)  June 2011 ©Ruodan Shao, 2011  Abstract Prior research has demonstrated that employees react toward injustice through engaging in sabotage. Most studies on the relationship between injustice and employee sabotage, however, have occurred in North America. It is not known if these findings generalize to other cultural settings. Taking a cross-cultural perspective, I conducted two field studies to (a) examine the role of cultural values and individual difference factors stemming from cultural values and religious beliefs in the link between justice and sabotage (Study 1); (b) explore whether employees in China react differently toward supervisory and customer injustice from employees in North America (Study 2); and (c) to the extent that differences in justice effects exist between countries, examine whether cultural values (e.g., individualism) explain (i.e., mediate) the between-country differences in the injusticesabotage associations (Study 2). Surveys were administered to 418 front-line employees working in international hotels in China (Study 1) and 203 front-line employees working in one hotel chain in China and Canada (Study 2). Results of Study 1 revealed that the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor differs as a function of vertical individualism. Moreover, the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer occurs as a function of horizontal individualism, negative reciprocity norm, and belief in ultimate justice. Results of Study 2 showed that the strength of the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer was significantly weaker among employees in China than in Canada. Three cultural values, namely individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance, accounted for these between-country differences, with individualism as the strongest mediatory factor. Implications and future directions are discussed.  ii  Preface This research was conducted in accordance with the suggested ethics guidelines of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Behavioural Research Ethics Board, University of British Columbia approved subject research via certificate number H09-01113 dated April, 6 2010.  iii  Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Preface .................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents .....................................................................................................................iv List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... x Dedication .............................................................................................................................. xii 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Theoretical Background........................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Organizational Justice .................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Four Dimensions of Organizational Justice ............................................................. 7 2.1.2 Sources of Organizational Justice ............................................................................ 7 2.1.3 Four Motives to Explain Justice Concerns .............................................................. 9 2.1.4 Sabotage as A Consequence of Organizational Justice.......................................... 13 2.2 National Culture ........................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Past Cross-Cultural Justice Research and Limitations .................................................. 19 2.3.1 Past Research on Cross-Cultural Justice................................................................. 19 2.3.2 Limitations of Past Cross-Cultural Research .......................................................... 22 3. Hypotheses Development ................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Focus of Dissertation.................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Organization of Hypotheses ......................................................................................... 26 3.3 Cultural Values in the Supervisory Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association ........... 29 3.3.1 Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construal and Face Concerns........................... 29 3.4 Cultural Values in the Customer Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association ............... 39 3.4.1 Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construal and Face Concerns........................... 40 3.4.2 Uncertainty Avoidance ........................................................................................... 45 3.4.3 Power Distance ...................................................................................................... 46 3.4.4 Locus of Control .................................................................................................... 48 3.5 Individual Difference Factors in the Customer Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association .......................................................................................................................... 49 3.5.1 Exchange Ideology ................................................................................................ 50 3.5.2 Justice Orientation ................................................................................................. 52 3.5.3 Belief in Ultimate Justice....................................................................................... 54 3.6 Cultural Values as Mediators in Explaining Between-Country Differences ................ 56 3.6.1 Between-Country Differences in Supervisory Justice Effects ................................ 57 3.6.2 Between-Country Differences in Customer Injustice Effects ................................. 58 iv  3.7 Summary of Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 58 3.7.1 Cultural Values in Supervisory (In)justice and Sabotage Association .................... 58 3.7.2 Cultural Values in Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association .......................... 59 3.7.3 Individual Difference Factors in Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association.... 60 3.7.4 Cultural Values as Mediators in Explaining Between-Country Differences .......... 61 3.8 Overview of Study 1 and Study 2 Methods ................................................................. 61 4. Study 1 ................................................................................................................................ 63 4.1 Method ......................................................................................................................... 63 4.1.1 Participants ............................................................................................................. 63 4.1.2 Measures ................................................................................................................ 64 4.1.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................ 71 4.2 Results ........................................................................................................................... 71 4.2.1 Cultural Values in Supervisory (In)justice and Sabotage Association .................... 71 4.2.2 Cultural Values in the Customer Injustice and Sabotage toward Customer Association ...................................................................................................................... 74 4.2.3 Individual Difference Factors in the Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association ......................................................................................................................................... 77 4.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 78 5. Study 2 ................................................................................................................................ 86 5.1 Method ......................................................................................................................... 86 5.1.1 Participants ............................................................................................................. 86 5.1.2 Measures ................................................................................................................ 87 5.1.3 Procedure ............................................................................................................... 88 5.2 Results ........................................................................................................................... 89 5.2.1 Descriptive Statistics............................................................................................... 89 5.2.2 Measurement Equivalence ...................................................................................... 89 5.2.3 Baseline Models...................................................................................................... 89 5.2.4 Test of Configural and Metric Invariance ............................................................... 90 5.2.5 Hypotheses Testing ................................................................................................. 90 5.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 95 6. General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 98 6.1 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................................... 98 6.1.1 Implications for Justice Research ........................................................................... 98 6.1.2 Implications for Cross-Cultural Research ............................................................ 100 6.1.3 Implications for Sabotage Research ..................................................................... 102 6.2 Practical Implications ................................................................................................. 103 6.3 Strengths ..................................................................................................................... 105 6.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 107 6.5 Unsupported Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 109 6.6 Future Directions ........................................................................................................ 111 6.7 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 114 7. Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................ 115 7.1 Tables .......................................................................................................................... 115 v  7.2 Figures ......................................................................................................................... 147 References............................................................................................................................. 153 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 177 Appendix A: Items for Customer Injustice Measure......................................................... 177 Appendix B: Items for Customer-directed Sabotage Measure.......................................... 178 Appendix C: The Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 179  vi  List of Tables Table 1: Organization of Hypotheses.................................................................................... 115 Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 1) ........................................................................................................................................... 116 Table 3: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Vertical Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ............................................................ 119 Table 4: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Independent Self-Construal and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ............................................................ 120 Table 5: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Horizontal Collectivism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ............................................................ 121 Table 6: Results of Moderated Mediation with Horizontal Collectivism as the Moderator . 122 Table 7: Results of Moderated Mediation with Interdependent Self-construal as the Moderator ............................................................................................................................. 123 Table 8: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Horizontal Individualism and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................... 124 Table 9: Mediation analyses of whether independent self-construal account for the moderating effects of horizontal individualism .................................................................... 125 Table 10: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Vertical Collectivism and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................................... 126 Table 11: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Uncertainty Avoidance and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................... 127 Table 12: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Power Distance and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................................... 128 Table 13: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Locus of Control and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................................... 129 Table 14: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Negative Reciprocity Norm and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................... 130 Table 15: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Justice Orientation and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................................... 131 Table 16: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Belief in Ultimate Justice and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ............................................................... 132  vii  Table 17: Summary of Findings in Study 1 .......................................................................... 133 Table 18: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 2 - Canada) ................................................................................................................ 134 Table 19: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 2 - China)................................................................................................................... 135 Table 20: Baseline Models of Study Variables in Both Samples .......................................... 136 Table 21: Fit Indices for Tests of Measurement Equivalence ............................................... 137 Table 22: t-Tests Results for All the Study Variables across Two Cultural Groups.............. 138 Table 23: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Country and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ................................................................................................. 139 Table 24: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ................................................................................ 140 Table 25: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Country and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer ................................................................................................... 141 Table 26: Mediation Analyses of Whether Individualism Accounts For Between-Country Differences ............................................................................................................................ 142 Table 27: Mediation Analyses of Whether Uncertainty Avoidance Accounts for BetweenCountry Differences .............................................................................................................. 143 Table 28: Mediation Analyses of Whether Power Distance Accounts for Between-Country Differences ............................................................................................................................ 144 Table 29: Mediation Analyses of the Strongest Cultural Mediator That Accounts for Between-Country Differences .............................................................................................. 145 Table 30: Summary of Findings in Study 2 .......................................................................... 146  viii  List of Figures Figure 1: Summary of Hypotheses (Study 1) ....................................................................... 147 Figure 2: Between-Country Differences in Justice-Sabotage Associations (Study 2).......... 148 Figure 3: Two-way Interaction of Vertical Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ................................................................................................. 149 Figure 4: Two-way Interaction of Horizontal Individualism and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage ................................................................................................. 149 Figure 5: Two-way Interaction of Uncertainty Avoidance and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage ................................................................................................. 150 Figure 6: Two-way Interaction of Negative Reciprocity Norm and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage ................................................................................................. 150 Figure 7: Two-way Interaction of Belief in Ultimate Justice and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage ................................................................................................. 151 Figure 8: Two-way Interaction of Country and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor ............................................................................................................................. 151 Figure 9: Two-way Interaction of Country and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage ................................................................................................................................ 152  ix  Acknowledgements Writing my dissertation is one of the major academic challenges throughout my PhD journey. I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the support, guidance, and patience from the following people. In the first place I express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Daniel Skarlicki, for his immense amount of guidance, advice, and support since the beginning stage of this research. He offered insightful comments on my work, patiently corrected my writing, and financially supported my research. His knowledge, wisdom, and strong dedication to research excellence always inspires me and motivates me to work harder. I am indebted to him more than he knows. I thank Dr. Danielle van Jaarsveld for serving on my supervisory committee and for all her great help and support. She has generously funded me with my research and helped me to secure funding for my last year in the program. She has tried her best to help me fully focus on my research, which is very important for a senior PhD student. I would also like to record my gratitude to Dr. Darren Dahl for serving on my committee and for his professional comments on my dissertation. I am grateful for all the coaching, support, and help from the entire OBHR faculty at Sauder School of Business. Special thanks are due to Dr. Karl Aquino for helping me publish my first research article. I owe Dr. Sally Maitlis sincere thanks for her encouragement, moral support, candid advice and help. I am also grateful to Dr. Sandra Robinson for serving as the university examiner of my dissertation. Many thanks to my fellow PhD students and friends, they make my study at UBC more enjoyable. I would also like to thank Feng Liu, Echo Liao, Ying Zhu, Sheena Chen, and Jane  x  O’Reilly for their help in the translation and back translation of the questionnaire of my dissertation. I am also grateful to Echo Liao and David Walker for discussing about statistical techniques with me. I thank Dr. Mark Schaller and Dr. Vivien Lim on their helpful comments on my dissertation. Special thanks are due to Mr. Mohamed Meghji, Mr. Charlie Dang, Ms. Nancy Meng, Ms. Lily Liu, and Ms. Jessica Shao for granting me the access to their companies. I am also thankful to Dr. Mark Thompson, Ms. Diana Dai, Ms. Joan Zhao, Ms. Hu Zheng, and Mr. Jeff Ng who has tried their best to help me get data for my research. I am grateful for all the administrative support from Ms. Nancy Tang and Ms. Elaine Cho. They worked very hard to make things easy for us. Words fail me to express my deepest appreciation to my family. My brother is always caring and supportive, and he has been the role model that gives me footsteps to follow. My boyfriend is always there cheering me up and stands by me with persistent love and patience. My parents deserve special mention for their constant love, support, and patience. My mother is the person who always sets up challenging goals for me and believes that I can always do better. She is willing to sacrifice everything that she has to make sure that I have a better life. My father is the person who is always non-judgmental and who always considers me as the best daughter one could ever have no matter how many times I felt I failed him. I dedicate this dissertation to my parents.  xi  Dedication  To my parents  xii  1. Introduction Employee sabotage has been defined as behaviors that can “damage or disrupt the organization’s operations by creating delays in production, damaging property, the destruction of relationships, or the harming of employees or customers” (Crino, 1994, p. 312). Employee sabotage toward the organization and/or supervisors has detrimental impacts on organizational functioning (Giacalone, Rosenfeld, & Riordan, 1997). Moreover, research shows that employees can also engage in sabotage toward customers (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, 2006), which can undermine a company’s efforts to provide quality customer service and result in loss of customers and revenue. Theoretical and empirical research suggests that sabotage is negatively associated with employee job performance, service quality, customer loyalty, and even firm performance (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008). Thus, studies of employee sabotage have important implications for organizational functioning. Research suggests that sabotage is an outcome of employees’ experiences of injustice at work (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). Organizational justice refers to employees’ perceptions of fair treatment in the workplace (Adams, 1965; Bies & Moag, 1986; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Considerable research supports the association between employees’ experienced injustice and their sabotage reactions. Warren (2010), for instance, found that employees engaged in sabotage toward their employer/supervisor when they perceived unfairness from organization and supervisors. Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, et al. (2008), for example, found that Canadian call centre employees who experienced unfair treatment from customers engaged in customer-directed sabotage (e.g., hanging up on a customer, or intentionally transferring customers to the wrong department) after controlling  1  for employees’ experiences of intra-organizational injustice (i.e., (in)justice from employer or supervisor). Similarly, Wang, Liao, Zhan, and Shi (2011) found that Chinese call centre employees reacted to customer injustice through engaging in service sabotage in a daily basis. While the abovementioned studies contribute to our understanding of the linkage between (in)justice and sabotage, this literature is limited in several respects. First, while empirical findings support the association between justice and sabotage, no research has examined justice from supervisor and customer and the sabotage reactions toward the two respective sources of (in)justice simultaneously. That is, testing whether the target similarity model is robust (e.g., does customer injustice lead to customer-directed sabotage above and beyond other sources of injustice such as supervisory injustice?) Indeed, employees can experience (un)fair treatment from multiple sources (e.g., supervisor, organization, customer, and co-workers) (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). The multi-foci justice approach states that employees target their reciprocation toward the source of the (mis)treatment (Lavelle et al., 2007). This alignment of the sources of the (in)justice that employees receive with the targets of employees’ reaction provides researchers with greater precision in estimating justice effects (Lavelle et al., 2007). Thus, studying the independent effects of multiple sources of justice on sabotage not only depicts a more accurate picture of employees’ experience and their behavioral reactions at work but also has implications for justice theories (e.g., providing empirical evidence for the multi-foci approach). In short, addressing the multi-foci approach is critical for both theoretical and practical reasons, and warrants further study. Second, as compared to the linkage between supervisory justice and sabotage, the relationship between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage is understudied in 2  the management literature. Theories regarding the psychological mechanisms that explain the customer injustice and sabotage linkage are not fully developed. Indeed, the psychological mechanisms underlying people’s justice concerns are very complex: instrumental, relational, moral and uncertainty management perspectives (Adams, 1965; Folger, 1998, 2001; Tyler & Lind, 1992; van den Bos & Miedema, 2000). Thus, incorporating different justice perspectives together to examine employees’ reaction to customer injustice can advance theory in this area. Third, almost all studies on justice and sabotage have occurred in North America (see Wang et al. for an exception), and no research has integrated cross-cultural perspective with justice theories to examine the role of cultural values in the relationship between justice and sabotage. This is an important issue because, from a theoretical perspective, cross-cultural study of justice effects on sabotage can add new knowledge to our understanding of whether and how justice theories generalize to different cultural settings. In addition, such research can also help resolve one of the major issues existing in the cross-cultural literature: whether culture exhibits its influence at the country-level or at the individual-level (for reviews, see Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). From a practical perspective, the rise of globalization and the associated increase of diversity in our workforce requests managers to understand better of how employees with different cultural values react to supervisory and customer (in)justice. Fourth, prior research on customer injustice has studied call center employees. Call centers and telephone-mediated interactions are but one context in which employees interact with customers. Front-line employees in many service industries interact face-to-face with customers (e.g., bank tellers, flight attendants, hotel receptionists, waitperson, consultants, sales representatives, etc.). Extending customer injustice and service sabotage research from 3  service settings mainly involving over-the-phone interaction to settings involving face-toface interaction has important theoretical implications. The nature of the employee-customer dynamics can be very different across these two settings. In face-to-face encounter, customer injustice can occur in different manners (e.g., facial expression, body language/gesture) from those in voice-to-voice encounter (i.e., verbal expression). Similarly, in face-to-face encounter, service sabotage can be even more hidden, covert, and passive as compared to those occurred in voice-to-voice encounter. Thus, such extension can provide us knowledge to refine the concepts and theories in customer injustice and service sabotage research, which can differ dramatically in different workplace settings. To address these gaps, I conducted two field studies in international hotels operated in China and Canada. Specifically, I conducted a study within China in order to address the following research question: do cultural values qualify (i.e., moderate) the associations between supervisory and customer (in)justice and sabotage toward the two respective sources of (in)justice? I conducted a cross-cultural comparison study in order to address the following research questions: (a) do the associations between supervisory and customer (in)justice and sabotage toward supervisor and customer respectively differ in Canada versus in China? and (b) do cultural values account for (i.e., mediate) the between-country differences? I selected China as the non-North American research setting because China is different than North America in many aspects including history, economical development, political systems, and national cultures. According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), Chinese people in general are relatively high on collectivism and power distance, whereas North Americans are relatively low on these values. These different cultural values can have profound implications for people’s attitudes and behaviours (Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley, 4  & Janssens, 1995). I also focused on China because it is becoming increasingly important in the global economy, and a growing number of North American companies are doing international business in China and vice versa (Chen & Miller, 2010; Poon & Thompson, 2003). Finally, theories established in North America do not always hold in China (e.g., Li & Cropanzano, 2009; Morris & Leung, 2000). Thus, China serves as a strong comparative setting to North America for study of the role of cultural values in the relationship between justice and sabotage. The objectives of the present dissertation are five-fold. First, I followed the multi-foci justice approach to examine the associations between supervisory and customer (in)justice and sabotage toward supervisor and customer. Second, I integrated predominant justice perspectives, namely instrumental, relational, uncertainty management, and moral perspectives with cultural theories to investigate the moderating role of individual-level cultural values in justice effects on sabotage. Third, to complement our knowledge regarding the role of cultural values in justice effects, I also examined the moderating effects of several individual difference factors that stem from cultural values and religious beliefs in the customer injustice and sabotage linkage. Fourth, I conducted both a within-country study (in China) and a cross-cultural comparative study (in China and Canada) among front-line employees to test my hypotheses. As discussed earlier, individual-level versus country-level cultural influence remain unclear in many research domains. My studies help to address this issue through (a) examining the role of individual-level cultural values in justice effects in a within-country design and (b) investigating whether individual-level cultural values fully mediate between-country difference in justice effects in a between-country design. The primary goal is to explore whether individual-level cultural values rather than country per se account for differences in justice effects. Last, I extended prior research from call centres to 5  face-to-face interactions with customers (i.e., hotel). I have organized this dissertation into the following chapters. In Chapter 2, I review the relevant literature on organizational justice and cross-cultural justice. In Chapter 3, I provide hypotheses regarding the moderating role of cultural values in justice effects. I categorize my hypotheses into four sections: (a) hypotheses regarding the moderating role of cultural values in supervisory justice effects; (b) hypotheses regarding the moderating role of cultural values in customer injustice effects; (c) hypotheses regarding the moderating role of individual difference factors in customer injustice effects; these individual difference factors root in individuals’ cultural and religious background and have not been studied in prior cross-cultural research; and (d) hypotheses regarding the country-level cultural influence and whether individual-level cultural values account for (i.e., mediate) the moderating role of county in the justice and sabotage association. In Chapter 4, I present a within-country field study (Study 1) in which I examine the role of cultural values and individual difference factors in justice-sabotage association among Chinese service employees. In Chapter 5, I present a between-country comparative field study (Study 2) exploring whether cultural values account for the between-country differences in justice-sabotage associations among service employees in China and Canada. In Chapter 6, I discuss the theoretical and practical implications, strengths and limitations, and implications for future research on cross-cultural justice.  6  2. Theoretical Background 2.1 Organizational Justice 2.1.1 Four Dimensions of Organizational Justice Organizational justice concerns employees’ perceptions of fair treatment in the workplace. Justice researchers have identified four dimensions of organizational justice. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations that an individual receives (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1965). Researchers (e.g., Deutsch, 1975, 1985) have identified certain distributive justice rules such as the equity rule (e.g., Leventhal, 1976), the equality rule (e.g., Pruitt, 1981), and the need rule (e.g., McLean Parks, Conlon, Ang, & Bontempo, 1999) which individuals adopt when allocating resources. Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the process used to allocate outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). A process is fair to the degree it completes seven procedural justice rules, namely voice, consistency, bias-suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality (Leventhal, 1980). Interactional justice concerns the interpersonal treatment during the interaction between individuals (Bies & Moag, 1986), and consists of two aspects: (a) interpersonal justice, which concerns the interpersonal treatment with dignity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986); and (b) informational justice, which regards whether individuals receive an adequate explanation for decisions (Colquitt, 2001). 2.1.2 Sources of Organizational Justice Besides different facets, organizational justice can also be understood by its sources. Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), recent justice literature has advanced the multi-foci perspective of justice. The multi-foci approach states that employees receive (un)fair treatment from multiple exchange partners (e.g., co-workers, supervisors) with  7  whom they interact on a daily basis (Lavelle et al., 2007; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). These multiple sources or foci of justice include intra-organizational sources: (a) supervisors; (b) organizations; and (c) coworkers (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2002; Lind, Kray, & Thompson, 1998; Struthers, Eaton, Santelli, Uchiyama, & Shirvani, 2008) and a fourth source beyond the boundary of the organization, namely, the companies’ customers and clients (e.g., Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Rupp & Spencer, 2006; Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, et al., 2008). Considerable research supports that employees can experience (in)justice from multiple sources which result in emotional, attitudinal and behavioural reactions toward those sources of unfair treatment. Skarlicki, Barclay, and Pugh (2008), for example, found that layoff victims reacted toward their experienced informational injustice from their employers by engaging in retaliatory behaviours directed at their organizations (e.g., destroying important documents). Although most organizational justice research has studied the effects of different types of justice (e.g., distributive, procedural, interactional justice), in the present study, I focus on the importance of sources (i.e., supervisor, customer). Organizing justice research around its sources is important for the following reasons. First, the multi-foci perspective emphasizes the particular party perceived by the victim to be responsible for (in)justice, thus, attaching importance to the notion of accountability in justice theories (Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004). This is important because individuals tend to feel greater sense of injustice to the source that is accountable for unjust treatment. Second, according to the successor of multi-foci perspective, the “target similarity model”, the source of the (in)justice is also likely to be the recipient of justice reactions (e.g., perceived supervisory justice is related to subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior toward supervisor) (Lavelle et al., 2007). Third, recent advances suggest that the four dimensions of 8  organizational justice are particularly relevant at the level of the discrete event that an individual employee can experience at work (e.g., inadequate performance feedback from one’s supervisor, negative interaction with a coworker); which over time are encoded and categorized by individual employees according to the sources of (in)justice (e.g., supervisor, coworker) and then used to form the overall source-specific fairness judgments (e.g., justice judgments of supervisor or coworker) (Rupp, 2011; Rupp & Paddock, 2010). Fourth, empirical evidence supports that organizing justice around its sources offers greater precision in predicting outcomes targeting the same sources. That is, justice sources (e.g., supervisory-focused justice) significantly explained more variance in outcomes targeting the same sources (e.g., trust in supervisor, supervisory satisfaction) as compared to other justice sources (e.g., justice from organization) and the four justice types (e.g., interpersonal or procedural justice) (Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2011). In summary, the multi-foci perspective adds greater precision to our understanding of justice effects than exploring justice types (e.g., distributive, procedural, and interactional justice). In the present paper I followed the multi-foci approach through aligning the sources of (in)justice that employees receive (i.e., supervisory and customer (in)justice) with the target of employees’ reactions (i.e., sabotage toward supervisor and customer). 