J Bus Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s10869-016-9484-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Moral Emotions Toward Others at Work and Implications
for Employee Behavior: a Qualitative Analysis Using
Critical Incidents
Michael T. Ford 1 & John P. Agosta 1 & Jingyi Huang 1 & Choe Shannon 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract We propose a theoretical framework for and, via
critical incidents, inductively investigate (a) the situations that
trigger moral emotions toward others at work and (b) worker
responses to these situations. Critical incidents were collected
from a heterogeneous sample of 423 workers. Participants
described an incident that caused each of four moral emotions
(gratitude, anger, admiration, and contempt) and their re-
sponse. Incidents and responses were coded, and frequencies,
differences across the moral emotions, and associations be-
tween incidents and responses were analyzed. Several morally
relevant situations at work were found to trigger the moral
emotions. Participants responded in ways that had implica-
tions for their performance and their own well-being. The
incidents largely align with moral foundations theory (Haidt
and Graham in Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116, 2007).
Responses also show evidence for social exchange, social
learning, and rational expectancy-based processes and behav-
ior. The incidents specify several practices for managers and
organizations to encourage and avoid. This was the first qual-
itative study of moral emotions at work and one of the few
workplace studies to examine these emotions empirically.
Several understudied factors and behavioral responses
emerged.
Keywords Morality . Discrete emotions . Anger . Gratitude .
Admiration . Contempt
John P. Agosta and Jingyi Huang contributed equally to the paper.
* Michael T. Ford
mford@albany.edu
1
University at Albany, SUNY, Social Sciences 399, 1400 Washington
Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA
Morality can be defined broadly Bas system of rules that facil-
itate and coordinate group living; as such it involves behav-
ioral regulation so as to optimize our existence as social
beings^ (Janoff-Bulman and Carnes 2013; p. 219). There is
growing evidence that morality motivates a variety of actions
(e.g., Crockett et al. 2014; Janoff-Bulman et al. 2009; Tabibnia
et al. 2008) and that emotions play an important role in how
individuals perceive and respond in morally relevant situa-
tions (Haidt 2001; Warren and Smith-Crowe 2008). While
much has been written about the process of moral reasoning
in organizations (e.g., Hannah et al. 2011), there has been little
explicit attention to different types of moral emotions, the
situations that trigger these emotions, and how workers re-
spond. Many work-related experiences such as
(dis)respectful treatment, pay, and helping behavior trigger
moral emotions toward others such as gratitude, admiration,
anger, and contempt. These emotions have potential to influ-
ence health and well-being (de Jong et al. 2015; Robbins et al.
2012) and play an important role in social exchange relation-
ships (e.g., Gordon et al. 2012). In this study, we use an in-
ductive approach to explore the work-related stimuli that elicit
moral emotions toward others at work and the ways workers
respond in these situations.
Moral emotions are the emotions that tend to be triggered
in situations that are morally relevant. From this perspective
and definition of morality cited previously (Janoff-Bulman
and Carnes 2013), morally relevant situations occur at work
when individuals or organizations act in a way that influences
the well-being and rights of others. Morally relevant actions
typically have an agent and a recipient (Gray and Wegner
2009). The agent is the person or entity engaging in action
that has implications for the well-being or rights of others. The
recipient is the person or group whose well-being and/or rights
are helped or harmed by the moral agent. So, for example, if
an organization cuts the pay of its employees, this causes some

harm to its employees. The agent in this case would be the
organization, and a recipient would be an employee whose
pay was cut. Workers may direct their moral emotions in these
situations toward the agent or the recipient. Agent-directed
moral emotions include anger or contempt toward the person
or entity committing the transgression, whereas recipient-
directed moral emotions might include sympathy or empathy
toward the employees who were harmed.
In this paper, we focus on the moral emotions that are
directed toward other agents at work, the situations that trigger
these moral emotions, and what workers do in response.
Moral emotions can be directed toward coworkers, supervi-
sors or managers, customers/clients, and/or the organization
itself. Negative moral emotions, namely anger and contempt,
tend to be directed toward agents who violate moral obliga-
tions or standards, whereas the positive moral emotions of
gratitude and admiration tend to be directed toward agents
who display excellence (Haidt 2003). These emotions can be
experienced when one is the recipient of the agent’s actions,
such as if one is treated disrespectfully, and when one is a
third-party observer, such as when a worker watches someone
else being treated disrespectfully. In both situations, the work-
er can potentially feel anger or contempt toward the actor.
Moral emotions also have the potential to influence worker
well-being and behavior and thus are mechanisms through
which morally relevant experiences may influence employee
health and performance.
As Haidt (2003) noted, there are two features that distin-
guish moral emotions from other core affective states such as
anxiety, sadness, depression, happiness, or serenity. First, the
moral emotions tended to be elicited by situations in which
individuals or organizations influence the well-being of others
in some way. Other emotions are less specific to these situa-
tions. Second, moral emotions motivate prosocial action ten-
dencies (Haidt 2003) such as a desire to correct a moral trans-
gressor, restore justice, or reciprocate acts of kindness. For
instance, gratitude can elicit a desire to do something kind in
return, while anger can elicit a desire to punish, correct, or
compensate for the wrongdoing. Core affective states such
as depression or happiness are less likely to inspire such
justice-oriented activity.
Considering the potential role of moral emotions in em-
ployee well-being and behavior, this paper has two goals.
First, we take an inductive approach toward identifying the
types of experiences that lead to moral emotions toward others
at work. Second, we examine how workers respond to these
situations. We use moral foundations theory (Graham et al.
2011; Haidt and Graham 2007) as an a priori framework for
the general types of experiences that should lead to the moral
emotions at work. However, using the critical incident method
(Flanagan 1954), we take an exploratory approach toward
investigating the specific types of workplace experiences
and their relative frequency. We then draw from social
J Bus Psychol
exchange theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), social
learning theory (Bandura 1977), and expectancy theory
(Vroom 1964) to develop propositions about the different
ways workers may respond in these situations We also take
an inductive exploratory approach toward investigating what
these responses are and their relative frequency across the
moral emotions. Given the inductive and qualitative nature
of this study, we will not directly test the moral emotions as
mediators in the effects of work situations on behavior.
However, our results will highlight the potential role of these
emotions in eliciting responses to morally relevant (and per-
haps some other) workplace situations.
Moral Emotions Toward Other Agents at Work
In this investigation, we focus on four types of agent-directed
moral emotions that we expect to occur with some regularity
in organizations, namely gratitude, anger, admiration, and
contempt. We chose these four emotions to represent positive
and negative valence as well as different action tendencies,
drawing heavily from Haidt’s (2003) discussion of moral
emotion families. The discrete moral emotions and their dif-
ferences have begun to receive increased theoretical attention
(Rudolph and Tscharakstschiew 2014). This work suggests
that these moral emotions are Belicited by and directed at
actions and characteristics of others (Rudolph and
Tscharakstschiew 2014, p. 346) and play a functional role in
facilitating behavior (e.g., Carver and Harmon-Jones 2009;
Rudolph and Tscharakstschiew 2014). These suggestions
should apply in the workplace and deserve empirical attention
and scrutiny in organizational settings.
Gratitude is a positive moral emotion that occurs in re-
sponse to helpfulness from others and inspires a desire to
reciprocate. Individuals tend to experience gratitude in re-
sponse to helpfulness that is to their benefit and that goes
beyond obligatory standards (McCullough et al. 2001).
Opposite gratitude is anger, which tends to occur in response
to harm or other moral violations. Anger is often strongest
when one is harmed by an actor but may also occur in re-
sponse to third-party observations in which moral standards
are violated (Haidt 2003). Much has been written about these
two emotions in the general psychology literature (e.g., Carver
and Harmon-Jones 2009; McCullough et al. 2001; Haidt
2003), but they have received limited attention in empirical
organizational research.
Another discrete moral emotion, which we will label admi-
ration, represents the Bother-praising^ emotion family in the
moral psychology literature and is elicited by exemplars that
display the best of humanity’s nature (Haidt 2003).
Admiration is the affection felt when observing excellence
regardless of its beneficiary. Research suggests that admira-
tion is a distinct experience from that of pure joy (Algoe and
J Bus Psychol
Haidt 2009). In situations where one is the beneficiary of
morally commendable actions, one might feel both gratitude
and admiration toward the actor. For example, if a supervisor
provides help on a work task, the recipient may feel gratitude
toward the supervisor while also admiring the supervisor for
this behavior. As such, gratitude and admiration likely share
some antecedents. However, admiration also tends to occur in
situations in which one is not the beneficiary, such as if a
supervisor helps someone else. Admiration is therefore likely
to have some antecedents that are distinct from the situations
that lead to gratitude.
The final moral emotion that we describe here is contempt.
Like anger, contempt occurs in response to violations of moral
obligations (Rozin et al. 1999). However, contempt tends to
be more enduring and entity focused and elicits a distancing
behavioral orientation toward the moral transgressor, whereas
anger is more likely to occur in response to a discrete event
and tends to elicit an approach response (Fischer and
Roseman 2007). There is also evidence that continuous expo-
sure to anger-inducing stimuli from the same entity can turn
into contempt even as the anger recedes (Fischer and
Roseman 2007). An episode of disrespectful treatment from
a coworker or supervisor may lead to anger temporarily, but if
such treatment became repeated and routine, this could lead to
more enduring feelings of contempt. Others have also argued
that anger and contempt have distinct social causes
(Hutcherson and Gross 2011), suggesting that contempt de-
serves attention as a distinct moral emotion. There has been
little empirical research on contempt among workers in orga-
nizational settings (e.g., Samnani and Singh 2015; Sanders
et al. 2015), which we will explore in this study.
Situations that Trigger Moral Emotions at Work
Moral foundations theory (Haidt and Graham 2007) suggests
four types of overlapping values that guide moral judgment,
trigger moral emotions, and are prominent in organizational
life: harm/help, fairness/reciprocity, in-group loyalty, and re-
spect for others (Graham et al. 2011; Rai and Fiske 2011).
Here, we use the theoretical and empirical work of Haidt and
Graham (2007), Graham et al. (2011), and Rai and Fiske (2011)
to guide our discussion of the types of workplace experiences
that may trigger gratitude, anger, admiration, or contempt.
Harming and Helping Behaviors, events, and conditions that
involve harming and helping others constitute the most basic
and fundamental moral value involving the well-being of in-
dividuals (Graham et al. 2011; Rai and Fiske 2011). People
tend to be angry or contemptuous in response to actions that
harm themselves and others and, conversely, are grateful for
and admire actions that help themselves and others in the
pursuit of pleasure and achievement. From this perspective,
any act by an organization or its members that harms or helps
others could trigger moral emotions. This implicates working
conditions, pay, benefits, and various forms of interpersonal
treatment as potential antecedents to moral emotions.
Fairness and Reciprocity The second moral foundation iden-
tified by Graham et al. (2011) is fairness/reciprocity, which
refers to a concern for individual rights and the equality of
condition and opportunity. Rai and Fiske’s (2011) taxonomy
of moral motives also identifies equality of treatment, voice,
opportunity, and expected contributions, along with propor-
tionality among costs and rewards, as principles that constitute
moral behavior from the perspective of fairness. The organi-
zational justice constructs of distributive and procedural fair-
ness fall clearly within the moral domain from this perspective
(Colquitt et al. 2013a). Informational and interactional justice,
which refer to transparency of decision-making processes, and
the respect and dignity with which workers are treated
(Colquitt et al. 2013a) also fall under this foundation to some
degree. Constructs that reflect social exchange processes and
reciprocity also fall within the fairness/reciprocity moral foun-
dation and thus may elicit moral emotions toward responsible
entities. Such constructs include leader-member exchange
quality (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995), which reflects the quality
and balance in the exchange of resources between leaders and
their subordinates; perceived organizational support, which
reflects the extent to which the organization values the contri-
butions of its members and cares about their well-being
(Eisenberger et al. 1986); and psychological contract fulfill-
ment or breach (Conway and Briner 2002; Morrison and
Robinson 1997), which reflects the extent to which the em-
ployee perceives how the organization has met its obligations
as part of the employee-organization relationship. Studies
have indeed identified anger as a proximal outcome of injus-
tice (Weiss et al. 1999) and a partial mediator explaining ef-
fects of organizational injustice on emotional labor demands
(Rupp et al. 2008; Rupp and Spencer 2006). Conversely, ad-
miration has been found to occur in response to fair treatment
and self-sacrificial behavior on the part of organizational
leaders (Vianello et al. 2010).
In-group Loyalty This third moral principle, in-group loyal-
ty, goes beyond traditional notions of organizational justice
that preserve the well-being of individuals and includes ac-
tions that influence the integrity and order of the group
(Graham et al. 2011; Rai and Fiske 2011). In organizational
settings, this may include poor performance by coworkers,
subordinates, or supervisors; a lack of citizenship from orga-
nizational members; counterproductive work behavior direct-
ed toward the organization; a lack of commitment on the part
of coworkers, subordinates, and supervisors; and withdrawal
behavior that hurts the group’s performance and integrity.
Excellent performance and citizenship, on the other hand,

