Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

You’re offended, I’m offended! An empirical study of the proclivity to be T

offended and what it says about employees’ attitudes and behaviors
Jeremy B. Bernerth
Department of Management, Fowler College of Business, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: For all the news stories devoted to individuals taking offense to various issues, little is known about these
Sensitivity individuals or their work-related habits. To address this important gap in organizational and societal knowledge,
Societal trends the reported research draws on cognitive interference theory to define and measure the proclivity to be offended
Political correctness (PTBO). This measure was hypothesized to serve as an off-task stimuli, and results of a time-separated multi-
Moral outrage
source study found PTBO negatively relates to employees’ task performance and citizenship behavior, and po-
Personality
Performance
sitively relates to counterproductive behavior, as rated by one’s supervisor. PTBO also had implications for
Workplace attitudes employees’ self-reported job satisfaction and workplace engagement. Building on the idea that PTBO may also
influence the way employees view their organization’s actions, overall organizational justice was hypothesized
and found to mediate the relationship between PTBO and both employees’ behavior and attitudes. Implications
for managers and organizations concerned with modern societal movements are discussed.

1. Introduction Despite rapidly growing media attention to these issues, systematic

Managers are increasingly working in politically-charged contexts.
Polls show citizens of many countries are more polarized today than
ever before (e.g., Hook, 2017) and that these political divisions in-
creasingly arise in and affect the workplace (McCarthy, 2017). As po-
litical divisions grow, so too do reports of people taking offense to
politically or socially sensitive events and issues (see Campbell &
Manning, 2015; Hess, 2016). Whereas acquiescing to these sensitivities
is lauded by some as “a force for promoting positive social outcomes,”
others call into question the altruistic portrayal of outrage over per-
ceived social injustices (Rothschild & Keefer, 2017, p. 209). This di-
vergence of views translates into two contrasting perspectives regarding
the implications for employees and organizations: one perspective holds
that proactively limiting perceived injustices and offenses may benefit
both employees and organizations as it helps employees to adaptively
respond to the environment and thus advance their careers, while or-
ganizations likewise benefit as they send a message to the public that
they are concerned with redressing historical injustices and thus attract
better applicants and a larger proportion of the market (Marques,
2009). The other perspective suggests individuals and organizations are
overly sensitive, and that “politically correct” stances and behaviors
stifle communication and distract the individual and organization from
developing competencies (Diplock, 2005; Hofstede, 2006; Schwartz,
2010).
empirical research exploring the work-related implications of political
and social issues, including the increasingly common tendency to be
offended by a vast array of events and traditions, is mostly nonexistent.
What little research that does exist is largely anecdotal in nature and/or
relies on retrospective mono-sourced judgements (Lilienfeld, 2017).
Related to this dearth of empirical research is the absence of theoretical
explanations for why such issues may relate to important workplace
outcomes. Arguments to date instead rely mainly on unsubstantiated
emotionally-driven claims that do little to explain why these actions
and tendencies might relate to such outcomes. This is particularly
problematic for organizational scholars and practitioners as millions of
dollars are currently spent on addressing these issues (Fisher, 2015;
Gates, 2014) without evidence suggesting such capital expenditures are
necessary or beneficial.
Given the importance of these issues, the reported research ex-
amines the proclivity to be offended (PTBO) by social events and tra-
ditions and how this tendency relates to important organizational
considerations. This study specifically develops a new measure labeled
the proclivity to be offended and explores behavioral and attitudinal
outcomes of this new measure drawing upon cognitive interference
theory (Sarason, 1984) as an overarching theoretical framework to
explain the relationship between the new measure and workplace
phenomena vis-à-vis a key mediating mechanism, namely, perceptions
of organizational justice. In doing so, this study makes a number of