2.1.3 Four Motives to Explain Justice Concerns Justice researchers have advanced four perspectives to explain why individuals care about organizational justice: (a) the instrumental perspective; (b) the relational perspective; (c) the uncertainty management perspective; and (d) the moral perspective. Instrumental Perspective The instrumental perspective states that individuals are concerned with justice issues because they are motivated by their self-interest (e.g., economic gains) (e.g., Adams, 1965; 9  Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa, 1974, 1980; Homans, 1961, 1974; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). Thibaut and Walker (1975), for instance, proposed the notion of process control and argued that individuals desire for control in the process (e.g., voice) because such control could bring favourable outcomes in the long run. Their arguments imply that self-interest motivates people to care about procedural fairness because such process control could increase the likelihood of personal gains. Many empirical studies support this perspective (e.g., Ambrose, Harland, & Kulik, 1991; Noe & Steffey, 1987; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998). Conlon (1993), for example, found that perceptions of outcome favorability strongly related to participants’ distributive and procedural justice judgments. Relational Perspective The relational perspective is based on social implications of justice issues. Three models have contributed to this perspective: (a) the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988); (b) the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992); and (c) the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003). These three related models propose that individuals are concerned with justice (especially the procedural justice dimension) because fair treatment is an indication of standing and identity within a social collective (Lind, 1995; Tyler, 1997; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992). That is, people care about their value and importance in their groups; thus, they emphasize justice in that being treated fairly in the group can provide them a positive sense of self-worth and self-esteem (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Considerable empirical evidence supports the relational perspective (e.g., Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996; Tyler & Degoey, 1995). Tyler et al. (1996), for example, found that the three relational judgments that lead to perceived procedural justice (i.e., neutrality, 10  trustworthiness, and status recognition) were positively associated with feelings of group membership (e.g., pride and respect), which in turn led to extra-role behaviors toward the group and self-esteem. Their findings imply that people care about justice issues not only because justice concerns their self-interest about personal gains, but also because fair treatment conveys symbolic information of group membership (e.g., identity, status) and satisfies their needs for belonging and positive self-regard (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). Uncertainty Management Perspective The uncertainty management perspective (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) was developed from fairness heuristic theory (van den Bos, 2001a; van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997). In essence, individuals have the innate need for certainty and predictability, thus, uncertainty reduction is common in any social contexts (Hogan, 1983). Justice related information serves as one kind of environmental cue that helps to increase individuals’ certainty in their social exchange with others (Lind & van den Bos, 2002). The central tenet of uncertainty management perspective is that individuals are concerned with justice because justice judgments can provide them information on important issues which in turn reduce their uncertainty about those issues (van den Bos & Miedema, 2000). Empirical evidence supports these arguments. van den Bos (2001b), for instance, found that the associations between individuals’ justice judgment and their reactions were stronger when participants were made uncertain versus certain about things around them. These findings suggest that fairness is particularly important when individuals are dealing with uncertainty because justice cues serve as a way to reduce uncertainty.  11  Moral Perspective The moral perspective focuses on people’s moral concerns about fair treatment (Folger, 1994, 1998, 2001). Folger (1998) argued that people are concerned with justice even when the justice issues do not involve personal interest or group membership issues. He proposed that people care about fairness because such action is morally right. Fairness theory, and its predecessor, referent cognitions theory (Folger, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1993) to a large extent underlie the moral perspective. According to Folger and his colleagues (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998, 2001; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005), people make judgments of injustice via a three-step counterfactual thought process. These three steps ask three questions: (a) would better outcomes happen had an alternative situation occurred?; (b) could the harmdoers have behaved differently to avoid the outcomes from taking place?; and (c) should people be treated in a way conforming to the moral code? (Folger, 1998; Folger et al., 2005). All the three steps in the thought process, especially the “should” aspect, relate justice to morality. That is, individuals care about justice and form judgment of fairness not only because of the instrumental or relational benefits involved but also because of the beliefs that people should be treated in a morally correct manner. Considerable empirical evidence (e.g., third-party justice) supports the moral perspective (e.g., Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). Turillo et al. (2002), for instance, found that participants were willing to sacrifice their personal financial interest so as to punish a perpetrator who unfairly treated others even when they were not negatively impacted themselves, and when no one would know that they took these punitive actions. Spencer and Rupp (2009) found that customer service representatives felt angry while observing their coworkers being mistreated by customers even when themselves were treated fairly by 12  customers. Their findings to some extent support the relatedness of moral virtues with justice concerns. These four perspectives, however, were developed primarily in North America, and some work on the uncertainty management perspective was conducted in the Netherlands. Whether these perspectives generalize to other countries that have different cultural values from North America and Netherlands is not well understood. The rise of globalization brings saliency to the issue of whether justice effects and justice perspectives generalize across cultures. I elaborate on the possibility of generalizing these perspectives to other cultural settings in the hypotheses development chapter. 2.1.4 Sabotage as A Consequence of Organizational Justice Employees’ justice perceptions are associated with various emotional, attitudinal, and behavioural reactions (e.g., Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Thau, Aquino, & Wittek, 2007). I focus on negative behavioural reactions (i.e., employee sabotage) resulting from injustice in the present dissertation for two reasons. First, relatively less research examined the negative consequences of injustice (e.g., retaliation, deviance, sabotage) than the positive outcomes of justice (e.g., organizational commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior) in the prior literature (CohenCharash, & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Thus, investigating the negative consequences of injustice can complement prior research. Second, sabotage represents strong reactions to unfair treatment, which can have implications for employee job performance (Skarlicki, van Jaarsveld, et al., 2008), group and organizational functioning (Harris & Ogbonna, 2006). Thus, I focus on employee sabotage as the consequence resulting from employees’ experiences of injustice from both withinorganization and customers. 13  Employee sabotage is conceptually different from several related behavioural constructs. Deviance, for instance, has been defined as “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). Sabotage differs from deviance in that (a) the primary cause of sabotage is employees’ experiences of injustice (Ambrose et al., 2002), whereas the causes of employee deviance can be employee boredom or resistance to power (Lawrence & Robinson, 2007); and (b) employee sabotage behaviors are totally “negative” in nature, whereas some deviant behaviors can be “positive” when judging from social norms (e.g., positive deviance in Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Warren, 2003). Organizational retaliatory behaviors (ORB), for example, have been defined as “a subset of negative behaviors, those used to punish the organization and its representatives in response to perceived unfairness” (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997, p. 435). Sabotage differs from retaliatory behaviors in that previous literature explicitly limits the targets of retaliatory behaviors within the organizational boundary (e.g., organization or supervisor), whereas the target of sabotage can be outside the organization (e.g., customer). Counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) have been defined as “behaviors by an organizational member that results in harming the organization or its members” (Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002, p. 37). Sabotage differs from counterproductive work behaviors in that (a) CWB includes some self-destructive behaviors (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse), whereas sabotage does not; and (b) the primary causes of sabotage is injustice, whereas the causes of CWB are multiple (e.g., perceived powerlessness in Bennett, 1998). Since employee sabotage has (a) strong theoretical relevance to injustice, (b) conceptual distinction from other “dark side” behaviors, and (c) critical performance implications (e.g., negatively impacts employees’ job performance and customer service 14  quality), in the present dissertation, I focus on employee sabotage reactions toward injustice from supervisor and customer. 2.2 National Culture Culture has been defined as the commonly shared meanings and assumptions of the individuals with similar life experiences and education background (Hofstede, 1980). Numerous national culture dimensions have emerged. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), for instance, proposed five dimensions along which cultures differ in their values: (a) individualism-collectivism; (b) uncertainty avoidance; (c) power distance; (d) masculinityfemininity; and (e) long- versus short-term orientation. Individualism-collectivism regards whether individuals’ identities are formed through individual accomplishments or through group identification. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent that individuals are comfortable with ambiguity. Power distance concerns the extent that individuals accept the unequal distribution of power in different hierarchical levels. The masculinity-femininity concerns differing values pertaining to, for example an emphasis on competition versus quality of life. Long-term orientation refers to a future perspective associated with four Confucian values, namely persistence (perseverance), ordering relationships by status and observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of shame (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Shortterm orientation, in contrast, refers to a traditional and past-oriented culture linked with other four Confucian values, namely personal steadiness and stability, protecting one’s face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Other researchers have identified different cultural dimensions. Schwartz (2008), for example, presented seven cultural values: (a) embeddedness, a culture in which people care much about social relationships and find meaning in their life through connection with 15  others; (b) intellectual autonomy, a culture that “encourages individuals to pursue their own ideas and intellectual directions independently”; (c) affective autonomy, a culture that “encourages individuals to pursue affectively positive experience for themselves”; (d) hierarchy, a culture that “relies on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to insure responsible, productive behavior” and perceives “the unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources as legitimate and even desirable”; (e) egalitarianism-values that emphasize “transcendence of selfish interests in favour of voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare of others”; (f) mastery, values that “encourage active self-assertion in order to master, direct, and change the natural and social environment to attain group or personal goals”; and (g) harmony, values that “emphasize fitting into the social and natural world, trying to appreciate and accept rather than to change, direct, or exploit” (Schwartz, 2008, pp. 7-8). The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research team, in contrast, found evidence of nine cultural dimensions: (a) power distance, which concerns “the degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally”; (b) uncertainty avoidance, which refers to “the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events”; (c) humane orientation, which concerns “the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring, and kind to others”; (d) institutional collectivism, which refers to “the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action”; (e) in-group collectivism, which refers to “the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families”; (f) assertiveness, which refers to “the degree to which individuals 16  are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in their relationships with others”; (g) gender egalitarianism, which refers to “the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality”; (h) future orientation, which refers to “ the extent to which individuals engage in future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning, and investing in the future”; and (i) performance orientation, which concerns “the degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence” (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. 30). Bond and his colleagues identified four cultural dimensions: (a) integration, defined as values concerning broadly integrative and socially stabilizing emphasis (e.g., harmony with others, trustworthiness); (b) Confucian work dynamism, defined as values concerning hierarchical levels in interpersonal and social relationships proposed by Confucius (e.g., ordering relationships); (c) human-heartedness, defined as values concerning gentleness and compassion (e.g., kindness, courtesy); and (d) moral discipline, defined as values concerning moral restraints and self-control (e.g., keeping oneself disinterested and pure) (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). These four dimensions are highly correlated with the four dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980). Only Confucian dynamism is not represented in Hofstede’s (1980) study. Trompenaars (1993) identified seven cultural dimensions: (a) universalismparticularism, which concerns whether individuals emphasize specific social relationships (particularistic individuals emphasize more on specific social relationships than universalistic individuals); (b) achievement-ascription, which concerns individuals’ personal characteristics that could define their social status (achieved status concerns status achieved by ability and effort, whereas ascribed status concerns status predicted by who a person is); (c) individualism-collectivism, defined similarly with Hofstede’s (1980) dimension; (d) 17  affectivity-neutrality, defined as values concerning the degree to which people seek gratification (immediate/self-restraint); (e) specificity-diffuseness, defined as values concerning types of responses to people or objects (holistic/particular); (f) internal-external locus of control, defined as values concerning the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as responsible for their own fates; and (g) time perspective, defined as values concerning whether important life events are in the past, present, or future. Although there is significant overlap between these and Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions, three dimensions (i.e., achievement-ascription; internal-external locus of control; time perspective) are not included in Hofstede’s approach. Lytle et al. (1995) classified six categories on which individuals can vary: (a) definitions of self and others, defined as values concerning self-concepts and the conceptualizations of human nature; (b) motivational orientation, defined as values concerning motivational needs and ways associated with achievement and failure; (c) relations between societal members, defined as values concerning ways that individuals relate to others in a specific society; (d) patterns of communication, defined as values concerning the importance of different elements in communication; (e) orientation toward time, change, and uncertainty or risk, defined as values concerning general orientations about time and the importance of uncertainty and changing in predicting individuals’ behaviors; and (f) patterns of institutions and social systems, defined as values concerning types of governments and larger societal systems. In a summary of this research, Steiner (2001) proposed that 13 culture dimensions are most relevant to justice research. Besides the cultural dimensions defined above (i.e., ascriptions vs. achievement, locus of control, masculinity vs. femininity, individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, Confucian dynamism, past/present/future orientation, and 18  uncertainty avoidance) Steiner (2001) also considered: human nature as good or bad, which concerns the degree of trust in others; pragmatic versus idealistic, which concerns whether a society emphasizes the end results or an idealistic orientation; high versus low context, which concerns communication patterns that focus on whether the context contains a lot of information without explicit linguistic expression; traditional/charismatic/legalbureaucratic, which concerns what determines the authority and rules in a specific society; authoritarian versus democratic, which concerns the degree of power concentration in the society. Because cultural values can impact how people understand their world and their emotional, attitudinal, behavioural responses toward the events in their world (Lytle et al., 1995), it is plausible that cultural values can play a role in individuals’ justice judgments and their reactions toward experiences of (in)justice (Skarlicki, 2001; Steiner, 2001). In the following section, I briefly review past cross-cultural justice research regarding the role of cultural values in justice effects. 2.3 Past Cross-Cultural Justice Research and Limitations 2.3.1 Past Research on Cross-Cultural Justice Numerous studies have examined whether the association between justice and various outcomes differ by countries or cultural values. In this section I summarize several of these studies, and illustrate the types of research that currently exist in each category. One category of cross-cultural justice research includes studies that survey employees in a single non-North American country, with the goal of exploring whether the findings observed abroad differ from those observed in North America. These studies, however, have not measured cultural values. Leung, Smith, Wang, and Sun (1996), for example, studied the association between justice perceptions and job satisfaction among 137 19  Chinese workers employed in joint venture hotels. The data showed a stronger association between procedural justice and job satisfaction than between distributive justice and job satisfaction, which tends to contradicts the findings in North America (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). They also found that interactional justice was not associated with job satisfaction among Chinese employees. Similarly, Yoon (1996) examined the relationship between procedural and distributive justice with job satisfaction among 501 Korean workers. Contrary to North American findings, procedural justice had a stronger relationship with job satisfaction than did distributive justice. A second category of cross-cultural justice research includes cross-country comparison studies. Papers falling into this category report on data collected in two or more countries, and consider whether the observed justice-outcome relationships differ across these countries. These papers do not directly test for the role of individual-level cultural values in justice effects nor do they examine whether individual-level cultural values account for (i.e., mediate) the cross-country differences. Pillai, Williams, and Tan (2001), for instance, investigated the relationships between distributive and procedural justice and organizational commitment in the US (N = 486), Germany (N = 88), India (N = 97), and Hong Kong (N = 110). These authors found that distributive justice was related to organizational commitment only in India, whereas procedural justice was related to organizational commitment for the American, German, and Hong Kong samples but not for the Indian sample. Rahim, Magner, Antonioni, and Rahman (2001) compared the relationships among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment and turnover intention) between 302 U.S. and 289 Bangladeshi employees. Their data did not reveal differences between the U.S. and Bangladeshi samples on justice-outcome relationships. Blader, Chang, and Tyler (2001) compared the relationship 20  between procedural justice and retaliation among 260 U.S. and 181 Taiwanese employees. The results showed that the relationship between justice and retaliation was weaker among Taiwanese employees in comparison with the U.S. sample. A third category of studies is similar to the first category, in that these papers only report on data from a single, non-North-American country. However, these papers empirically explore the role of cultural values in justice-outcome relationships. Erdogan and Liden (2006), for example, investigated whether collectivism moderates the relationship between justice perceptions and leader-member exchange (LMX) among 100 Turkish employees. They found that the relationships between interactional and distributive justice perceptions and LMX were weaker for individuals with high versus low collectivism. Begley, Lee, Fang, and Li (2002) investigated whether power distance moderates the relationships between justice perceptions and outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, affect-based supervisory trust, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior) among 440 Chinese employees. They found that the association between procedural justice and the four outcomes was stronger for individuals high (versus low) on power distance. In contrast, the association between distributive justice and the four outcomes was weaker for individuals high (versus low) on power distance. Lee, Pillutla, and Law (2000) explored whether power distance moderates the relationship between justice and outcomes (e.g., trust in supervisor and psychological contract fulfillment) among 729 Hong Kong employees. Their findings revealed that (a) the association between procedural justice and trust in supervisor; and (b) the association between distributive justice and psychological contract fulfillment were stronger for individuals low (versus high) on power distance. Finally, a fourth category of cross-cultural justice research includes studies that are both comparative, and that empirically consider the moderating role of cultural values in the 21  relationship between justice and outcomes. For example, Lam, Schaubroeck, and Aryee, (2002) studied whether power distance moderates the relationship between distributive and procedural justice perceptions with job satisfaction, employee absenteeism, and employees’ job performance among 218 Hong Kong and 180 U.S. employees. Specifically, these authors found that the association between justice and the three outcomes were stronger for individuals with low (versus high) power distance values. Brockner et al. (2001) examined whether power distance moderates the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment among 118 Chinese and 136 U.S. students (Study 1), among 114 Mexican and 183 U.S. students (Study 2), and among 206 Hong Kong and 244 German students (Study 3). They found a stronger association between procedural justice and organizational commitment for individuals with low (versus high) power distance values. Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, and Skarlicki (2000) tested for a three-way interaction between individuals’ independent vs. interdependent self-construal (defined as to what extent individuals see themselves as connected to others, Markus & Kitayama, 1991), procedural justice, and outcome favorability on reactions to social exchanges among 60 Taiwanese and 29 Canadian EMBA students (Study 1), among 96 Chinese and 74 U.S. students (Study 2), and among 86 MBA students coming from different cultural backgrounds (Study 3). They found that the interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability was more predictive of reactions to social exchange among participants with interdependent (versus independent) self-construal. 2.3.2 Limitations of Past Cross-Cultural Research As the above review shows, cross-cultural justice research is varied, and the findings resulting from this literature are mixed. While these studies have contributed to our understanding of cross-cultural organizational justice, this literature is limited in many 22  respects. First, no research has integrated different justice perspectives discussed above with cultural values to develop propositions regarding the moderating role of cultural values in the relationship between justice and outcomes. Although we can draw inferences by looking across past research, the field might be better served by taking a more systematic and integrative approach to advance theory in both justice and culture literature. Second, as described above, a number of cross-cultural justice studies present data from only a single, non-North American country. Whereas such studies contribute to our research base, a dearth of truly comparative studies limit our understanding to some extent. Third, even among the studies that include between-country or multi-country comparisons, the cultural values theorized to explain the differences in justice effects were not always explicitly included in the theoretical models and the subsequent empirical analyses. That is, these studies use country as a proxy of culture. However, countries differ not only on culture but also on other aspects: history, economic growth, politics, etc. Thus, it is unclear whether culture or something else (e.g., economic development, history, or politics) explains the cross-country differences in justice effects. Fourth, among the studies that have included measures of individual-level cultural values, a predominant focus has been on power distance and individualism/collectivism. Relatively less research has examined the moderating role of other cultural values (e.g., masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance) in justice effects. Such disproportionate emphasis on one or two cultural values impedes the balanced development of cross-cultural justice and multicultural justice theories. Finally, no cross-cultural justice research has followed the multi-foci approach of justice to align the sources of justice with the target of employees’ justice reactions. As mentioned earlier, the multi-foci approach can be particularly relevant for studying of justice 23  effects because sources could better predict outcomes targeting the same sources than the traditional multi-facets approach (Rupp et al., 2011). Thus, multi-foci approach serves as a good approach for cross-cultural study of the role of cultural values in justice-outcome association. To address these limitations, in the present dissertation, I conducted two field studies: one within-country study (in China) and one between-country comparative study (China versus Canada) to examine the moderating role of individual-level cultural values in the relationship between justice and sabotage. I took the multi-foci approach (i.e., supervisory and customer justice) and developed hypotheses through integration of justice perspectives (i.e., instrumental, relational, moral and uncertainty management perspectives) with cultural values. I included multiple cultural values in the theoretical model and investigated whether individual-level cultural values explain the between-country differences in justice effects. All the hypotheses are explained and summarized in the next chapter.  24  3. Hypotheses Development Before I discuss the hypotheses, I provide the rationale for the focus of my dissertation, the organization of the hypotheses, and for the selection of cultural values in hypotheses development. 3.1 Focus of Dissertation First, I focus on (in)justice from supervisor and from customer to develop my hypotheses. I chose this focus because the two sources of justice share similarities but are also distinct from each other. Both sources tend to exert power over the employees. For front-line employees, customers can be perceived as having higher status and more power over them since service industries emphasize customer satisfaction no matter the cost. Thus, both supervisor and customer tend to have higher status than and have influence over service employees. Despite of this similarity, they also differ in that supervisors are within the organizational boundary, whereas customers are from the outside of the organization; thus, supervisors can have important influence on important decisions for a particular employee (e.g., promotion, salary raise, training, etc.) as compared to customers. Moreover, employees interact with their supervisors in a relatively long-term fashion, whereas employees interact with customers in a relatively short-term fashion. In short, supervisors and customers can be perceived as different authority figures with whom employees interact in the workplace. Second, as explained above, I focus on two sources and within those sources, I focus on interactional (in)justice (i.e., both interpersonal and informational (in)justice) from both supervisors and customers to develop my hypotheses. The reason for this focus is that (a) cross-cultural researchers have paid relatively more attention to distributive than to procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (Steiner, 2001) and (b) interactional  25  justice has been supported to be stronger predictors of employees’ negative reactions than distributive and procedural justice (e.g., Aquino et al., 1999; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In this dissertation, all (in)justice hypotheses refer to interactional (in)justice from supervisors or customers. Third, I focus primarily on the cultural values included in and/or extended from Hofstede’s typology (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) rather than other cultural values (e.g., House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1994, 2008) for three reasons. First, there is considerable overlap and consistency between cultural values proposed by Hofstede and other researchers. Schwartz (2008), for example, proposed the notion of embeddedness/autonomy and hierarchy/egalitarianism which are consistent with the individualism-collectivism and power distance dimensions by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005). House et al. (2004), for instance, proposed the concepts of in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism, which have large extent of overlap with the concept of collectivism advanced by Hofstede. Moreover, as I explain below, Hofstede’s cultural values have straightforward theoretical relevance to employees’ justice concerns and reactions (e.g., uncertainty avoidance can be relevant to uncertainty management perspective) relative to other cultural values (e.g., performance orientation in House et al., 2004; mastery/harmony in Schwartz, 2008). In short, while the cultural values proposed by other researchers (e.g., time perspective in Trompenaars, 1993) might also be relevant in qualifying justice effects, I primarily focused on Hofstede’s cultural typology because it offers an effective and efficient tool to interpret different justice motives in the light of multiple cultural values to explain variation of justice effects. 3.2 Organization of Hypotheses A primary goal of this dissertation is to explore moderators that can arise from each 26  of the four theories of justice, namely instrumental, relational, uncertainty management, and moral perspectives. I present my hypotheses in four sections. Table 1 presents the organization of hypotheses in this dissertation. In the first section, I focus on the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. I used instrumental and relational perspectives to develop hypotheses regarding the role of cultural values in supervisory justice effects. I did not include the moral perspective because prior crosscultural justice research has already studied the moderating role of power distance in the relationship between supervisory justice and outcomes (e.g., Brockner et al., 2001). Although the moral perspective was not explicitly explored in these studies, the findings show that justice effects in some cultures (e.g., high power distance) are weaker because the unfair treatment from high-status people can be perceived as morally acceptable in those cultures. I also did not include uncertainty management perspective in this section because the implications of this perspective for supervisory justice effects have already been documented in the prior research (e.g., Thau, Aquino, & Wittek, 2007). I selected cultural values that are relevant to instrumental and relational perspectives, specifically, vertical individualism (in relevance to instrumental perspective) and horizontal collectivism (in relevance to relational perspective). I discuss their moderating role in the supervisory justicesabotage association. I also include hypotheses to explain why these two cultural values qualify supervisory justice effects. In the second section, I focus on the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Here, I used the instrumental, moral, and uncertainty management perspectives to develop hypotheses regarding the role of cultural values in customer injustice effects. I did not include the relational perspective because it explicitly links justice with people’s need for belongings and their desire for positive self-image in a 27  social collective. As discussed earlier, according to relational perspective, unfair treatment from supervisors can be an indication that one is not valued or important in a social collective. This perspective might not be as directly relevant in explaining employees’ reaction to unfair treatment from customer since customer injustice is unlikely to indicate an employee’s standing in their group or organization. Stated differently, employees might not make inferences about their status in their group or company from customer unfairness. As I explain more thoroughly in the following section, I selected as cultural values horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism (instrumental perspective) and power distance and locus of control (moral perspective) and uncertainty avoidance (uncertainty management perspective). I discuss their moderating effects on the relationship between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage. I also include hypotheses to investigate why horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism qualify customer injustice effects in the proposed fashion. In the third section, I continue my focus on the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer and discuss the role of three individual difference factors, which can stem from people’s cultural and religious background, in the customer injustice and sabotage association. The reasons for considering individual difference factors in a dissertation on cross-cultural differences are three-fold. First, most cultural values discussed in the first two sections are universal (e.g., power distance) rather than culturalspecific values. Some researchers have argued that some cultural-specific values might have similar moderating roles as those universal cultural values (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997). That is, there might be certain cultural values particularly relevant in North American and Chinese contexts that can explain the differences in employees’ justice reactions. However, to my knowledge, little research has identified such cultural values particularly applicable in North 28  America and China. In addition, some religious beliefs in North America and China (e.g., Christian and Buddhism) can combine with cultural values in predicting employees’ different justice reactions. Thus, individual difference factors, which stem from people’s cultural and religious background, can contribute to a more complete understanding of the differences in employees’ justice reactions. Second, some cross-cultural researchers have argued that it is necessary to include individual difference factors when investigating the role of cultural values in people’s attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Xie, Roy, & Chen, 2006). Third, no research has examined the role of these individual difference factors (root in individuals’ cultural and religious background) on customer injustice effects. In short, these individual difference factors are different from the universal individual-level cultural values (e.g., power distance), but they are theorized to qualify justice effects (which was explained in more details in that section). In the fourth section, I focus on justice from both supervisor and customer and sabotage toward the two respective sources. The hypotheses in this section address two issues: (a) I examine whether between-country difference in justice effects exists and (b) to the degree that between-country difference does exist, I explore whether individual-level cultural values account for (i.e., mediate) the between-country difference in justice effects. Figure 1 presents the summary of hypotheses in the first three sections. Figure 2 presents the summary of hypotheses in the fourth section. 