helps the group and organization and thus may trigger admi-
ration and/or gratitude.
Respect for Others The moral domain also includes respect
for authority, role relationships, and others in general (Graham
et al. 2011). Respect facilitates cooperative living by helping
to maintain order and hierarchy in social groups (Rai and
Fiske 2011). Respect is also instrumental to the integrity of
groups as the structure of social groups depends on ordered
roles and authority relationships. Based on this moral founda-
tion, disobedient and counterproductive employee actions to-
ward other workers that show disrespect for authority and
other role relationships may trigger anger or contempt.
Disrespectful treatment toward peers and subordinates, such
as the behaviors specified in measures of interactional injus-
tice (e.g., Roch and Shanock 2006) or models of incivility
(Cortina et al. 2001; Lim et al. 2008), may also fall into this
category because such treatment threatens the quality of social
roles and relationships. Supporting this notion, Fitness (2000)
found through interviews that disrespect and humiliation were
among the most common anger-inducing events experienced
by workers. Other experiences such as ostracism, abusive su-
pervision, and bullying are also relevant to this foundation,
because they threaten the quality of role relationships.
Proposition 1: Events or conditions at work that involve
the four moral foundations of help/harm, fairness/reci-
procity, in-group loyalty, and respect for others trigger
the moral emotions of gratitude, anger, contempt, and
admiration.
Worker Responses to the Moral Emotions
We draw from three theories to develop a priori propositions
about how individuals respond to events that trigger these
moral emotions. The first such theory, social exchange theory
(SET) (e.g., Blau 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005),
proposes that there are ambiguous but powerful rules for be-
havior in situations in which there is an exchange of resources
such as time, money, energy, and other intangibles (for an
early review and critique, see Emerson 1976). Early perspec-
tives on SET took a behavioral approach suggesting that rein-
forcement contingencies helped maintain the rules for social
exchange relationships, implying that exchange-related be-
havior was rational (Blau 1964). For example, one might help
a coworker because he/she expects that the coworker will
respond in kind, reinforcing the original help. These mutual
expectations and interdependencies render it rational for an
individual to reciprocate. Others (e.g., Gouldner 1960) have
noted that the norm of reciprocity creates a felt obligation to
respond in kind when receiving helpful or harmful treatment
J Bus Psychol
from others. Such behavior is not contingent on the expecta-
tion that one will be rewarded in the future. In fact, reciprocity
can lead to negative or harmful behavior toward others (e.g.,
negative reciprocity), which is arguably less likely to have
positive consequences for the responder.
Social exchange theory has been successful in generating
many predictions about organizational behavior. Much of the
work on reactions to fair and unfair treatment has used SET as
a framework, hypothesizing and finding that individuals react
to such treatment by reciprocating (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2013b).
Social exchange theory has also inspired successful predic-
tions about the target of recipient behavior such that individ-
uals act favorably toward supervisors when treated fairly by
those supervisors, while acting favorably toward the organi-
zation at large when helped by organizational level policies
and procedures (e.g., Cropanzano et al. 2002; Wayne et al.
2002).
Emotions such as gratitude were discussed in some of the
early literature on social exchange and may play an important
role in positive exchanges between employees and their
coworkers, supervisors, and/or the organization at large.
Blau (1964, p. 16) stated BGenerally, people are grateful for
favors and repay their social debts, and both their gratitude
and their repayment are social reward for the associate who
has done them favors.^ Recent research in social psychology
has suggested that gratitude inspires further helping behavior,
facilitating strong social exchange relationships (Gordon et al.
2012; Grant and Gino 2010).
Alternatively, harmful treatment in organizations has been
shown to inspire negative reciprocity toward those responsible
(e.g., Mitchell and Ambrose 2007) and given the role of anger
in facilitating vengeful responses to harmful or immoral be-
havior, it seems likely that anger inspires some of this negative
reciprocity. There is also evidence from basic emotions re-
search that anger is an approach emotion and evokes an effort
to correct the offender, change the offender’s behavior, or even
inflict pain or harm on the offender in order to restore justice
(Carver and Harmon-Jones 2009). Spector’s (1978)
frustration-aggression model and subsequent research (Fox
and Spector 1999) further supports this notion that anger in-
spires negative reciprocity, leading to counterproductive be-
havior. Other studies (e.g., Fitness 2000; Simon et al. 2015)
have also found that individuals withdraw effort from their
work and/or behave counterproductively when experiencing
anger.
Based on the general propositions of SET and the action
tendencies associated with the moral emotions, we expect that
individuals sometimes respond to situations that trigger grati-
tude, anger, and contempt by reciprocating. Situations that
trigger gratitude at work should elicit behavior that helps the
original actor. This may be in the form of organizational citi-
zenship behavior toward the source of the help (e.g., cowork-
er, supervisor, or organization) and/or or more effort and better
J Bus Psychol
task performance if the source is the organization as a whole.
Conversely, we expect that anger or contempt, which occurs
in response to moral violations, inspires workers to respond
with deviant or counterproductive behavior that either (a)
takes revenge against the source of the harmful or immoral
treatment or (b) withdraws from the perpetrator. Such behav-
ior is motivated by the natural justice restoration and recipro-
cation tendencies that accompany moral emotions and create a
balanced and fair social exchange. The basic action tendencies
of anger and contempt would suggest that anger is more likely
to elicit approach-oriented, vengeful acts, whereas contempt is
more likely to elicit avoidance and withdrawal from the source
(Carver and Harmon-Jones 2009; Fischer and Roseman
2007). Gratitude is likely to inspire acts that are helpful to
the person or organization responsible, and these helpful acts
repay the responsible party that which it is justly due.
Similarly, anger and contempt inspire justice restorative be-
havioral tendencies that punish the transgressor. Admiration
should be more likely than gratitude to occur in response to
third-party observations of moral excellence (Haidt 2003) and,
as a result, may play less of a functional role in social ex-
change relationships. Thus, we are excluding admiration from
this set of propositions inspired by social exchange theory.
Proposition 2: Gratitude elicits helpful behavior from
workers toward the source of the triggering event or
situation.
Proposition 3a: Anger and contempt elicit counterproduc-
tive or deviant behavior toward the source of the trigger-
ing event or situation.
Proposition 3b: Anger is more likely than contempt to
elicit approach-oriented, vengeful responses toward the
source of the triggering incident.
Proposition 3c: Contempt is more likely than anger to
elicit avoidance-oriented, withdrawal responses toward
the source of the triggering incident.
While SET may help explain some responses to events and
situations that trigger moral emotions, there are some re-
sponses for which SET principles may be insufficient. Social
learning theory (SLT) (Bandura 1977) yields some additional
predictions. Social learning theory builds on Skinner’s (1963)
principles of operant conditioning to suggest that individuals
are motivated to behave not only by reinforcement but also by
the observation of others. According to SLT, individuals learn
in part by observing, remembering, and reproducing the ac-
tions of others. When others, sometimes termed behavioral
Bmodels^, act in ways that bring positive consequences, indi-
viduals are motivated to mimic the behavioral models and
behave in similar ways. The pleasantness of gratitude and
admiration may reinforce and help individuals remember the
eliciting events and further inspire individuals to copy the
behavior of exemplars at work. In the organizational
psychology literature, social learning theory has largely been
used to develop and theorize about training programs (Latham
and Saari 1979; Taylor et al. 2005). However, social learning
principles also apply to naturally occurring events and situa-
tions, such as those that trigger the moral emotions discussed
here. Evidence suggests that admiration and the observation of
moral excellence is related to nurturing behavior (Silvers and
Haidt 2008), altruistic behavior (Schnall et al. 2010), and
self-reported organizational citizenship among workers
(Vianello et al. 2010). This suggests that workers sometimes
copy or mimic exemplary moral acts, especially when
experiencing a positive moral emotion toward the actors. It
seems less likely that negative moral emotions would inspire
the same kind of mimicry given that the negative moral emo-
tions would render the behavior unpleasant. Thus, we restrict
our application of SLT to the workers’ responses to the posi-
tive moral emotions.
Proposition 4: Gratitude and admiration elicit attempts to
copy, mimic, or emulate the source that triggered the
emotion.
In some situations, individuals are likely to consider the
potential outcomes of their actions when responding to events
that elicit moral emotions and, in turn, control their emotional
impulses to reciprocate. Expectancy theory (Vroom 1964)
helps explain behavior in these situations. This theory sug-
gests that work motivation is a function of (a) the extent to
which the worker believes he/she can perform the behavior
(i.e., expectancy), (b) the perceived effect of the behavior on
outcomes (i.e., instrumentality), and (c) the value placed on
the outcomes (e.g., valence). In sum, this theory specifies
rational decision-making bases for work behavior. In the con-
text of this study, individuals are more likely to engage in
reciprocation or copying behavior when it is perceived to have
positive consequences. For this reason, workers are not al-
ways going to negatively reciprocate in response to anger or
contempt. In many situations, negative reciprocation, which
would be predicted by SET, is likely to result in negative
consequences for the worker. Expectancy theory suggests that
workers do consider these consequences of their actions when
choosing how to respond. As a result, a worker is unlikely to
engage in negative reciprocation if it is toward an individual
with power to punish or toward a coworker with whom one
must cooperate. For example, if a supervisor treats an employ-
ee poorly, the employee may not reciprocate with counterpro-
ductive behavior toward the supervisor because this might
result in negative consequences such as being fired or not
getting a raise. Instead, employees may engage in more con-
structive responses such as complaining through official chan-
nels or attempting to respectfully correct the behavior. They
may also vent their frustration to others outside of the organi-
zation, who have less power to harm them. Indeed, research