E-mail address: jbernerth@sdsu.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.040
Received 23 November 2019; Received in revised form 15 May 2020; Accepted 18 May 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.B. Bernerth
important contributions to organization scholarship and practice. First,
this study systematically explores an issue at the forefront of political
and societal debate which is virtually ignored in the organization and
business literatures. This study also offers a theoretical explanation for
why this tendency likely relates to work-related phenomena, and fol-
lows up this notion with an empirical test of critical relationships with
time-separated multi-source data. This research consequently answers
calls from practitioners, academic scholars, and the general public (Ely,
Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006; Friedersdorf, 2016; Lilienfeld, 2017;
Marques, 2009; Rothschild & Keefer, 2017) who express concern over
the current state of political correctness and behavior displayed by a
large percentage of the population.
2. Defining a new construct and its nomological network
Prior to exploring the nomological network of PTBO, it makes sense
to clearly operationalize the construct that is the focus of the present
research and distinguish it from analogous terms. PTBO, in the present
context, represents a state-like tendency to be sensitive to customarily
innocuous societal events and traditions. An example of the type of
event viewed offensively under this state is the playing of the United
States’ National Anthem. Once a source of universal pride for
Americans, the national anthem has recently come to symbolize op-
pression in the eyes of certain individuals (Clague, 2016; Payne, 2016).
While this is one example, it is important to note that PTBO as a state-
like tendency does not involve merely being offended by a single event
or tradition; rather, PTBO is the tendency to view an array of events
and/or traditions as offensive— thus distinguishing this term from re-
lated topics such as moral outrage. Psychologists define moral outrage
as feelings of anger aimed at third-party transgressors of morality and
justice standards (Bies, 1987; Rothschild & Keefer, 2017). Whereas in-
dividuals high in PTBO are likely to feel that the social events or tra-
ditions to which they take offense also violate moral or equitable
standards, PTBO addresses a general state-like tendency to be offended
by such events whereas moral outrage represents an emotional expres-
sion with regards to a specific person’s actions.
PTBO is also distinct from two other popular terms used in lexicon
of social discussion, namely political correctness and microaggressions.
Some might argue PTBO includes aspects of political correctness, which
represents the avoidance of language that may exclude, marginalize, or
offend members of protected classes, yet PTBO refers not to the act of
avoidance but rather a tendency to take offense to certain events and/or
traditions. Likewise, PTBO is distinct from the phenomenon of micro-
aggressions, “subtle snubs, slights, and insults directed toward mino-
rities,” women, and other marginalized groups that implicitly commu-
nicate hostility (Lilienfeld, 2017, p. 139; see also Sue et al., 2007).
PTBO does not necessarily include feelings of hostility nor does the
reaction need to be elicited by actions directed toward specific minority
groups; rather, it is a cognitive framework set in one’s existing psyche to
be offended by an array of events or traditions.
2.1. PTBO and work-related behavior and attitudes
Having defined and distinguished PTBO from related concepts, it is
important to turn to the relationship between this phenomenon and
important work-related behavior and attitudes. This study focuses ex-
plicitly on six outcomes variables: task performance, citizenship beha-
vior aimed at individuals within an organization (OCBI), maintaining a
positive attitude (also known as sportsmanship), counterproductive
work behaviors (CWBs), employee job satisfaction, and employee en-
gagement. Task performance represents those actions directly involved
in the achievement of core job tasks whereas citizenship behavior re-
presents more informal, spontaneous behaviors that support the orga-
nization indirectly by creating an environment conducive to success
(Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCBI, in
particular, represents extra-role and discretionary behaviors that
315
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
benefit the individuals within an organization (Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006). Sportsmanship also represents discretionary beha-
vior, but unlike OCBI, sportsmanship is aimed at the organization and
includes maintaining a positive attitude even in the face of unforeseen
failures or difficulties (Organ et al., 2006; Organ, 1988). In contrast to
those behaviors that directly and indirectly contribute to an organiza-
tion’s success, CWBs represent acts intended to harm an organization’s
production process (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Stewart, Bing, Davison,
Woehr, & McIntyre, 2009). The final two outcomes, job satisfaction and
employee engagement, represent critically important workplace atti-
tudes that are essential for organizational success (Kataria, Garg, &
Rastogi, 2012; Koys, 2001; Ostroff, 1992). Specifically, job satisfaction
represents a positive emotional state resulting from the assessment of
one’s job (Locke, 1976), and engagement represents an individual’s
physical investment into their work role (Rich et al., 2010). These four
behaviors and two attitudes are the primary criteria because polemic
discussions about emerging phenomena like PTBO explicitly suggest
they relate to critical aspects of workplace productivity such as these
(e.g., Gates, 2014; Lilienfeld, 2017). Cognitive interference theory, as
explained below, also provides an explanation for why these relation-
ships likely exist. Thus, there are both practical and theoretical reasons
for focusing on these outcome variables.
For readers unfamiliar with cognitive interference theory (Sarason,
1984), an overview of existing theoretical and empirical findings can
help set the stage for the relationships proposed in this study. The basic
idea of cognitive interference theory is that off-task thoughts interfere
with concentration and performance by drawing limited processing and
sense-making resources away from task-relevant stimuli to task-irrele-
vant stimuli (Pierce et al., 1998; Sarason, 1984; Sarason, Sarason,
Keefe, Hayes, & Shearin, 1986; Vasey & Daleiden, 1996; Yee &
Vaughan, 1996). Attention is by its very nature a discriminatory process
in which myriad environmental cues are ignored in favor of others
(Smith, 1996). As there are limitations in a person’s ability to process
internal and external stimuli, any processing devoted to task-irrelevant
cues leaves less capacity available to support the execution of task-re-
lated activities (MacLeod, 1996; Sarason, 1984). A broad range of
conditions contribute to cognitive interference, but existing research is
clear that stress/worry-related thoughts provide the most powerful
source of interference (Klinger, 1996; MacLeod, 1996; Vasey &
Daleiden, 1996). This is significant for understanding PTBO’s potential
role in the workplace as being offended is both a stressor and a task-
irrelevant stimuli. Also significant to understanding the potential role of
PTBO in the workplace is existing research that indicates stress inter-
feres with our reasoning abilities and memory retrieval processes
(Mueller, 1992; Zeidner, 1998)—two factors clearly important for
performance. Additional research indicates worrisome thoughts have a
peremptory power, taking precedence over other areas and priming one
to focus on aspects of the stimuli not perceived or felt by others (Carver,
1996; Klinger, 1996; Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1996; Yee & Vaughan,
1996). Research in various domains conclude cognitive interference is
thereby associated with performance deficits (Beal, Weiss, Barros, &
MacDermid, 2005; Coy, O’Brien, Tabaczynski, Northern, & Carels,
2011; McCarthy, Hrabluik, & Jelley, 2009; Mikulincer, 1989; Rafaeli
et al., 2012).
Turning to one of the primary criterion organizations care about,
task performance, there appears to be good reason to propose a con-
nection with PTBO. Task performance reflects those activities related to
the execution or maintenance of the organization’s core mission.
Performing task-oriented activities at optimal levels typically relies on
smooth cognitive functioning across areas of processing and recall
(Rafaeli et al., 2012). This includes an ability to put aside worries and
preoccupations in addition to an ability to be attentive to what is taking
place around us (Sarason et al., 1986; Sarason, 1984). The proclivity to
see offense in ordinarily innocuous events, as a result, likely gets in the
way of effective task performance as being offended diverts attentional
resources away from task-relevant cues and requirements towards the
J.B. Bernerth
processing of peripheral or secondary cues. The offensive event com-
petes with and impairs task-relevant thoughts and actions by reducing
the amount of accessible cognitive resources. Rather than focusing on
task requirements, those high in PTBO are distracted by perceived of-
fenses that seem unjust; moreover, existing research indicates being
distracted by worrisome thoughts creates a feeling of helplessness as
divided attention prohibits resolving actions (cf. Mikulincer, 1989).
Imagine the scenario where an organization is days away from the end
of the quarter; sales numbers are generally good but several sales
people have yet to reach pre-determined quarterly goals. As meeting
sales goals is a substantial part of one’s year-end bonus, those who need
to finalize ongoing conversations with clients need to focus all their
attention on preparing one final pitch that answers all questions and
removes any remaining doubts. The person offended by everyday oc-
currences diverts important and limited cognitive resources away from
the client (and potential sale) towards a task-irrelevant stimuli (cf.
Sarason, 1984; Sarason et al., 1986). In this way, PTBO likely harms
task-performance by lessening and interfering with task-related atten-
tion.
Hypothesis 1. The proclivity to be offended negatively relates to task
performance.
Task performance is clearly important for organizational success,
yet research indicates discretionary behaviors also play a key role in the
functioning of organizations. Citizenship behaviors represent a family
of behaviors that are both voluntary and helpful (Organ et al., 2006). As