3.3 Cultural Values in the Supervisory Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association 3.3.1 Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construal and Face Concerns Individualism versus collectivism concerns whether individuals’ identities are formed through individual accomplishments or through group identification (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Hofstede argued that individualism-collectivism is a bipolar construct with 29  individualism and collectivism fall at the opposite poles of a continuum (Hofstede, 1980). Thus, many cross-cultural researchers have equated high collectivism with low individualism (e.g., Hui & Au, 2001). This is the case when examining culture at the country level. Recently, however, researchers have argued that when examining cultural values at the individual level, individualism and collectivism might be better conceptualized as two orthogonal dimensions of cultural values (e.g., Triandis & Suh, 2002; Xie et al., 2006). That is, individualism and collectivism have independent implications for individuals’ attitudes and behaviors, which implies that the two constructs can be examined separately. In addition, cross-cultural researchers have identified the importance of differentiating between vertical versus horizontal individualism and collectivism (e.g., Triandis, 1995). Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995) refined both the concept and measurement of the following four types of cultural values. Horizontal collectivism (HC) refers to a culture where people perceive themselves as a member belonging to a social collective. In addition, individuals consider themselves as extremely similar to other members in the same social collective. That is, people believe that they are merged with all the other members of their group and all members are the same. In such cultures, one individual is interdependent and is considered as the same as the others. The essence within such a cultural pattern is equality. Vertical collectivism (V-C) refers to a culture where people perceive themselves as a member within a social collective. However, individuals with these values also consider that each member within their group is different from one another. For instance, some members have higher status over others. In such cultures, one individual is interdependent and is considered to be different than others. People accept inequality among individuals in such cultures, and they do not perceive each other as same or equal. In such cultures, serving and sacrificing for the in-group is emphasized. Horizontal individualism 30  (H-I) refers to a culture where “an autonomous self is postulated, but the individual is more or less equal in status with others. The self is independent and the same as the self of others.” (Singelis et al., 1995, p. 245). Vertical individualism (V-I) refers to a culture where individuals are independent and emphasize autonomy, but all individuals also consider each other as different. Inequality is accepted and expected in such culture. People strive for success and emphasize competition and winning over others in such cultures. Because of (a) the conceptual independence between individualism and collectivism and (b) the further distinction between vertical versus horizontal individualism and collectivism, I examined the role of these values in the injustice-sabotage associations separately. As explained earlier, I particularly focused on vertical individualism and horizontal collectivism to develop hypotheses in this section in that these values have a strong theoretical relatedness with individuals’ justice reactions toward supervisory injustice (i.e., instrumental and relational perspectives). As discussed above, the instrumental perspective suggests that people react negatively toward injustice because injustice is associated with negative economic and socio-emotional outcomes (e.g., Adams, 1965). When considering supervisory injustice from the instrumental perspective, employees react negatively to such unfair treatment because supervisory injustice can have direct and/or indirect negative impacts on their economic and socio-emotional outcomes (e.g., feelings of frustration, anger). It is likely that employees’ reactions to supervisory injustice differ as a function of their vertical individualism values. As discussed earlier, people high on vertical individualism tend to perceive the self as independent and different from others and they emphasize the competition with and winning over others (Singelis et al., 1995). Thus, people high on vertical individualism care more about their self-interest than those low on vertical individualism because protecting and/or 31  maximizing self-interest can be a way to win over others. When people high (versus low) on vertical individualism are treated unfairly by their supervisors, the former are likely to feel that they might not gain as much as their coworkers from supervisors thus their self-interest is threatened. It is theorized that employees high on vertical individualism are likely to react more negatively to supervisory injustice than those low on vertical individualism because they care more about winning over others and protecting their personal interest. Thus, employees high (versus low) on vertical individualism are more likely to engage in sabotage behaviors in response to unfair treatment because (a) supervisory injustice can challenge and threat their self-interest; (b) such unjust treatment can reduce the likelihood to “win” over others; and (c) they cannot tolerate such threats to their economic and socio-emotional outcomes. To my knowledge, no research has explored the moderating role of vertical individualism in supervisory justice effects. Hypothesis 1: Vertical individualism moderates the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low vertical individualism values. A construct related to individualism/collectivism is independent versus interdependent self-construal, which refers to whether individuals perceive themselves as distinct from versus connected to other people (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). People high on collectivism tend to have an interdependent self-construal, whereas people high on individualism tend to have an independent self-construal. Moreover, researchers have argued that independent and interdependent self-construal are orthogonal concepts rather than a bipolar construct (Singelis, 1994; Singelis, Bond, Lai, & Sharkey, 1999). Researchers have proposed that individualism and collectivism are relatively broad concepts and contain multiple aspects than self-construal (e.g., Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis 32  & Suh, 2002). Studies have for instance, found that individualism and collectivism can shape and/or determine people’s self-construal, which in turn influence their attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999). Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey, Nishida, Kim, and Heyman (1996) found that independent self-construal mediated the association between individualism and people’s use of low-context communication styles. Their findings imply that individuals’ self-construal can provides the psychological mechanism through which individualism and collectivism relates to certain attitudes and behaviours. It is predicted that independent self-construal accounts for the moderating role of vertical individualism in the supervisory injustice-sabotage toward supervisor association for the following reasons. Employees high on vertical individualism tend to have an independent self-construal. People with an independent self-construal emphasize their sense of independence and prioritize personal preferences, rights, and gain rather than group preferences (Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Thus, when employees with an independent selfconstrual are treated unfairly by their supervisors, they will likely react negatively by engaging in sabotage because supervisory injustice can have negative impacts on their personal feelings and/or preferences. In summary, independent self-construal provides the psychological mechanisms through which vertical individualism moderates the supervisory injustice-sabotage association. Hypothesis 2: Employees’ independent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Another related construct that could help explain the moderating role of vertical individualism in the supervisory injustice and sabotage association concerns people’s face 33  concerns. “Face” has been defined as “a claimed sense of favourable social self-worth that a person wants others to have of her or him” (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998, p. 187). The notion of face concern was developed from face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988) to explain different individual styles (e.g., dominating, avoiding, integrating, etc.) to deal with interpersonal conflicts. Three face concerns were proposed: (a) self-face concern, which refers to “the concern for one’s own positive image”; (b) other-face concern, which refers to “the concern for others’ positive image”; and (c) mutual-face concern, which refers to “the concerns for both parties’ images and/or the ‘image’ of the relationship” (Oetzel & TingToomey, 2003, p. 603). Among all these three types of face concerns, self-face concern is theorized to explain the moderating role of vertical individualism in the injustice-sabotage association for the following reasons. As discussed above, people high on vertical individualism emphasize the competition with and winning over others (Singelis et al., 1995). It is likely that people high on vertical individualism care about their positive self image (i.e., high on self-face concern) because winning over others are associated with positive message of self image. Stated differently, it is theorized that people high on vertical individualism have higher self-face concern than those low on vertical individualism (e.g., Brew & Cairns, 2004). When employees high (versus low) on self-face concern are treated unfairly by supervisors, the formers are more likely to feel that their self-face are challenged and threatened and experience the feeling of “losing face”. Thus, employees high (versus low) on self-face concern are more likely to react negatively to such threat to self-face (e.g., engaging in sabotage). In short, self-face concern can provide the psychological mechanism through which vertical individualism moderates the supervisory injustice-employee sabotage association. Empirical research supports the notion that self-face concern accounts for the 34  association between culture and people’s conflict management styles when handling interpersonal conflicts. Specifically, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003) studied the conflict management styles of 768 participants from four countries (i.e., China, Germany, Japan, and the United States). They found that individualism was positively associated with dominating conflict management style and self-face concern mediated the relationship between individualism and one’s dominating conflict management style. In line with these arguments, I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Employees’ self-face concern mediates the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. In contrast to vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism is also likely to moderate the supervisory injustice-sabotage association. As discussed earlier, the relational perspective of justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988) suggests that people care about justice because fair treatment from supervisors is an indication of identity and status in the group. People high on horizontal collectivism tend to define themselves as a member of a social collective (Singelis et al., 1995), thus, they pay more attention to their social identity as a group member and their social status in the group than those low on horizontal collectivism. Moreover, people high on horizontal collectivism emphasize the similarity of self to others and the equality among self and others (Singelis et al., 1995). When people high on horizontal collectivism are treated unfairly by their supervisors, they can feel that such unfair treatment conveys negative information about their social identity and status, which signals that they are not valued by their group and are not treated equally with other group members. Thus, employees high (versus low) on horizontal collectivism are likely to react more negatively toward supervisory injustice because such unfair treatment derogates their positive self35  concepts and self-esteem, which mainly comes from their social identity as a group member equal with other members. In short, the relational concerns of unfair treatment matter more for employees high (versus low) on horizontal collectivism. Hypothesis 4: Horizontal collectivism moderates the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low horizontal collectivism values. As discussed above, by understanding the role of self-construal, we can better understand why vertical individualism moderates the supervisory injustice-employee sabotage association. Similarly, interdependent self-construal might explain why horizontal collectivism qualifies the supervisory injustice-sabotage association. Employees high on horizontal collectivism tend to have an interdependent self-construal. Such interdependent self-construal implies that employees high on horizontal collectivism react more negatively toward supervisory injustice than those low on horizontal collectivism because people with an interdependent self-construal care more about their social identity as a group member. That is, interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the injustice-sabotage association because horizontal collectivists have an interdependent self-construal, which make them more sensitive to supervisory injustice because such unfair treatment derogates their social identities. Hypothesis 5: Employees’ interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Moreover, the relational perspective implicates the role of self-worth and self-esteem in explaining people’s justice concerns and reactions (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). I focus on organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) because researchers have argued that self36  esteem is a concept with multiple facets (e.g., global self-esteem, role-specific self-esteem, task- or situation-specific self-esteem, organization-specific self-esteem, etc.) (e.g., Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976) and we should align the facet of self-esteem with the context in which our research has occurred (Song & Hattie, 1985). Organization-based selfesteem “reflects the self-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organizational members acting within an organizational context” (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989, p. 625) and has been shown to predict organization-related attitudes and behaviors (Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993). It is plausible that organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of horizontal collectivism and supervisory injustice on employee sabotage due to the following reasons. From the relational perspective, mistreatment from supervisors derogates one’s self-concepts as a group member, which in turn has detrimental impacts on ones’ organization-based self-esteem (Lind & Tyler, 1988). In addition, such detrimental impacts on organization-based self-esteem are more pronounced for employees high (versus low) on horizontal collectivism because organization-based self-esteem of the formers is damaged more easily when their social identity and status are challenged. That is, supervisory injustice interacts with employees’ horizontal collectivism value in predicting employees’ organization-based self-esteem such that the injustice-self-esteem association is stronger for employees with high (versus low) horizontal collectivism values. In addition, it has been shown that employees can react in dysfunctional ways (e.g., engage in sabotage) to cope with workplace stressful events (e.g., damaged self-esteem and/or well-being caused by supervisory injustice) (e.g., Lau, Au, & Ho, 2003). Indeed, considerable research supports that threat or damage to one’s self-esteem (e.g., caused by unfair treatment from supervisor) can determine their subsequent negative reactions (e.g., 37  aggressive behaviors; retaliation, sabotage, etc.) (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, in press; Salmivalli, 2001; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Their findings support the notion that decreased self-esteem (caused by unfair treatment) lead to negative reactions (e.g., revenge, retaliation, sabotage) to the source of unfair treatment because the retaliation or sabotage behavior can help to validate one’s self-worth through the expense of the transgressor (Crossley, 2009; Fein & Spencer, 1997). Stated differently, sabotaging the source of the injustice might help employees to reduce tension and frustration caused by damaged self-esteem (e.g., Ackroyd & Thompson 1999; Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2010; Taylor & Walton, 1971). Bobocel and Zdaniuk (2010), for example, found that interpersonal unfairness can threaten a victim’s self-esteem. Based on self-esteem maintenance model the victim tends to engage in retaliatory behavior toward the sources of the interpersonal injustice as a way to restore self-esteem. Thus, employees’ sabotage reaction toward supervisor can be the consequence of their damaged organization-based selfesteem resulting from unfair treatment from supervisors. Taken together, it is predicted that organization-based self-esteem provides the psychological mechanism through which the two-way interaction between horizontal collectivism and supervisory injustice relates to employee sabotage. Hypothesis 6: Employees’ organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of horizontal collectivism and supervisory injustice on sabotage toward supervisor. As explained earlier, the interdependent self-construal is predicted to mediate the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the supervisory injustice-sabotage toward supervisor association. Stated differently, the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the injustice-sabotage association are achieved through interdependent self-construal. Thus, 38  interdependent self-construal might also interact with supervisory injustice in predicting sabotage toward supervisor. As proposed in Hypothesis 6, organization-based self-esteem is likely to mediate the two-way interaction between supervisory injustice and horizontal collectivism on employee sabotage. It is plausible that organization-based self-esteem also mediates the two-way interaction between interdependent self-construal and supervisory injustice on employee sabotage for similar reasons. The relational perspective suggests that supervisory injustice is associated with employees’ damaged organization-based self-esteem. This association is likely to be stronger for employees with high (versus low) interdependent self-construal because those high on interdependent self-construal feel worse about themselves when their social status and identities are derogated. That is, interdependent self-construal interacts with supervisory injustice in predicting employees’ organization-based self-esteem. As discussed earlier, employees might engage in sabotage in order to cope with damaged or decreased self-esteem (Crossley, 2009; Fein & Spencer, 1997). Taken together, it is theorized that employees’ organization-based self-esteem mediates the relationship between the two-way interaction of interdependent self-construal with supervisory injustice and the subsequent sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 7: Employees’ organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of interdependent self-construal and supervisory injustice on sabotage toward supervisor. 3.4 Cultural Values in the Customer Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association In the previous section, I discussed the moderating role of two cultural values in the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor from the instrumental and relational perspectives. In this section, I focus on the association between 39  customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Three justice perspectives help to explain why frontline employees react negatively toward customer injustice. From the instrumental perspective, unfair treatment from customer influences the economic (e.g., increased difficulty in carrying out duties) and socio-emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling of frustration) resulting from the exchange between employees and customers. From the uncertainty management perspective, customer injustice can increase the uncertainty for service employees to carry out their duties, which in turn lead to more anxiety and discomfort associated with the increased uncertainty. From the moral perspective, service employees might perceive the unfair treatment from customer as violation of moral virtues. I selected cultural values theoretically relevant to all the three justice perspectives, namely horizontal individualism, vertical collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and locus of control, and discuss the role of these values in the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. 3.4.1 Individualism-Collectivism, Self-Construal and Face Concerns The instrumental perspective states that people react negatively to injustice because unfair treatment can result in unfavourable outcomes, which threats and challenges one’s self-interest. If this theory holds, horizontal individualism and vertical collectivism are expected to qualify the customer injustice and sabotage association. I elaborate on these predictions in the following paragraphs. As noted above, people high on horizontal individualism perceive the self as independent from and equal in status with others (Singelis et al., 1995). From the instrumental perspective, when employees high (versus low) on horizontal individualism are treated unfairly by customers, they are more likely to react negatively because unfair treatment from customers can diminish the employee’s status relative to the customer’s 40  status, which challenges their desire for independence and equality. Stated differently, employees high on horizontal individualism value independence and equality between themselves and others; however, unfair treatment from customer can send out such signals that customers can be rude or disrespectful to employees because (a) both the company and service employees are dependent on customers for profits and (b) customers are having higher status over employees. That is, unfair treatment from customer can result in negative socio-emotional outcomes for service employees (e.g., feeling of inequality). Given that employees high (versus low) on horizontal individualism value more about independence and equality, they are more likely to react negatively to customer injustice. In line with these arguments: Hypothesis 8: Horizontal individualism moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low horizontal individualism values. As proposed in Hypothesis 2, independent self-construal is predicted to mediate the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the supervisory injustice-sabotage toward supervisor association. It is plausible that independent self-construal also explains the moderating effects of horizontal individualism in the customer injustice-sabotage toward customer association for the following reasons. Employees high on horizontal individualism have an independent self-construal. People with an independent self-construal emphasize the uniqueness and independence in their sense of self. As discussed earlier, however, customer injustice can signal to employees that customers see themselves as more important to the organization than employees because they can bring profits. Customers can take advantage of such power to abuse employees (Grandey et al., 2004). Thus, when employees with high independent self-construal are treated unfairly by customers, they are likely to react more 41  negatively (e.g., engage in customer-directed sabotage) than those with low independent self-construal because customer injustice challenges their sense of self, and sabotage can “put the offensive customers in their place”. In summary, employees’ independent selfconstrual can provide the psychological mechanism through which employees’ horizontal individualism value moderates the customer injustice-sabotage association. Hypothesis 9: Employees’ independent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of horizontal individualism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. In contrast, vertical collectivism is proposed to moderate the customer injusticeemployee sabotage association in a different fashion than horizontal individualism. As noted above, people high on vertical collectivism perceive the self as interdependent yet unequal in status with others (Singelis et al., 1995). Vertical collectivists accept inequality and are willing to sacrifice personal interest for their group (Singelis et al., 1995). Taking the instrumental perspective, when employees high (versus low) on vertical collectivism are treated unfairly by customers, they are less likely to react negatively because they put their personal feelings, rights, goals, and interest in a secondary position. Stated differently, employees high on vertical collectivism suppress their own preferences, and are less likely to react negatively toward customer injustice than those low on vertical collectivism. Thus, when employees high on vertical collectivism are deemed to be treated in a morally incorrect manner by customers, they are less likely to engage in customer-directed sabotage than those low on vertical collectivism because they prioritize groups’ benefits over their personal feelings and self-interest. Hypothesis 10: Vertical collectivism moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among 42  employees with low versus high vertical collectivism values. As proposed in Hypothesis 5, employees’ interdependent self-construal was predicted to mediate the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the supervisory injusticesabotage toward supervisor association. It is plausible that interdependent self-construal can also explain the moderating effects of vertical collectivism in the customer injusticesabotage toward customer association for the following reasons. Employees high on vertical collectivism have an interdependent self-construal. People with a high interdependent selfconstrual emphasize the relatedness with others rather than personal uniqueness and preferences. When employees with high (versus low) interdependent self-construal are treated unfairly by customers, they are less likely to react negatively because they can accept the loss in personal interest and sacrifice personal preferences and feelings. In summary, employees’ interdependent self-construal help to explain the psychological mechanism through which employees’ vertical collectivism moderates the customer injustice-employee sabotage association. Hypothesis 11: Employees’ interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of vertical collectivism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. One construct that helps explain the moderating role of vertical collectivism in the customer injustice and employees’ customer-directed sabotage association involves individuals’ other-face concern. As discussed earlier, other-face concern refers to the concern for others’ positive image (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). It is theorized that other-face concern can explain the moderating role of vertical collectivism in the above injusticesabotage association for the following reasons. As noted above, vertical collectivists accept inequality and are willing to sacrifice 43  personal interest for their group (Singelis et al., 1995). It is likely that people high on vertical collectivism care more about others’ positive image (i.e., high on other-face concern) and care less about one’s self positive image (i.e., low on self-face concern). This is because sacrificing personal interest for others is associated with protecting the positive image of others and downplaying the protection of positive image for self. Stated differently, it is theorized that people high on vertical collectivism have higher other-face concern than those low on vertical collectivism (e.g., Leung & Chan, 1999). When employees with high (versus low) other-face concern are treated unfairly by customers, they are less likely to engage in customer-directed sabotage because they are concerned with others’ “face” and sabotaging behaviours can challenge and threaten customers’ “face”. In short, other-face concern provides the psychological mechanism through which vertical collectivism moderates the customer injustice-employee sabotage association. Empirical research supports that other-face concern helps explain the association between culture and people’s conflict management styles to handle interpersonal conflicts. Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003), for example, studied the conflict management styles of 768 participants from four countries (i.e., China, Germany, Japan, and the United States). They proposed that collectivism is associated with other-face concern, which in turn lead to the use of avoiding (rather than dominating) as the conflict management style to deal with interpersonal conflicts. Their findings support that collectivism is positively associated with avoiding conflict management style and other-face concern mediates the relationship between collectivism and taking an avoiding style. This research implies that other-face concern helps explain why culture relates to people’s conflict management strategies in the theorized fashion. Taken together, I proposed the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 12: Employees’ other-face concern mediates the moderating effects of 44  vertical collectivism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. 3.4.2 Uncertainty Avoidance As discussed earlier, the uncertainty management perspective suggests that people react positively to fair treatment because perceptions of fairness can reduce uncertainty (e.g., whether the authority is trustworthy or not) or at least alleviate the discomfort associated with uncertainty (Elovainio et al., 2005). Perceptions of injustice, in contrast, can generate uncertainty and exacerbate the associated discomfort. Reb, Goldman, Kray and Cropanzano (2006), for example, proposed that injustice perceptions (e.g., procedural injustice) can increase uncertainty through decreasing one’s influence in decision-making process. In response, individuals can engage in “self-protective or even competitive actions” as a way to relieve uncertainty (Lind & van den Bos, 2002, p. 196). Customer injustice is likely to contribute to uncertainty for service employees. A demanding or unreasonable request from customer, for example, can involve employees dealing with issues beyond their control or their job responsibility, leading to a sense of unease and discomfort. The discomfort can drive people to aggressive actions aiming at harming the source of injustice (Lind & van den Bos, 2002). In short, customer service employees can engage in customer-directed sabotage as a way to restore fairness, and relieve the uncertainty arising from the unfairness and to mitigate the negative affect (e.g., discomfort) associated with the uncertainty. Insofar as this perspective holds, I expect that uncertainty avoidance qualifies the association between customer injustice and sabotage for the following reasons. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent that individuals are comfortable with ambiguity (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). People with high uncertainty avoidance values tend 45  to be active, aggressive, emotional, security-seeking, and intolerant, whereas people low on uncertainty avoidance are contemplative, less aggressive, unemotional, accepting of personal risk, and relatively tolerant (Vitell, Nwachukwu, & Barnes, 1993). Individuals high on uncertainty avoidance prefer clear, structured, and predictable rather than ambiguous, unstructured, and unpredictable situations (Hofstede, 1993). Those high on uncertainty avoidance attach importance to clear rules and procedures and they strictly follow codes of behavior and they get anxious when things are different, unexpected, or unpredictable. That is, individuals high on uncertainty avoidance are more uncomfortable with ambiguous situation than those low on uncertainty avoidance. Given that people high on uncertainty avoidance are likely to be aggressive, emotional, and security-seeking (Vitell et al., 1993) and they loathe uncertainty, thus, employees high (versus low) on uncertainty avoidance are more likely to react negatively toward customer injustice because they are less able to endure the discomfort and uncertainty resulting from the unfair treatment. Stated differently, the former have the stronger tendency to relieve the uncertainty through engaging in competitive actions (e.g., sabotage the customers) as compared to the latter who are more comfortable with uncertainty. Ren (2007), for instance, found that the association between distributive justice and normative commitment to the organization was stronger among employees high (versus low) on uncertainty avoidance. In line with these arguments, I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 13: Uncertainty avoidance moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees high versus low on uncertainty avoidance. 3.4.3 Power Distance As noted above, the moral perspective suggests that service employees are likely to 46  react negatively to customer injustice through engaging in sabotage because they believe the unfair customers violate the moral norm thus should be punished for their transgression. If this theory holds, I expect power distance to qualify the association between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage. As explained earlier, power distance concerns the degree to which people accept the unequal distribution of power across different social hierarchies. Low power distance individuals often seek for equality in power distribution and request justification for inequalities. In contrast, people with high power distance values accept that people possessing high status should have more power over those having low status. Moreover, high power distance people tend to be submissive to their superiors and are unlikely to disobey the instructions of authorities. That is, people high versus low on power distance are more likely to defer to power and perceive the unfair treatment from high-status others as morally acceptable (James, 1992; Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 1995). As a result of the mantra of “customer is always right” that is common to many companies in the customer service industry; customers have considerable power over employees. This appears to the case in many parts of the world, including China (Wang, Lo, Chi, & Yang, 2004). Evidence suggests that the power gap between customers and service employees is increasing (Gettman & Gelfand, 2007; Handy, 2006; Yagil, 2008). Thus, when experiencing customer injustice, service employees high versus low on power distance are less likely to react to customer injustice by engaging in customer-directed sabotage because the former can perceive the injustice from customers as more morally acceptable. Consistent with these arguments, research has found that the relationship between justice perceptions (e.g., procedural justice) and employees’ reactions (e.g., organizational commitment) is stronger among employees low (versus high) on power distance (e.g., Brockner et al., 2001; 47  Lam et al., 2002; Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000). In line with these arguments: Hypothesis 14: Power distance moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with low versus high power distance values. 