suggests that workers displace supervisor-directed anger by
undermining or acting abusively toward other individuals,
such as subordinates or spouses, who have less power over
them (Hoobler and Brass 2006). Given the role of expectan-
cies in behavior in these situations, it is likely that individuals
will engage in attempts to improve the situation when they
have enough power to suggest their efforts will make a differ-
ence. When individuals do not perceive they have the power
to change the situation, they will have little expectancy that
they will be rewarded for attempts to change the situation and
instead engage in more emotion-focused responses such as
displacing and venting their anger.
Proposition 5a: When employees perceive that they have
the power to improve the situation, anger and contempt
will trigger responses that involve attempting to improve
the situation constructively.
Proposition 5b: When employees perceive that they do
not have the power to improve the situation, their anger
and contempt will trigger displacement or venting of their
emotions toward others not involved in the situation.
In summary, because no one theory is sufficient for gener-
ating propositions about the range of potential behavioral re-
sponses to incidents that trigger moral emotions, we have
chosen to discuss three different theoretical bases. These three
bases account for (a) rational motives for behavioral re-
sponses, as specified by expectancy theory; (b) motives to
reciprocate without necessarily considering rewards or pun-
ishments, as specified by social exchange theory; and (c) be-
havioral modeling, which accounts for behavior change
through observation and social learning. We expect responses
to the moral emotions that are consistent with each of these
three theories.
As noted earlier, this study takes an inductive approach
toward understanding the types of situations that trigger moral
emotions toward others at work and responses to these situa-
tions. Thus, we do not have any formal hypotheses. However,
the basic tenets of moral foundations theory, SET, SLT, and
expectancy theory give rise to some general propositions. We
anticipate that workers tend to reciprocate behavior that trig-
gers positive and negative moral emotions, copy or emulate
behavior that triggers positive moral emotions, and also con-
sider the expected outcomes when acting on negative moral
emotions.
Method
We used the critical incident technique (Flanagan 1954) to
collect data on the types of workplace situations that elicit
the moral emotions of gratitude, anger, admiration, and con-
tempt. This technique allows participants to describe these
J Bus Psychol
situations in their own words without imposing an a priori
theoretical structure on their responses. We developed catego-
ries of incidents and responses to these incidents through a
coding procedure to be described further in the following
sections.
We took a qualitative, inductive approach for two reasons.
First, these moral emotions, particularly gratitude, admiration,
and contempt, have received very little attention in the orga-
nizational science literature. Thus, there is not much of an
empirical research base to build on. Because of this lack of
empirical research, we aimed to better understand the types of
events and situations that trigger these potentially potent mor-
al emotions. A more deductive and quantitative approach in
which we measured pre-defined variables would be limited to
the constructs specified in previous theories. Our goal here
was to potentially uncover new theoretical relationships be-
tween specific categories of workplace situations and moral
emotions. This approach also has potential to expand the pool
of variables and constructs to be studied in future research.
Second, the narrative descriptions that are common in in-
ductive qualitative research provide important details on
work-related experiences that can help build better theory
while also providing concrete examples that are of practical
value. Recent work on work-family conflict (Shockley and
Allen 2015) and affective work events (Ohly and Schmitt
2015) has taken a narrative episodic approach in which par-
ticipants described the details of specific situations at work.
These narrative descriptions can be useful for building and
developing new theory while discovering important
contextual variables and internal psychological states. As
another example, Taber and Deosthali (2014) were able to
identify new motives for helping behaviors through a qualita-
tive, inductive approach based on narrative descriptions of
participants. We expect that an inductive, qualitative approach
to studying incidents that trigger moral emotions and re-
sponses to these emotions will yield information about new
theoretical relationships and contribute to future theory build-
ing. Yet, it is still possible to link these findings to constructs
specified in existing theory on moral emotions and behavior.
We also believe that this approach will have practical impli-
cations for behaviors and practices to encourage and avoid in
organizations, given the concrete nature of the narrative de-
scriptions and examples.
Participants
We contracted an online research support firm, Qualtrics.com,
to recruit participants from an online survey panel. Qualtrics
uses social network advertising, online banners, and direct
messaging to recruit individuals for their panels. These
panelists are compensated for participation in studies with
online gift certificates. This method gave us the chance to
sample experiences from a variety of organizations,
J Bus Psychol
occupations, and locations, and offered greater anonymity
than more traditional recruitment methods through
organizations. We hoped that the perceived anonymity
would result in greater candor and willingness to disclose
negative information. Concerns about random responding in
online studies are also less of an issue with the critical incident
method than with close-ended responses, because random re-
sponses to open-ended questions are easily detected and
discarded.
Responses were collected from 423 participants. These par-
ticipants were all working in the USA. Of these, 53.7% were
women, 7.9% identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino,
83.2% were white, 8.4% were black or African American,
7.1% were Asian, and 1.3% were of another race. The age
of participants ranged from 18 to 65, with an average of
39.8, and participants worked an average of 42.6 h per week
with a range of 30 to 84 and a standard deviation of 6.76 h per
week.
Participants held a variety of occupations. In order to gain
information about the types of jobs that the participants held,
we asked participants to provide a brief narrative description
of their job duties. We were able to categorize 352 of the
participants into a two-digit category using the Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) system (http://www.bls.
gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm). Of the participants who
provided usable information, 13.4% were in management;
9.9% were in business/financial operations; 9.1% were in a
computer/mathematical occupation; 0.6% were in
architecture/engineering; 2.3% were scientists; 6.5% were in
social/community service, 0.3% were in a legal services oc-
cupation; 5.1% were educators; 1.7% were in arts and enter-
tainment; 5.1% were healthcare practitioners/technicians; 1.4
% were in healthcare support; 2.3% were in protective service;
3.7% were in food preparation and serving; 1.4% were in
building and grounds maintenance; 0.9% were in personal
care; 8.2% were in a sales-related occupation; 15.3% were in
office/administrative support; 0.3% were in farming/fishing;
3.1% were in construction/extraction; 2.0% were in installa-
tion, maintenance, and repair; 5.4% were in production; and
2.0% were in a transportation and moving occupation.
Measures
Using the critical incident method for each moral emotion,
participants were instructed, BWe would like you to think of
an event or situation at work that caused you to feel <insert
emotion>. This could be something that happened just once or
it could be something that is ongoing that still causes you to
feel this way.^ Then participants were asked, BWhat is/was the
event or ongoing situation at work that caused you to feel
<insert emotion>? What happened to make you feel <insert
emotion>?^ Finally, participants were asked, BDid you do
anything in response to feeling <insert emotion>, and if so,
what did you do?^ We asked these questions four times,
inserting the following emotions into each respective ques-
tion: grateful or thankful, angry or furious, fondness or admi-
ration, and contempt or disapproval. This procedure was to
result in up to 1692 incidents, four per person.
We coded only the usable incidents. We did not code inci-
dents in which participants wrote Bnothing^ or some type of
random response or if participants indicated that they had
never experienced that emotion at work. Ultimately, there
were 398 incidents coded for gratitude, 335 incidents coded
for anger, 293 incidents coded for admiration, and 278 inci-
dents coded for contempt. The number of words describing
the incidents for gratitude, anger, admiration, and contempt
were 5951, 5603, 4446, and 4748, respectively. Thus, the
number of words per usable incident was 14.95, 16.73,
15.17, and 17.08. This is evidence that although the number
of responses decreased over the course of the study, the quality
of the answers, at least with respect to their length, did not
decrease across the incidents.
Coding
Our coding approach was problem focused (Krippendorff
2013) in that the analysis of texts was driven by an interest
in the situations that trigger moral emotions and behavioral
responses. The unit of analysis was the incident or response,
and thus the units were defined prior to the analysis.
First, we developed categories of incidents inductively and
iteratively as a research team. Then, we revisited the responses
and placed them into the categories that had been developed,
allowing us to refine the category definitions that emerged
from the data and to identify potentially new categories that
we needed to create. This approach followed the approach
used in critical incident analysis. Critical incident analysis
typically involves assembling a set of analysts to review and
categorize the incidents independently or as a group, develop-
ing a common set of categories, and then developing a de-
scription of each category (Anderson and Wilson 1997). To
align with the critical incident method as it is typically
employed, we used the judgments of multiple human coders
rather than a computerized text analysis program.
The incidents were first distributed to members of the first
author’s research team, including coauthors on the study and
other volunteer research assistants, all of whom were graduate
or undergraduate students in psychology. The research assis-
tants and the first author attempted to develop categories that
captured the essence of all of the responses. To this end, the
first author read all responses for each moral emotion and
developed categories of incidents. Research assistants devel-
oped categories of incidents independently by analyzing a
subset of the incidents. All incidents were reviewed by at least
one of the research assistants in addition to the first author.
The first author then integrated these category lists by