many citizenship behaviors involve the helping of one’s coworkers (Lee
& Allen, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991), the work and cognitive
dynamics found in those with a PTBO suggest possible implications for
OCBs. When one is offended by something, natural processes cause that
individual to divert cognitive resources to the eliciting stimuli; this
imposes additional processing demands on an employee while si-
multaneously reducing the number of available resources that could be
allocated to helping a coworker. In fact, existing research indicates
cognitive interference reduces one’s sensitivity to peripheral cues
(Mueller, 1992; Smith, 1996). As individually-aimed citizenship beha-
vior requires an awareness of the needs of others, it seems those with a
proclivity to be offended may not pick up cues suggesting help is
needed and/or not have the available resources needed to help. Citi-
zenship behaviors may also (and frequently are) aimed at the broader
organization. Sportsmanship, for instance, represents an employee’s
tolerance or willingness to overlook problematic work characteristics
and maintain a focus on resolving task demands (Joireman, Daniels,
George-Falvy, & Kamdar, 2006; Organ et al., 2006; Stoverink,
Chiaburu, Li, & Zheng, 2015). Other key sporting behaviors include
avoiding complaints about trivial matters and “making mountains out
of molehills” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Recent
media reports (e.g., Bodley, 2017; Holley, 2017; Weinstein, 2017)
suggest those who take offense to social issues and events are increas-
ingly vocal—a pattern likely repeated within organizations.
Hypothesis 2. The proclivity to be offended negatively relates to OCBs
in the form of (a) OCBIs and (b) sportsmanship.
Not all discretionary behaviors help an organization or its members.
CWBs, as referenced above, refer to a family of volitional acts that harm
the organization’s functioning. Given what cognitive interference re-
search tells us about the processing of negative thoughts or events
(Sarason et al., 1986; Vasey & Daleiden, 1996; Yee & Vaughan, 1996), it
appears there is good reason to expect a relationship between PTBO and
CWBs. For example, perceived threats impair brain functioning and
slow down cognitive processing (Goleman, 2004). Being offended is
analogous to a threat of sorts, which means one can expect those high in
PTBO to take more time processing and making sense of stimuli over-
looked or disregarded by many. Germane to this investigation is es-
tablished research indicating working at a slow pace is a form of CWB
(Stewart et al., 2009). Yet, the interference that comes into play when
316
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
processing offensive events is not the only reason to expect a relation-
ship between the two. Organizational justice research suggests in-
dividuals are “hard-wired” to respond to instances of incivility (i.e.,
“incivility is an example of unfair treatment” Griffin, 2010, pp.
312–313) with attempts at retribution (Folger, Cropanzano, &
Goldman, 2005). As being offended shares overlapping properties, a
connection between PTBO and CWBs seems likely as those offended
may seek out negative reciprocity in an effort to rebalance a perceived
inequitable situation.
Hypothesis 3. The proclivity to be offended positively relates to CWBs.
Cognitive interference theory suggests that a focus on the offensive
nature of social issues and events distracts employees from performing
at an optimal level, but it also stands to reason that PTBO correlates
with individuals’ attitudes. This is because people who experience
cognitive interference report dissatisfaction at an inability to become
absorbed in key life events (Sarason et al., 1996). Miller (1996) simi-
larly notes those with a tendency to monitor and scan the environment
for threatening information (arguably those high in PTBO) do not live a
“‘happy-go-lucky’ life style” (p. 184). By definition, cognitive inter-
ference also represents mental disengagement as those distracted by
task-irrelevant cues are unable to concentrate and absorb themselves
into the focal task (Carver, 1996; Sarason et al., 1996). Concentration,
focus, and absorption are all keys to workplace engagement (Rich et al.,
2010), meaning those distracted by offensive events are unlikely to
devote their full attention to the job. The justice literature parallels
these arguments, finding individuals disassociate (i.e., disengage)
themselves from those that treat others poorly (Blader & Tyler, 2005;
Haynie, Flynn, & Bauer, 2019). To the extent that PTBO leads in-
dividuals to focus on the inequitable characteristics of the workplace
(cf. Schwartz, 2002, 2010), it likely prevents such individuals from fully
engaging in their work and also likely elicits feelings of dissatisfaction.
Hypothesis 4. The proclivity to be offended negatively relates to job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5. The proclivity to be offended negatively relates to
employee engagement.
2.2. Underlying mechanism connecting PTBO and work-related behavior
and attitudes
Closer examination of cognitive interference theory and the ex-
planation put forth above suggesting a connection between PTBO and
important workplace criteria provides insight into a potential under-
lying mechanism responsible for these relationships. That is, it was
suggested that PTBO serves as a cognitive distraction that re-routes
limited resources from task-relevant cues to task-irrelevant cues as
employees attempt to make sense of offensive events. Yet, it is im-
portant to remember the root of being offended by a wide array of
events and traditions lies, in part, in the belief that such events and
traditions represent an unfair treatment of specific groups of people.
This proclivity also represents, in part, a belief that such inequity is
ingrained into the fabric of organizations, and, consequently individual
obligations to such institutions are lessened. Relevant to this notion is
existing research that suggests social justice (which includes sensitivity
to offensive events) goes hand in hand with organizational justice (e.g.,
Cartabuke et al., 2019; Stone-Romero & Stone, 2005). Also relevant is
research indicating the more threatening or offensive events a person
detects, the lower the threshold for activation becomes (Carver, 1996;
Vasey & Daleiden, 1996). Individuals who persistently monitor the
environment for offensive events prime themselves to view ambiguous
organizational actions and decisions as being offensive/unfair (see
Segal, 1996). Such cognitions are typically studied in the organizational
sciences under the umbrella of organizational justice theory, and
whereas different forms of justice exist, overall perceptions of justice
J.B. Bernerth
are more stable and account for more variance in key workplace out-
comes than narrow facets (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose &
Schminke, 2009; Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013). Organizational justice,
in this study, is therefore defined as the overall perception of fairness
displayed by an organization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Cropanzano
& Ambrose, 2001).
The theory and results described in the preceding paragraph along
with traditional news reporting (e.g., Bodley, 2017; Holley, 2017;
Weinstein, 2017) and limited academic research (e.g., Lilienfeld, 2017;
Rothschild & Keefer, 2017; Schwartz, 2002) suggest a link between
PTBO and organizational justice, yet existing research also suggests a
link between justice and those criteria previously described. Meta-
analytic results illustrate this, documenting a strong relationship be-
tween perceptions of organizational (in)justice and an array of beha-
viors and attitudes including the criteria explored in this study, as
employees who believe their organization has treated them unfairly feel
little reason to reciprocate with strong behavior or with a sense of
gratefulness for the imbalanced exchange (Colquitt et al., 2013;
Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). These dynamics com-
bine to suggest organizational justice mediates the relationships be-
tween PTBO and behavioral and altitudinal outcomes.
Hypothesis 6. The proclivity to be offended is negatively related to
organizational justice.
Hypothesis 7. The relationships between the proclivity to be offended
and (a) task performance, (b) OCBs, (c) CWBs, (d) satisfaction, and (e)
engagement are mediated by organizational justice.
3. Study 1: Measuring PTBO
Although theory suggests individuals offended by various social is-
sues and events differ from those not easily offended in behavior and
attitudes, this is a new line of inquiry. Therefore, it is necessary to es-
tablish a measure that assesses this construct. Three sequential studies
were used to develop such a measure and to assess whether or not it
relates to work-related attitudes and behaviors.
3.1. Item development and initial assessment
Using a hybrid deductive-inductive methodology, 17 items re-
presenting offensive events were developed. These events (i.e., items)
came directly through news stories receiving substantial media atten-
tion. The content validity of the newly developed items was assessed by
conducting a survey of 18 social scientists who study work-related
phenomena. Each expert had a doctoral degree in a related field. Each
subject matter expert was given a set of 45 survey items; this included
the 17 items developed to assess the proclivity to be offended, eight
moral outrage items by Pagano and Huo (2007), 11 microaggression
items by Torres-Harding, Siers, and Olson (2012), and nine political
correctness items by Strauts and Blanton (2015). Survey instructions
asked participants to identify each item as one of four constructs (listed
at the beginning of the survey were definitions of PTBO, moral outrage,
microaggressions, and political correctness) or indicate the item was
unidentifiable. Analysis began by first calculating the percentage of
experts who classified each newly developed PTBO item correctly as
PTBO. No explicit cut-off exists for correct identification, but generally
agreed upon best practice recommendations suggest a minimum correct
classification of 75% or better (Hinkin, 1998). Examination of the items
intended to assess PTBO revealed 5 items (Two men holding hands as
they walk down the street; The term “Black lives matter,” Refusing to
bake a cake for a gay wedding (for religious reasons); Believing minors
brought to the US illegally should be granted citizenship; Believing
black Americans should be paid reparations for prior ancestral slavery)
fell below the 75% mark. The item “Refusing to bake a cake for a gay
wedding (for religious reasons)” was identified as PTBO by nine