3.4.4 Locus of Control Another concept related to the moral perspective concerns one’s locus of control. As I explain in this section, it is theorized that locus of control can qualify the customer injustice and sabotage toward customer association. In the following paragraphs, I explain its definition and cultural relevance, and elaborate on its moderating role in customer injustice effects. Originally developed from social learning theory (Rotter, 1954) as an individual difference factor, locus of control concerns the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as responsible for their own fates (Trompenaars, 1993). Indeed, theoretical and empirical research suggests that locus of control can be an important cultural value (e.g., Steiner, 2001). Smith, Trompennaars, and Dugan (1995), for instance, validated Rotter’s (1966) locus of control scale in 43 countries and found that locus of control correlated with cultural values such as individualism-collectivism (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), and mastery over versus harmony with environment (Schwartz, 2008). Their findings not only validate Rotter’s scale but also demonstrate the cultural relevance of locus of control. As discussed above, the moral perspective states that people react negatively to unfair treatment because treating people unfairly violate moral norms. Such violation triggers a reaction to punish the transgressor. Insofar as this theory holds, locus of control is theorized to qualify the customer injustice and sabotage association because people with internal (versus external) locus of control differ in the tendency to act on perceived moral 48  violation (e.g., received unfair treatment). While individuals with internal locus of control generally take responsibility for their own actions, individuals with external locus of control do not do so (Trevino, 1986). That is, individuals with external locus of control tend to attribute causes of or controls over events to forces outside themselves. In contrast, individuals with internal locus of control attribute the causes of or controls over events to themselves (Lin & Ding, 2003). Thus, when employees are unfairly treated by customers, high internals are more likely to retaliate for such moral violation by engaging in customerdirected sabotage than high externals because the formers perceive greater control over their own fate. That is, high internals are likely to perceive that they are responsible for their own fate, thus, they could act on their experienced injustice through fixing the injustice in their own way (e.g., retaliate for unfair treatment by sabotaging). Whereas high externals might perceive themselves as powerless to control their own fate, they might not act on their experienced injustice because they feel that some external forces might fix the injustice for them. Hypothesis 15: Locus of control moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with internal versus external locus of control. 3.5 Individual Difference Factors in the Customer Injustice-Employee Sabotage Association In the previous section, I discussed the role of several cultural values in the customer injustice and sabotage toward customer associations. While these cultural values contribute to our knowledge of the differences in employees’ reactions to unfair treatment from customers, some individual difference factors are necessary to be incorporated into the theoretical model to make better understanding of variation of justice effects among 49  individuals. The reasons for considering individual difference factors were explained at the beginning of this chapter. Specifically, I focus on three individual difference factors: exchange ideology (i.e., negative reciprocity norm), justice orientation, and belief in ultimate justice because of their likely relevance to cultural and religious values and beliefs. 3.5.1 Exchange Ideology Exchange ideology, developed from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), concerns individuals’ beliefs regarding the norm of reciprocity in their social exchange relationships with the collective (e.g., organization, group) (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Individuals high on exchange ideology are more sensitive to obligations and care more about reciprocity in their social exchange relationships than those with low exchange ideology (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Researchers have differentiated between positive and negative exchange: (a) negative reciprocity norm, which concerns the tendency to pay back unfavourable treatment for mistreatment; and (b) positive reciprocity norm, which refers to the tendency to reciprocate favourable treatment for positive treatment (e.g., Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004; Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2003). Eisenberger et al. (2004), for instance, tested the exchange ideology in interpersonal relationships and found that individuals with high negative reciprocity norm were more likely to retaliate when receiving unfavourable treatment from others than those with low negative reciprocity norm. They also propose that the endorsement of negative reciprocity norm was independent (or orthogonal) from the endorsement of positive reciprocity norm. Cultural values can determine the exchange ideology that individuals adopt when dealing with their social exchange relationships with social entities or others. Specifically, 50  research documented that culture can shape individuals’ exchange ideology through determining what constitutes the proper reaction to a favour or a harm that individuals receive from their exchange partners (Henrich & Henrich, 2007). In line with these arguments, I propose that both Chinese and North American individuals’ exchange ideology is affected by their cultural backgrounds. Confucianism has had significant impact on people’s beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors in China. Regarding interpersonal relationships, Confucius emphasized “loyalty and forgiveness” (e.g., “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself”-by Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. Hinton, 1998). Thus, Chinese people in general are more likely to forgive negative treatment from others (i.e., they tend to have low negative reciprocity norm). North American cultures and religious beliefs, in contrast, emphasize high negative reciprocity norm. In North America, retaliation for mistreatment is perceived as moral obligation and could also serve as a way to prevent mistreatment, thus, vengeance for mistreatment receives social acceptance and endorsement (Eisenberger et al., 2004). Such values are also expressed by biblical injunctions: “A life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:2325, New American Standard Version). In short, negative reciprocity norm is related to the cultural values (e.g., Confucianism) and religious beliefs (e.g., Christianism) particularly among Chinese and North American people. As implied by moral perspective, service employees engage in sabotage toward the customer as a way to punish the rude and disrespectful customers. It is likely that negative reciprocity norm can qualify the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. The rationale lies in when service employees receive unfair treatment from customers, those high (versus low) on reciprocity norm are more likely to retaliate for the  51  experienced injustice, because they perceive the retaliation for bad treatment as the right thing to do. In line with these arguments, I propose that: Hypothesis 16: Negative reciprocity norm moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low negative reciprocity norm. 3.5.2 Justice Orientation The notion of justice orientation stems from the moral perspective of organizational justice (e.g., deonance theory of justice) (Folger, 1998, 2001). According to the deontic model of justice (Folger, 2001), all individuals hold justice as a moral virtue, which in turn guides their attitudinal and behavioural reactions toward their direct or indirect (un)fair experiences. Indeed, research has shown that individuals vary in the extent to which they hold justice as a moral virtue (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington, 2003; Liao & Rupp, 2005). Justice orientation was proposed to describe such individual difference in relating justice to morality. Justice orientation has been defined as “the extent to which individuals internalize justice as a moral virtue and are attentive to issues of fairness around them” (Liao & Rupp, 2005, p. 244). I include justice orientation in the model because it not only determines individuals’ reactions toward (un)fair events happened to them or around them, but it is also likely to arise from social and cultural norms/values. Justice orientation concerns the degree of internalization of justice issues into moral concerns and the sensitivity to (in)justice occurred (Liao & Rupp, 2005). As proposed by Steiner (2001), cultural values determine people’s expectations of fair treatment and their reactions toward such treatment. That is, people in different cultures have different expectations of justice. Thus, people from different cultures might internalize justice issues into moral concerns to different degrees and have different 52  sensitivity to justice issues. People with high expectations of fair treatment (e.g., low power distance cultures), for example, might to a large extent internalize fairness into moral virtues and are more sensitive to justice issues, whereas people with low expectations of fair treatment (e.g., high power distance cultures) might not internalize fairness as moral concerns and are less sensitive to justice issues. The notion of “filial piety” proposed by Confucius is particularly pertinent to Chinese people’s justice orientation. The term “filial” concerns that a child (originally a son) should respect his parents. Later on, this relationship was extended to a series of Five Bonds: (a) father to son; (b) ruler to minister; (c) husband to wife; (d) elder brother to younger brother; and (e) friend to friend. Except for the last relationship, participants have unequal status and power in the first four relationships with father, ruler, husband, and elder brother having higher status and more power over the other participants in the specific relationship. These five bonds to a large extent imply an unequal distribution of power in the interpersonal relationships in China. In such cultural context, people with lower status and power are expected to respect and listen to those having higher status and power. It is possible that fairness is not expected to exist in the interpersonal relationships in which two parties have unequal power and status. People are less likely to be sensitive to justice issues and/or internalize justice principles into moral virtues in those relationships. That is, individuals’ cultural background determines their justice sensitivity and the internalization of justice, which associate with justice orientation. In summary, although justice orientation is defined as an individual difference variable, it has cultural relevance and can be determined by cultural values. By definition, individuals with high justice orientation internalize justice principles as moral virtues and are sensitive to justice issues around them. Individuals with low justice 53  orientation in contrast are less likely to incorporate justice issues into moral domain and are less likely to pick up (in)justice cues around them (Rupp et al., 2003). According to moral perspective, service employees react negatively to customer injustice because they perceive injustice as morally wrong. It is theorized that justice orientation moderates the customer injustice and sabotage association for the following reasons. When being treated unfairly by customers, employees with high justice orientation might be more sensitive to the injustice, and more likely to interpret such unfair treatment as violation of morality, and are more likely to feel the moral outrage, thus, they might be more likely to retaliate against the transgressors for their immoral conduct than those with low justice orientation. In line with these arguments, I proposed that: Hypothesis 17: Justice orientation moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low justice orientation. 3.5.3 Belief in Ultimate Justice Another individual difference factor relevant to the customer injustice and employee sabotage association is belief in ultimate justice. Lerner (1980) proposed the concept of belief in a just world and argued that people possessing the belief in a just world consider the world as stable, orderly, and logical and believe that everyone gets what they deserve and deserve what they get. Later on, Lerner and his colleagues argued that people can adopt different approaches to maintain their belief in a just world. One way is to incorporate time perspective with the just world belief. Consistent with Lerner’s arguments, Maes (1998) proposed the notion of belief in ultimate justice, which concerns “expectation of future justice” and has been defined as “the tendency to believe that forthcoming events will settle any injustice that has occurred” (Maes & Schmitt, 1999, p. 67). 54  I include this concept in the model because the time perspective of a just world is likely to differ as a function of cultural and religious values. In China, for example, people with strong belief in a just world are likely to be impacted by the values of Buddhism. One of the core values of Buddhism is that people will be reborn after they die and good behaviours and misconducts determine one’s future in this life and their next life. That is, those who do bad things will be punished (while those who do good things will be rewarded) in future and/or in their next life. These values suggest that Chinese individuals’ definition of a just world is in a relative long-term fashion and is future-oriented. This is consistent with the notion of belief in ultimate justice. In contrast, people with Western cultural and religious values might define a just world in a short-term fashion (e.g., tit for tat). That is, people in North America might not have strong expectation for future justice, rather they tend to believe in immediate or instant justice. Such difference in time orientation in defining a just world implies that people with strong versus weak belief in ultimate justice might exhibit different behavioural reactions toward others’ misconducts (e.g., unfair treatment). This is elaborated below. Belief in ultimate justice serves as one of the psychological mechanisms for individuals to deal with things occurred in the environments (e.g., interpersonal relationships). According to Maes (1998), belief in ultimate justice can help individuals to endure the unfairness that has happened in their life because people can expect that the occurred injustice can be fixed in future. Stated differently, individuals with strong (versus weak) belief in ultimate justice are more likely to cope functionally with the injustice in their life because they expect that the unfairness will be restored sometime in future. When service employees experience unfair treatment from customers, those with strong belief in ultimate justice are more likely to believe that the unfair customers will be punished for their 55  misconducts later on than those with weak belief in ultimate justice. Thus, employees with strong (versus weak) belief in a just world are less likely to revenge for customer injustice by engaging in sabotage because they believe the punishment on the customers will occur in future. Taken together, employees with strong (versus weak) belief in ultimate justice are less likely to revenge for customer injustice because the formers tend to believe that the wrongdoers will be punished in future and justice will be served eventually. In line with these arguments: Hypothesis 18: Belief in ultimate justice moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is weaker among employees with strong versus weak belief in ultimate justice. 3.6 Cultural Values as Mediators in Explaining Between-Country Differences In the previous three sections, I discussed the moderating role of several individuallevel cultural values in the supervisory and customer (in)justice and sabotage toward supervisor and customer relationships. In addition to exploring the role of individual-level cultural values as a moderator in the relationship between injustice and sabotage, I also investigated their roles as mediators in explaining country-level differences in justice effects. Stated differently, to the extent that between-country differences exist in justice effects, I examined whether individual-level cultural values account for (i.e., mediate) the betweencountry difference in justice effects. As explained in the introduction, I selected China as the non-North American comparative setting because China and North American countries vary on multiple cultural dimensions that have theoretically relevant implications for individuals’ attitudes and behaviours (Lytle et al., 1995). Specifically, in this section, I explored whether justice effects differ between China and North America and whether cultural values account for the between-country differences. 56  3.6.1 Between-Country Differences in Supervisory Justice Effects As stated in Hypothesis 1, I expected that the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor is stronger among service employees high (versus low) on vertical individualism. According to Hofstede and his colleagues, people in China in general are lower on individualism as compared to people in North America (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Thus, I expect that the effect of supervisory (in)justice on sabotage toward supervisor is stronger in North America than in China. The theory for predicting differences between the two countries was that people in the two countries differ on individualism. To test the theory, I predicted that cultural value (i.e., individualism) accounts for the between-country differences in the supervisory (in)justice and sabotage toward supervisor linkage. One thing worth of mentioning: in previous sections, I differentiated among vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism when I developed hypotheses regarding their moderating effects in justice and sabotage associations because they are independent (orthogonal) at the individual level. When considering country-level cultural differences, individualism and collectivism fall along the two opposite poles of the same continuum. That is, for a single country, high individualism equates low collectivism. Thus, for the following mediation hypotheses, I did not differentiate between vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism, but treat individualism as the opposite to collectivism. Taken together, I predicted the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 19: The association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor is stronger in North America than in China.  57  Hypothesis 20: Cultural value (i.e., individualism) accounts for (i.e., mediates) the between-country difference in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. 3.6.2 Between-Country Differences in Customer Injustice Effects As stated in Hypotheses 8, 13, and 14, I expected that the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer is stronger among service employees high (versus low) on horizontal individualism and uncertainty avoidance and among employees low (versus high) on power distance. According to Hofstede and his colleagues, people in China in general are lower on individualism and uncertainty avoidance whereas higher on power distance as compared to people in North America (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Thus, I expected that the effect of customer (in)justice on sabotage toward customer is stronger in North America than in China. In short, theory implies that the cross-country differences in customer injustice effects are due to the fact that these countries differ on individualism, uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Taken together, I predicted the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 21: The association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer is stronger in North America than in China. Hypothesis 22: Cultural values (individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance) account for (i.e., mediate) the between-country difference in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. 3.7 Summary of Hypotheses All the hypotheses proposed in this chapter are summarized as follows. 3.7.1 Cultural Values in Supervisory (In)justice and Sabotage Association Hypothesis 1: Vertical individualism moderates the association between supervisory 58  injustice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low vertical individualism values. Hypothesis 2: Employees’ independent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 3: Employees’ self-face concern mediates the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 4: Horizontal collectivism moderates the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low horizontal collectivism values. Hypothesis 5: Employees’ interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of horizontal collectivism in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 6: Employees’ organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of horizontal collectivism and supervisory injustice on sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 7: Employees’ organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of interdependent self-construal and supervisory injustice on sabotage toward supervisor. 3.7.2 Cultural Values in Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association Hypothesis 8: Horizontal individualism moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low horizontal individualism values. 59  Hypothesis 9: Employees’ independent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of horizontal individualism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Hypothesis 10: Vertical collectivism moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with low versus high vertical collectivism values. Hypothesis 11: Employees’ interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effects of vertical collectivism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Hypothesis 12: Employees’ other-face concern mediates the moderating effects of vertical collectivism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Hypothesis 13: Uncertainty avoidance moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees high versus low on uncertainty avoidance. Hypothesis 14: Power distance moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with low versus high power distance values. Hypothesis 15: Locus of control moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with internal versus external locus of control. 3.7.3 Individual Difference Factors in Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association Hypothesis 16: Negative reciprocity norm moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger 60  among employees with high versus low negative reciprocity norm. Hypothesis 17: Justice orientation moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is stronger among employees with high versus low justice orientation. Hypothesis 18: Belief in ultimate justice moderates the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association is weaker among employees with strong versus weak belief in ultimate justice. 3.7.4 Cultural Values as Mediators in Explaining Between-Country Differences Hypothesis 19: The association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor is stronger in North America than in China. Hypothesis 20: Cultural value (i.e., individualism) accounts for (i.e., mediates) the between-country difference in the association between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. Hypothesis 21: The association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer is stronger in North America than in China. Hypothesis 22: Cultural values (individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance) account for (i.e., mediate) the between-country difference in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. 3.8 Overview of Study 1 and Study 2 Methods I conducted two field studies to test the hypotheses. In Study 1, I conducted withincountry (i.e., China) field research to examine the moderating role of cultural values in the justice and sabotage associations. As researchers have argued, within-country cultural differences are as large as or even larger than between-country cultural differences (Au, 1999; Brockner, 2005). Thus, examining the moderating role of cultural values in the 61  relationship between justice and sabotage in a within-country design can also shed light on our understanding of how cultural values qualify justice effects. In Study 2, I conducted a cross-cultural comparative field study to examine whether between-country differences in justice effects exist and whether cultural values account for the between-country differences.  62  4. Study 1 4.1 Method 4.1.1 Participants I conducted a field study of front-line employees working in six hotels (which are operated by three major international hotel management corporations) in two cities (i.e., Beijing, and Tianjin) in China (N = 418). All these international hotels provide service to both national and international business travelers and tourists. Paper surveys (N = 480 surveys) were administered to employees and were completed and collected on-site. I sampled only employees who dealt face-to-face with customers on a regular basis as part of their job (i.e., front desk receptionists and waitperson in the restaurants of the hotels). The response rate was 87% on average (with response rate in each hotel as 84%, 80%, 89%, 85%, 100%, and 76% respectively). Participating employees were originally from different cities across mainland China. Before pooling the participants, I conducted regression analyses to check whether the association between justice and sabotage differ across the six hotels or differ across the two cities or differ across the three hotel brands. Results revealed that the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor and the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer did not differ significantly by hotels or by cities or by hotel brands. This was done to rule out possible factors associated with hotel or brand (e.g., customer service standards or policies) or city that can explain differences in justice effects. Moreover, all the six hotels are affiliated with three major international hotel brands. In service industries, international hotel chains follow comparable customer service standards in order to be competitive for market share (Wang et al., 2004). The two cities in  63  China are adjacent geographically and are similar in terms of population density, unemployment rate, and economic growth indices. This information also helps to rule out the possible influence of confounding factors in justice effects. Among the pooled sample, 226 (54%) were female, their average age was 26.46 years (SD = 3.74), and their average tenure was 3.10 years (SD = 4.12). The human resource directors in these hotels confirmed that these demographics were representative of their customer service workforce. 4.1.2 Measures Wherever available, I selected measures validated in China. For constructs that did not have valid measures (i.e., customer injustice and sabotage toward customer), I used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) to develop content valid measures. Customer injustice. I used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) to develop a measure of customer injustice because (a) no customer injustice scales exist that reflect the unfair treatment from customers in a service setting mainly involving face-to-face interaction with customers; and (b) research supports that this technique generates content-valid measures of behavior (Levine, Ash, Hall, & Sistrunk, 1983). First, I conducted two focus groups of 3 - 4 subject matter experts (i.e., front-line employees) in one of the five hotels. I asked the focus group participants to provide me with specific examples of times when they felt unfairly treated by customers. This process generated 15 incidents in total. I then verified that the incidents made sense to employees in the other hotels through checking with 3 - 4 front-line employees in each of the other five hotels. I eliminated duplicate incidents and incidents that did not conform to the definition of interpersonal and informational injustice from customers (e.g., incidents pertinent to sexual harassment from customers were excluded because such behaviors are more closely related 64  to customer abuse/aggression than customer injustice). I rewrote the remaining nine incidents into a behavioral scale and administered the scale in the survey. The responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently). I then analyzed the items using principle component analysis with a varimax rotation. I further eliminated three items because they cross-loaded onto more than one factor. Following guidelines by Haire, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), the remaining six items (see Appendix A) formed one factor (with an eigenvalue > 1) that accounted for 60.07% of the variance. I averaged these items to form the measure, with larger numbers indicating higher (versus lower) levels of customer injustice. Participants who served as subject matter experts in focus groups did not participate in the survey. Customer-directed sabotage. I used the same technique described above to develop a content-valid scale of service employees’ customer-directed sabotage in a hotel context. The focus group participants were asked to describe specific behavioral examples of how they dealt with the unfair treatment from a customer. I selected 13 incidents that fit Crino’s (1994) definition of sabotage: “damaged or disrupted the organization’s operations by creating delays in production, damaging property, the destruction of relationships, or the harming of employees or customers” (p. 312). I rewrote them into a behavioral scale and administered it in the survey. The responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently). I subjected the items to principle component analysis with a varimax rotation. I eliminated six items because they cross-loaded onto more than one factor. Examination of the scree plot revealed that the remaining seven items (see Appendix B) all loaded on one factor (eigenvalue > 1) that accounted for 66.25% of the variance (Haire et al., 2006). I averaged these seven items to form the measure. Supervisory justice. I used Colquitt’s (2001) 8-item scale to measure supervisory 65  justice (i.e., informational and interpersonal justice from supervisor). This scale has demonstrated construct validity across multiple countries and the reliability of this scale is high in prior studies (Cronbach’s α ranges from .88 to .95 in Bashshur & Rupp, 2004). Sample items include “My immediate supervisor treats me in a polite manner” and “My immediate supervisor communicates details in a timely manner”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated perceived fairness (versus unfairness). Sabotage toward supervisor. I adapted existing measures (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) to form a seven-item scale to assess employees’ sabotage toward supervisor. Sample items include “neglected to follow your supervisor’s instructions” and “bad mouthed the supervisor to others”. The responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated more (versus less) sabotage toward supervisor. Organization-based self-esteem. I used the five-item scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989) to assess participants’ organization-based self-esteem. This scale demonstrated good construct validity in North America and China (e.g., Chen & Aryee, 2007). Prior research reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86 to .96. (Chen & Aryee, 2007; Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005). Sample items include “I feel valued around here” and “I am trusted around here”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated higher (versus lower) level of organization-based self-esteem. Horizontal and vertical collectivism and individualism. Employees’ vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism were assessed by Triandis and Gelfand’s (1998) 16-item measure. The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in countries outside North America (e.g., Hong Kong, see Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). The 66  reliability of this scale is fairly good in prior studies (Cronbach’s α ranges from .90 to .92 in Lam, Chen, et al., 2002). Sample items include “I’d rather depend on myself than others” (horizontal individualism) and “The well-being of my coworkers is important to me” (horizontal collectivism). The responses ranged from 1 (never or definitely no) to 9 (always or definitely yes). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated higher (versus lower) level of horizontal and vertical collectivism and individualism. Interdependent versus independent self-construal. I used Singelis’ (1994) 24-item measure to assess self-construal. The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in countries outside North America (e.g., Hong Kong, see Singelis et al., 1999). Prior research reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .70 to .74 (Sato & Cameron, 1999). Sample items include “It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group” (interdependent self-construal) and “Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me” (independent self-construal). The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The indices of self-construal are computed separately to be used as index of interdependent and independent self-construal respectively. Higher scores represented high independent (or interdependent) self-construal. Self-face and other-face concerns. I used the 10-item scale developed by Oetzel and his colleagues (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, Takai, & Wilcox, 2001) to assess individuals’ self-face and other-face concerns. This scale has demonstrated good construct validity in China (e.g., Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The reliability of this scale has been established (Cronbach’s α = .71 and .78 for self-face and other-face concerns respectively in China in Oetzel et al., 2001). Sample items include “Helping to maintain the other person’s pride is important to me” (other-face concern) and “I am concerned with protecting my self-image” (self-face concern). The responses ranged 67  from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated high (versus low) level of other- or self-face concern. Power distance. I used the Brockner et al.’s (2001) 5-item scale to assess participants’ power distance. The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in countries within and outside North America (e.g., China, Korea, and Japan in Kim & Leung, 2007). Prior research reported good reliability of this scale (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .71) (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009). Sample items include “Subordinates should not express their disagreement with their supervisors” and “Subordinates should carry out the requests of supervisors without question”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The average of the items was calculated as index of employees’ power distance values, with higher (versus lower) scores indicated high (versus low) level of power distance. Uncertainty avoidance. I used Jung’s (2002) 7-item scale to assess participants’ uncertainty avoidance. The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in countries within and outside North America (e.g., Korea in Jung, 2002; France in Jung & Kellaris, 2004). The reliability of this scale is high (Cronbach’s α = .86 in Jung & Kellaris, 2004). Sample items include “I prefer structured situations to unstructured situations” and “I would not take risks when an outcome cannot be predicted”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated high (versus low) level of uncertainty avoidance. Locus of control. I used the 7-item measure developed by Levenson (1973) to assess participants’ locus of control. The construct validity of this scale has been demonstrated in countries within and outside North America (e.g., China in Lau, 1992). The reliability of this scale is .75 (Chen & Wang, 2007). Sample items include “When I get what I want, it’s 68  usually because I worked hard for it” and “My life is determined by my own actions”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores represented internal (versus external) locus of control. Negative reciprocity norm. I used the eight-item measure developed by Eisenberger et al. (2004) to assess individuals’ negative reciprocity norm. This scale shows construct validity in prior research (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). The reliability of this scale is high (Cronbach’s α = .92 in Eisenberger et al., 2004). Sample items include “If someone says something nasty to you, you should say something nasty back” and “If someone treats you badly, you should treat that person badly in return”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated high (versus low) level of negative reciprocity norm. Justice orientation. I used the nine-item scale developed by Rupp et al. (2003) to assess individuals’ justice orientation. This scale has demonstrated construct validity in the United States (e.g., Liao & Rupp, 2005). The reliability of this scale is .85 (Liao & Rupp, 2005). Sample items include “It makes me sick to think about all of the injustice in the world” and “I hurt for people who are treated unfairly, whether I know them or not”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated high (versus low) level of justice orientation. Belief in ultimate justice. I used the four-item measure developed by Maes (1998) to assess individuals’ belief in ultimate justice. The construct validity of this scale has been established in German (e.g., Maes & Schmitt, 1999). Reliability of this scale reported in prior research is .90 (Maes & Schmitt, 1999). Sample items include “Even amidst the worse suffering, one should not lose faith that justice will prevail and set things right” and “Even terrible illnesses are often compensated for by fortunate happenstance later in life”. The 69  responses ranged from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated strong (versus weak) belief in ultimate justice. Control variables. I controlled for participants’ age, gender, tenure, and negative affectivity to test Hypotheses 1 to 7. I controlled for participants’ age, gender, tenure, workload, and negative affectivity to test Hypotheses 8 to 18. Age has been shown to be negatively associated with sabotage behaviors (Skarlicki et al., 2008). Males tend to be more likely to engage in sabotage than female employees (Fry, 1998). Tenure has been found to relate negatively with sabotage (Sims, 2002). Workload has been shown to be positively related to negative behaviors (Chen & Spector, 1992). Workload was assessed as employees’ self-reported number of guests served per day. Employees high (versus low) on negative affectivity are more (versus less) likely to engage in negative behaviors at work (Penney & Spector, 2005). I used the Multidimensional Personality Index (Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1984) to measure negative affectivity. Last, I controlled for distributive and procedural justice to test Hypotheses 1 to 7. I used Colquitt’s (2001) validated scales to assess distributive (three items) and procedural (seven items) justice. These scales have demonstrated construct validity and reliability across multiple countries (e.g., Cronbach’s α ranges from .88 to .95 in Bashshur & Rupp, 2004). Sample items include “My reward reflects my contribution to the company” and “I am able to express my views at this company”. The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher (versus lower) scores indicated perceived fairness (versus unfairness). I also controlled for intra-organizational sources of (in)justice to test Hypotheses 8 to 18 (to determine whether customer injustice predicts customer-directed sabotage above and  70  beyond other sources of (in)justice) (Skarlicki et al., 2008). The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix C. 4.1.3 Procedure I followed the translation and back translation techniques (Brislin, 1970) to translate the survey into Chinese and administered a paper version of the survey to front-line employees in all six hotels with the assistance from the human resource directors. Participants signed the consent form and completed the survey during their work breaks in the conference rooms in each hotel. I was in the conference room to explain the purpose of my study and answered any questions raised by the participants while they completed the survey. All participants were assured the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. None of the hotel managers were present in the conference room. I collected the survey back directly from each participant after they finished the survey. 