Researches on particularly deontic justice indicate that people

Researches on particularly deontic justice indicate
that people match their ethical decisions and behaviours with the triggering
event – e.g., unfair orders or mistreatments of the higher order people in the
organizations. According
to the Schminke et al. (1997), ethics and justice are the basic concepts of the
fairness in the organizations and employees’ perceptions of organizational justice have
been recognised as a central factor that affects an ethical culture (Kaptein 2008;
Trevin˜o and Weaver 2001).
Regarding to the Johnson (2007) and Trevino and Weaver (2001),
employees’ moral intents and engaging in the ethical behaviours in the
organizations is strongly related to perceptions of the fairness.

Researchers have emphasized to
some of the antecedents of the organizational justice such as participation
(i.e., ability to participate in the procedure of decision making; Greenberg & Folger, 1983; Bies
& Shapiro, 1988), communication (i.e., having opportunity to communicate
with employees and managers; Kernan &
Hanges, 2002) and justice climate (i.e., team level and shared perceptions of justice between members;
Li & Cropanzano, 2009; Roberson & Colquitt, 2005).

Studies have addressed to some
outcomes of perception of justice/injustice within the organizations such as
trust (justice, especially procedural justice is one of the determinants of the
trust within the organization; DeConick, 2010),
performance (changing the job performance could be a reaction to the injustice
perceived in the organization; Cohen-Charash
& Spector, 2001), commitment to the organization and job satisfaction
(higher levels of justice is related to commitment and job satisfaction in the
organizations; Al-Zu’bi, 2010;
DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001),
organizational citizenship behaviours (individuals engage more in citizenship behaviours
when they experience more fair treatments; DeConick, 2010; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
Karriker & Williams, 2009), Counterproductive work behaviours (increased organizational injustice
causes employees reluctance to obey the organization rules; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001), Absenteeism and withdrawal (absenteeism
and even more extreme type, withdrawal, could be happen in result of
experiencing unfairness in the organization; Johns, 2001), health and emotional exhaustion (with
increasing justice in the organization, the level of health increase but in
contrast burnout decline; Liljegren & Ekberg, 2009) and turnover intention (could be an outcome
of experiencing unfair treatments in the organizations; DeConinck &
Stilwell, 2004; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010).

Additional study show that perceptions of unfairness decrease people’s intention
to engage in prosocial behaviours, but intensify their negative emotions and inclination
to retaliation, avoidance from workplace, and anti-social behaviours (Cohen-Charash
& Spector, 2001).



Although, affect, mood and emotion are used
interchangeably, literature has demonstrated their differences. For instance, affect,
is a generic term that surrounds both emotions and moods (i.e., defined as a wide
range of feelings). Moods are less intense feelings that often do not have
contextual stimulus (i.e., cause is often general and uncertain; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996).  However, compared to
moods, emotions are short term affective reactions toward a specific stimulus (i.e.,
affected by particular occasion and Very brief in length; Frijda &
Mesquita, 1994; Watson, et al, 1988; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Emotion, a critical component of the social contexts,
extends from mild to the intense, simple to the complex, and private to the
public (Hillebrandt and Barclay, 2017; Van Kleef, 2009). Literature refers to two
categories of emotions include positive and negative ones. Positive emotions,
mostly happiness, are more related to collaborative situations and are much
more correlated with psychological health outcomes. However, negative emotions,
mostly anger, are related to psychological unhealthy outcomes.

Although, most of the negative emotions could be
represented in the organizations, they have different ethical outcomes. For
instance, guilt, a “self-focused” emotion, is more likely to result in
reconciliation attempts by the employee (Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000; Motro et al. 2016; Tangney, 1995). People
who feel guilty prefer to condemn themselves than others and are motivated to
do more ethical behaviours to compensate their faults in the past. Therefore,
guilt is not usually related to retaliation (Barclay et al., 2005). In contrast, anger,
could motivate individuals to unethical or harmful behaviours toward others or
organization (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005; Motro et
al. 2016). Anger
causes individuals to condemn other people, for example colleagues or employers
in the organizations (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001), and it motivates
people to do more punishments and interpersonal revenge (Tripp & Bies, 1997),
organizational incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001) and have less trust and tolerance
for others’ behaviours (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Goldberg, Lerner, &
Tetlock, 1999). Indeed, these exhaustive list of adverse against others in the
workplace comes
from individuals’ tendency to have harshly quick judgment about others
(Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993; Lerner, Goldberg, & Tetlock,
1998; Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Tiedens & Linton, 2001). Importantly,
with increasing defensive optimism and moral self-esteem (Dunning, 2007; Hemenover
& Zhang, 2004; Polman, 2011), anger influences less engaging in costly
moral behaviour (Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009). These results demonstrate
that anger is an “outward-focused” negative emotion as well as hostility (Barclay,
Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005; Lee & Allen, 2002). Recently, researchers have
distinguished the differences between trait and state anger (e.g., Gibson and
Callister, 2010; Wilkowski
& Robinson, 2008).
According to their point of view, state anger includes episodic experiences of
anger that range from slight irritation to intense range (Glomb, 2002). In opposite side,
trait anger is longer-term and more intense and frequent occurrences of state
anger (Spielberger, 1999). Therefore, by focusing more on state dimension,
anger is an emotion that triggers the acts against others because of the
perception of getting less than what he/she deserves (Clayton,
1992; Gibson
and Callister, 2010).