317
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
experts, unidentifiable by two, and as a microaggression by the re-
maining eight experts. The other four items were identified as PTBO by
fewer than half of all respondents; each of these items were most fre-
quently categorized as “unidentifiable.” With 12 of 17 items classified
as PTBO by more than 75% of experts, analysis continued by calcu-
lating Fleiss’ (1971) Kappa to assess the overall consistency among
experts that these 12 items represent the PTBO. Kappa for this 12 item
measure was 0.85 (p < .05), thus indicating there was agreement
among social scientists that these 12 items represent the construct of
PTBO (i.e., these 12 items are content valid).
4. Study 2: Quantitative assessment of PTBO
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants and procedure
Participation was solicited from employees with the help of upper-
level business students at seven geographically-dispersed universities
across the United States. As part of the recruitment process, students
were offered extra-credit in exchange for submitting the name and
email address of an employee working a minimum of 20 hours per week
or for distributing and collecting a paper survey to an employee
working a minimum of 20 hours per week. 395 individuals completed
the survey and correctly answered two data-quality check questions
(i.e., answer strongly agree to this question). Participants’ reported
average age was 25.9 years (SD = 9.1), average number of hours
worked per week was 30.3 (SD = 12.9), and average job tenure was
3.6 years (SD = 5.4). 54.6% indicated they were male; 70.0% indicated
they were White, 10.9% were Black, 9.0% were Hispanic, 6.5% were
Asian, and 3.6% selected Other.
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Social desirability
Because the goal of this study was to explore a new construct, it was
essential to evaluate any potential response bias in the newly developed
items. As such, participants completed a five-item social desirability
measure by Hayes, Hayashi, and Stewart (1989). Coefficient alpha for
the present study was 0.65.
4.2.2. Job satisfaction
Three items by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979) as-
sessed participants’ job satisfaction. Coefficient alpha for the present
study was 0.94.
4.2.3. Employee engagement
Six engagement items by Rich et al. (2010) assessed participants’
work engagement. An example item includes “I exert my full effort on
my job.” Coefficient alpha for the present study was 0.93.
4.2.4. PTBO
Study 2 began by assessing the relationship between the 12 PTBO
items developed in Study 1 and social desirability. Importantly, not a
single item correlated with the measure of social desirability, indicating
the appropriateness of continuing assessment of internal statistical
properties. Following Hinkin (1998), the relationship between items
was assessed by studying the corrected item total correlation (i.e., the
correlation between each individual item and the measure absent that
item). The rationale for beginning this process with corrected item total
correlations is that any item with a low correlation is indicative of an
outside domain. This analysis revealed three items (“Using the pronoun
‘he’ or ‘she’ when referencing biologically male or female persons,”
“Caucasian individuals wearing dreadlocks as a hair style,” “Using the
term ‘black’ when referring to a person with African or Caribbean
heritage”) did not reach generally accepted correlational standards
(r = 0.40). These items were discarded at this point. An exploratory
J.B. Bernerth
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for study 2 variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Proclivity to be offended (PTBO) 1.58 0.61 – employees’ overall job satisfaction (All in all, I am satisfied with my
2. Social desirability 4.87 0.94 0.09 –
3. Job satisfaction 5.38 1.45 −0.22 0.17 –
4. Employee Engagement 5.78 1.10 −0.19 0.28 0.54
Note. N = 395.
Correlations of |0.17|or greater are significant at p < .05.
factor analysis using principle axis factoring with Varimax rotation and
an unspecified number of factors then assessed the factor structure of
the remaining 9 items. This analysis revealed a one-factor solution that
subsequently composed the final nine-item PTBO measure (α = 0.83).
See the Appendix for a list of the final nine-item measure.
5. Results and discussion
Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for
Study 2 variables; correlations reported in this table reveal a relation-
ship between the new measure and both job satisfaction (r = −0.22,
p < .05) and workplace engagement (r = −0.19, p < .05). In ad-
dition, in two simple regression analyses, PTBO negatively related with
job satisfaction (R2 = 0.05, p < .05) and engagement (R2 = 0.04,
p < .05). These results support the contention that PTBO can be
measured and that it correlates with work-related attitudes. With these
findings in mind, formal hypothesis testing continued in Study 3.
6. Study 3: Assessing the outcomes of PTBO
6.1. Method
6.1.1. Participants and procedure
Participation was solicited with the help of upper-level business
students at two universities in the United States (one located in the
West and the other in the South). Students received extra-credit for
submitting the name and email address of a subordinate (working a
minimum of 20 hours per week) and their immediate supervisor. As
part of the study, the subordinate was asked to complete two surveys
(separated by one month) while the direct supervisor was asked to
complete a single survey assessing that subordinate’s workplace beha-
viors. Of the roughly 350 employees who were sent an invitation to
participate in the first survey, a total of 123 sets of Time 1 employee
surveys, Time 2 employee surveys, and Time 2 supervisor surveys
matched, for a rough participation rate of around 35%.
The reported demographic statistics for the final set of subordinates
indicated an average age of 35.1 years (SD = 14.3), average job tenure
of 6.8 years (SD = 8.1), and average number of work hours of 35.4
(SD = 12.3). The reported race of subordinates included 79.3% White,
5.8% Black, 6.6% Hispanic, 5.8% Asian, 0.8% Native American, and
1.7% Other. Reported statistics for participating supervisors indicated
an average age of 44.9 years (SD = 12.0), average organizational te-
nure of 13.9 years (SD = 11.2), and average managerial span of control
of 19.0 employees (SD = 30.6). The reported race of supervisors in-
cluded 88.6% White, 4.4% Black, 2.6% Hispanic, 3.5% Asian, and 0.9%
Other.
6.2. Time 1 measure
6.2.1. PTBO
In addition to demographic questions, subordinates completed the
nine-item measure developed and refined in Studies 1 and 2. Coefficient
alpha for the present study was 0.81.
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
6.3. Time 2 measures
6.3.1. Job satisfaction
A single-item overall job satisfaction measure was used to assess
job). A single-item job satisfaction was used in this study to lessen the
–
burden on subordinates and to help entice participation in the study
(i.e., as part of the recruitment message, participants were told surveys
were short and should take no more than 10–15 min to complete; thus,
the survey looked to minimize the number of questions required to
participate). Meta-analytic research on job satisfaction indicates single
item measures are appropriate in certain contexts and may obtain
equally valid ratings as multiple-item measures (Dolbier, Webster,
McCalister, Mallon, & Steinhardt, 2005; Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy,
1997).
6.3.2. Engagement
Rich et al.’s (2010) six item engagement scale was again used to
assess employees’ work engagement. Coefficient alpha for this study
was 0.92.
6.3.3. Organizational justice
Ambrose and Schminke’s (2009) three-item measure assessed sub-
ordinates’ overall justice perceptions. An example item includes
“Overall, I am treated fairly by my organization.” Coefficient alpha for
the present study was 0.93.
6.3.4. Task performance
Supervisors assessed subordinates’ task performance with seven
items by Williams and Anderson (1991). An example item includes
[This employee] “Adequately completes assigned duties.” Coefficient
alpha for the present study was 0.89.
6.3.5. OCBI
Supervisors assessed their subordinates’ citizenship behaviors aimed
at individuals within the organization with a seven-item measure by
Williams and Anderson (1991). An example item includes [This em-
ployee] “Helps others who have been absent.” Coefficient alpha for the
present study was 0.83.
6.3.6. Sportsmanship
Supervisors assessed subordinates’ sportsmanship with a five-item
measure by Podsakoff et al. (1990). An example item includes [This
employee] “Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters”
(reverse scored). Coefficient alpha for the present study was 0.92.
6.3.7. Counterproductive work behaviors
Supervisors assessed subordinates’ counterproductive work beha-
viors with a seven-item measure by Stewart et al. (2009). An example
item includes [This employee] “Intentionally worked slower than they
could have worked.” Coefficient alpha for the present study was 0.82.
6.4. Confirmatory factor analyses
Prior to testing study hypotheses, two confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA; one on the data provided by employees and the other on the data
provided by supervisors) were run to ensure the appropriate structure
of measured constructs. The first CFA, run on data provided by em-
ployees, indicated the hypothesized four-factor model, including a
single item measure of job satisfaction with reliability set to one minus
0.70 (i.e., a conservative estimate found in established research, see
Dolbier et al., 2005; Wanous et al., 1997), fit the data well: χ2
(147) = 251.14, p < .01; CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.07.
Because the overall sample size was small in comparison to the number
of indicators (which could inflate goodness-of-fit statistics) for the data
provided by supervisors, items were parceled together so that each
318
J.B. Bernerth Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of study 3 variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Agea
35.06 14.3 –
2. Racea 1.21 0.41 −0.09 –
3. Proclivity to be offended (PTBO)a 1.50 0.55 −0.27 0.27 –
4. Task performanceb 6.42 0.69 0.04 −0.05 −0.30 –
5. OCBIb 6.08 0.70 0.14 0.01 −0.27 0.57 –
6. Sportsmanshipb 6.06 1.17 0.02 −0.20 −0.35 0.52 0.47 –
7. CWBb 1.54 0.61 −0.05 0.08 0.18 −0.46 −0.47 −0.60 –
8. Job satisfactionc 5.89 1.20 0.20 −0.02 −0.31 0.15 0.20 0.18 −0.06 –
9. Employee engagementc 6.07 0.79 0.30 −0.07 −0.13 0.19 0.24 0.23 −0.23 0.41 –
10. Organizational justicec 5.91 1.03 0.08 −0.11 −0.20 0.23 0.23 0.28 −0.18 0.69 0.23 –