4.2 Results Means, standard deviations, correlations among all the variables, and the reliability information for each scale were presented in Table 2. These results indicate that the standard deviation of some moderator variables (e.g., self-face concern, other-face concern, justice orientation, power distance) is relatively small among the participants. I explore this further in the discussion section. 4.2.1 Cultural Values in Supervisory (In)justice and Sabotage Association Hypothesis 1 stated that vertical individualism moderates the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. I conducted hierarchical regression and standardized all the continuous predictors before creating the interaction term. I entered all control variables - participants’ age, gender, tenure, negative affectivity, and distributive and procedural justice from the organization in the regression equation. In the second and third 71  steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of supervisory justice and vertical individualism and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 3, the two-way interaction of supervisory justice and vertical individualism was significant ( β = -.09, p < .05). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between supervisory justice and employees’ sabotage toward supervisor was stronger among employees high ( β = -.41, p < .001) versus low ( β = -.22, p < .01) on vertical individualism. Figure 3 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 stated that independent self-construal mediates the moderating effect of vertical individualism in the relationship between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor. To demonstrate support for this hypothesis, four criteria should be met (Baron & Kenny, 1986): (a) vertical individualism relates to independent self-construal; (b) vertical individualism interacts with supervisory justice in predicting sabotage in the expected way; (c) independent self-construal interacts with supervisory justice in predicting sabotage in the proposed way; and (d) when entering the two-way interaction between vertical individualism and supervisory justice and the two-way interaction between independent self-construal and supervisory justice simultaneously into the same regression equation, the former interaction term should become less or non-significant while the latter interaction should remain significant. The first two criteria have been met (see Tables 2, 3, and Figure 3). I then proceed with checking for the third criterion. As shown in Table 4, the two-way interaction of independent self-construal and supervisory justice was not significant ( β = .07, p > .05). Thus, the third criterion was not met. I also conducted the mediation analyses recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), the indirect effect test showed that the two-way interaction of  72  independent self-construal and supervisory justice did not account for the interactive effect of vertical individualism and supervisory justice on sabotage (indirect effect = .02, 95% bias corrected and accelerated CI = (-.01, .07)). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Hypothesis 3 proposed that self-face concern mediates the moderating effects of vertical individualism in the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. As shown in Table 2, vertical individualism did not relate to self-face concern. The first criterion was not met. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted that horizontal collectivism moderates the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. I conducted hierarchical regression to test this hypothesis. I entered all control variables (same as in test of Hypothesis 1) in the first step. In the second and third steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of supervisory justice and horizontal collectivism and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 5, the two-way interaction of supervisory justice and horizontal collectivism was not significant ( β = .01, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Hypothesis 5 stated that interdependent self-construal mediates the moderating effect of horizontal collectivism in the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. Given that Hypothesis 4 was not supported, the second criterion (discussed above) was not met.Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Hypothesis 6 proposed that organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of horizontal collectivism and supervisory justice on sabotage toward supervisor. Follow the guidance by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007), I conducted analyses of conditional indirect effect to test this hypothesis. Table 6 presents the results of the analyses.  73  As shown, the two-way interaction between horizontal collectivism and supervisory justice on organization-based self-esteem was not significant (B = .02, p > .05), which indicates that horizontal collectivism did not moderate the path between supervisory justice and organization-based self-esteem. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Hypothesis 7 predicted that organization-based self-esteem mediates the two-way interaction of interdependent self-construal and supervisory justice on sabotage toward supervisor. I also conducted analyses of conditional indirect effect to test this hypothesis (Preacher et al., 2007). Table 7 presents the results of the analyses. As shown, the two-way interaction between interdependent self-construal and supervisory justice on organizationbased self-esteem was not significant (B = .06, p > .05), which shows that interdependent self-construal did not moderate the path between supervisory justice and organization-based self-esteem. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was not supported. In summary, only one hypothesis was supported in this section: vertical individualism moderated the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on vertical individualism. 4.2.2 Cultural Values in the Customer Injustice and Sabotage toward Customer Association In this section, I describe the hypotheses testing focusing on customer injustice effects. Hypothesis 8 predicted that horizontal individualism moderates the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. I conducted hierarchical regression and standardized all the continuous predictors before creating the interaction term. I entered all control variables - participants’ age, gender, tenure, workload, negative affectivity, and distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice from within 74  the organization in the regression equation. In the second and third steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of customer injustice and horizontal individualism and their twoway interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 8, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and horizontal individualism was significant ( β = .11, p < .01). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and employees’ sabotage toward customer was stronger among employees high ( β = .63, p < .001) versus low on horizontal individualism ( β = .35, p < .001). Figure 4 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was supported. Hypothesis 9 predicted that independent self-construal mediates the moderating effect of horizontal individualism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. I used the same four criteria discussed above to test this hypothesis: (a) horizontal individualism relates to independent self-construal; (b) horizontal individualism interacts with customer injustice in predicting sabotage in the expected way; (c) independent self-construal interacts with customer injustice in predicting sabotage in the proposed way; and (d) when entering the two-way interaction between horizontal individualism and customer injustice and the two-way interaction between independent self-construal and customer injustice simultaneously into the same regression equation, the former interaction term should become less or non-significant while the latter interaction should remain significant. The first two criteria have been met (see Tables 2, 8, and Figure 4). I checked for the third and fourth criteria simultaneously. As shown in Table 9, contrary to my prediction, the two-way interaction of horizontal individualism and customer injustice remained significant ( β = .15, p < .01) while the interaction between independent self-construal and customer injustice was non-significant ( β = -.07, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 9 was not  75  supported. Hypothesis 10 proposed the moderating role of vertical collectivism in customer injustice effects. I used hierarchical regression to test this hypothesis and I entered all control variables (same as above) in the first step. In the second and third steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of customer injustice and vertical collectivism and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 10, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and vertical collectivism was not significant ( β = .01, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 10 was not supported. Hypotheses 11 and 12 predicted that interdependent self-construal and other-face concern mediate the moderating effect of vertical collectivism in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. Given that Hypothesis 10 was not supported, these two hypotheses were not supported. Hypothesis 13 predicted the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in customer injustice effects. As shown in Table 11, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and uncertainty avoidance was significant at the alpha = .10 level ( β = .06, p < .10). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and employees’ sabotage toward customer was stronger among employees high ( β = .57, p < .001) versus low on uncertainty avoidance ( β = .43, p < .001). Figure 5 presents the nature of this twoway interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 13 was not supported given that the interaction was not significant at the alpha = .05 level. Hypothesis 14 proposed that power distance moderates the customer injustice and sabotage toward customer association. I entered all control variables (same as above) in the first step. In the second and third steps, I entered the main effects of customer injustice and  76  power distance and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 12, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and power distance was not significant ( β = -.01, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 14 was not supported. Hypothesis 15 proposed the moderating role of locus of control in customer injustice effects. As shown in Table 13, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and locus of control was not significant ( β = -.05, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 15 was not supported. In summary, only one hypothesis was supported in this section: horizontal individualism moderates the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association was stronger among employees high versus low on horizontal individualism. 4.2.3 Individual Difference Factors in the Customer Injustice and Sabotage Association In this section, I report the tests of hypotheses regarding the moderating role of individual difference factors in the customer injustice effects. Hypothesis 16 predicted the moderating role of negative reciprocity norm in the customer injustice and sabotage association. As shown in Table 14, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and negative reciprocity norm was significant ( β = .13, p < .01). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and employees’ sabotage toward customer was stronger among employees high ( β = .57, p < .001) versus low on negative reciprocity norm ( β = .30, p < .001). Figure 6 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 16 was supported. Hypothesis 17 predicted that justice orientation moderates the customer injustice effects. As shown in Table 15, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and justice orientation was not significant ( β = -.05, p > .05). Thus, Hypothesis 17 was not supported.  77  Hypothesis 18 proposed the moderating role of belief in ultimate justice in the customer injustice and sabotage association. As shown in Table 16, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and belief in ultimate justice was significant ( β = -.13, p < .01). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and employees’ sabotage toward customer was stronger among employees with weak ( β = .56, p < .001) versus strong belief in ultimate justice ( β = .32, p < .001). Figure 7 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 18 was supported. In summary, two hypotheses were supported in this section: (a) negative reciprocity norm moderated the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the relationship was stronger among employees high versus low on negative reciprocity norm and (b) belief in ultimate justice moderated the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the relationship was weaker among employees with strong versus weak belief in ultimate justice. Table 17 summarizes the findings in Study 1. 4.3 Discussion The primary objective of Study 1 is to examine the role of individual-level cultural values in the (in)justice and sabotage association. Specifically, I investigated whether the effects of supervisory and customer (in)justice on sabotage toward supervisor and customer respectively differ as a function of cultural values (and individual difference factors). Regarding the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor, the findings show that the strength of that association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on vertical individualism values. These results provide support for the instrumental perspective of justice because they show that supervisory justice effects  78  are stronger among employees who care more (versus less) about their self-interest (e.g., personal economic gain, or socio-emotional outcomes). However, the predictions that vertical individualism qualifies supervisory justice effects through independent selfconstrual and self-face concern were not supported (Hypotheses 2 and 3). One possible reason for the lack of support for these hypotheses is that: vertical individualism qualifies the strength of the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor directly rather than through other individual factors (e.g., self-face concern). Another possible reason is that the variance of the two factors is relatively small (M = 4.15, SD = .59,  σ 2 = .35 for self-face concern on a 5-point responding scale; and M = 4.92, SD = .92, σ 2 = .85 for independent self-construal on a 7-point responding scale). This suggests that the participants did not differ much on self-face concern and independent self-construal. As argued by Aguinis and Stone-Romero (1997), if the variance of predictor/moderator in a moderated multiple regression is smaller in the sample as compared to in the population, the power of such analysis is significantly reduced. As revealed by their Monte Carlo simulation study, even a small reduction in variance in the predictor/moderator (e.g., the ratio of sample to population variance as .80) can reduce the power of the moderated multiple regression substantially. In short, the small variance in the measures could explain why I did not find support for the mediated moderation hypotheses. While the present study serves as the first attempt to examine whether individual factors (e.g., self-face concern) can explain why cultural values (e.g., vertical individualism) qualify the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage in the proposed fashion, the findings did not support the mediated moderation hypotheses possibly due to the possible reasons discussed above. Future research can continue this line of inquiry and examine  79  whether individual factors (e.g., self-construal) provide the mechanism through which cultural values (e.g., vertical individualism) qualify the relationship between justice and sabotage in the theorized fashion. Hypotheses 4 to 7 were developed based on the relational perspective. However, none of these hypotheses were supported. One possible explanation is that relational perspective might be less relevant as compared to the instrumental perspective in explaining the moderating effects of collectivism in the supervisory justice and sabotage association. In a recent meta-analysis study that compared justice effects in East Asia versus in North America, Li and Cropanzano (2009) argued that (a) the instrumental perspective suggests that justice effects are larger in North America than in East Asia because the former are higher on individualism, thus, are more likely to care about self-interest; (b) the relational perspective, however, suggests that justice effects are smaller in North America than in East Asia because the former are lower on collectivism, thus, are less likely to care about interpersonal relationship or personal standing/status in a social collective. Their findings support that justice effects (e.g., the strength of the association between distributive justice and job satisfaction) in general are larger in North America than in East Asia. The authors concluded that the instrumental perspective is more relevant in explaining how individualism/collectivism qualifies justice effect sizes such that the effect sizes are stronger in North America than in East Asia. More empirical research is needed to address this issue further. Specifically, researchers might explore the moderating role of cultural values pertinent to relational perspective (e.g., masculinity/femininity) in the relationship between justice and sabotage. Such research may help address how relational perspectives can inform cross-cultural justice theories. Regarding the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer, 80  the findings show that the strength of that association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on horizontal individualism. This finding supports the instrumental perspective. Specifically, the relationship between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage were larger for those high (versus low) on horizontal individualism because the former care more about their self-interest (e.g., personal feelings, rights, etc.). Inconsistent with predictions, vertical collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and locus of control did not moderate the customer injustice and sabotage association. One explanation for a lack of support is ceiling effects. It could be that the Chinese participants were very high on vertical collectivism and power distance (M = 3.74, SD = .81 for power distance on a 5-point responding scale; M = 7.03, SD = 1.59 for vertical collectivism on a 9-point responding scale). Other cross-cultural research (e.g., Ren, 2007), reported average levels of power distance and collectivism of 4.13 (SD = .64) and 5.14 (SD = .79) among Chinese participants using a 7-point responding scale (N = 173). To make direct comparisons of the means between my study and Ren’s (2007) study, I converted the means of power distance and vertical collectivism in my study based on a 7-point responding scale. The converted means of power distance and vertical collectivism are 5.24 and 5.47 respectively on a 7-point responding scale. In short, the participants in my study on average scored higher on both power distance (5.24 > 4.13) and vertical collectivism (5.47 > 5.14) than participants in Ren’s (2007) study. Thus, the participants in my study might not differ much in their reactions to injustice because they on average were high on both power distance and collectivism. To better understand the moderating effects of power distance and vertical collectivism in the relationship between injustice and sabotage, future research might examine the role of these two values in customer injustice and sabotage association from participants with large variation on both values (i.e., preferably with larger standard 81  deviations and lower means than those in my study). For example, researchers can collect data from countries differing significantly on power distance and collectivism (e.g., Denmark (low on power distance and collectivism) vs. India (high on power distance and collectivism)) (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). This might address the potential ceiling effects proposed to exist in my study. As for uncertainty avoidance, the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer was significant at the alpha = .10 level. Given that I followed the alpha = .05 as the cutoff score, this hypothesis was not supported. One reason for a lack of support is that the variance of uncertainty avoidance is not large (M = 3.11, SD = .86, σ 2 = .75 on a 7-point responding scale). As discussed earlier, Aguinis and Stone-Romero (1997) argued that the power of moderated multiple regression is significantly reduced if the variance of the predictor/moderator in the regression is small. Thus, to understand better the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in justice effects, future research can examine the role of uncertainty avoidance in the relationship between justice and outcomes among participants varying significantly on this value. For instance, researchers could collect data from countries differing significantly on uncertainty avoidance (e.g., Russia (high on uncertainty avoidance) vs. Singapore (low on uncertainty avoidance)) (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). As for locus of control, the findings suggest that both external and internal locus of control employees reacted to customer injustice through engaging in customer-directed sabotage. This finding implies that people with external (versus internal) locus of control did not differ much in their reactions to injustice from customers. This is inconsistent with my prediction. One possible reason for a lack of support is that both externals and internals  82  employees might feel the moral outrage when receiving the unfair treatment from customers, and they did not differ in their tendency to act on the received injustice. Future research should continue with this line of inquiry to contribute to a better understanding of the moderating role of locus of control in the relationship between justice and sabotage reaction. Regarding the role of individual difference factors in the customer injustice and sabotage association, negative reciprocity norm and belief in ultimate justice moderated that association in the predicted way. These findings suggest that not only cultural values but also some individual difference factors can moderate justice effects. These individual difference factors have not been studied in the past. Understanding the moderating effects of these factors can provide a more comprehensive picture of how justice effects vary as a function of cultural values and individual difference factors (stemming from one’s cultural background). While cross-cultural research predominantly focus on universal cultural values (e.g., power distance), some culture-specific values (e.g., traditionality versus modernity in Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1989) can also help to advance cross-cultural theories. In short, studying these individual difference factors (that root in individuals’ cultural and religious background) can shed on cross-cultural theories. Inconsistent with my prediction, justice orientation did not qualify the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. According to Aguinis and StoneRomero (1997), one possible reason for the lack of support of this hypothesis can be that the variance of the justice orientation among the participants is fairly small (M = 4.96, SD = .76,  σ 2 = .58 on a 7-point responding scale). To better understand the role of justice orientation in the relationship between justice and sabotage, future research might explore the role of justice orientation in justice effects among participants with larger variation on justice  83  orientation. Also, justice orientation consists of two sub-dimensions, namely internalization (i.e., “internalize justice as a moral virtue”) and attention (i.e., “attentive to issues of fairness”) (Liao & Rupp, 2005, p. 244). It is plausible that the internalization dimension might qualify justice effects since this dimension has direct relevance to the moral perspective of justice. That is, individuals high (versus low) on internalization dimension are more (versus less) likely to perceive unfair treatment as moral violation, thus, are more likely to react to injustice. To contribute to our knowledge, future research can examine the role of internalization dimension of justice orientation in the relationship between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage. Study 1 has several strengths that warrant mention. First, factors other than cultural values can influence justice effects on sabotage (e.g., customer service standards). For example, it is likely that local hotels might have different customer service standards as compared to hotels managed by international hotel chains. Thus, I took steps to collect data from international hotels which have comparable customer service standards. The cities where the hotels were operated were also comparable on multiple aspects (e.g., size of the city, population density, etc.). I also used statistical techniques to examine whether justice effects differ by hotel or by hotel brand or by city before I pooled the participants. These procedures to some extent rule out factors associated with hotel brand that can influence the findings in this study. Second, I incorporated cultural values into the theoretical model and statistically tested the moderating effects of cultural values in justice and sabotage association. While some cross-cultural research used country as a proxy of culture, my study focused on cultural values that can theoretically explain variation of justice effects. Third, I took steps to enhance the quality of the customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage measures in terms of: (a) content validity - I used the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 84  1954) with front-line employees to develop the scales; (b) construct validity - exploratory factor analyses revealed that the items loaded on one factor; and (c) predictive validity customer injustice predicted customer-directed sabotage above and beyond all the other sources of (in)justice. The reliability for both scales were high (Cronbach’s α = .89 and .93). In short, the two measures demonstrated good psychometric properties. Fourth, I controlled for numerous factors that differed among employees, and which potentially could confound the results, including age, gender, tenure, workload, and negative affectivity. The results held after controlling these differences. In terms of limitations, very few hypotheses were supported. Also, Study 1 was conducted in one country (i.e., China). While the results show that some individual-level cultural values (e.g., vertical and horizontal individualism) qualify justice effects, we do not know whether the significant findings generalize to other countries. Second, as noted above, one of the major issues in cross-cultural research lies in that whether culture exhibit its moderating role at the individual level or at the country level is still not clear. A withincountry study on it own cannot help to address this issue. Third, cross-cultural pundits advocate “true” comparative study to contribute to cross-cultural theories in that comparative studies conducted by the same researchers among comparable samples in countries differing on cultural values can provide a stronger and a more rigorous assessment of the generalizability of theories (Kim & Leung, 2007; Leung & van de Vijver, 2008). To address these limitations, in Study 2, I conducted a between-country comparative field study to examine (a) whether justice effects differ in China versus in North America; and (b) to the extent that justice effects differ by country, whether cultural values account for the between-country differences.  85  5. Study 2 5.1 Method 5.1.1 Participants I conducted a cross-cultural field study of front-line employees working in two luxury hotels operated by the same international hotel chain in two comparable cities (i.e., Beijing and Vancouver) in China (N = 127) and Canada (N = 76). Both hotels provide service to both national and international business travelers and tourists. I selected Canada because it represents cultures in North America (research shows that Canada and the United States fall into the same cultural cluster (Schwartz, 2008)), which differs from China on several cultural dimensions, namely individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The Chinese hotel in this study was different from the hotels included in Study 1. Paper surveys were administered to employees and were completed and collected onsite. I sampled only employees who dealt face-to-face with customers on a regular basis as part of their job (i.e., front desk receptionists and waitperson in the restaurants of the hotels). The response rate in the hotel in China was 49% (127 out of a total of 259 service employees). The response rate in the hotel in Canada was 61% (76 out of a total of 125 service employees). Among the Chinese participants, 74 (66%) were female, their average age was 25.82 years (SD = 4.37), and their average tenure was 3.01 years (SD = 3.84). Of the Canadian participants, 39 (51%) were female, their average age was 37.04 years (SD = 9.75), and their average tenure was 5.75 years (SD = 3.97). All the Chinese and Canadian participants were originally from China and Canada respectively (I excluded Canadian participants who were not originally from Canada from this study). The human resource  86  directors in both hotels confirmed that these demographics were representative of their customer service workforce. 5.1.2 Measures Variables of interest in Study 2 include supervisory justice (i.e., interpersonal and informational justice from supervisor), sabotage toward supervisor, customer injustice, sabotage toward customer, individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. In Study 2, I used the same measure for each of these variables as explained in Study 1. I presented more information about three measures, namely customer injustice, sabotage toward customer, and individualism in the following paragraphs. Customer injustice. Based on the scale developed in Study 1, I first conducted two focus groups of 3 - 4 subject matter experts (i.e., front-line employees) in each hotel. I verified with the focus group participants that the items make sense to them. Principle component analysis with a varimax rotation further confirmed the construct validity of the developed scale. Following guidelines by Haire et al. (2006), all the six items (see Appendix A) formed one factor in each cultural group (with an eigenvalue > 1) that accounted for 54.98% of the variance among Canadian participants and accounted for 67.31% of the variance among Chinese participants. I averaged these items to form the measure, with larger numbers indicating higher (versus lower) levels of customer injustice. Participants who served as subject matter experts in focus groups did not participant in the survey. Customer-directed sabotage. Based on the scale developed in Study 1, I also verified with the focus group participants in both hotels that the items of the sabotage scale make sense to them. Results from the principle component analysis (with a varimax rotation) further confirmed the construct validity of this scale. Examination of the scree plot revealed that the seven items (see Appendix B) all loaded on one factor (eigenvalue > 1) in each 87  cultural group and accounted for 55.16% of the variance in the Chinese sample and accounted for 66.85% of the variance in the Canadian sample (Haire et al., 2006). I averaged these seven items to form the measure, with larger numbers indicating higher (versus lower) levels of customer-directed sabotage. Individualism. I used the same scale to assess employees’ vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) to measure individualism. I averaged the eight items regarding both vertical and horizontal individualism to form the index. Higher (versus lower) scores indicated higher (versus lower) level of individualism. Control variables. As in Study 1, I controlled for participants’ age, gender, tenure, and negative affectivity, and distributive and procedural justice to test Hypotheses 19 and 20. I controlled for participants’ age, gender, tenure, workload, negative affectivity, all aspects of intra-organizational justice to test Hypotheses 21 and 22. 5.1.3 Procedure I followed the translation and back translation techniques (Brislin, 1970) to translate the survey into Chinese and administered a paper version of the survey (i.e., Chinese version in China and English version in Canada) to front-line employees in both hotels with the assistance from the human resource directors. Participants signed the consent form and completed the survey during their work breaks in the conference rooms in each hotel. I was in the conference room to explain the purpose of my study and answered any questions raised by the participants while they completed the survey. All participants were assured the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. None of the hotel managers were present in the conference room. I collected the survey back directly from each participant after they finished the survey.  88  5.2 Results 5.2.1 Descriptive Statistics Means, standard deviations, correlations among all the variables, and the reliability information for each scale in both samples are presented in Tables 18 and 19 respectively. 5.2.2 Measurement Equivalence Before pooling the two samples together and analyzing the cross-cultural data, it is critical to show that participants from different cultural groups have a common understanding of the measures (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). All subsequent between-country (or between-group) comparisons are meaningless if measurement equivalence is not established (Riordan & Vandenberg, 1994). To examine measurement equivalence, I followed the procedures used in prior cross-cultural research to examine the configural and metric invariance of the measures through multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). 5.2.3 Baseline Models The prerequisite of testing for factorial invariance is to show that baseline models in each cultural group fit the data well. For the baseline models, I grouped intra-organizational and customer justice into one category and grouped sabotage toward supervisor and sabotage toward customer into a second category. I tested the baseline models of the rest of the variables individually in both cultural groups. The baseline models in each cultural group hypothesized a priori that justice consists of 5 factors (i.e., distributive, procedural, interpersonal, informational, and customer (in)justice); and sabotage consists of 2 factors (i.e., sabotage toward supervisor and sabotage toward customer). I conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) separately in each cultural group using AMOS 18.0. Table 20 present the baseline models and fit indices for Canadian and Chinese samples respectively. As shown in Table 20, across all the study variables, the baseline models exhibit acceptable to 89  fairly good fit with the data in both cultural groups. 