combining overlapping categories and adding unique catego-
ries to the overall list. These categories were developed induc-
tively and not necessarily with respect to the moral founda-
tions listed in proposition 1. Our categories were more con-
crete and specific than the moral foundations.
After these categories were established, the first author and
one of the three coauthors independently coded each incident
once again by reviewing each incident and selecting the cate-
gories to which the incident belonged. Extensional lists, which
specify the types of situations and responses that define each
of the categories (Krippendorff 2013), were created for this
coding process. There were a total of four coders, the first
author and three coauthors, involved in this part of the process.
Incidents could belong to more than one category and in some
cases were assigned up to four or five categories. The vast
majority of incidents had one or two codes assigned to them.
The first author ultimately combined the codes after reviewing
the coauthor’s codes and made a final coding decision. Most
of the incidents that did not fall into an existing category were
not work related. Examples of incidents that were not work
related included events involving one’s own health or family.
As an additional coding step, each of the incidents was
once again independently coded by one of the coauthors in
order to compute an interrater agreement index and to further
refine the coding decisions. These codes were compared to the
codes developed in the previous process in which the first
author made the final decision. We then computed the
Cohen’s kappa (Cohen 1960) for the original codes and the
new codes. We used Cohen’s kappa because there were two
sets of codes for each moral emotion: the codes assigned by
the first author and the codes assigned by one of the coauthors.
Thus, there were only two coders for each moral emotion,
rendering Cohen’s kappa the appropriate index for assessing
coding reliability. The Cohen’s kappa for usable incidents was
0.78 for gratitude, 0.54 for anger, 0.65 for admiration, and
0.59 for contempt. Cohen’s kappa values of around 0.60 have
been considered acceptable in coding qualitative data
(Schonfeld and Mazzola 2015). Furthermore, available bench-
marks suggest that kappa values of 0.41 to 0.60 demonstrate
moderate agreement and those from 0.61 to 0.80 demonstrate
good or substantial agreement (Altman 1991; Landis and
Koch 1977).
A similar process was used to code the behavioral re-
sponses to the incidents. First, each set of responses to each
moral emotion was split such that one coauthor read half of the
behavioral responses and another coauthor read the other half.
Each coder came up with categories of responses. The first
author combined these categories into two lists, one for the
positive and one for the negative moral emotions. Then, two
coauthors independently coded each behavioral response and
interrater agreement was computed using the Cohen’s kappa
index. The Cohen’s kappa index for the usable responses was
0.78 for gratitude, 0.67 for anger, 0.75 for elevation, and 0.71
J Bus Psychol
for contempt. These indices would be considered good or
substantial agreement by the benchmarks referenced earlier
(Altman 1991; Landis and Koch 1977).
As a final step in the coding process, the first three authors
held group meetings and discussed every incident and re-
sponse on which there was any disagreement in coding and
categorization. Each incident on which there was any dis-
agreement was discussed, and a final coding decision was
made by consensus as a group. Thus, even though the kappa
values were in acceptable ranges, further discussion was used
to resolve disagreements in coding and develop a reliable set
of final codes on which either (a) the coders agreed upon
independently or (b) the group agreed upon after discussion.
Results and Discussion
In generating incidents and response categories, we combined
the categories for the two positive moral emotions as well as
the categories for the two negative moral emotions. There
were almost no categories that were entirely exclusive to one
of the moral emotions, and thus we analyzed the positive and
negative moral emotions together while comparing the rela-
tive frequency of each incident and response for each emotion.
In Table 1, we report the categories of incidents that we de-
veloped for the positive moral emotions alongside a brief de-
scription of the category, some illustrative quotes from partic-
ipants, and the number and percentage of incidents for each
moral emotion that were coded into that category. Table 2
provides the same information on the responses to the positive
moral emotions. Tables 3 and 4 provide the same information
for the negative moral emotion incidents and responses.
Finally, in Tables 5 and 6, we report the relationship between
the specific types of events and the responses when possible.
Rather than repeating all of the detailed results displayed in
the tables, we instead provide a brief summary of the positive
and negative moral emotion incidents and responses. Then,
we discuss their implications for theory and practice.
Positive Moral Emotion Incidents and Responses
We found 20 categories of incidents that triggered the positive
moral emotions (see Table 1). Generally speaking, participants
reported gratitude and/or admiration in response to (a) receiv-
ing or observing recognition from the organization; (b) having
a job with good working conditions, benefits, or opportunities
for promotion and development; (c) good task-related experi-
ences such as being able to perform meaningful work and
having adequate resources, (d) the performance and success
of colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates; (e) support from
leaders, coworkers, or subordinates; (f) the competence of
leaders and the organization; and (g) observations of moral
excellence.
J Bus Psychol