Note. N = 123. Correlations of |0.18|or greater are significant at p < .05. Race coded 1 = white, 2 = non-white.
a
Data provided by employees at Time 1.
b
Supervisors’ ratings of employees at Time 2.
c
Data provided by employees at Time 2.

latent factor was explained by three indicators (see Hall, Snell, & Foust, relates to CWB (b = 0.20, p = < 0.05), fully support Hypotheses 1–3.
1999; Kishton & Widaman, 1994; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000; Little, Hypothesis 4 and 5 predicted negative relationships between PTBO and
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). This model indicated the job satisfaction and employee engagement. The negative relationship
data provided by supervisors also fit the hypothesized four-factor model (b = −0.67, p < .05) found in Table 3 between PTBO and job sa-
adequately: χ2 (48) = 91.94, p < .01; CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05, tisfaction indicates full support for Hypothesis 4, yet results were not as
RMSEA = 0.09. clear with employee engagement. Although a negative relationship was
found between PTBO and employee engagement in Study 2, results
reported in Table 3 indicate PTBO was unrelated to employee en-
7. Results
gagement (b = −0.19, p = ns) in Study 3. Mediation results described
next help shed light on this finding, yet the pattern of results across
Table 2 provides the means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-
both studies indicates only limited support for Hypothesis 5.
tions for all study variables.
Hypothesis 6 proposed a relationship between PTBO and organi-
zational justice while Hypotheses 7a–7e built on this proposed re-
7.1. Hypotheses testing lationship and suggested justice serves as an intervening mechanism
between PTBO and the work-related behavior and attitudes proposed in
The hypothesized direct and indirect (i.e., mediated) relationships Hypotheses 1–5. Results in Table 3 indicate that PTBO is in fact nega-
were tested using standard regression techniques in combination with a tively related to perceptions of organizational justice (b = −0.38,
bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapping procedure with 5000 re- p < .05, adjusted R2 = 0.04), supporting Hypothesis 6. To assess
plications (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Hayes, 2013). Using the Hypothesis 7, which included six embedded hypothesized indirect ef-
bootstrapping procedure allows one to draw a large number of random fects, the bootstrapped indirect effects and confidence intervals asso-
samples from original data to develop a sampling distribution of in- ciated with each proposed relationship was assessed. Examination of
direct effects, and subsequently calculate and examine confidence in- Table 4 indicates organizational justice served as an intervening me-
tervals to ensure they do not contain zero (i.e., check for mediation). All chanism for five of the six outcome variables. Specific results indicate
mediation analyses used PROCESS version 2.16.3 for SPSS (Hayes, organizational justice mediated the relationship between PTBO and
2013). The first set of hypotheses, Hypotheses 1 and 2, predicted ne- task performance (H7a; ab = −0.05, CI.95 = −0.145, −0.001), OCBI
gative relationships between PTBO and task performance, OCBI, and (H7b; ab = −0.05, CI.95 = −0.135, −0.003), sportsmanship (H7b;
sportsmanship, and Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship be- ab = −0.10, CI.95 = −0.236, −0.011), job satisfaction (H7d;
tween PTBO and CWB. ab = −0.29, CI.95 = −0.571, −0.019), and employee engagement
Results reported in Table 3, which indicate PTBO negatively relates (H7e; ab = −0.06, CI.95 = −0.187, −0.005). The 95% confidence
to task performance (b = −0.38, p < .05), OCBI (b = −0.34, interval for the indirect effect of justice on the relationship between
p < .05), and sportsmanship (b = −0.74, p < .05), and positively PTBO and CWBs included zero, indicating Hypothesis 7c was not sup-
ported. The overall pattern of results, however, provides general sup-
Table 3 port for Hypothesis 7 and more context for the insignificant direct re-
Summary of estimated direct effects found in study 3. lationship found between PTBO and employee engagement as it
PTBO → Criterion R2 Adjusted R2 b SE t appears PTBO’s influence on engagement is partially a result of the
influence on unfair organizational perceptions formed by those high in
Task performance 0.09 0.09 −0.38 0.11 −3.51* PTBO.
OCBI 0.07 0.06 −0.34 0.11 −3.05*
Sportsmanship 0.12 0.11 −0.74 0.18 −4.06*
CWB 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.10 2.02* 8. Discussion
Job satisfaction 0.10 0.09 −0.67 0.19 −3.55*
Employee engagement 0.02 0.01 −0.19 0.13 −1.47
The popular press is replete with news stories about individuals
PTBO → Mediator upset by various political and social issues, events and traditions (e.g.,
Organizational justice 0.04 0.03 −0.38 0.17 −2.26*
Bodley, 2017; Clague, 2016; Holley, 2017; Payne, 2016; Weinstein,
Note. N = 123. b is the unstandardized regression coefficient. Employees 2017), yet there is no systematic research exploring what these reac-
provided ratings of PTBO at Time 1 and job satisfaction, engagement, and or- tions represent conceptually or empirically. This is problematic for
ganizational justice at Time 2. Supervisors assessed employees’ task perfor- managers and organizations as they lack guidance on what these re-
mance, OCBIs, sportsmanship, and CWBs at Time 2. actions might tell us about applicants and/or employees and how they,
* p < .05. the organization, should view and react to such happenings. To address