5.2.4 Test of Configural and Metric Invariance I then conducted multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check the measurement equivalence of all the study variables using Amos 18.0. Following procedures recommended by Vandenberg and Lance (2000), I first tested the configural invariance (i.e., equivalent factor structure) of all measures between the Chinese and Canadian samples. I then checked for metric invariance (i.e., equivalent factor loadings) across the two groups. Table 21 presents the results of tests of configural and metric invariance. As shown in Table 21, across all the study variables, the fit indices in general indicate acceptable to very good fit, which supports that all the study variables reached acceptable measurement equivalence across the two cultural groups. 5.2.5 Hypotheses Testing Because the data showed measurement equivalence, I pooled the two samples together and test the hypotheses. A critical assumption of cross-cultural research is that Canadian and Chinese employees vary on cultural values. Table 22 presents the betweengroup t-tests results of all the key variables in the present study. As shown, the employees in China scored significantly lower on individualism and uncertainty avoidance while higher on power distance measures as compared to employees in Canada. Cultural Value as A Mediator in Between-Country Differences in Supervisory (In)justice and Sabotage Association Hypothesis 19 stated that the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor is stronger in North America than in China. I conducted hierarchical regression and standardized all the continuous predictors before creating the interaction term. I entered all control variables - participants’ age, gender, tenure, negative affectivity, and 90  distributive and procedural justice from the organization in the regression equation. In the second and third steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of supervisory justice (i.e., interpersonal and informational justice) and country and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 23, the two-way interaction of supervisory justice and country was significant ( β = -.16, p < .05). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between supervisory justice and employees’ sabotage toward supervisor was stronger in Canada ( β = -.49, p < .001) than in China ( β = -.22, p < .05). Figure 8 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 19 was supported. Hypothesis 20 proposed that individualism mediates the between-country difference in the supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor association. To examine whether cultural values (e.g., individualism) account for the moderating effects of country in the (in)justice-sabotage association (e.g., between-country difference as shown in Figure 8), I followed the guidance from previous empirical research (Brockner et al., 2001; Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, & Skarlicki, 2000; Kim & Leung, 2007) to test the mediation effects. Following Baron and Kenny (1986), four criteria should be met to test for the mediation. First, country should differ in cultural values in theoretically expected ways. Second, country should interact with (in)justice to predict sabotage. Third, cultural values should interact with (in)justice to predict sabotage. Fourth, when entering the two-way interaction between country and (in)justice and the two-way interaction between cultural values and (in)justice simultaneously into the same regression equation, the former interaction term should become less or non-significant while the latter interaction should remain significant. I followed these general procedures to test whether individualism mediates the between-country difference in supervisory justice effects. The first two criteria were met as  91  shown in Tables 22, 23, and Figure 8. I proceed with checking for the third criterion and found that the two-way interaction of individualism and supervisory justice was not significant ( β = -.08, p > .05) (see Table 24). The third criterion was not met. I also conducted the mediation analyses recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), the indirect effect test showed that the two-way interaction of individualism and supervisory justice did not account for the interactive effect of country and supervisory justice on sabotage toward supervisor (indirect effect = -.02, 95% bias corrected and accelerated CI = (-.11, .09)). Thus, Hypothesis 20 was not supported. Cultural Values as Mediators in Between-Country Differences in the Customer Injustice and Sabotage toward Customer Association Hypothesis 21 stated that the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer is stronger in North America than in China. I standardized all the continuous predictors before creating the interaction term. I entered all control variables participants’ age, gender, tenure, workload, negative affectivity, and distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice from within the organization in the regression equation. In the second and third steps, I entered into the equation the main effects of customer injustice and country and their two-way interaction term, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 25, the two-way interaction of customer injustice and country was significant ( β = .23, p < .01). Simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and employees’ sabotage toward customer was stronger in Canada ( β = .57, p < .001) than in China ( β = .23, p < .01). Figure 9 presents the nature of this two-way interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 21 was supported. Hypothesis 22 proposed that cultural values, namely individualism, uncertainty  92  avoidance, and power distance account for the between-country difference in the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer. I followed the four criteria discussed in the tests of Hypothesis 21 to test the mediation effects of the three cultural values. The first two criteria were met as shown in Tables 22 and 25 and Figure 9. I tested the last two mediation criteria in the following way. I first tested whether individualism accounts for the between-country difference. As shown in Table 26, the twoway interaction of country and customer injustice became non-significant ( β = .04, p > .05) in the presence of the significant interaction between individualism and customer injustice ( β = .28, p < .001). Consistent with the prediction, simple slope analyses revealed that the association between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage was stronger among participants high ( β = .60, p < .001) versus low ( β = .02, p > .05) on individualism. Both the third and fourth criteria were met, supporting the prediction that individualism mediates country’s moderating effects. To further support the hypothesis, I also conducted indirect effects test using a bootstrapping technique (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). I used the SPSS macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to assess the indirect effect and calculate the 95% bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval around the indirect effect using z = 5000 bootstrap re-samples while controlling for all the control variables mentioned above. Results support that the interactive effect of customer injustice and country on sabotage is attributed to the interaction of customer injustice and individualism (indirect effect = .19, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI = (.08, .31)). I repeated these procedures to test whether uncertainty avoidance (Table 27) and power distance (Table 28) mediated the between-country difference. As shown in Table 27, the two-way interaction of country and customer injustice became non-significant ( β = .06,  93  p > .05) in the presence of the significant interaction between uncertainty avoidance and customer injustice ( β = .18, p < .01). Consistent with my prediction, simple slope analyses revealed that the customer injustice and sabotage association was stronger among participants high ( β = .50, p < .001) versus low ( β = .13, p > .05) on uncertainty avoidance. In addition, assessment of indirect effect with bootstrapping technique (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) further support the mediation findings (indirect effect = .08, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI = (.02, .18)). These results support that uncertainty avoidance accounted for country’s moderating effects. As shown in Table 28, the two-way interaction of country and customer injustice became non-significant ( β = .08, p > .05) in the presence of the significant interaction between power distance and customer injustice ( β = -.19, p < .01). Consistent with my prediction, simple slope analyses revealed that the customer injustice and sabotage association was stronger among participants low ( β = .52, p < .001) versus high ( β = .17, p < .05) on power distance. These results suggest that power distance explained country’s moderating effects. I also assessed the indirect effect following the guidance of Preacher and Hayes (2008). Results converged with the findings using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach (indirect effect = .12, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI = (.04, .22)). Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 22. Although I had no a priori theory to guide such a prediction, I thought it was important to assess which of the three cultural values explained the most variance in accounting for country’s moderating effects (i.e., between-country difference). I entered all the two-way interactions between country and customer injustice and between cultural values and customer injustice simultaneously in the regression equation. Results showed that  94  individualism was the most important mediator accounting for the between-country difference in that all the other two-way interactions become non-significant (see Table 29) in the presence of the two-way interaction between individualism and customer injustice ( β = .22, p < .01). This finding is further confirmed by Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) multiple mediators tests results: only the indirect effect involving individualism was significant (indirect effect = .12, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI = (.04, .25)), the indirect effects involving uncertainty avoidance was non-significant (indirect effect = .04, 95% biascorrected and accelerated CI = (-.01, .15)), and the indirect effect involving power distance was not significant (indirect effect = .03, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI = (.06, .11)). Table 30 summarizes the findings in Study 2. 5.3 Discussion The primary objective of Study 2 was to examine whether employees in Canada and China differ in their sabotage reactions to supervisor or customer injustice, and whether cultural values account for between-country difference. Findings suggest that the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor was stronger in Canada versus in China. Inconsistent with my prediction, individualism did not account for the betweencountry difference in supervisory justice effects. In post-hoc analysis, I also examined if other cultural values (e.g., power distance, uncertainty avoidance) explained (i.e., mediated) the between-country difference in the relationship between supervisor justice and sabotage toward supervisor. Results revealed that none of the cultural values included in my study explained the between-country difference in supervisory justice effects. One possible reason for the lack of support for the mediation hypothesis can be that other cultural values (e.g., masculinity/femininity) or other aspects associated with country (e.g., history, economic  95  growth) rather than cultural values cause the difference in the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor. Another possible reason can be that the sample size among the Canadian participants is relatively small (N = 76). It might not provide enough statistical power to detect the interactive effect between cultural values and supervisory justice on sabotage toward supervisor. As shown in Study 1 (N = 418), vertical individualism qualified the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association was stronger among employees high versus low on vertical individualism. It is possible that the sample size in Study 1 was larger, thus, offering greater power to detect a significant interaction between two continuous variables, whereas in Study 2, it did not provide enough power to detect similar interaction. Regarding the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer, the findings suggest that the relationship between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage was stronger in Canada than in China. Cultural values, namely individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance accounted for the between-country difference. These findings support three justice perspectives in explaining employees’ reactions to customer injustice. Specifically, the association between customer injustice and sabotage was stronger among employees high (versus low) on individualism, supporting the instrumental perspective in that justice effects were stronger among employees who care more about their self-interest. The association between customer injustice and customerdirected sabotage was stronger among employees high (versus low) on uncertainty avoidance, supporting uncertainty management perspective in that justice effects were stronger among employees who has stronger need for certainty. The association between customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage was stronger among employees low (versus high) on power distance, supporting moral perspective in that justice effects were 96  stronger among employees who are more likely to consider unfair treatment as moral violation. In addition, post-hoc analyses revealed that individualism was the strongest mediatory cultural factor that accounted for the between-country differences in the customer injustice and sabotage association. These findings to some extent imply that instrumental perspective can be most relevant in explaining the between-country difference in customer injustice effects. More research is needed to explore this issue further. As discussed earlier, whether cultural influence operates at the individual level or at the country level is still unclear (Kirkman et al., 2006). The findings in this study help to answer this question through showing that individual-level cultural values account for the moderating effects of country in the justice and sabotage association. This suggests that cultural values rather than country per se qualify justice effects. In summary, Study 2 extended the findings from Study 1 by showing that (a) cultural values (e.g., individualism) moderated justice effects in the same fashion in a betweencountry design as in a within-country design; and (b) individual-level cultural values provide the psychological mechanisms through which country moderates the justice effects. I elaborate on the contribution of both studies in the next chapter.  97  6. General Discussion Prior justice research conducted primarily in North America shows that employees engage in sabotage in response to unfair treatment from supervisors and customers. Whether these results generalize to other non-North American settings is unclear. Based on a theoretical integration of justice theories and cultural values, I explored whether the relationship between justice and sabotage occurs as a function of cultural values and individual difference factors (Study 1). I also tested (a) whether between-country difference exists in the relationship between justice and sabotage and (b) whether cultural values accounted for (i.e., mediated) the between-country difference (Study 2). As discussed in previous sections, the results from two field studies are mixed. 6.1 Theoretical Implications Despite these mixed results, the present dissertation has important theoretical implications for three literatures, namely justice research, cross-cultural research, and sabotage research. 6.1.1 Implications for Justice Research First, previous theory and research shows that employees react to perceived unfairness for multiple reasons. The present research comprehensively reviewed the instrumental, relational, moral, and uncertainty management perspectives, and examined their implications for predicting whether and how injustice relates to sabotage in a non-North American setting. Specifically, I integrated these perspectives with research on cultural values and tested whether these cultural values moderate the relationship between (in)justice and sabotage. The results show support for three justice perspectives. Horizontal individualism qualified the association between customer injustice and sabotage toward  98  customer such that the association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on horizontal individualism. This finding supports the instrumental perspective because it shows that justice effects are stronger among those who care more (versus less) about their self-interest. Consistent with the moral perspective, power distance qualified the customer injustice and sabotage relationship such that the relationship was weaker among employees high (versus low) on power distance. This finding supports the moral perspective because it shows that justice effects are stronger among those who take offence with power unbalances and are more likely to perceive injustice as moral violation. In support of the uncertainty management perspective, uncertainty avoidance qualified the customer injustice and sabotage association such that the association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on uncertainty avoidance. This finding supports the uncertainty management perspective because it shows that justice effects are stronger among those who are less (versus more) likely to be comfortable with uncertainty which is a consequence from unfair treatment. None of the hypotheses developed from the relational perspective (i.e., Hypotheses 4 to 7) received support. As explained earlier, one plausible reason lies in that relational perspective might be less relevant in explaining how collectivism or individualism can qualify justice effects. In a recent meta-analysis on cross-cultural justice research, Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, and Jones (2011) found that instrumental perspective is more relevant in explaining how individualism moderates the relationship between justice and outcomes, whereas relational perspective is more relevant in explaining how masculinity qualifies the justice-outcome association. Future research can pursue this line of inquiry further to explore if masculinity moderates the relationship between justice and employees’ reactions in the 99  way implied by the relational perspective. Second, prior research on justice and sabotage has documented the role of several individual factors (e.g., moral identity in Skarlicki et al., 2008; negative affectivity in Wang et al., 2011) as potential boundary conditions of the effects of customer injustice on sabotage. The present research is among the first to take the cross-cultural perspective to examine whether cultural values can buffer or amplify the effects of justice on sabotage. The findings provide further evidence that while employees engage in sabotage as a coping strategy to experienced injustice, those with different cultural values can differ in their propensity to adopt such coping strategy. For example, when service employees experienced unfair treatment from customer, those low (versus high) on horizontal individualism are less likely to engage in sabotage as a reaction to injustice. Third, the findings in the present study indicate that both Chinese and Canadian service employees react to customer injustice through engaging in customer-directed sabotage, and these reactions occur above and beyond the (in)justice they received from their employer and supervisors. These results are consistent with the multifoci approach of justice (Lavelle et al., 2007; Rupp & Paddock, 2010), which states that the alignment of the source of the (un)fair treatment employees received with the target of employees’ reaction offers greater precision in predicting employees’ reactions than previous methods (Rupp et al., 2011). The findings suggest that the multifoci approach of justice is relevant not only in North America, but also in China. 6.1.2 Implications for Cross-Cultural Research First, prior cross-cultural research focused primarily on the role of individualism and power distance in the justice perception and reaction associations. The present research extends the study of cross-cultural research through considering the role of uncertainty 100  avoidance in the association between customer injustice and sabotage. Given that little research has documented the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in the justiceoutcome association, the present study complements our knowledge in cross-cultural theories by showing that the effects of customer injustice on sabotage can be exacerbated for employees high on uncertainty avoidance. Second, considerable theoretical and empirical research has contributed to our knowledge on cross-cultural theories, however, it is still not clear whether culture exhibits its effects on organizational behavior at the country-level or at the individual-level of analysis. That is, whether individual-level cultural values or country (as proxy of culture) influence people’s attitudes and behaviors are still unclear. As discussed in three review papers on cross-cultural research in the management literature (Gelfand et al., 2007; Kirkman et al., 2006; Tsui et al., 2007), individual-level versus country-level cultural influence remain ambiguous in many domains. To address this, I conducted mediational analyses (cf., Brockner et al., 2001; Kim & Leung, 2007) to examine whether individual-level cultural values fully account for between-country difference in justice effects. The findings in the present research revealed that it is not country per se but the individual-level cultural values that explain how people react to unfairness differently. In addition, in the present research, I examined the mediation effects of multiple cultural values in explaining country’s moderating effects simultaneously. This is among the first research to compare the relative importance of different cultural values in accounting for cross-country difference. Although an exploratory hypothesis, findings revealed that individualism was the strongest cultural factor that explains country’s moderating effects in the customer injustice-sabotage association. Specifically, when all the cultural values are combined into the same regression equation, the other interactions became non-significant in 101  the presence of the significant interaction between individualism and customer injustice. Although further research is warranted, this finding suggests that the instrumental perspective could be the most relevant theory that explains how Chinese react differently to customer injustice from Canadians. Third, while prior cross-cultural comparative research primarily focused on Hofstede’s framework (e.g., power distance), the present dissertation also included individual difference factors (e.g., negative reciprocity norm) that are particularly relevant to the cultural and religious background of the countries where the research was conducted. The findings indicate that these individual difference factors stemming from cultural and religious values and beliefs can also moderate the customer injustice and sabotage association. Belief in ultimate justice, for example, was found to moderate the customer injustice-sabotage association such that the association was stronger among employees with weak versus strong belief in ultimate justice. These findings suggest that considering time perspective (e.g., instant versus future) in employee’s justice experience can also be useful in explaining the variation in justice effects. While Hofstede’ typology is the most widely used framework in cross-cultural research, it might be worthwhile to explore other cultural values (e.g., future orientation in House et al., 2004; time perspective in Trompenaars, 1993) in examining how justice effects differ by countries and can differ as a function of cultural values. Investigating the moderating role of cultural values (e.g., time perspective, future orientation, or other cultural values reviewed in Chapter 2) that are not included in Hofstede’s typology can complement our knowledge of cross-cultural justice research. 6.1.3 Implications for Sabotage Research The present study also contributes to the sabotage research through investigating the nature of the customer-directed sabotage in service settings mainly involving face-to-face 102  interactions with customers. While research has studied service sabotage in call centres which involves voice-to-voice interaction with customer, the interaction between the employee and the customer can be very different across these two settings (i.e., hotels versus call centres). Specifically, the results show that in face-to-face encounter customer injustice can occur in different manners (e.g., facial expression, body language/gesture) from those in voice-to-voice encounter (i.e., verbal expression). Similarly, in face-to-face encounter, service sabotage can be even more hidden, covert, and passive as compared to those occurred in voice-to-voice encounter. Thus, such extension can provide us knowledge to refine the concepts and theories in customer injustice and service sabotage research, which can differ dramatically from other workplace sabotage research (e.g., studies occurred in manufacturing industries). 6.2 Practical Implications From a practical perspective, this dissertation reflects the need for managers to understand the challenges that can accompany globalization. First, the findings suggest that both Chinese and Canadian employees engage in supervisor-directed sabotage when they experience unfair treatment from supervisors. Engaging in supervisor-directed sabotage can be risky because if such behaviors become known to supervisors, the employees might be punished or even fired. Thus, supervisor-directed sabotage can often be hidden and subtle. This adds difficulty for detecting such behaviors, which to some extent exacerbate the impacts of sabotage on organizational functioning. To reduce the sabotage behaviors toward supervisor, both Canadian and Chinese managers should pay close attention to the content and manner of their interactions with subordinates. Dealing with employees with respect and dignity and providing thorough rationale for decisions help to reduce employees’ sabotage behaviours toward supervisor in both countries. Specifically, training in organizational 103  justice principles (Skarlicki & Latham, 2005) is likely to reduce occasions of sabotage. Second, the present research also reveals that customer service employees in both China and Canada cope with unfair customers through engaging in customer-directed sabotage. It has been documented that service sabotage can negatively impact customer satisfaction and service employees’ job performance because some service employees can become so obsessed or preoccupied with “revenging” the disrespectful customers, they pay less attention to provide quality service to other customers (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002, 2006). Thus, in service industries, it is critical for managers in both China and Canada to find solutions to reduce service sabotage. That is, managers in both countries could take steps to help service employees develop functional and constructive coping strategies to deal with customer injustice. Dealing with unfair customers can be very stressful for service employees. It has been shown that mindfulness-related practice can increase people’s mindfulness level and psychological well-beings and also reduce stress (e.g., Carmody & Baer, 2008). Thus, offering some mindfulness-related program and mediation practice to service employees can be helpful for them to cope better with the customer injustice. Third, the sabotage associated with customer injustice is significantly stronger in Canada than in China. Thus as Chinese companies increasingly buy North American firms (Chen & Miller, 2010), they may find that North American employees react more strongly to unfair treatment than Chinese employees, potentially impacting individual and firm performance. That is, Chinese managers might find that service sabotage can be more common and frequent among Canadian employees as compared to Chinese employees. Training programs could be offered to Canadian employees so as to help them cope better with customer injustice. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program, for instance, has been shown to be effective in increasing participants’ mindfulness level and reducing 104  feelings of stress, thus, can be provided to help employees deal with customer injustice (Toneatto & Nguyen, 2007). This possibility warrants study. Moreover, international hotels usually have uniform management programs and customer service standards across all the hotels that are affiliated with the corporation. However, my research shows that Canadian service employees are more likely to engage in service sabotage when receiving unfair treatment from customers as compared to Chinese service employees. This suggests that managers working in international hotels will need to consider the cultural background of the employees and consider how the cultural values can have implications for service employees’ attitudes and behaviors at work. Hotel managers might need to tailor management programs (e.g., more training programs, new procedures to deal with customer complaints and customer-employee dynamics) in certain countries (e.g., Canada) to effectively reduce service sabotage at work. Fourth, employees high on individualism and uncertainty avoidance and low on power distance are more likely to sabotage as a way to deal with customer injustice. In terms of selection, managers might consider including cultural value tests when hiring front-line employees. It is plausible that hiring service employees having less individualistic values, more power distance-oriented, or having more tolerance for uncertainty can help to reduce service sabotage at work. 6.3 Strengths The present research has several strengths that warrant mention. First, in Study 1 participants came from multiple hotels. It is possible that factors other than cultural values can qualify justice effects on sabotage (e.g., customer service standards in different hotels). Thus, I took steps to collect data from international hotels which have comparable customer service standards. The cities where the hotels were operated were also comparable on 105  multiple aspects (e.g., size of the city, population density, etc.). I also used statistical techniques to examine whether justice effects differ by hotel or by hotel brand or by city before I pooled the participants. These procedures to some degree rule out alternative explanation of the findings in this study. Second, Study 2 is a cross-cultural comparative study. Comparability of participants from different cultural backgrounds can be a challenge in such research design. Thus, I took steps to study service employees in one hotel chain in China and Canada. I confirmed with the human resource directors that both hotels followed the same standardized HR programs, had common corporate policies and service standards that endeavoured to provide the same corporate culture. This helps to rule out confounding factors that could explain the findings. Third, I incorporated cultural values into the theoretical model and statistically tested the moderating effects of cultural values in justice and sabotage association. While some cross-cultural research used country as a proxy of culture, my study focused on cultural values that can theoretically explain variation of justice effects. In addition, in Study 2, I extended the findings in Study 1through examining the mediation effects of cultural values in explaining the between-country difference. This helps to solve the ambiguity in the current cross-cultural research. Specifically, the mediational tests revealed that individuallevel cultural value fully account for the moderating role of country in justice effects. Fourth, I took procedures to enhance the quality of the customer injustice and customer-directed sabotage measures in terms of: (a) content validity - I used the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954) with front-line employees to develop the scales; (b) construct validity - exploratory factor analyses revealed that the items loaded on one factor among participants in Study 1 and among each cultural group in Study 2; (c) the customer injustice and sabotages scales demonstrated configural and metric invariance across the 106  Chinese and Canadian participants in Study 2; and (d) predictive validity - customer injustice predicted customer-directed sabotage above and beyond all the other sources of (in)justice. The reliability for both scales are high in both studies. In short, the two measures demonstrated good psychometric properties across both field studies. Fifth, I controlled for numerous factors that differed among employees, and which potentially could confound the results, including age, gender, tenure, workload, and negative affectivity. The results held after controlling these differences. 6.4 Limitations In terms of potential limitations, because this research was cross-sectional, causal inferences cannot be made. To explore whether the association between injustice and sabotage can also be in the reverse direction, I examined if individualism interacts with sabotage toward customer in predicting customer injustice based on the data collected in Study 2. Results revealed that the two-way interaction between individualism and sabotage toward customer on customer injustice was non-significant. This finding to some extent rules out the possibility that the relationship was in the reversed direction (i.e., sabotage leads to injustice). Second, all the measures are self-reported by participants. Common method bias can also potentially influence the results. I used two approaches to address this concern. I assured the anonymity of all participants’ responses and I controlled for negative affectivity in the analyses, which can reduce common method bias (for a review, see Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In addition, because the present study focused on the interactive effects between cultural values and customer injustice on sabotage, it is unlikely that the significant interactive findings are due to common method variance (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Third, in order to understand the psychological mechanisms through which 107  individual-level cultural values moderate justice effects, I developed hypotheses regarding whether individual factors (e.g., interdependent self-construal, self-face concern) can explain cultural values’ moderating effects in the justice-sabotage association. None of these hypotheses, however, were supported. I have discussed the possible reasons for the lack of support in the discussion section in Chapter 4. Among the reasons I provided, one interpretation of such results could be that cultural values directly qualify the strength of the association between justice and sabotage, which is not mediated via any individual factors. More research is needed to better assess this tentative conclusion. Fourth, in Study 2, the data revealed that supervisory justice effects on sabotage were stronger in Canada than in China. However, contrary to my prediction, individualism did not explain this between-country difference in supervisor justice effects. This finding is also inconsistent with what I found in Study 1: vertical individualism qualified the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association was stronger among employees high versus low on vertical individualism. As discussed earlier, it is possible that the sample size in Study 2 is smaller as compared to the sample size in Study 1. Thus, it is possible that the sample size in Study 2 did not provide enough power to detect interactions between individualism and supervisor justice on sabotage. Alternatively, there might be other cultural values or other aspects of country (e.g., economic growth) rather than cultural values that lead to the between-country difference. To address this unsolved issue, more research is needed to examine what cultural values account for the between-country difference. A potential threat to the Study 2’s internal validity is the possibility that Chinese employees could be less likely to report sabotage behaviors in a survey compared to Canadian employees. To address this concern, I ran post-hoc analyses to test whether 108  individualism moderated the injustice-sabotage relationship within each sub-sample. If underreporting indeed explained the between-country difference, then individual-level cultural values would not moderate the injustice-sabotage relationship among only Chinese participants or among only Canadian participants. The results showed, however, that individualism moderated the injustice-sabotage relationship among only Canadian and only Chinese employees. These findings show that the theory is supported not only among the pooled sample but also within each sub-sample. These analyses also ruled out the possibility that reporting difference can explain the results. 