Table 1 Categories, descriptions, examples, and frequencies of incidents for the positive moral emotions

Category Description Examples Gratitude Admiration Chi-

square
# % # %

Recognition
Non-pay recognition • Recognition for good performance that does BBeing recognized for the effort and time that 77 19.3a 40 13.7 3.89a
not involve pay. Examples included was put in analyzing some production data
receiving thanks, praise, or a nonmonetary that will be used going forward.^
reward BMy boss said I was doing a good job at work.^
Pay-based recognition • Any type of pay-based recognition, including BI am very thankful when I get a bonus at work, 46 11.6a 6 2.0 21.93a
raises, bonuses, tips, and gift cards this told me that my boss is happy with job I
am doing.^
BI received a bonus for a special project I
volunteered to help with. It was unexpected
and was very much appreciated. Made me
think a lot of the company I work for.^
Observing others being • Seeing others receive recognition in the BWhen management shows their appreciation 1 0.3 7 2.4a 6.74a
recognized organization for its employees and all their hard work by
buying lunch or having a BBQ.^
BSomeone does their job so well, they get
rewarded for it, recognition.^
Job and career related
Having a job • Having a job, not being laid off or furloughed BSimply having a job makes me thankful when 77 19.3a 6 2.0 47.78a
I read the news and see the difficulties others
are having in this world.^
BSeeing others laid off.^
Promotion and • Receiving a promotion, training, and/or BI got a promotion.^ 26 6.5 11 3.8 2.57
development challenging developmental tasks BI worked very hard on a spreadsheet and
opportunities numerous other assignments and I got a
promotion. I also got a raise, since I was
promoted, when my family needs it most.
Benefits and working • Having good working conditions and BThey let me off work to take care of my little 26 6.5a 6 2.0 7.69a
conditions, benefits. Examples include sick time, health girl when she got out of the hospital.^
non-task-related insurance, holidays, and flexible work BWe have something called floating holidays.
aspects of work arrangements This means we get one of the following off
in addition to regular vacation and sick time:
day after Thanksgiving, Christmas eve, or
New Year’s eve.^
Work task related
Desirable work tasks and • Getting to do something enjoyable, being able BBeing able to help someone whose home had 35 8.8a 9 3.1 9.27a
responsibilities to help people, and receiving desired been burned down.^
assignments BI feel grateful that I have a job that allows me
to be creative and try new things.^
Sense of • A feeling of accomplishment for major or BCompleted a major project.^ 27 6.8a 5 1.7 9.85a
accomplishment and difficult tasks. Examples include closing BWinning a case for a client.^
achievement business deals, helping others successfully, BSaved a 9-year-old from drowning.^
and improving one’s performance
Interactions with • Positive interactions with students, clients, or BI was helping my students study for a timed 40 10.1a 17 5.8 4.02a
external beneficiaries of other customers test and was able to give them strategies to
one’s work remember some of the facts they were
having trouble remembering. When they
took their timed test, they got all of the
questions right.^
BSpeaking with clients on a daily basis in
making a small difference in the world.^
Having the resources to • Having the necessary equipment, information, BNew equipment provided that made my job 7 1.8 2 0.7 1.52
do one’s work and technical support easier.^
BIt was a computer malfunction. The guy went
out of his way to get it fixed quickly.^
Performance and success of others
Performance and success • Observing peers succeeding, performing well, BA coworker was promoted for years on the job 4 1.0 38 13.0a 42.32a
of colleagues and/or being promoted and outstanding work habits.^
BAdmiration for a colleague who is juggling a
new baby, marriage, and work.^
Performance and success • Observing someone vertically higher in the BWhen the director at my job was promoted to 0 0.0 13 4.4a 18.00a
of one’s supervisor, organization succeeding, performing well, VP, I felt really proud of him. I really
mentor, and/or leader and/or being promoted
 J Bus Psychol

Table 1 (continued)

Category Description Examples Gratitude Admiration Chi-

square
# % # %

admired all his hard work and his

dedication.^
BI admire this one supervisor I have because
she works hard at work and then goes home
and takes care of her kids by herself.^
Performance and success • Observing subordinates, trainees, and/or BWatching a young man I trained do a great 2 0.5 11 3.8a 9.67a
of subordinates students succeeding, performing well, job.^
and/or being promoted BWhen my blind student did well on a braille
test.^
Support from others and the organization
Supervisor, leader, • Receiving help and emotional support from BI have my immediate supervisor to be thankful 38 9.5 32 10.9 0.35
and/or mentor support supervisors, trainers, or leaders in the for because he listens to us as employees,
organization says thank you, and lets us know we are
doing a good job. If it wasn’t for him, I
would have quit.^
BMy boss asked me for a favor, she asked me to
take Friday off to take care of myself.^
Coworker and • Receiving help and emotional support from BSomeone volunteering to help me out on a 63 15.8 47 16.0 0.01
subordinate support coworkers, teammates, and/or subordinates project that was really burning me out. Most
people don’t volunteer to help, so I was very
thankful and blessed when this person did.^
BMy daughter passed away unexpectedly a few
years back. Of course, everyone was very
kind because they all knew her. The office
closed and everyone was allowed to attend
the funeral. Then throughout the shiva
period, a different person from the office
would come to my home to see us and one
morning the office actually sent over
breakfast for my whole family. It was very
thoughtful and much appreciated.^
Communication from • Receiving information from the organization BHaving my questions answered promptly and 2 0.5 2 0.7 0.10
the organization clearly.^
BOur CEO giving a quarterly update.^
Competence of others and the organization as a whole
Effective leadership on • Having leaders that are competent and BThe continuing dedication of my direct 6 1.5 22 7.5a 15.63a
task-related issues effective and that make sure that supervisor.^
subordinates keep their jobs BMy supervisor went to bat for our department
and refused to lay off anyone.^
BWatching my supervisor complete tasks.^
General positive • Generic positive feeling toward the BI admire the company I work for.^ 0 0.0 2 0.5 2.73
evaluation of the organization BMy company being a leader.^
organization
Observations of moral excellence
Third-party observations • Seeing others being helpful and supportive BWhen I watch people having a rough day and 8 2.0 40 13.7a 35.39a
of others’ moral someone makes them smile or laugh to cheer
excellence them up.^
BA coworker has stepped up and is leading a
drive to help the affected family.^ (referring
to a former coworker who had lost health
insurance)
BA coworker adopted a little special needs
boy.^
Socially responsible • Organization that is socially responsible BOur company hosted a huge fundraiser for 2 0.5 6 2.0 3.52
organization charity. We had such good results.^
BMy organization produces a lot of cutting edge
research to promote conservation.^

B#^ refers to the number of incidents that fell into the category
a
There was a significant difference across the moral emotions in the likelihood of discussing an incident that fell into the category. The superscript letter a
is placed under the moral emotion for which the incident was the most likely to appear
J Bus Psychol

Table 2 Categories, descriptions, examples, and frequencies of responses for the positive moral emotions