319
J.B. Bernerth Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323

Table 4
Summary of Estimated Indirect Effects Found in Study 3.
95% Confidence interval

Direct path from predictor and mediators to criterion b SE t Indirect path (H7) ab SE Lower Upper

H1: PTBO → task performance −0.34 0.11 −3.07* PTBO → organizational justice → task performance −0.05 0.03 −0.145 −0.001
Justice → task performance 0.12 0.06 2.03*
R2 = 0.12, Adjusted R2 = 0.11, F = 2 (120) = 8.38, p < .05

b SE t ab SE Lower Upper

H2a: PTBO → OCBI −0.30 0.11 −2.61* PTBO → organizational justice → OCBI −0.05 0.03 −0.135 −0.003
Justice → OCBI 0.12 0.06 2.05*
2 2
R = 0.10, Adjusted R = 0.09, F = 2 (120) = 6.85, p < .05

b SE t ab SE Lower Upper

H2b: PTBO → sportsmanship −0.64 0.18 −3.54* PTBO → organizational justice → sportsmanship −0.10 0.06 −0.236 −0.011
Justice → sportsmanship 0.25 0.10 2.63*
2 2
R = 0.17, Adjusted R = 0.16, F = 2 (120) = 12.08, p < .05

b SE t ab SE Lower Upper

H3: PTBO → CWB 0.17 0.10 1.66 PTBO → organizational justice → CWB 0.03 0.03 −0.004 0.111
Justice → CWB −0.09 0.05 −1.66
R2 = 0.06, Adjusted R2 = 0.04, F = 2 (120) = 3.46, p < .05

b SE t ab SE Lower Upper

H4: PTBO → job satisfaction −0.39 0.14 −2.68* PTBO → organizational justice → job satisfaction −0.29 0.14 −0.571 −0.019
Justice → job satisfaction 0.75 0.08 9.85*
R2 = 0.50, Adjusted R2 = 0.49, F = 2 (120) = 59.88, p < .05

b SE t ab SE Lower Upper
H5: PTBO → engagement −0.13 0.13 −1.00 PTBO → organizational justice → employee −0.06 0.04 −0.187 −0.005
engagement
Justice → engagement 0.16 0.07 2.34*
R2 = 0.06, Adjusted R2 = 0.04, F = 2 (120) = 3.85, p < .05

Note. N = 123. b is the unstandardized regression coefficient. ab represents the indirect effect. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
* p < .05.

this issue, this study conceptualized these reactions as a proclivity to
react in a specific way. The relationship between this proclivity and
important work-related behavior and attitudes was then empirically
explored, finding this proclivity is negatively related to task perfor-
mance, citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and employee engage-
ment, and positively related to counterproductive work behaviors. This
study also explored a potential explanatory mechanism underlying
these relationships, finding that those prone to be offended also view
their organizations as less fair. Perceptions of fairness subsequently
correlated with five key outcome variables, suggesting one reason that
PTBO correlates with important work-related outcomes is a distraction
or a focus on the perceived injustice of organizational actions.
The most fundamental implication of this research is the finding
that the current trend of taking offense to an array of events and tra-
ditions represents an underlying phenomenon and not isolated reac-
tions. Moreover, this state correlates with some of the most important
work-related outcomes (see Kataria et al., 2012; Koys, 2001; Ostroff,
1992), and in ways one might not expect or predict. For example, one
might assume those who display PTBO are the most helpful in the or-
ganization as their prescriptive morality dictates helping and providing
for others (cf. Arnot, 2009; Janoff-Bulman & Carnes, 2014; Schwartz,
2002, 2010; Thomas & McGarty, 2009), but study results indicate a
negative relationship between PTBO and two different forms of citi-
zenship behavior. Moreover, PTBO negatively correlated with task
performance and positively correlated with counterproductive work
behaviors, suggesting not only that these individuals engage in fewer
citizenship behaviors but also engage in behaviors managers and or-
ganizations want their employees to avoid. As this is the first systematic
exploration of PTBO and work-related outcomes, this study offers em-
pirical evidence that managers and organizations can utilize to help
navigate increasingly politically-charged contexts as they decide how to
respond to increases in the PTBO.
Despite numerous and sensationalized headlines in the popular
press, very few stories offer an explanation for why or how modern
political and social activity relates to behavioral and attitudinal out-
comes in the workplace. This study put forth a unique application of
cognitive interference theory (Sarason, 1984), and in doing so hy-
pothesized a key mediating mechanism that serves as an explanation for
why PTBO correlates with important workplace outcomes. PTBO not
only correlated with each of these factors, but mediation effects also
indicated perceptions of organizational (in)justice mediate the re-
lationship between PTBO and five of six outcomes. Using cognitive
interference theory in conjunction with organizational justice theory
represents a novel and notable contribution as scholars have previously
suggested injustice may serve as an important distraction, but this re-
search focused exclusively on customer mistreatment (Rafaeli et al.,
2012) and concerns over employment testing (McCarthy et al., 2009).
This study instead focused on the distraction caused by a state-like
tendency, finding the proclivity to be offended to customarily in-
nocuous societal events and traditions spills over to employees’ per-
ceptions of how the organization treats them. These results have clear
theoretical implications for future research as cognitive interference
theory needs to expand the definition of what constitutes an interfering
event while justice scholars could better integrate ideas of social justice
into models of organizational justice.
8.1. Implications for practice
Building on the points raised above, it is also important to note the
practical implications of this research. For one, managers and organi-
zations are largely unguided by empirical research and thus left to
question how they should treat applicants and/or employees who might