Anger is an emotion which have high activation and unpleasant
hedonic nature, and is considered to be low in positive affect and high in
negative affect (Grandey, 2008). Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary (2008) defines anger as “a strong feeling of displeasure and
usually of antagonism”. Gibson
and Callister (2010) and Gibson, Schweitzer, Callister and Gray (2009)
addressed to four different features of anger include: (a) a discrete emotion with
particular physical reactions; (b) triggers in the social contexts in response
to the others actions; (c) triggers specially when an unfairness experienced
and acts as a transaction between the individual and his or her situation; and
(d) usually experienced with work-related events because of some reasons which Gibson
& Callister (2010) has shortened them in three categories; perceptions of unfairness,
goal interference, and interpersonal conflict.

Adams (1965), Fitness (2000) and Pillutla &
Murnighan (1996) mentioned that feelings of anger and resentment elicited by
injustice in the workplaces could provoke harmful reactions (Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997). Additional studies indicate that perceived injustice extracts
anger and deviant behaviour in the workplace (e.g., Bies, 1987; Bies & Shapiro,
1988; Harlos & Pinder, 2000; Gibson & Callister, 2010). Schweitzer
& Gibson (2008) believe that perception of injustice, one of the most
common reasons of workplace anger, often leads to the unethical behaviours such
as retaliation. Other researches also have referred to various negative
outcomes of anger from physically health issues, blood pressure and heart
disease (e.g., Begley, 1994), to psychosocial maladaptive reactions such as
tendency to interpersonal revenge (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1998), destructive
organizational climates (e.g., Aquino, Douglas, & Martinko, 2004),
decreased job satisfaction (e.g., Glomb, 2002), and even violence (Fox&
Spector, 1999).

According to the researches, anger the same as other
emotions could have contribution in different
positions (e.g., as an antecedent, a mediator or an outcome) in the unfairness models (Barksy, Kaplan, & Beal, 2011). Barsky
and Kaplan (2007) in a meta-analysis showed that state and trait emotions could
be antecedents for all dimensions of injustice. They demonstrated that negative
emotions have negative impact on the perception of injustice. In contrast
positive emotions are positively related to the justice perceptions. Consistently,
in the other study, Lang, Bliese, Lang, and Adler (2011) illustrated that intension
of negative emotion in depression is former to perceptions of injustice in
organizations. Emotions could be also an outcome of experiencing injustice in
the organization. Importantly, they could be the mediators between perceived
injustice and behavioural reactions in the organizations such as
counterproductive behaviours. For
example, Evelyn Chan, M., Arvey, R. (2011) found that anger is a mediator
between unfairness and unethical behaviour. Regarding to their findings, angry
people have more intention to behave unethically because of their increased
impulsivity, while guilty individuals behaved more ethically due to their high
levels of deliberate thinking
(Motro, Ordóñez, Pittarello, & Welsh, 2016; Panasiti and
Ponsi, 2017).

Additional researches illustrated that fair
interactions were more related to positive emotions (e.g., joy and happiness)
and less related to the negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and anger) (e.g., Chebat
& Slusarczyk, 2005; DeCremer & Stouten, 2005; Murphy & Tyler, 2008; and Rupp &
Spencer, 2006). These results replicated by Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) and
Barclay et al. (2005) who found the relation between interactional justice and
both positive and negative emotions.

Gibson and Callister (2010) and Glomb (2002) pointed
out that expression of the anger and its intensity is related to the status of
the person (i.e. organizational position and control over resources), meaning
that it is more likely for employees to be aggressor against equal or lower
status individuals in the organization, but it is less likely to express their
anger against the higher status people such as their managers (Fitness, 2000). Therefore,
because of the existent risks of expression of the anger, people may use the
suppression as a strategy for regulation of their emotions and it may result in
increased stress, and impaired performance due to the consumption of cognitive
resources required by suppression (Gross, 2002). According to Cropanzano,
Massaro & Becker (2017) affective and cognitive process moderate the
fairness judgments.