Category Description Examples Gratitude Admiration Chi-

square
# % # %

Reciprocation
Thanked the source • Said thanks or showed appreciation BI thanked my boss.^ 150 50.8a 74 34.4 13.63a
through body language BI wrote a thank you note.^
BI let them know how grateful I felt.^
Reciprocated beyond • Did something nice for the source, BI took one of his hardest tasks a few days later.^ 46 15.6 46 21.4 2.83
thanks usually BI always help them out in return because I feel grateful
in the form of personal favors or to them.^
gifts BGave a gift and a card to the person.^
Gave praise • Praised, congratulated, BComplimented him on how he handled the situation.^ 7 2.4 57 26.5a 66.03a
complimented, BI told them that I thought their idea was excellent.^
and/or encouraged the source BTold her how impressed I was.^
Spent more time with • Spent time with the source BContinued the relationship.^ 6 2.0 7 3.2 0.75
the source BHad a picnic with them.^
BI spoke with them for the time I was able to and got to
know them.^
Prosocial behavioral responses
Did something nice for • Did something nice for someone BThanked everyone and gave my staff a bonus.^ 21 7.1 10 4.7 1.33
others other than BI bring in treats for my officemates.^
the source. Examples included BTried to be nicer to people.^
helping family
members, coworkers, and friends;
Bpaying it forward^
Tried to copy or • Tried to behave more like the person BI tried to learn a lesson and inspire myself.^ 4 1.4 13 6.0a 8.49a
emulate the source who BI tried to be more like her, she is a great example.^
triggered the emotion BI try to emulate what they do in my interactions with
those I supervise.^
Performance-related responses
Increased effort toward • Increased work effort, citizenship, and BI put in extra effort on a side project that I was asked to 84 28.5 51 23.7 1.44
work commitment toward the group and assist my boss with.^
organization BI just come to work in a better mood and feel like I am
more productive because of it.^
BI worked harder to keep my projects on time.^
BI worked extra hours to show my appreciation.^
Emotion-focused responses
Savored the emotion • Enjoyed or celebrated the incident BCelebrated with a dear friend at a restaurant.^ 10 3.4 8 3.7 0.04
that triggered BTreated my family and coworker out for dinner.^
the emotion BWent out for drinks.^
Treated oneself • Treated oneself, usually with BWent out to eat with the first check.^ 9 3.1a 1 0.4 4.33a
resources provided BI spent the money on me.^
by the incident (e.g., money from a
raise)
Expressed positive • Expressed the emotion to others BI told them how happy and excited I was.^ 19 6.4 11 5.1 0.39
emotions verbally or nonverbally BI smiled and thanked them.^
(e.g., smiled, told someone how BI hugged her so tightly.^
happy they were)
Prayed • Prayed in response to the incident BI pray every day and go to church whenever I can.^ 10 3.4 2 0.9 3.28
BI thanked God.^

B#^ refers to the number of responses that fell into the category
a
There was a significant difference across the moral emotions in the likelihood of discussing a response that fell into the category. The superscript letter a
is placed under the moral emotion for which the response was the most likely to appear

We conducted chi-squared tests to determine whether an
incident was more likely to be reported for one of the positive
moral emotions than the other. We found that non-pay- and
pay-based recognition, good benefits and working conditions,
desirable work tasks, a sense of accomplishment, and positive
interactions with students, clients, or customers were more
common incidents for gratitude than for admiration. By
contrast, the performance and success of colleagues, leaders,
and subordinates; and third-party observations of moral excel-
lence were more common incidents for admiration than for
gratitude. This is consistent with the notion that gratitude is
more common in response to situations that directly benefit
the individual, whereas admiration is more likely than grati-
tude to occur in response to situations with no direct benefit.
 J Bus Psychol

Table 3 Categories, descriptions, examples, and frequencies of incidents for the negative moral emotions

Category Description Examples Anger Contempt Chi-

square
# % # %

Unfair treatment
Distributive or • Unfair decision outcomes and/or processes BI make the lowest level pay and have to do a 17 5.9 19 8.2 1.03
procedural injustice higher skilled job.^
BPeople making the same amount of money
as me and having to do less work.^
BBeing delegated to a task without my input
when I was already overloaded with
work.^
Third-party • Observing others treated unjustly BWatching someone get accolades for 6 2.1 9 3.9 1.47
observations of something they didn’t do.^
unfair treatment BTo see a coworker reprimanded after being
lied on by a student.^
Politics, general • Organizational politics, nepotism, and unspecified BAbuse of power.^ 3 1.0 7 3.0 2.65
unfairness unfairness BBackstabbing.^
BThose who are in the ‘IN’ crowd chose to
isolate me.^
False accusations • Being accused of doing something that one did not BI was accused of stealing cash.^ 11 3.8 4 1.7 2.03
do BReceiving blame for something I did not
do.^
BAnother employee made a mistake and I
was blamed for it before it was
investigated.^
Unethical behavior by • The supervisor swearing, taking credit for one’s BMy boss takes credit for my work.^ 8 2.8 13 5.6 2.63
the supervisor work, spreading rumors, and displaying a lack of BA supervisor went out of their way to
integrity prevent me from getting a promotion.^
BContempt for a boss who gave a—kissers
special privileges and other people were
not noticed just for their hard work.^
BIn several instances, I have discovered that
a supervisor has lied to me or to others in
our organization.^
Job/career-related issues
Terminations, layoffs,• Observing or experiencing terminations, layoffs, or BI felt disapproval when the business started 6 2.1 16 6.9a 7.31a
and furloughs furloughs firing people.^
BI disapproved of the way they handled the
layoff situation.^
BLayoffs, they laid off the wrong people.^
BThe government shutdown and possibility
of being furloughed.^
Compensation and • Not getting paid well, not getting raises, pay cuts, BNo annual raises given to anyone due to the 18 6.3 16 6.9 0.08
benefits unpaid overtime, and a lack of benefits bad economy.^
BCommission plan was changed in the
middle of the quarter, which did not
benefit me.^
BOur company wants us to work overtime
for free.^
BMy work is cheap. No raises and bosses
suck.^
BThey reduced my pay.^
Lack of promotion and • The denial of opportunities for promotion, growth, BI did not get a promotion.^ 8 2.8 4 1.7 0.64
development and development BHaving me train as a teller after being the
opportunities main person to bring in loans.^
BPromised a new position and never got it.^
Lack of support
Lack of support from • A perception that the organization does not value BWhen the company is selfish.^ 12 4.2 17 7.4 2.42
the organization employees’ contributions or care about employees’ BDisapproval of how employees are being
well-being treated by some management.^
BManagement forcing me to work with
injuries.^
Lack of supervisor • Not receiving help or emotional support from the 44 15.4 24 10.4 2.79
support supervisor; being Bthrown under the bus,^
J Bus Psychol

Table 3 (continued)

Category Description Examples Anger Contempt Chi-

square
# % # %

humiliated, or threatened by the supervisor; BI was reported by a supervisor because I

receiving a poor performance evaluation from the
supervisor
Poor performance and mismanagement
Poor organizational • Poor performance and management at the group or BManagement, they micromanage and make
performance and organizational level. This can include poor change
mismanagement implementation, micromanagement, bureaucracy, BDifficult projects that don’t seem to have
poor financial performance, bad strategic
decisions, and poor decision-making processes
Supervisor • Poor supervision. Examples include receiving
incompetence and inappropriate task assignments, conflicting
poor performance instructions, unrealistic expectations, supervisors
not doing their jobs, and supervisors not rewarding BOne coworker is constantly given tasks that
subordinates
Poor coworker • Poor coworker task performance. Examples include BPeople not doing their work, and myself
performance coworkers not doing their job, coworkers doing a
poor job, coworkers being late or absence,
coworkers not exerting effort, and coworkers
making mistakes
Task-related issues
Undesirable work task • Undesirable work task situations (regardless of
situations fairness). Examples included having too much to
do, having to work long hours, performing poorly,
obstacles to good performance on tasks, having to
do someone else’s work, and having to do
something unethical
Lack of resources to • Not having the resources to perform the work.
perform the work Examples include equipment problems, not having BComputer went down and I lost my place
enough staff, and a lack of training
told her I was unable to perform the
work.^
BOne of our workers was called out by
management for making a mistake in
front of everyone.^
BMy boss second guesses my work and then
repeatedly lectures me.^
BWhen a manager was firing a new
employee after a few weeks on the job and
she held this employee up for ridicule in
front of other employees.^
BMy supervisor answered me in a snippy
way at our staff meeting.^
27 9.4 23 10.0 0.04
everything much harder than it has to be.^
the ability to succeed.^
BOur computers are always down and our
new ‘non personal’ way of doing business
makes our clients very upset.^
BMajor department change/move with no
regard to opinion of those affected.^
BSupervisors telling you you did something 35 12.2 20 8.7 1.72
wrong when you came up with a
solution.^
she can’t do.^
BWatching my boss not get work done.^
BManagement looking the other way when
subordinates leave early, report hours not
worked, etc., simply because they don’t
want to be bothered with extra work that
would keep them later.^
72 25.2 48 20.8 1.39
having to pick up their slack.^
BI had to fix something that another
employee that knows better did
incorrectly.^
BPeople whose work I am dependent on
(before I can do mine they must do theirs)
continually miss their deadlines.^
BWhen the boss recognizes that I am 53 18.5a 22 9.5 8.36a
overwhelmed and have too much to do,
and will not find a way to get me some
help, yet has no problem assigning more
tasks.^
BStressful deadline and not being able to take
breaks or lunches.^
BI had just finished planning a major event
and my coworker deleted the whole thing.
I had to stay up all night for a couple of
days to redo it.^
BWorking shorthanded.^ 12 4.2 8 3.5 0.18
on the test I was taking.^
BRecently a new version of a software
package was launched, but the
organization didn’t think it was important
 J Bus Psychol