6.5 Unsupported Hypotheses Four out of 18 hypotheses were supported in Study 1 and three out of four hypotheses were supported in Study 2. Across both studies, data revealed that the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer differed systematically as a function of individualism. The effects of customer injustice on sabotage toward customer are larger among employees high (versus low) on individualism. As for the unsupported hypotheses in both studies, I have discussed the possible reasons for the lack of support in the discussion sections in Chapters 4 and 5. Here I reiterate some of the key points. First, regarding the association between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor, data in Study 1 revealed that the association was stronger among employees high versus low on vertical individualism. Moreover, in Study 2, the data revealed that the association was stronger in Canada than in China. However, individualism did not account for the between-country difference. As discussed earlier, it is possible that the sample size in Study 2 is relatively small, which did not offer enough statistical power to reveal any interactive effect between individualism and supervisory justice on sabotage. 109  Second, other hypotheses (e.g., Hypotheses 2, 3, 9) stated that some individual factors can provide the psychological mechanism through which cultural values (e.g., vertical individualism) qualify justice effects in the proposed fashion. None of these hypotheses were supported. As I mentioned in both the discussion section in Chapter 4 and the limitation section above, this study serves as the first attempt to examine why cultural values can moderate justice effects in the theorized way. Given that data in this study did not provide any support of the mediated moderation hypotheses, it is not clear whether cultural values qualify justice effects directly or they moderate justice effects via certain individual factors (e.g., self-face concern). As explained earlier, because the variance of most of the individual factors is relatively small, the power of the moderated multiple regression analyses can be reduced substantially (Aguinis & Stone-Romero, 1997), thus, we cannot draw any conclusive interpretation from the findings in this study. More research is needed to pursue this line of inquiry involving participants with larger variation among these individual factors. Third, as explained in Chapter 4, the fact that some measures reported small variances can also explain why I did not find support for the moderating role of power distance and vertical collectivism in the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer in Study 1 (cf. Aguinis & Stone-Romero, 1997). In Study 2, where the variance of both variables were larger than those in Study 1, data revealed that: (a) power distance qualified the relationship between customer injustice and sabotage toward customer such that the association was weaker among employees high (versus low) on power distance (in the test of Hypothesis 22); and (b) vertical collectivism qualified the relationship such that the association was weaker among employees high (versus low) on vertical collectivism (in a post-hoc test). Both moderation effects are consistent with my prediction. These 110  findings to some extent support that small variance can be the reason for lack of support in Study 1. Fourth, based on the relational perspective, I proposed that horizontal collectivism moderates the relationship between supervisory justice and sabotage toward supervisor such that the association was stronger among employees high (versus low) on horizontal collectivism. I also proposed the moderated mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 6 and 7) based on the relational perspective. None of these hypotheses were supported. As explained in Chapter 4, one possible reason for the lack of support can be that the relational perspective might not be directly relevant in explaining how cultural values (e.g., collectivism) can qualify justice effects. Similarly, Li and Cropanzano (2009) found that the relational perspective did not explain the difference in justice effects between North America (i.e., low collectivism) and East Asia (i.e., high collectivism). This possibility needs to be explored further. 6.6 Future Directions While the present research extends both supervisor- and customer-directed sabotage research to hotel industries, future research can further contribute to the literature in the following respects. First, as discussed earlier, the relationship between supervisory injustice and sabotage toward supervisor was stronger in Canada versus in China. However, none of the cultural values included in my studies was found to mediate the identified betweencountry difference. Further studies are necessary to examine what cultural values account for the cross-country difference. Second, while the present research attempts to explore the psychological mechanisms that explain the moderating effects of cultural values on the justice-sabotage relationship, the findings show that none of the individual factors (included in the theoretical model) provide 111  such a mechanism. Future research is necessary to investigate why cultural values qualify justice effects the way they do. This line of research can contribute further to our understanding of why and how cultural values can qualify the justice-reactions association. Third, further research needs to explore whether the interactive effects between customer injustice and cultural values on sabotage toward customer would also be found in longer-term interactions with customers (e.g., consulting firms, marketing firms). In contrast to the service industries, in consulting firms, for instance, consultants interact with clients in a relatively long-term fashion. It is less likely for the consultants to sabotage the clients when they need to work with the clients for months or even years. Also, consultants’ income is in part dependent on their job performance which can be largely determined by a positive and mutual beneficial long-term relationship with the clients. Thus, it is plausible that the consultants are unlikely to engage in any form of sabotage behaviors even if they are treated unfairly by the clients because they don’t want to ruin the cooperation or any business relationships with the clients. In short, given that the nature of the dynamics between employees and customers are quite different in such industries, future research can explore whether the findings in the present research hold in other service settings. Fourth, to help make a causal inference, future research needs to adopt experimental or longitudinal design to investigate the nature of the supervisor/customer (in)justice and sabotage associations. Fifth, some emotional reactions toward injustice might mediate the injustice-sabotage association. As discussed earlier, employees care about fair treatment because they are concerned with economic and socio-emotional outcomes, and they have innate need for certainty, and need for belongingness and feeling of self-worth in a social collective, and they want to be treated in a morally right way. Injustice threatens and challenges all these 112  needs, which can trigger strong emotional responses to the sources of the injustice (e.g., anger). Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999) argued that emotions are important for researchers to understand employees’ reactions to unfair treatment. In short, including emotional mediators in the model can help to explain the psychological rationale of employees’ engagement in sabotage. Thus, future research should examine the emotional responses of employees toward their experienced injustice and their subsequent behavioural actions. Last, organizational cultures and/or climate and some HR programs or policies might also determine employees’ reactions to injustice. Small hotels that are not affiliated with any interactional hotel management corporations, for example, might not have a formal procedure that employees or managers can follow when they deal with customer complaints and might not have very high standards for customer service quality. Thus, in such hotels, when an employee is unfairly treated by a customer, he/she might react very strongly to the unfair treatment because they know there is no formal procedure existing in the hotel that can help them to deal with the rude customers and the management might not have very high expectation on customer service quality. Thus, they are more likely to engage in customerdirected sabotage. In contrast, in intentional hotels, service employees might be less likely to engage in customer-directed sabotage because the company might have formal procedures to deal with customer complaints or employee-customer issues. In addition, service employees in such hotels are taking risk when they engage in sabotage because international hotels have strict and high standards for customer service. In short, the strength of the association between customer injustice and sabotage is likely to differ by organizational level factors such as programs and policies in the company. Future research might incorporate both macro and micro-level factors in the theoretical model that explains employees’ sabotage behaviors. 113  6.7 Conclusion Although prior research shows that employees can engage in supervisor- and customer-directed sabotage as a result of unfair treatment from supervisors and customers, few studies have taken the cross-cultural perspective to examine the role of cultural values in justice effects. Based on an integration of justice theories and cultural values, I found that the sabotage reactions are significantly less pronounced in China than in Canada. Moreover, cultural values namely, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance account for the between-country difference in customer injustice effects.  114  7. Tables and Figures 7.1 Tables Table 1: Organization of Hypotheses Research Design  Section  Relationship of Focus  Hypotheses  Selection of Cultural and Individual Difference Moderators Based on Justice Perspectives Instrumental Relational Moral Uncertainty Management Perspective Perspective Perspective Perspective  Supervisory Injustice  H1-H7 VI HC --Sabotage WithinCustomer Country 2 Injustice  H8-H15 HI; VC -LOC; PD UA Study Sabotage Customer NR; JO; 3 Injustice  H16-H18 ---BUJ Sabotage Research Section Relationship of Hypotheses Selection of Cultural Mediators in Between-Country Difference Design Focus Supervisory BetweenInjustice  H19-H20 Individualism Country Sabotage 4 Comparison Customer Study Injustice  H21-H22 Individualism; Uncertainty Avoidance; Power Distance Sabotage Note. VI – Vertical Individualism; HC – Horizontal Collectivism; HI – Horizontal Individualism; VC – Vertical Collectivism; LOC – Locus of Control; PD – Power Distance; UA – Uncertainty Avoidance; NR – Negative Reciprocity Norm; JO – Justice Orientation; BUJ – Belief in Ultimate Justice All sabotage are targeting at the respective justice sources. 1  115  Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 1) Variables 1. Age 2.Tenure 3.Workload 4.Gender 5.NA 6.DJ 7.PJ 8.INTJ 9.INFJ 10.CIJ 11.OBSE 12.InSC 13.InterSC 14.SFC 15.OFC 16.HI 17.VI 18.HC 19.VC 20.PD 21.UA 22.LOC 23.NR 24.JO 25.BUJ  M SD 1 26.46 3.74 37.17 49.39 .20** 70.31 247.49 -.09 .46 .50 .05 2.64 .80 -.17** 4.25 1.59 .05 4.78 1.14 .03 5.25 1.26 .02 5.18 1.31 .04 1.99 .72 .01 4.99 1.03 .03 4.92 .92 .00 5.56 .89 .06 4.15 .59 -.01 4.11 .54 -.02 5.76 1.80 -.01 4.47 2.15 -.07 6.51 1.70 .05 7.03 1.59 .04 3.74 .81 .09 3.11 .86 .01 4.96 1.03 .07 3.18 1.29 .00 4.96 .76 .07 3.29 1.10 .04  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  .01 .13** -.03 .00 -.03 .00 .04 .07 .01 -.04 .00 -.09 -.04 -.04 .05 .04 -.03 .04 .03 .06 -.04 .03 -.04  -.02 .03 .01 -.02 .04 .03 -.05 -.05 -.05 -.08 -.01 .00 -.02 .01 -.03 -.07 -.11* -.01 -.08 .03 .03 -.04  -.01 .11* .03 .00 .03 .09 -.03 .06 -.01 -.11* -.03 .03 .09 -.03 -.07 -.02 .07 -.06 .06 -.02 -.07  (.86) -.13** -.23** -.17** -.17** .26** -.19** .11* .01 -.10* -.10* .22** .29** .10 .12* -.10* -.22** -.19** .18** -.02 -.02  (.95) .62** .33** .40** .01 .37** .19** .30** .07 .18** -.16** -.01 .09 -.08 .16** -.05 .35** -.22** .12* .16**  (.93) .57** .62** -.17** .57** .20** .46** .20** .30** -.10* -.14** .23** .07 .23** -.08 .50** -.34** .29** .33**  (.93) .86** -.28** .43** .15** .52** .28** .37** -.07 -.15** .23** .16** .14** -.10* .31** -.37** .32** .32**  (.96) -.18** .42** .10* .43** .22** .26** -.14** -.12* .15** .09 .14** -.06 .28** -.31** .25** .25**  (.87) -.05 .00 -.26** -.31** -.32** .05 .25** -.10* -.17** -.04 .06 -.21** .22** -.15** -.21**  (.90) .13** .37** .20** .24** -.04 -.05 .21** .14** .19** -.03 .35** -.26** .22** .30**  (.67) .22** .14** .11* .54** .28** .09 .11* .00 -.21** .26** .10 .09 .17**  (.81) .35** .62** .02 -.13** .58** .46** .20** -.27** .35** -.52** .45** .48**  (.86) .54** .02 -.08 .16** .32** .02 -.23** .29** -.17** .35** .25** 116  Variables 26.CusSab 27.SupSab  M 1.72 1.60  SD 1 .70 -.05 .73 -.02  2 .07 .08  3 4 5 * -.03 .12 .34** -.02 .11* .39**  6 7 8 9 10 ** ** ** ** -.14 -.27 -.31 -.25 .59** -.11* -.30** -.45** -.34** .57**  11 12 ** -.14 .03 -.14** .02  13 14 ** -.30 -.22** -.38** -.36**  Note. N = 414 ~ 418 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Reliabilities are listed in parentheses in the diagonal line. Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Tenure is calculated based on number of months; Workload – Numbers of customers on average served per day; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ – Procedural Justice; INTJ – Interpersonal Justice; INFJ – Informational Justice; CIJ Customer Injustice; OBSE – Organization-based Self-esteem; InSC – Independent Self-construal; InterSC – Interdependent SelfConstrual; SFC – Self-face Concern; OFC – Other-face Concern; HI – Horizontal Individualism; VI – Vertical Individualism; HC – Horizontal Collectivism; VC – Vertical Collectivism; PD – Power Distance; UA – Uncertainty Avoidance; LOC – Locus of Control; NR – Negative Reciprocity Norm; JO – Justice Orientation; BUJ – Belief in Ultimate Justice; CusSab – Sabotage toward Customer; SupSab – Sabotage toward Supervisor  117  Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 1) (Continued) Variables 15.OFC 16.HI 17.VI 18.HC 19.VC 20.PD 21.UA 22.LOC 23.NR 24.JO 25.BUJ 26.CusSab 27.SupSab  15 (.82) -.04 -.19** .38** .30** .13* -.20** .30** -.39** .43** .38** -.32** -.41**  16  17  18  19  20  21  (.84) .28** .23** .29** .07 -.13** -.08 .22** -.05 -.11* .21** .15**  (.72) .03 .07 -.14** -.01 -.14** .32** -.02 -.11* .34** .38**  (.88) .63** .19** -.12* .17** -.29** .34** .15** -.11* -.14**  (.84) .05 -.15** .13** -.07 .22** .26** -.08 -.14**  (.73) -.04 .14** -.18** .04 .08 -.12* -.09  (.76) -.12* .05 -.25** -.12* .07 .05  22  23  24  25  26  27  (.89) -.19** (.93) .23** -.19** (.70) .41** -.36** .24** (.89) -.22** .43** -.17** -.29** (.91) -.24** .45** -.22** -.29** .71**  (.94)  Note. N = 414 ~ 418 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Reliabilities are listed in parentheses in the diagonal line. Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Tenure is calculated based on number of months; Workload – Numbers of customers on average served per day; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ – Procedural Justice; INTJ – Interpersonal Justice; INFJ – Informational Justice; CIJ Customer Injustice; OBSE – Organization-based Self-esteem; InSC – Independent Self-construal; InterSC – Interdependent SelfConstrual; SFC – Self-face Concern; OFC – Other-face Concern; HI – Horizontal Individualism; VI – Vertical Individualism; HC – Horizontal Collectivism; VC – Vertical Collectivism; PD – Power Distance; UA – Uncertainty Avoidance; LOC – Locus of Control; NR – Negative Reciprocity Norm; JO – Justice Orientation; BUJ – Belief in Ultimate Justice; CusSab – Sabotage toward Customer; SupSab – Sabotage toward Supervisor  118  Table 3: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Vertical Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.56  .05  Age  .03  .06 .03  Tenure  .05  .04 .06  Gender  .15  .07 .10*  Negative Affectivity  .25  .03 .35***  Distributive Justice  .07  .04 .11  Procedural Justice  -.20  .04 -.29*** 19.75***  Supervisory Justice  -.24  .04 -.33***  F  ∆R 2  R2  Adjusted R2  .23  .21  .35  .34 .13***  .36  .35  2 Vertical Individualism  .18  .03 .24*** 27.35***  3 Vertical Individualism x Supervisory Justice -.07 .03 -.09* 25.12*** Note. N = 414 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  .01*  119  Table 4: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Independent Self-Construal and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor  Step Variables Constant 1  B  β  SE  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  1.56 .05  Age  .04 .06 .03  Tenure  .05 .04 .06  Gender  .15 .07 .10*  Negative Affectivity  .25 .03 .35***  Distributive Justice  .07 .04 .11  Procedural Justice  -.20 .04 -.29*** 19.75***  Supervisory Justice  -.25 .04 -.35***  .23  .21  2 Independent SelfConstrual  .01 .03  .01  21.58***  .30  .29 .07***  Independent SelfConstrual x Supervisory Justice .05 .03 .07 Note. N = 415 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  19.62***  .30  .29 .01  3  120  Table 5: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Horizontal Collectivism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.56  .05  Age  .03  .06 .03  Tenure  .05  .04 .06  Gender  .15  .07 .10*  Negative Affectivity  .25  .03 .35***  Distributive Justice  .07  .04 .11  Procedural Justice  -.20  .04 -.29*** 19.75***  Supervisory Justice  -.24  .04 -.33***  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .23  .21  22.64***  .31  .30  .08***  20.08***  .31  .29  .00  2 Horizontal Collectivism -.09  .04 -.11*  3 Horizontal Collectivism x Supervisory Justice .00 .03 .00 Note. N = 414 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  121  Table 6: Results of Moderated Mediation with Horizontal Collectivism as the Moderator Mediator Variable Model Variables B Constant .04 Sup Justice .12* HC .10* Sup Justice x HC .02 Age -.02 Gender -.12 Tenure .03 NA -.08 DJ .04 PJ .44**  SE .06 .05 .05 .04 .08 .08 .05 .04 .05 .06  t .57 2.25 2.06 .39 -.24 -1.41 .66 -1.87 .82 7.13  p .57 .02 .04 .69 .81 .16 .51 .06 .41 .00  Dependent Variable Model Variables B SE t p Constant 1.56*** .05 34.68 .00 OBSE .10** .04 2.83 .00 Sup Justice -.26*** .04 -6.61 .00 HC -.10** .04 -2.83 .00 Sup Justice x HC .00 .03 .02 .98 Age .04 .05 .79 .43 Gender .16 .06 2.52 .01 Tenure .06 .03 1.81 .07 NA .26*** .03 8.30 .00 DJ .06 .04 1.62 .11 PJ -.08 .05 -1.66 .10 Note. N = 414 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Sup Justice – Supervisory Justice; HC – Horizontal Collectivism; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ - Procedural Justice  122  Table 7: Results of Moderated Mediation with Interdependent Self-construal as the Moderator Mediator Variable Model Variables B Constant -.00 Sup Justice .10 InterSC .16** InterSC x Sup Justice .06 Age -.02 Gender -.12 Tenure .03 NA -.08 DJ .02 PJ .42***  SE .06 .06 .06 .04 .08 .08 .05 .04 .05 .06  t -.04 1.72 2.80 1.46 -.29 -1.37 .65 -1.81 .38 6.88  p .97 .09 .01 .15 .77 .17 .52 .07 .71 .00  Dependent Variable Model Variables B SE t p Constant 1.59*** .05 35.34 .00 OBSE .12*** .03 3.53 .00 Sup Justice -.19*** .04 -4.89 .00 InterSC -.28*** .04 -6.74 .00 InterSC x Sup Justice -.01 .03 -.25 .80 Age .06 .05 1.14 .26 Gender .15** .06 2.60 .01 Tenure .06 .03 1.75 .08 NA .28*** .03 9.31 .00 DJ .07 .04 2.06 .04 PJ -.05 .05 -1.11 .27 Note. N = 414 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Sup Justice – Supervisory Justice; OBSE – Organization-based Self-esteem; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ - Procedural Justice  123  Table 8: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Horizontal Individualism and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.89***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Horizontal Individualism  .09  .03 .13**  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  28.13***  .43  .42 .23***  26.96***  .45  .43  2  3 Customer Injustice x Horizontal Individualism .11 .04 .11** Note. N = 415 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  .01**  124  Table 9: Mediation analyses of whether independent self-construal account for the moderating effects of horizontal individualism β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.89***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Horizontal Individualism  .10  .03 .15**  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  25.81***  .44  .42 .23***  23.34***  .45  .43  2  Independent Selfconstrual  -.03  .04 -.04  3 Horizontal Individualism .14 .04 .15** x Customer Injustice Independent Selfconstrual x Customer Injustice -.05 .04 -.07 Note. N = 415 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  .01**  125  Table 10: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Vertical Collectivism and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.89***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Vertical Collectivism  .01  .03 .01  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  26.48***  .42  .40 .21***  24.23***  .42  .40 .00  2  3 Vertical Collectivism x Customer Injustice .01 .03 .01 Note. N = 415 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  126  Table 11: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Uncertainty Avoidance and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.90***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Uncertainty Avoidance  .05  .03 .06  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  .42  .41 .21***  .43  .41 .00  2 26.80***  3 Uncertainty Avoidance x Customer Injustice .05 .03 .06+ 24.90*** + Note. N = 416 p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  127  Table 12: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Power Distance and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.04  Gender  .14  .06 .10*  Tenure  .05  .04 .06  Workload  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  -.00  .04 -.00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  11.97***  .21  .19  26.49***  .42  .40 .21***  24.22***  .42  .40 .00  2 Power Distance  -.03  .03 -.04  3 Power Distance x Customer Injustice -.00 .03 -.00 Note. N = 415 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  128  Table 13: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Locus of Control and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer Step Variables Constant 1  β  B  SE  1.66  .05  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.90***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Locus of Control  .00  .03 .00  Age  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  26.46***  .42  .40 .21***  24.44***  .42  .40 .00  2  3 Locus of Control x -.04 .03 -.05 Customer Injustice Note. N = 416 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  129  Table 14: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Negative Reciprocity Norm and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.90***  Customer Injustice  .35  .03 .47***  Negative Reciprocity Norm  .20  .03 .27*** 33.57***  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  .48  .46 .27***  .49  .48 .01**  2  3 Negative Reciprocity Norm x Customer .10 .03 .13** Injustice Note. N = 416 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  32.44***  130  Table 15: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Justice Orientation and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.66  .05  Age  -.02  .06 -.02  Gender  .15  .06 .11*  Tenure  .05  .04 .07  -.02  .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00  .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07  .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23  .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10  .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20  .03 .29*** 11.90***  Customer Injustice  .37  .03 .50***  Justice Orientation  -.03  Workload  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .21  .19  26.61***  .42  .40 .21***  24.57***  .42  .41 .01  2 .03 -.04  3 Justice Orientation x -.03 .03 -.05 Customer Injustice Note. N = 416 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  131  Table 16: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Belief in Ultimate Justice and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer Step Variables Constant 1 Age  B  SE  β  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  1.66 .05 -.02 .06 -.02  Gender  .15 .06 .11*  Tenure  .05 .04 .07  Workload  F  -.02 .02 -.03  Distributive Justice  .00 .04 .00  Procedural Justice  -.07 .05 -.11  Interpersonal Justice  -.23 .06 -.32***  Informational Justice  .10 .06 .14  Negative Affectivity  .20 .03 .29***  Customer Injustice  .36 .03 .48***  11.90***  .21  .19  28.12***  .43  .42 .23***  27.26***  .45  .43 .01**  2 Belief in Ultimate Justice  -.09 .03 -.13**  3 Belief in Ultimate Justice -.09 .03 -.13** x Customer Injustice Note. N = 416 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  132  Table 17: Summary of Findings in Study 1 Hypotheses H1: Supervisory Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Vertical Individualism H2: Supervisory Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Independent Self-construal H3: Supervisory Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Self-face Concern H4: Supervisory Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Horizontal Collectivism H5: Supervisory Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Interdependent Self-construal H6: Supervisory Injustice  OSE  Sabotage; Mo: Horizontal Collectivism H7: Supervisory Injustice  OSE  Sabotage; Mo: Interdependent Self-construal H8: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Horizontal Individualism H9: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Independent Self-construal H10: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Vertical Collectivism H11: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Interdependent Self-construal H12: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Other-face Concern H13: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Uncertainty Avoidance H14: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Power Distance H15: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Locus of Control H16: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Negative Reciprocity Norm H17: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Justice Orientation H18: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Belief in Ultimate Justice Note. Mo – Moderator; OSE – Organization-based Self-esteem All sabotage are targeting at the respective justice sources. √ - Supported  Results √  √  √ √  133  Table 18: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 2 - Canada) Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 37.04 9.75 1. Age 69.04 47.60 .53** 2. Tenure 3. Workload 43.54 40.91 -.27* -.18 .49 .50 .03 -.11 .14 4. Gender 2.99 .71 -.12 -.09 .08 .05 (.83) 5. NA 4.35 1.45 .13 -.06 .06 .04 -.20 (.98) 6. DJ 4.55 1.07 .13 -.00 .15 .09 -.31** .77** (.92) 7. PJ 5.19 1.15 .06 -.13 -.09 -.01 -.33** .51** .61** (.94) 8. INTJ 4.78 1.22 .22 .07 -.11 -.04 -.33** .48** .52** .78** (.90) 9. INFJ 4.99 1.12 .15 -.03 -.11 -.02 -.35** .53** .60** .94** .95** (.94) 10. IJ 2.20 .75 -.40** -.18 .12 -.05 .33** -.53** -.42** -.33** -.46** -.42** (.83) 11. CIJ 6.39 1.21 .11 .13 -.09 .09 .43** -.13 -.18 -.18 -.21 -.21 .24* (.83) 12. IND 2.64 .80 .13 -.10 .08 -.06 -.32** .44** .32** .35** .38** .39** -.41** -.25* (.84) 13. PD 3.97 1.41 -.11 .09 .09 .14 .34** -.38** -.24* -.36** -.35** -.38** .46** .43** -.76** (.93) 14. UA 2.04 .85 -.22 .06 .34** .09 .44** -.38** -.41** -.49** -.46** -.51** .63** .38** -.53** .65** (.92) 15. CusSab 1.76 .62 -.21 -.04 .27* .10 .47** -.42** -.39** -.57** -.59** -.62** .51** .38** -.52** .59** .81** (.89) 16. SupSab Note. N = 76 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Reliabilities are listed in parentheses in the diagonal line. Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Tenure is calculated based on number of months; Workload – Numbers of customers on average served per day; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ – Procedural Justice; INTJ – Interpersonal Justice; INFJ – Informational Justice; IJ – Supervisory Justice; CIJ - Customer Injustice; IND – Individualism; PD – Power Distance; UA – Uncertainty Avoidance; CusSab – Sabotage toward Customer; SupSab – Sabotage toward Supervisor  134  Table 19: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability of Study Variables (Study 2 - China) Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 25.82 4.37 1.Age 34.74 46.02 .29** 2.Tenure 3. Workload 92.80 440.89 -.13 .04 .34 .48 .03 .18* -.06 4.Gender 2.66 .77 -.24** .13 .04 -.01 (.85) 5. NA 4.04 1.55 -.03 -.02 .03 .08 -.04 (.96) 6. DJ 4.78 1.10 .05 .01 -.04 .00 -.15 .54** (.94) 7. PJ 5.24 1.26 -.06 .02 .06 .05 -.08 .26** .52** (.94) 8. INTJ 5.16 1.36 -.01 .08 .06 .07 -.10 .38** .68** .80** (.97) 9. INFJ 5.20 1.24 -.04 .05 .06 .07 -.10 .34** .64** .95** .95** (.96) 10. IJ 1.97 .60 .05 .06 -.10 .12 .22* .06 -.19* -.27** -.22* -.26** (.79) 11. CIJ 5.55 1.35 .07 .00 -.05 -.06 .03 -.16 -.15 .01 -.10 -.05 .15 (.79) 12. IND * 3.22 .67 .17 .08 -.16 .09 .00 .10 .05 -.01 .14 .08 .06 -.05 (.68) 13. PD ** 2.84 .86 .08 .01 -.02 .17 -.24 -.09 -.16 -.06 -.02 -.04 -.10 -.04 -.04 (.77) 14. UA 15. CusSab 1.65 .52 -.06 .16 -.06 .12 .36** -.14 -.26** -.22* -.23* -.24** .42** .26** -.08 -.07 (.85) 16. SupSab 1.49 .68 .04 .18* .00 .21* .31** .02 -.22* -.30** -.18* -.25** .50** .13 .08 .03 .62** (.95) Note. N = 127 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Reliabilities are listed in parentheses in the diagonal line. Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Tenure is calculated based on number of months; Workload – Numbers of customers on average served per day; NA – Negative Affectivity; DJ – Distributive Justice; PJ – Procedural Justice; INTJ – Interpersonal Justice; INFJ – Informational Justice; IJ – Supervisory Justice; CIJ - Customer Injustice; IND – Individualism; PD – Power Distance; UA – Uncertainty Avoidance; CusSab – Sabotage toward Customer; SupSab – Sabotage toward Supervisor  135  Table 20: Baseline Models of Study Variables in Both Samples Variables  χ2  df  CFI  NFI RMSEA  Canadian Sample 5-factor justice 414.84 242 .90 .81 .08 2-factor sabotage 108.99 76 .95 .87 .07 Individualism 31.30 16 .94 .88 .09 Power distance 5.65 4 .99 .97 .07 Uncertainty avoidance 5.21 6 1.00 .99 .00 Chinese Sample 5-factor justice 538.23 242 .90 .84 .08 2-factor sabotage 158.89 76 .94 .89 .08 Individualism 22.68 16 .98 .93 .06 Power distance 4.25 4 1.00 .97 .02 Uncertainty avoidance 6.36 6 1.00 .98 .02 Note. CFI = comparative fit index (CFI values greater than .90 indicates good fit); NFI = Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI values greater than .90 indicates good fit); RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA values equal to or less than .05 indicates good fit; RMSEA values between .05 to .08 indicates fair fit; RMSEA values between .08 to .10 indicates mediocre fit).  136  Table 21: Fit Indices for Tests of Measurement Equivalence Variables  χ2  df  CFI  NFI RMSEA  Justice Configural Equivalence 953.39 484 .90 .83 .06 Metric Equivalence 987.87 503 .90 .82 .07 Sabotage Configural Equivalence 326.72 152 .91 .86 .06 Metric Equivalence 384.12 164 .90 .83 .08 Individualism Configural Equivalence 111.53 32 .85 .88 .09 Metric Equivalence 127.96 38 .84 .86 .09 Power Distance Configural Equivalence 9.91 8 .99 .97 .03 Metric Equivalence 30.34 12 .93 .90 .09 Uncertainty Avoidance Configural Equivalence 11.58 12 1.00 .99 .00 Metric Equivalence 47.25 18 .96 .94 .09 Note. CFI = comparative fit index (CFI values greater than .90 indicates good fit); NFI = Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI values greater than .90 indicates good fit); RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA values equal to or less than .05 indicates good fit; RMSEA values between .05 to .08 indicates fair fit; RMSEA values between .08 to .10 indicates mediocre fit).  137  Table 22: t-Tests Results for All the Study Variables across Two Cultural Groups Country N Age China 127 Canada 76 Tenure (month) China 127 Canada 76 Workload China 127 Canada 76 Negative Affectivity China 127 Canada 75 Distributive Justice China 127 Canada 76 Procedural Justice China 127 Canada 76 Interpersonal Justice China 127 Canada 76 Informational Justice China 127 Canada 76 Customer Injustice China 127 Canada 76 Individualism China 127 Canada 76 Power Distance China 127 Canada 76 Uncertainty Avoidance China 127 Canada 76 Sabotage toward Customer China 127 Canada 76 Sabotage toward Supervisor China 127 Canada 76 Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001  M 25.82 37.04 34.74 69.04 92.80 43.54 2.66 2.99 4.04 4.35 4.78 4.55 5.24 5.19 5.16 4.78 1.97 2.20 5.55 6.39 3.22 2.64 2.84 3.97 1.65 2.04 1.49 1.76  SD 4.37 9.75 46.02 47.60 440.89 40.91 .77 .71 1.55 1.45 1.10 1.07 1.26 1.15 1.36 1.22 .60 .75 1.35 1.21 .67 .80 .86 1.41 .52 .85 .68 .62  t-test -11.23*** -5.07*** .97 -2.99** -1.42 1.42 .26 1.98* -2.39* -4.42*** 5.56*** -7.06*** -4.05*** -2.77**  138  Table 23: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Country and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.50  .05  Age  -.02  .05 -.03  Tenure  .07  .05 .11  Gender  .23  .09 .17**  Negative Affectivity  .21  .04 .31***  Distributive Justice  .04  .05 .07  Procedural Justice  -.17  .05 -.26**  Supervisory Justice  -.20  .05 -.30***  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  10.19***  .24  .21  10.30***  .30  .27 .06***  9.83***  .31  .28 .02*  2 Country  .12  .11 .09  3 Country x Supervisory -.19 .09 -.16* Justice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  139  Table 24: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.50  .05  Age  -.02  .05 -.03  Tenure  .07  .05 .11  Gender  .23  .09 .17**  Negative Affectivity  .21  .04 .31***  Distributive Justice  .04  .05 .07  Procedural Justice  -.17  .05 -.26**  Supervisory Justice  -.21  .05 -.31***  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  10.19***  .24  .21  11.15***  .32  .29  .08***  10.12***  .32  .29  .01  2 Individualism  .10  .04 .16*  3 Individualism x -.05 .04 -.08 Supervisory Justice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1.  140  Table 25: Regression Results of Two-Way Interaction of Country and Customer Injustice on Sabotage toward Customer Step Variables B SE β 1 Constant 1.72 .05 Age -.03 .05 -.05 Gender .17 .09 .12* Tenure .11 .05 .16* Workload -.02 .04 -.03 Distributive Justice -.03 .05 -.05 Procedural Justice -.07 .06 -.10 Interpersonal Justice -.07 .07 -.10 Informational Justice -.09 .07 -.12 Negative Affectivity .23 .04 .33*** 2 Customer Injustice .26 .04 .38*** Country .26 .11 .18* 3 Country x Customer .23 .08 .23** Injustice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  R2 Adjusted R2  F  ∆R 2  9.18***  .30  .27  14.27***  .45  .42 .15***  14.29***  .47  .44 .02**  141  Table 26: Mediation Analyses of Whether Individualism Accounts For BetweenCountry Differences Step Variables Constant 1 Age  B  SE  β  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  1.72 .05 -.03 .05 -.05  Gender  .17 .09 .12*  Tenure  .11 .05 .16*  Workload  -.02 .04 -.03  Distributive Justice  -.03 .05 -.05  Procedural Justice  -.07 .06 -.10  Interpersonal Justice  -.07 .07 -.10  Informational Justice  -.09 .07 -.12  Negative Affectivity  .23 .04 .33***  Customer Injustice  .24 .04 .35***  Country  .23 .10 .16*  Individualism  .13 .04 .19**  9.18***  .30  .27  14.72***  .48  .45 .18***  Country x Customer .04 .08 .04 Injustice Individualism x Customer .20 .04 .28*** 16.94*** Injustice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  .56  .53 .08***  2  3  142  Table 27: Mediation Analyses of Whether Uncertainty Avoidance Accounts for Between-Country Differences β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.72  .05  Age  -.03  .05 -.05  Gender  .17  .09 .12*  Tenure  .11  .05 .16*  F  Workload  -.02  .04 -.03  Distributive Justice  -.03  .05 -.05  Procedural Justice  -.07  .06 -.10  Interpersonal Justice  -.07  .07 -.10  Informational Justice  -.09  .07 -.12  Negative Affectivity  .23  .04 .33*** 9.18***  Customer Injustice  .24  .04 .35***  Country  .10  .11 .07  Uncertainty Avoidance  .17  .04 .25*** 15.55***  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  .30  .27  .50  .46 .20***  .52  .49 .03**  2  3 Country x Customer .06 .09 .06 Injustice Uncertainty Avoidance x .13 .04 .18** Customer Injustice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  14.79***  143  Table 28: Mediation Analyses of Whether Power Distance Accounts for BetweenCountry Differences β  Step Variables Constant 1  B  SE  1.72  .05  Age  -.03  .05 -.05  Gender  .17  .09 .12*  Tenure  .11  .05 .16*  F  Workload  -.02  .04 -.03  Distributive Justice  -.03  .05 -.05  Procedural Justice  -.07  .06 -.10  Interpersonal Justice  -.07  .07 -.10  Informational Justice  -.09  .07 -.12  Negative Affectivity  .23  .04 .33*** 9.18***  Customer Injustice  .25  .04 .36***  Country  .14  .11 .10  R2 Adjusted R2  .30  .27  ∆R 2  2  Power Distance  -.14  .04 -.20**  14.76***  .48  .45 .18***  Country x Customer .08 .09 .08 Injustice Power Distance x -.12 .04 -.19** Customer Injustice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  14.70***  .52  .49 .04**  3  144  Table 29: Mediation Analyses of the Strongest Cultural Mediator That Accounts for Between-Country Differences Step Variables Constant 1 Age  B  SE  β  F  R2 Adjusted R2  ∆R 2  1.72 .05 -.03 .05 -.05  Gender  .17 .09 .12*  Tenure  .11 .05 .16*  Workload  -.02 .04 -.03  Distributive Justice  -.03 .05 -.05  Procedural Justice  -.07 .06 -.10  Interpersonal Justice  -.07 .07 -.10  Informational Justice  -.09 .07 -.12  Negative Affectivity  .23 .04 .33***  Customer Injustice  .22 .04 .32***  Country  .05 .11 .04  Individualism  .11 .04 .16**  Uncertainty Avoidance  .12 .05 .17**  9.18***  .30  .27  14.92***  .53  .49  .23***  14.15***  .58  .54  .05***  2  Power Distance  -.08 .04 -.12*  3 Country x Customer -.05 .09 -.05 Injustice Individualism x Customer .16 .05 .22** Injustice Uncertainty Avoidance x .08 .05 .11 Customer Injustice Power Distance x -.03 .04 -.04 Customer Injustice Note. N = 203 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Gender is coded as Female = 0 and Male = 1. Country is coded as China = 0 and Canada =1.  