320
J.B. Bernerth
take offense to an array of events and traditions. While only an initial
exploration, this research suggests those easily offended may focus
closely on the fairness of the organization’s actions and decisions. This
subsequently harms their attitudes and performance. Existing research
suggests managers trained in principles of fairness positively impact
their employees’ perceptions (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997) and may,
therefore, be able to lessen the deleterious effects of PTBO on employee
effectiveness. Paying close attention to personal interactions and the
manner in which organizational policies and decisions are enacted
provides a good starting point, but both anecdotal and objective data
suggests giving in to those individuals expressing the most outrage is
not an advisable strategy (see Hartocollis, 2017). This suggests orga-
nizations, managers, and organizational scholars alike take strides to
more systematically explore current societal topics like PTBO.
8.2. Limitations and future research
This study is the first to explore the relationship between PTBO and
work-related behavior and attitudes, yet readers should be mindful of
certain limitations of the reported research. For example, the items (i.e.,
events) that compose the PTBO measure developed and used in this
research are not exhaustive and may be fluid in nature. What re-
spondents feel is offensive today (in the current political climate) may
change over time, meaning the items contained in the reported measure
will likely need to be updated periodically. One possible topic to in-
clude in additional items or updates is work-related offensive events.
This study used cognitive interference and organizational justice theory
to connect PTBO with significant work-related outcomes. As justice
theory suggests specific actions help promote fairness perceptions, it
would be interesting to see if a lack of such actions or if engagement in
other work-related behaviors generate similar reactions to those found
in this study and/or statistically map with non-work related offensive
events. Relatedly, the initial pool of items developed for this study
purposefully included events on all sides of the political aisle, but as
these items were subjected to various validity checks, some of the de-
sired balance was lost. As such, future updates could consider the
possibility of a higher order construct or separate constructs that tap
into distinctive conservative/progressive offensive events, which would
allow for potentially important comparisons.
Another consideration is the definition of PTBO as a state-like ten-
dency that has emerged in recent years. This use of the term “state-like”
is intended to be less fluctuating than the transient or momentary
feelings studied by emotions scholars but considerably less enduring
than the stable individual differences explored by personality scholars.
To this point, cognitive interference research finds some individuals are
predisposed towards the experience of intrusive thoughts while others
are victims of situational characteristics (i.e., there is both trait and
state interference; Mikulincer, 1989; Pierce et al., 1998; Sarason et al.,
1986). On the disposition side, enduring characteristics like anxiety,
personal adjustment (or lack thereof), and negative affect show the
strongest link with reoccurring cognitive interference (Dombeck,
Siegle, & Ingram, 1996; Pierce et al., 1998; Yee & Vaughan, 1996). As
Big Five personality scholars typically study these traits as part of
neuroticism, this opens up one avenue of future research in that it is
possibly that certain traits act as either an antecedent to (or moderator
of) the PTBO (and subsequent outcomes). Neuroticism seems particu-
larly likely based on scholarly research whereas narcissism seems
equally possible based on traditional news reporting (Behary, Young, &
Siegel, 2013; Stines, 2017; Vogel, 2006).
Given PTBO has a moral component to it, moral objectivism/re-
lativism also seems like a potential antecedent and/or moderator, and
this is especially true as one major theoretical lens used to study justice
is the moral virtue perspective (Folger et al., 2005), which suggests
justice signals a respect for morality. A related opportunity for future
research is the study of both offensive and innocuous events and tra-
ditions over the course of a more distal period of time. This study took
321
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
items from traditional news reporting, but many of the items included
in the final measure would not have been included had the study began
five years ago when many of these events/traditions were still viewed
as harmless to the vast majority of individuals. Having employees rate
the same events and traditions over the course of several years could
help determine the degree to which PTBO is truly stable or malleable.
9. Conclusion
The reported investigation provides an initial attempt to fill a void
in social science knowledge by developing a measure that asks how
individuals view current events and subsequently assessing the re-
lationship between this measure, a key workplace distraction (i.e., or-
ganizational (in)justice), and important work-related behavior and at-
titudes. Results linking the proclivity to be offended with perceived (in)
justice, poor task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive
work behavior, job dissatisfaction, and employee engagement are par-
ticularly important to organizations that do not have a good under-
standing of how they should view applicants and employees who ex-
press indignation at an array of events and traditions. Ultimately,
individuals, organizations, and society need to better understand what
is driving current trends like PTBO, and as such, it is hoped that this
study provides a foundation for debate and future explorations.
Appendix A
9-item proclivity to be offended measure (PTBO)
Instructions given to participants: The statements in this section de-
scribe a number of current events/topics in the news. We would like to
get your opinion on the extent to which these events/topics are offen-
sive to YOU personally (i.e., not how offensive other people think they
are). It is important that you give your honest opinion of these events/
topics. Remember, your responses are completely anonymous.
With this in mind, please circle your answer using the following
rating scale:
1 = Not at all offensive
2 = Indifferent or neutral
3 = Somewhat offensive
4 = Offensive
5 = Extremely offensive
The term Washington “Redskins”
Wearing a shirt that has an American flag on Cinco de Mayo
Telling someone to “man up”
Dressing up as an American Indian for Halloween
Saying “God bless you” after someone sneezes
The term “Blue lives matter”
The playing of the USA National Anthem
Believing that individuals who do not have legal status to be in a
country should be deported
Using the term Islamic terrorist
References
Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Distributive and procedural justice: Construct
distinctiveness, construct interdependence, and overall justice. In J. Greenberg, & J.
Colquitt (Eds.). The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in orga-
nizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
491–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013203.
Arnot, M. (2009). A global conscience collective? Incorporating gender injustices into
global citizenship education. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 155–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197909103932.
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process
model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
J.B. Bernerth
1054–1068.
Behary, W. T., Young, J., & Siegel, D. J. (2013). Disarming the narcissist: Surviving and
thriving with the self-absorbed (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 289–319.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the
effects of fairness? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). Handbook of organizational
justice (pp. 329–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bodley, M. (2017, February 2). At Berkeley Yiannopoulos protest, $100,00 in damage, 1
arrest. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/crime/
article/At-Berkeley-Yiannopoulos-protest-100-000-in-10905217.php.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1979). The michigan or-
ganizational assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. University of Michigan.
Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2015, July 9). Microaggression and Changing Moral
Cultures. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.
com/article/MicroaggressionChanging/231395.
Cartabuke, M., Westerman, J. W., Bergman, J. Z., Whitaker, B. G., Westerman, J., &
Beekun, R. I. (2019). Empathy as an antecedent of social justice attitudes. Journal of
Business Ethics, 157, 605–615.
Carver, C. S. (1996). Cognitive interference and the structure of behavior. In I.G. Sarason,
G.R. Pierce, B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and
findings (pp. 25–45). New York, NY: Routledge.
Clague, M. (2016, August 31). ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ critics miss the point. CNN.com.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/opinions/star-spangled-banner-
criticisms-opinion-clague/index.html.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.
3.425.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., et al.
(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social ex-
change and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757.
Coy, B., O’Brien, W. H., Tabaczynski, T., Northern, J., & Carels, R. (2011). Associations
between evaluation anxiety, cognitive interference and performance on working
memory tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 823–832.
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more si-
milar than you think: A monistic view and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R.
Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119–151). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Diplock, R. (2005). You’re offended I’m offended. Marketing, 110, 11.
Dolbier, C. L., Webster, J. A., McCalister, K. T., Mallon, M. W., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2005).
Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 16, 195–198. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-19.3.194.
Dombeck, M. J., Siegle, G. J., & Ingram, R. E. (1996). Cognitive interference and coping
strategies in vulnerability to negative affect. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R.
Sarason (Eds.). Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 299–323).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ely, R. J., Meyerson, D. E., & Davidson, M. N. (2006). Rethinking political correctness.
Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–89.
Fisher, A., (2015, November 15). How microaggressions can wreck your business.
Fortune.com. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/11/19/microaggressions-
talent-business/.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological
Bulletin, 76, 378–382.
Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between
justice and morality? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). Handbook of organi-
zational justice (pp. 215–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Friedersdorf, C. (2016, April 13). How politically correct should the workplace be? The
Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/
how-politically-correct-should-the-workplace-be/477636/.
Gates, J. F. (2014, August 31). Microaggression: The new workplace bigotry.
HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-
fitzgerald-gates-phd/microaggression-the-new-w_b_5544663.html.
Goleman, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence & working with emotional intelligence omnibus.
London: Bloomsbury.
Griffin, B. (2010). Multilevel relationships between organizational-level incivility, justice,
and intention to stay. Work & Stress, 24, 309–323.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM:
Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational
Research Methods, 2, 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819923002.
Hartocollis, A. (2017, July 9). Long after protests, students shun the University of
Missouri. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/
09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hayes, R. D., Hayashi, T., & Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially de-
sirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 629–636. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900315.
Hess, A. (2016, July 19). How ‘political correctness’ went from punch line to panic. New
York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/magazine/how-
political-correctness-went-from-punch-line-to-panic.html.
Haynie, J. J., Flynn, C. B., & Bauer, J. E. (2019). The organizational justice-job engage-
ment relationship: How social exchange and identity explain this effect. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 31, 28–45.
Hillebrandt, A., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Integrating organizational justice and affect: New
322
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
insights, challenges, and opportunities. Social Justice Research, 26, 513–531.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.
1177/109442819800100106.
Hofstede, G. J. (2006). Political correctness: Words as weapons. The Business Renaissance
Quarterly, 1, 59–71.
Hook, J. (2017, September 6). Political Division in the U.S. are widening, long-lasting,
poll shows. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/
political-divisions-in-u-s-are-widening-long-lasting-poll-shows-1504670461.
Holley, P. (2017, March 4). A conservative author tried to speak at a liberal arts college.
He left fleeing an angry mob. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/03/04/a-conservative-author-
tried-to-speak-at-a-liberal-college-he-left-fleeing-an-angry-mob/.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. (2014). Motivation and morality: Insights into political
ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 316–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0140525X13002604.
Joireman, J., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & Kamdar, D. (2006). Organizational citi-
zenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences,
and employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an in-basket simulation of
OCBs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2266–2292. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.0021-9029.2006.00103.x.
Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2012). Employee engagement and organizational
effectiveness: The role of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of
Business Insights & Transformation, 6, 102–113.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative
parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 54, 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003022.
Klinger, E. (1996). The contents of thoughts: Interference as the downside of adaptive
normal mechanisms in thought flow. In I.G. Sarason, G.R. Pierce, B.R. Sarason (Eds.).
Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 3–23). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship be-
havior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.
tb00087.x.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods,
3, 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace de-
viance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.).
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1239–1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microagressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 12, 138–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to
parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
MacLeod, C. (1996). Anxiety and cognitive processes. In , I.G., Pierce, G.R., Sarason, B.R.
(Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 47–76). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Marques, J. F. (2009). How politically correct is political correctness? A SWOT analysis of
this phenomenon. Business & Society, 48, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0007650307307155.
McCarthy, N. (2017, May 4). Political discussion in the workplace is stressing Americans
out. Forbes.com. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/
2017/05/04/political-discussion-in-the-workplace-is-stressing-americans-out-
infographic/#551ed5f1449d.
McCarthy, J., Hrabluik, C., & Jelley, R. B. (2009). Progression through the ranks:
Assessing employee reactions to high-stakes employment testing. Personnel
Psychology, 62, 793–832.
Mikulincer, M. (1989). Cognitive interference and learned helplessness: The effects of off-
task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.129.
Miller, S. M. (1996). Monitoring and blunting of threatening information: Cognitive in-
terference and facilitation in the coping process. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R.
Sarason (Eds.). Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 175–190).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Mueller, J. H. (1992). Anxiety and performance. In A. P. Smith, & D. M. Jones (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of human performance: Vol. 3, (pp. 127–160). London: Academic Press.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good solider syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. P. (2006). Organizational citizenship be-
havior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. London: Sage Publications.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963.
Pagano, S. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2007). The role of moral emotions in predicting support for
political actions in post-war Iraq. Political Psychology, 28, 227–255. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00563.x.
Payne, M. (2016, August 27). Colin Kaepernick refuses to stand for national anthem to
protest police killings. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/08/27/colin-kaepernick-refuses-to-
stand-for-national-anthem-to-protest-police-killings/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.
4d55ff2d4e68.
Pierce, G. R., Ptacek, J. T., Taylor, B., Yee, P. L., Henderson, C. A., Lauventi, H. J., et al.
J.B. Bernerth
(1998). The role of dispositional and situational factors in cognitive interference.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1016–1031.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and or-
ganizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. https://doi.org/
10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 36, 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553.
Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. (2012).
When customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 931–950.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.
Rothschild, Z. K., & Keefer, L. A. (2017). A cleansing fire: Moral outrage alleviates guilt
and buffers threats to one’s moral identity. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 209–229.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9601-2.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.46.4.929.
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Keefe, D. E., Hayes, B. E., & Shearin, E. N. (1986). Cognitive
interference: Situational determinants and traitlike characteristics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 215–226.
Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Domains of cognitive interference. In
I.G. Sarason, G.R. Pierce, B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories,
methods, and findings (pp. 139–152). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwartz, H. S. (2002). Political correctness and organizational nihilism. Human
Relations, 55, 1275–1294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055011918.
Schwartz, H. S. (2010). Society against itself: Political correctness and organizational self-
destruction. London: Karnac.
Segal, Z. V. (1996). Cognitive interference in depressive and anxiety-based disorders. In I.
G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.). Cognitive interference: Theories,
methods, and findings (pp. 325–345). New York, NY: Routledge.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to
increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00707.x.
Smith, R. E. (1996). Performance anxiety, cognitive interference, and concentration en-
hancement in sports. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.). Cognitive
interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 261–283). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the
eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012605.
Stines, S. (2017, March 9). How a person with narcissism responds to a perceived offense.
GoodTherapy.org. Retrieved from http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/how-person-
with-narcissism-responds-to-perceived-offense-0309174.
323
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 314–323
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (2005). How do organizational justice concepts relate
to discrimination and prejudice? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). Handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 439–467). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stoverink, A. C., Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Zheng, X. (2017). Supporting team citizenship:
The influence of team social resources on team-level affiliation-oriented and chal-
lenge-oriented behavior. Human Resource Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1748-8583.12173.
Strauts, E., & Blanton, H. (2015). That’s not funny: Instrument validation of the concern
for political correctness scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 32–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.012.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., et al.
(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.
American Psychologist, 62, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271.
Thomas, E. F., & McGarty, C. A. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in
creating the potential for international development activism through group-based
interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 115–134. https://doi.org/10.
1348/014466608X313774.
Torres-Harding, S. R., Siers, B., & Olson, B. D. (2012). Development and psychometric
evaluation of the social justice scale (SJS). American Journal of Community Psychology,
50, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9478-2.
Vasey, M. W., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996).In I.G. Sarason, G.R. Pierce, & B.R. Sarason (Eds.),
Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 117–138). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Vogel, C. (2006, January 1). A field guide go narcissism. PsychologyToday.com.
Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200601/field-guide-
narcissism.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good
are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247.
Weinstein, B. (2017, May 30). The campus mob came for me—and you, professor, could
be next. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-
campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
Yee, P. L., & Vaughan, J. (1996). Integrating cognitive, personality, and social approaches
to cognitive interference and distractibility. In I.G. Sarason, G.R. Pierce, & B.R.
Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 77–97).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.
Jeremy B. Bernerth, Ph.D., is a social scientist interested in perceptions of fairness in
organizational actions and decisions, leadership-related topics, organizational change,
and methodological issues in the field of management. Prior to accepting an academic
position, Dr. Bernerth worked for the international consulting firm McKinsey & Company,
where his projects focused on a variety of issues including mergers and acquisitions,
general organizational health issues, and performance concerns.