Table 3 (continued)

Category Description Examples Anger Contempt Chi-

square
# % # %

enough to offer supplemental training to

representatives like members of my group
who are sometimes called upon to work
the phone que in a back-up capacity.^
Counterproductive and/or disrespectful behavior
Coworker/subordinate • Poor or disrespectful interpersonal behavior from BWhen coworkers bring a negative attitude 46 16.1 29 12.6 1.28
interpersonal issues coworkers or subordinates. Includes unpleasant to the workplace.^
interactions, rumor spreading, yelling, and other BOne coworker spilled coffee all over my
forms of counterproductive interpersonal behavior notes before I had the time to write them
into a document. This coworker did not
ever apologize nor consider the time it
took to create the presentation without
notes.^
BThe way I was spoken to.^
Coworker • Actions by coworkers that harm the organization BOther staff did not follow rules.^ 14 4.9 28 12.1a 8.94a
counterproductive or and/or are unethical BCoworkers surfing the Internet on company
unethical behavior time.^
toward the BI caught a coworker fudging her work by
organization writing down false test results, without
actually doing the necessary tests.^
Poor interactions with • Poor interactions with the beneficiaries of one’s BWhen a customer blames me for their 31 10.8 15 6.5 2.98
beneficiaries work, including students, customers, and others shortcomings, gambling is a choice, not
outside of the organization. Also includes something we force people to do.^
observations of mistreatment among students or BWhen a client yelled and blamed me for
customers something that was truly their fault.^
BCustomer made unreasonable demands.^
Lack of recognition • A lack of recognition for one’s work. Includes when BI got all inventory sorted and a person went 15 5.2 12 5.2 0.00
others take credit for one’s work, others question behind me and took credit.^
one’s work, or others fail to show appreciation BBeing unappreciated and taken for
granted.^
BWhen my work is questioned.^
Disloyalty • Reneging on promises, lack of respect for seniority BRecently lost a coworker to a serious health 1 0.3 6 2.6a 4.83a
issue. I found out a few days later that
insurance coverage for the spouse and
children has been terminated and doctor’s
visits already scheduled would not be
covered.^
BAn employee was hired at a higher pay rate
than current employees with more
experience and years of service.^
BI was promised a new position and never
got it.^

B#^ refers to the number of incidents that fell into the category
a
There was a significant difference across the moral emotions in the likelihood of discussing an incident that fell into the category. The superscript letter a
is placed under the moral emotion for which the incident was the most likely to appear

The responses to incidents that triggered the positive
moral emotions (see Table 2) included (a) reciprocation,
such as thanking or doing something nice for the actor;
(b) general prosocial behavior; (c) increased effort and
performance; and (d) focusing on and expressing the
emotions in some way. Chi-squared tests revealed that
gratitude was more likely to inspire workers to give
thanks and treat themselves, whereas admiration was
more likely to motivate workers to give praise and at-
tempt to copy or emulate the source.
Negative Moral Emotion Incidents and Responses
We also found 20 categories of incidents that triggered the neg-
ative moral emotions (see Table 3). In general, participants re-
ported feeling anger or contempt in response to (a) unfair treat-
ment; (b) poor job security, compensation, and career prospects;
(c) a lack of support from the organization and supervisors; (d)
poor organizational, supervisor, or coworker performance; (e)
undesirable work task situations; and (f) counterproductive or
disrespectful treatment from coworkers, beneficiaries (e.g.,
J Bus Psychol

Table 4 Categories, descriptions, examples, and frequencies of responses for the negative moral emotions

Category Description Examples Anger Contempt Chi-

square
# % # %

Complaints
Complained to management
Complained to coworkers • Complained to and/or sought
Complained to others outside • Complained to and/or sought
of work
Complained in general
Actions focused on the person or entity responsible
Reciprocated
Avoided or disengaged from • Disengaged from the source of the BI generally avoid interacting with her.^
the source
Confronted the source
Emotion-focused responses
Tried to control one’s
emotions
Focused on work tasks
Substance use
Prayed
Work performance
Exerted less effort
• Voiced concerns to someone with BElevate the matter to my superiors.^ 68 29.6 39 23.1 2.09
power, usually management BI was able to get the personnel office to correct the
problem.^
BI vented to my supervisors who are always willing to
listen.^
BI wrote the employee up.^
BI talked with a coworker/vented my emotions.^ 15 6.5 11 6.5 0.00
support from coworkers BI complained to another colleague.^
BI kept my mouth shut and complained to my husband 17 7.4 5 3.0 3.67
support from others outside of when I got home.^
work, such as friends or family BCried and talked to a friend.^
members BSulked, felt frustrated, discussed with close friends,
tried to read up more to avoid such disasters in the
future.^
BYou bottle it up and then go home or to a bar, vent to
your friends that aren’t coworkers and forget about it
until Monday morning comes and you encounter
any new kinds of issues.^
• Complained or vented to no one BYelled at someone else.^ 10 4.3 29 17.2a 18.13a
specific BSpoke my mind about it, stood up for myself.^
BComplained to other people.^
• Reciprocated negatively, punished BI followed our discipline procedure and took away 16 7.0 10 5.9 0.17
the person some of his privileges.^
BI wrote that person up.^
BFiled a lawsuit against them.^
12 5.2 18 10.7a 4.14a
emotion, such as by leaving the BI went outside and walked.^
premises or avoiding the person BI walked away.^
• Confronted and/or tried to correct BI told her what happened and to make sure it would not 69 30.0a 35 20.7 4.36a
the person causing the emotion happen again.^
BTried to discuss the matter.^
BI spoke to the coworker and explained the importance
of doing projects in a timely manner and asking for
help if they can’t finish on time.^
BTold my boss in private that I did not appreciate the
disrespect.^
• Attempted to control one’s BI just told myself to calm down and breathe and I 13 5.7 8 4.7 0.17
emotions, such as by joking about drank some water to calm down.^
the situation or holding in one’s BBit my tongue and hoped that he would look like a
feelings. Often participants fool to everyone in the process.^
mentioned engaging in emotional BJoked about it with a coworker.^
labor BShut up and sat there. Fumed silently.^
• Focused on work tasks BI tried to do better.^ 5 2.2 4 2.4 0.02
BI worked harder.^
BI internalized the feelings and focused on next year.^
BOccupied my time by trying to stay busy.^
• Substance use (e.g., drinking BI walked out, took a smoke break, and went back to 4 1.7 0 0.0 2.97
alcohol, using cigarettes) work.^
BI drank more than usual.^
BHave an angry meeting with employees, smoke a
cigarette.^
• Prayed BPrayed and cried.^ 2 0.9 3 1.8 0.65
BI might pray for the person.^
BI pray that the truth would be revealed.^
• Exerted less effort and showed less BI went home early.^ 6 2.6 4 2.4 0.02
commitment at work BContinued my work at a slightly slower pace.^
BIt certainly did demotivate me when I see that nothing
is being done about those responsible for the
mistakes.^
 J Bus Psychol

Table 4 (continued)

Category Description Examples Anger Contempt Chi-

square
# % # %

BDidn’t work as hard.^

Withdrawal
Constructive responses
Tried to fix the situation
Attempted to prevent
reoccurrence
• Looked into leaving the
organization, left the
organization, and/or left the job
situation (e.g., department)
• Tried to fix, clean up, or diffuse the BI took care of most of the task by myself.^
situation, and/or tried to help the BI tried to calm that person down, but it didn’t work.^
victim or recipient
• Sought ways to prevent the
reoccurrence of the
event/situation
BI’ve been looking for a new job.^ 12 5.2 3 1.8 3.19
BGot angry and left the department.^
BChecked for other options in retirement benefits, even
so far as considering changing career or job.^
BI quit my most recent former position.^
25 10.9 18 10.7 0.00
BI told them I did not think I could get it done in time,
but I would try.^
BThere was nothing I could do other than stand up for
the junior staff member in evaluation meetings.^
BI offered empathy to my coworker and suggestions on
steps to take.^
BI work with these people to try and build a team 9 3.9 13 7.7 2.67
atmosphere.^
BSolve the problem and work to not let it happen
again.^
BI spoke to the supervisor and let him/her know that it
was wrong and they should be more truthful to staff
in the future if they want to retain the best and
brightest.^
BIt made me qualify myself more to others when asked
to do something I am unfamiliar with.^