145  Table 30: Summary of Findings in Study 2 Hypotheses H19: Supervisor Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Country H20: Supervisor Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Country; Me: Individualism H21: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Country H22: Customer Injustice  Sabotage; Mo: Country; Me: Individualism; Uncertainty Avoidance; Power Distance Note. Mo – Moderator; Me – Mediator; All sabotage are targeting at the respective justice sources. √ - Supported  Results √ √ √  146  7.2 Figures Figure 1: Summary of Hypotheses (Study 1) Horizontal Collectivism Interdependent Self-Construal  H6/7  Organization-based Self-Esteem Employee Sabotage toward Supervisor  Supervisory injustice H2/3 H1  H4  H5  Independent SelfConstrual/ Self-face Concerns  Vertical Individualism  Interdependent Self-Construal  Horizontal Collectivism Vertical Collectivism  Horizontal Individualism  Uncertainty Avoidance  Power Distance  Locus of Control H8  Independent Self-Construal H9  Customer Injustice  Interdependent SelfConstrual/Other-face Concerns  H10  H16  Negative Reciprocity Norm  H13 H15 H14  H11-12 H17  Justice Orientation  H18  Employee Sabotage toward Customer  Belief in Ultimate Justice  147  Figure 2: Between-Country Differences in Justice-Sabotage Associations (Study 2) Employee Sabotage toward Supervisor  Supervisory injustice  H20  Individualism  H19  Country (North America versus China)  H21  Individualism Uncertainty Avoidance Power distance H22  Customer Injustice  Employee Sabotage toward Customer  148  Figure 3: Two-way Interaction of Vertical Individualism and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor  Figure 4: Two-way Interaction of Horizontal Individualism and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage  149  Figure 5: Two-way Interaction of Uncertainty Avoidance and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage  Figure 6: Two-way Interaction of Negative Reciprocity Norm and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage  150  Figure 7: Two-way Interaction of Belief in Ultimate Justice and Customer Injustice on Customer-directed Sabotage  Figure 8: Two-way Interaction of Country and Supervisory Justice on Sabotage toward Supervisor  151  Figure 9: Two-way Interaction of Country and Customer Injustice on Customerdirected Sabotage  152  References Ackroyd, S., & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London: Sage. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196. Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-206. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ambrose, M.L., Harland, L.K., & Kulik, C.T. (1991). Influence of social comparisons on perceptions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 239-246. Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947-965. Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091. Au, K.Y. (1999). Intra-Cultural variation: evidence and implications for international business, Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4): 799-812.  153  Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bashshur, M.R., & Rupp, D.E. (2004, April). Context and justice perceptions: The relative effect of job, industry, and country on the measurement of justice. Paper presented at the 19th annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33. Begley, T.M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 692-711. Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In R. Griffin, A. O'Leary Kelley, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional workplace behavior (pp. 221-239). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B.H. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199-218. Blader, S.L., Chang, C.C., & Tyler, T.R. (2001). Procedural justice and retaliation in 154  organizations: Comparing cross-nationally the importance of fair group processes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4): 295-311. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2010). Injustice and identity: How we respond to unjust treatment depends on how we perceive ourselves. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11: 27-52). New York: Psychology Press. Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in relation to status and face concern: A study with Anglos and Chinese. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 27-56. Brockner, J. (2005). Unpacking country effects: on the need to operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. In B. M. Staw, & R. L. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 25, pp. 335–369). Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M.J., Francesco, A.M., Chen, Z.X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B.L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Cultural and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315. Brockner, J., Chen, Y.R., Mannix, E.A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D.P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138-159. Carmody, J., & Baer, R. (2007). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulnessbased stress reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 23–33. 155  Chen, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 503-512. Chen, M. J. & Miller, D. (2010). West meets east: Toward an ambicultural approach to management. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4): 17-24. Chen, P.Y. & Spector, P.E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184. Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: The cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 226– 238. Chen, Z. X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C. (2005). Test of a mediated model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457-470. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. Conlon, D.E. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural 156  justice: evidence from an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1109-1124. Crino, M. D. (1994). Employee sabotage: A random or preventable phenomenon? Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 311-330. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D. E. & Prehar, C. (2004). Accounting for corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 107-133. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 20, 1–113. Crossley, C. D. (2009). Emotional and behavioral reactions to social undermining: A closer look at perceived offender motives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 14-24. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.  157  Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 789-799. Elovainio, M., van den Bos, K., Linna, A., Kivimaki, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pentti, J., et al. (2005). Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: Testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2501–2512. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R.C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1-17. Farh, J., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444. Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through negative evaluations of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44. Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (in press). Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. Foa, U.G., & Foa, E.B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Foa, E.B., & Foa, U.G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, & R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp.77-94). New York: Plenum Press. 158  Folger, R. (1986a). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Beirhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145– 162). New York: Plenum Press. Folger, R. (1986b). A referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 33–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P . Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp.161–183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Folger, R. (1994). Workplace justice and employee worth. Social Justice Research, 7, 225241. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner, & D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Vol. 1, pp. 3-33). New York: Information Age Publishers. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. 159  Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice. (pp. 215-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851-866. Fry, D. P. (1998). Anthropological perspectives on aggression: Sex differences and cultural variation. Aggressive Behavior, 24(2), 81-95. Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A.Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321-326. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. In M. I. Posner & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 58: 479–514. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Giacalone, R. A., Riordan, C. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Employee sabotage: Toward a practitioner–scholar understanding. In A. G. Robert, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations, (pp.109-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D., & Sin, H-P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer verbal aggression toward service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 397–418. Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 160  22(4), 510-543. Haire, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Harris, L.C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 163-183. Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543-558. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. Henrich, J., & Henrich, N. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation, evolution and cognition series. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. Hinton, David (trans.) 1998. The Analects. New York: Counterpoint. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81-94. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1982 (pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace 161  Jovanovich. Homans, G.C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (Rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hui, M., & Au, K. (2001). Justice perceptions of complaint-handling: A cross-cultural comparison between PRC and Canadian customers. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 161-173. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns. Psychological Science, 7, 40–45. James, K. (1992). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 21–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jung, J. M. (2002). The interactive impact of culture and individual characteristics on ethical decision-making processes, criteria, and judgmental outcomes: A crossnational comparison between South Korea and United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Cincinnati. Jung, J.M., & Kellaris, J.J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 739-753. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1986). Fairness and the assumption of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285-S300. Kim, T.Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural 162  comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83-95. Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J.L., Chen, Z.X., & Lowe, K.B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320. Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X.P., Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in difference cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905914. Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 1-18. Lau, S. (1992). Collectivism's individualism: Value preference, personal control, and the desire for freedom among Chinese in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Personality and Individual Difference, 13(3), 361-366. Lau, V.C.S., Au, W.T., & Ho, J.M.C. (2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of counterproductive behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 73-99. Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841-866.  163  Lawrence, T.B., & Robinson, S.L. (2007). Ain’t misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance. Journal of Management, 33(3), 378-394. Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K.S. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26(4), 685-704. Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press. Leung, K., & Chan, D. (1999). Conflict management across cultures. In J. Adamopoulos & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Social psychology and cultural context (pp. 177-178). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Leung, K., Smith, P.B., Wang, Z., & Sun, H. (1996). Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: An organizational justice analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(5), 947-963. Leung, K., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). Strategies for strengthening causal inferences in cross-cultural research: The consilience approach. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 8(9): 145-168. Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397-404. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J.W. Thibaut, J.T. Spence, & R.C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 212-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg, & R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press. Levine, E. L., Ash, R. A., Hall, H., & Sistrunk, F. (1983). Evaluation of job analysis methods 164  by experienced job analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 339-348. Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009). Do East Asians respond more/less strongly to organizational justice than North Americans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 787-805. Liao, H., & Rupp, D.E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242-256. Lin, C.P. & Ding, C.G. (2003). Modeling Information Ethics: The Joint Moderating Role of Locus of Control and Job Insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(4), 335-345. Lind, E.A. (1995). Justice and authority relations in organizations. In R. Cropanzano & M.K. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 83-96). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Lind, E.A., Kray, L., Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 1-22. Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Lytle, A.L., Brett, J.M., Barsness, Z.I., Tinsley, C.H., & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.17, pp. 167-214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 165  Maes, J. (1998). Immanent justice and ultimate justice: Two ways of believing in justice. In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 9–40). New York: Plenum Press. Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (1999). More on ultimate and immanent justice: Results from the research project “Justice as a problem within reunified Germany.” Social Justice Research, 12, 65-78. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568579. Martinko, M.J., Gundlach, M.J., & Douglas, S.C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36-50. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748. McLean Parks, J., Conlon, D.E., Ang, S., & Bontempo, R. (1999). The manager giveth, the manager taketh away: Variation in distribution/recovery rules due to resource type and cultural orientation. Journal of Management, 25, 723-757. Mitchell, M. S., Ambrose, M.L., (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4): 1159‐1168. Morris, M.W., & Leung, K. (2000). Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation 166  in the psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 100-132. Noe, R.A., & Steffy, D.B. (1987). The influence of individual characteristics and assessment center evaluation on career exploration behavior and job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 187-202. Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A crosscultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599-624. Oetzel JG, Ting-Toomey S, Matsumoto T, Yokochi Y, Pan X, et al. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs. 68, 235–58 Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based selfesteem: Construct definition measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648. Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1993). Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 271-288.  Pillai, R., Williams, E., & Tan, J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany and Hong Kong. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 312-332. 167  Ployhart, R.E., & Ryan, A.M. (1998). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3-16. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Poon, J. & Thompson, E. (2003). Developmental and quiescent subsidiaries in the Asia Pacific: Evidence from Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, and Sydney. Economic Geography, 79(2), 195-214. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rahim, M.A., Magner, N.R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001). Do justice relationships with organization-directed reactions differ across U.S. and Bangladesh employees? International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 333-349. Ren, R. (2007). Quality of supervisor-subordinate relationship, cultural values, and organizational justice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses database. (UMI No. 3296523). Riordan, C. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1994). A central question in cross-cultural research: Do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent 168  manner? Journal of Management, 20, 643-671. Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572. Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609). Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 72-94. Rupp, D. E., Byrne, Z. S., & Wadlington, P. (2003, April). Justice orientation and its measurement: Extending the deontological model. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Rupp, D. E. & Paddock, E. L. (2010). From justice events to justice climate: A multilevel temporal model of information aggregation and judgment. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 13, 239-267. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Liao, H., & Jones, K. (2011). Multifoci justice and the target similarity model: A meta-analysis. Working Paper. Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971-978. Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398–419). New York: Guilford Press. 169  Sato, T., & Cameron, J. E. (1999). The relationship between collective self-esteem and selfconstrual in Japan and Canada. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 426–435. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national difference. In U. Kim & S.H. Han’guk (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. Moscow: State University-Higher School of Economics Press. Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., Jones, K. (2011). Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Paper Under Review. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validations of construct-interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. Sims, R. L. (2002). Ethical rule breaking by employees: A test of social bonding theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 101-109. Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591. Singelis, T.M., Bond, M.H., Sharkey, W.F., & Lai, C.S.Y. (1999). Unpacking culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(3), 315-341. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C , Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275. 170  Skarlicki, D.P. (2001). Cross-cultural perspectives of organizational justice. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 292-294. Skarlicki, D.P., Barclay, L., & Pugh, S. D. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not enough: Employer’s integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 123-146. Skarlicki, D.P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. Skarlicki, D. P. & Kulik, C. (2005). Third party reactions to employee mistreatment: A justice perspective. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (vol. 26, pp. 183 – 230). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Skarlicki, D. P. & Latham, G. P. (2005). Can leaders be trained to be fair? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt, (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice, pp. 499-524. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1335-1347. Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365-383. Smith, P.B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 377-400. 171  Song, I-S., & Hattie, J. (1985). Relationships between self-concept and achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 365-372. Spencer, S., & Rupp, D.E. (2009). Angry, guilty and conflicted: Injustice toward coworkers heightens emotional labor through cognitive and emotional mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 429-444. Spreitzer, G.M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828-847. Steiner, D.D. (2001). Cultural influences of perceptions of distributive and procedural justice. In G. Stephen, D.D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 111-137). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Pub. Struthers, C.W., Eaton, J., Santelli, A.G., Uchiyama, M., & Shirvani, N. (2008). The effects of attributions of intent and apology on forgiveness: When saying sorry may not help the story. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 983-992. Taylor, L., & Walton, P. (1971). Industrial sabotage: Motives and meanings. In S. Cohen (Ed.), Images of Deviance (pp. 219-245). New Work: Penguin Books. Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 250-258. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541-566. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). 172  Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225. Toneatto, T., & Nguyen, L. (2007). Does mindfulness meditation improve anxiety and mood symptoms? A review of the controlled research. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 260–266. Trevino, L.K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Brealey. Tsui, A.S., Nifadkar, S.S., Ou, A.Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 426-456. Turillo, C.J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J.J., Umphress, E., & Gee, J. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 89, 839-865. Tyler, T.R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary 173  deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345. Tyler, T., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7, 349361. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedure justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497. Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego: Academic Press. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. (1995). Culture, ethnicity, and authority: Social categorization and social orientation effects on the psychology of legitimacy. University of California working paper. Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. (2003). Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29, 511-532. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69. van den Bos, K. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in 174  management (Vol. 1, pp. 63-84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. van den Bos, K. (2001b). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931-941. van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 355-366. van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95-104. Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 753-760. Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 312-334. Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., Chi, R., & Yang, Y. (2004). An integrated framework for customer value and customer-relationship-management performance: A customer-based perspective from China. Managing Service Quality, 14(2/3):169–82. Warren, D. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28, 622-632. 175  Warren, M. A. (2010). Identifying the relationship between employee sabotage and organizational justice. Master’s Thesis. Ohio University. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794. Xie, J. L., Roy, J. P., & Chen, Z. (2006). Cultural and individual differences in self-rating behavior: An extension and refinement of the cultural relativity hypothesis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, 341-364. Yang, K.S., Yu, A.B., & Yeh, M.H. (1989). Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Construct definition and measurement (in Chinese). Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behavior, 287-354. Yoon, J.K. (1996). Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: The significance of status and procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research, 9, 121-143.  176  Appendices Appendix A: Items for Customer Injustice Measure 1. Made demanding or unreasonable requests. 2. Yelled at you. 3. Refused to provide information (e.g., photo ID) necessary for you to do your job. 4. Used inappropriate gesture/body language. 5. Criticized you in front of your colleagues or supervisors. 6. Blamed you for things beyond your control. Items were completed using the following 5-point scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = a few times, 4 = often, 5 = frequently.  177  Appendix B: Items for Customer-directed Sabotage Measure 1. Intentionally slowed your service to the rude guest. 2. Refused to provide exceptional service to the rude guest. 3. Withdrew from paying attention to the rude guest’s requests/concerns/needs. 4. Avoided the direct contact with the rude guest. 5. Withdrew from providing extra help/effort in serving the rude guest. 6. Intentionally withheld some information from the rude guest. 7. Purposely adhered to rules excessively to delay the service to the rude guest. Items were completed using the following 5-point scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = a few times, 4 = often, 5 = frequently.  178  Appendix C: The Survey Instrument Remember that your responses are completely confidential. We guarantee that no one other than the researchers will see your survey. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree 1. I am concerned with maintaining 1 2 3 4 5 the poise of the other person. 2. Maintaining humbleness to preserve the relationship is 1 2 3 4 5 important to me. 3. Helping to maintain the other 1 2 3 4 5 person’s pride is important to me. 4. Maintaining peace in our 1 2 3 4 5 interaction is important to me. 5. I try to be sensitive to the other 1 2 3 4 5 person’s self-worth. 6. I am concerned with helping the other person to maintain his/her 1 2 3 4 5 credibility. 7. I am concerned with not bringing 1 2 3 4 5 shame to myself. 8. I am concerned with protecting 1 2 3 4 5 my self-image. 9. I am concerned with not appearing 1 2 3 4 5 weak in front of the other person. 10. I am concerned with protecting 1 2 3 4 5 my personal pride. Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. I wish I could make amends for every single injustice I have ever committed. 2. I rarely notice people being treated unfairly.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  179  3. I hurt for people who are treated unfairly, whether I know them or not.  4. I have been in public situations where I have noticed strangers being treated unfairly. 5. When I observe or hear about people being treated unfairly, I tend to think about it for a long time. 6. People should care less about getting ahead and more about being fair. 7. I see people treating each other unfairly all of the time. 8. It makes me sick to think about all of the injustice in the world. 9. All of us need to take responsibility when others are treated unfairly.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  180  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. If someone dislikes you, you should dislike them. 2. If a person despises you, you should despise them. 3. If someone says something nasty to you, you should say something nasty back. 4. If a person wants to be your enemy, you should treat them like an enemy. 5. If someone treats you badly, you should treat that person badly in return. 6. When someone hurts you, you should find a way they won’t know about to get even. 7. You should not give help to those who treat you badly. 8. When someone treats me badly, I still act nicely to them.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  181  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. I prefer structured situations to unstructured situations. 2. I prefer specific instructions to broad guidelines. 3. I tend to get anxious easily when I don't know an outcome. 4. I feel stressful when I cannot predict consequences. 5. I would not take risks when an outcome cannot be predicted. 6. I believe that rules should not be broken for mere pragmatic reasons. 7. I don't like ambiguous situations.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. Subordinates should not express their disagreement with their supervisors. 2. The highest ranking manager in a team should take the lead.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neutral  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  182  3. Subordinates should carry out the requests of supervisors without question. 4. In work-related matters, supervisors have a right to expect obedience from their subordinates. 5. Subordinates should highly respect their supervisors.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Neutral  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements: never or definitely no  1. I’d rather depend on myself than others. 2. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others. 3. I often do “my own thing”. 4. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me. 5. It is important that I do my job better than others. 6. Winning is everything. 7. Competition is the law of nature. 8. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and irritated. 9. If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud. 10. The well-being of my coworkers is important to me. 11. To me, pleasure is spending time with others. 12. I feel good when I cooperate with others. 13. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible. 14. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want. 15. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required.  always or definitely yes  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1 1  2 2  3 3  4 5 4 5  6 6  7 8 7 8  9 9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  1  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  183  never or definitely no  16. It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups.  1  always or definitely yes  2  3  4 5  6  7 8  9  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1.  2.  3. 4.  5.  I am taken seriously around here. I am important around here. I am trusted around here. There is faith in me around here. I feel valued around here.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  How often over the past 6 months have you had the following occur from a guest? How serious is this treatment? Never  1. Made demanding or unreasonable requests. 2. Said inappropriate things. 3. Yelled at you. 4. Refused to provide information (e.g., photo ID) necessary for you to do your job.  A Seldom few Often Frequently Minor times  Severe  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  184  5. Used inappropriate gesture/body language. 6. Stared at you angrily. 7. Criticized you in front of your colleagues or supervisors. 8. Blamed you for things beyond your control. 9. Complained to other guests about your service.  A few Often Frequently Minor times  Never  Seldom  Severe  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  Please indicate how you responded to the rude guest Never Seldom  1. Intentionally slowed your service to the rude guest. 2. Complained about the rude guest to your colleagues and/or supervisors. 3. Refused to provide exceptional service to the rude guest. 4. Called on supervisors/senior colleagues to intervene (or help you). 5. Withdrew from paying attention to the rude guest’s requests/concerns/needs. 6. Avoided the direct contact with the rude guest. 7. Withdrew from providing extra help/effort in serving the rude guest. 8. Intentionally withheld some information from the rude guest. 9. Got even with the rude guest in some indirect way.  A few times  Often  Frequently  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  185  Never Seldom  10. Tried to get even with the rude guest during his/her next visit. 11. Asked your colleagues to withdraw from providing high quality service to the rude guest. 12. Reduced the effort to serve the rude guest during the following interactions with him/her. 13. Purposely adhered to rules excessively to delay the service to the rude guest.  A few times  Often  Frequently  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  My immediate supervisor:  1. Treats me in a polite manner. 2. Treats me with dignity. 3. Treats me with respect. 4. Refrains from improper remarks or comments. 5. Is open and frank in (his/her) communications with me. 6. Explains the procedures thoroughly. 7. Gives me reasonable explanations regarding the procedures. 8. Communicates details in a timely manner.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  186  In my company:  1. I am able to express my views at this company. 2. I feel I have influence over decisions at this company. 3. In general, procedures tend to be applied consistently. 4. Decisions that are made here are free of bias. 5. Decisions are based on accurate information. 6. Opportunities exist to appeal certain decisions. 7. Procedures comply with ethical and moral standards. 8. My reward reflects the effort I have put into my work. 9. My reward is appropriate for the work I have completed. 10. My reward reflects my contribution to the company.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  187  Over the past 6 months, you have:  1. 2. 3. 4.  Intentionally worked slower. Reduced effort into your work. Bad mouthed the supervisor to others. Neglected to follow your supervisor’s instructions. 5. Called in sick when not ill. 6. Tried to look busy while wasting time. 7. Refused to work overtime when asked.  A Never Seldom few Often Frequently times 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1  2  3  4  5  1 1 1  2 2 2  3 3 3  4 4 4  5 5 5  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. I am usually able to protect my personal interests. 2. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 3. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. 4. When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it. 5. My life is determined by my own actions. 6. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  188  7. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree Disagree Agree 1. Even persons who suffer from severe misfortune can expect that, in the 0 1 2 3 4 end, something good will happen to balance everything out. 2. Even amidst the worse suffering, one should not lose faith 0 1 2 3 4 that justice will prevail and set things right. 3. In the long run, the injustice imposed by illness receives 0 1 2 3 4 appropriate reparation/amends. 4. Even terrible illnesses are often compensated for by 0 1 2 3 4 fortunate happenstance later in life.  Strongly Agree  5  5  5  5  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1. My feelings are hurt rather easily. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Often I get irritated at little 1 2 3 4 5 annoyances. 3. I sometimes feel “just miserable” 1 2 3 4 5 for no good reason. 189  Strongly Disagree 4. I am easily startled by things that happen unexpectedly. 5. Minor setbacks sometimes irritate me too much.  Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  1  2  3  4  5  Please circle the extent to which you agree with the following statements:  1. It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. 2. My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me. 3. I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments. 4. I should take into consideration my parents’ advice when making education/career plans. 5. Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument. 6. I’d rather say “No” directly, than risk being misunderstood. 7. I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  190  8. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me. 9. I act the same way no matter who I am with. 10. I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I’ve just met. 11. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects.  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Slightly Disagree  Neutral  Slightly Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  General Information: 1. When did you join this company? Please indicate the month, and year. _______________ _______ (e.g., September 2005) 2. Current Work Status (Full Time/Part Time/Temporary): 3. Gender (M/F): _________  _________________  4. Year you were born: _______ 5. Country of origin: _______________ 6. How many immediate supervisors have you had over the past 6 months? ________ 7. How many guests on average do you serve each day? _________ 8. Please circle from the choices below, the highest level of education you have completed: Some High School  High School  College/Technical School  University  Any comments you would like to add: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________  Thank you for participating in my research  191  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0102441/manifest

Comment

Related Items