B#^ refers to the number of responses that fell into the category
a
There was a significant difference across the moral emotions in the likelihood of discussing a response that fell into the category. The superscript letter a
is placed under the moral emotion for which the response was the most likely to appear

students, customers), and the organization. Chi-squared tests
revealed that undesirable work situations were more likely to
lead to anger than contempt, whereas terminations, layoffs and
furloughs, counterproductive or unethical behavior by co-
workers, and disloyalty from the organization were more likely
to lead to contempt than to anger. These differences are not as
easy to interpret as those between gratitude and admiration, but
there is some evidence that event-related problems such as work
task issues are more closely tied to anger, whereas entity-focused
organization-level issues such as terminations or disloyalty are
more likely to trigger contempt. Still, the differences between
contempt and anger were not as clear, suggesting the anger and
contempt may co-occur and share many antecedents.
Responses to incidents that triggered anger or contempt (see
Table 4) included (a) complaining to management, coworkers,
and others outside of work; (b) avoiding, confronting, and/or
reciprocating toward the source of the anger or contempt; (c)
focusing on controlling or managing one’s own emotions; (d)
decreasing one’s effort and commitment; and (e) constructively
attempting to fix the situation or prevent reoccurrence. The fre-
quency of most of the responses was similar across the two moral
emotions, but anger was more likely to result in confronting the
actor whereas contempt was more likely to result in avoiding the
actor. This is consistent with the basic proposition that anger
triggers more approach-oriented responses whereas contempt
triggers more avoidance-oriented responses. Still, both types of
responses were sometimes reported for each moral emotion.
Finally, we conducted chi-squared analyses testing whether
a response was more likely to occur in response to a particular
incident. In Tables 5 and 6, we report on significant relation-
ships for each of the moral emotions. We limited these analyses
to incidents that appeared at least 20 times in order to improve
the interpretability and reliability of the results. Some of these
results will be discussed further when delving into the theoret-
ical implications of the findings for the behavioral responses.
Differences across Gender, Managerial Role, and Age
We also conducted analyses on the extent to which there were
differences in the incidents or responses across gender, age,
and whether the individual was in a managerial role in the
organization. First, we conducted chi-squared tests comparing
men and women in the frequencies of all incident and response
categories. We report on results for which the Pearson
chi-squared p value was less than 0.05. Results indicate that
there were no differences in the type of incidents that triggered
gratitude. However, women were more likely than men (56.6
vs. 43.0%) to report thanking the source of the gratitude. Men
J Bus Psychol

Table 5 Significant relationships between positive incident categories and responses (based on chi-squared analyses)

Incident category Significant relationships with responses—gratitude Significant relationships with

responses—admiration

Non-pay recognition Thanked the source (+) Thanked the source (+), gave praise (−),
savored the emotion (+)
Pay-based recognition Reciprocated (−), treated oneself (+) N/A
Having a job Thanked the source (−), reciprocated (−), N/A
increased effort (−), prayed (+)
Promotion and development opportunities Reciprocated (−), increased effort (+), savored N/A
the emotion (+)
Benefits and working conditions, None N/A
non-tasked-related aspects of work
Desirable work tasks and responsibilities Thanked the source (−), did something nice N/A
for others (+), gave praise (+)
Sense of accomplishment and achievement Thanked the source (−), did something nice for N/A
others (+), gave praise (+), expressed
positive emotions (+)
Interactions with external beneficiaries Expressed positive emotions (+), spent more N/A
of one’s work time with the source (+)
Performance and success of colleagues N/A Thanked the source (−), gave praise (+)
Supervisor, leader, and/or mentor support Thanked the source (+) Increased effort (+), gave praise (−)
Coworker and subordinate support Reciprocated (+), increased effort (−) Thanked the source (+), increased effort (−),
spent more time with the source (+)
Communication from the organization N/A N/A
Effective leadership on task-related issues N/A Increased effort (+)
Third-party observations of others’ moral excellence N/A Did something nice for others (+), increased
effort (−), prayed (+); tried to copy the
source (+)

N/A indicates that there were fewer than 20 incidents in that category for the given moral emotion. When there were fewer than 20 incidents in a category
for both moral emotions, that category was omitted from this table. A B(+)^ indicates that the response was more likely to occur for that incident category
than for other incident categories. A B(−)^ indicates that the response was less likely to occur for that incident category than for other incident categories

were more likely than women to report pay-based recognition admiration (9.6 vs. 2.2%). Women were more likely to report
as a source of admiration (4.9 vs. 0.0%). Women were more poor interactions with beneficiaries as a source of anger (15.5
likely to report attempting to copy or emulate the source of their vs. 6.1%), whereas men were more likely to report poor

Table 6 Significant relationships between negative incident categories and responses (based on chi-squared analyses)

Incident category Significant relationships with responses—anger Significant relationships with

responses—contempt

Lack of supervisor support
Poor organizational performance and mismanagement Complained to management (+), withdrawal (+),
Supervisor incompetence and
poor performance
Poor coworker performance
Undesirable work task situations
Coworker/subordinate interpersonal issues
Coworker counterproductive or unethical behavior
Poor interactions with beneficiaries
Confronted the source (+) Disengaged from the source (+)
None
confronted the source (−)
Exerted less effort (+), avoided the source (+) None
Withdrawal (−) Complained to management (+)
Withdrawal (+), substance use (+) Tried to prevent reoccurrence (+),
focused on work tasks (+)
Confronted the source (+) Disengaged from the source (+)
N/A Complained to management (+),
reciprocated (+)
Complained to management (−), reciprocated (+), N/A
tried to control emotions (+); tried to fix the situation (+)

N/A indicates that there were fewer than 20 incidents in that category for the given moral emotion. When there were fewer than 20 incidents in a category
for both moral emotions, that category was omitted from this table. A B(+)^ indicates that the response was more likely to occur for that incident category
than for other incident categories. A B(−)^ indicates that the response was less likely to occur for that incident category than for other incident categories

coworker performance (36.0 vs. 16.2%) and poor organization-
al performance and mismanagement (13.2 vs. 6.1%) as a source
of anger. Men were more likely than women to report substance
use (4.3 vs. 0.0%) in response to anger, whereas women more
likely to report complaining to coworkers (10.1 vs. 2.1%).
There were no differences between men and women with re-
spect to incidents that triggered contempt, but women were
more likely to report responding to contempt by complaining
to others outside of work (5.6 vs. 0.0%).
We conducted the same analysis comparing managers to
non-managers in the frequency of each of the incidents and
responses. We used the occupation codes generated earlier to
determine if the individual was in a managerial role. We note
that, using the SOC coding system, individuals who were
first-line supervisors were not considered in Bmanagement^
occupations. They instead were considered as working in their
particular functional area. There were 47 respondents in man-
agement occupations and 305 in non-management occupa-
tions. Results indicated that non-managers were more likely
than managers to report supervisor/leader/mentor support as a
source of gratitude (11.4 vs. 0.0%). Managers were more like-
ly than non-managers to report coworker or subordinate sup-
port as a source of gratitude (28.6 vs. 14.3%). There were no
differences between managers and non-managers in their re-
ported responses to gratitude. Managers were more likely than
non-managers to report a general positive evaluation of the
organization (3.1 vs. 0.0%), non-pay-based recognition of
others (9.4 vs. 2.1%), and third-party observations of moral
excellence (34.4 vs. 13.8%) as sources of admiration.
Managers were also more likely to report savoring the emo-
tion in response to admiration (13.8 vs. 1.7%). Managers were
more likely than non-managers to report a lack of promotion
and development opportunities as a source of anger (10.0 vs.
2.2%), whereas non-managers were more likely to report poor
interactions with beneficiaries as a source of anger (12.7 vs.
0.0%). There were no significant differences between man-
agers and non-managers in their reported responses to anger.
Managers were more likely to report poor organizational per-
formance and mismanagement as a source of contempt (22.2
vs. 8.1%). There were no significant differences between man-
agers and non-managers in their reported responses to con-
tempt. The lack of a difference between managers and non-
managers and managers in their responses to the negative
moral emotions is inconsistent with propositions and 5a and
5b, suggesting that these need to be revisited.
Finally, we analyzed age by computing the point-biserial
correlation between age and whether each incident or response
category was reported. We report results for which the p value
was less than .05. Results indicate that older workers were less
likely to report promotion and development opportunities
(r = −.17), pay-based recognition (r = −.18), and communica-
tion from the organization (r = −.11) as sources of gratitude,
whereas they were more likely to report the performance and
J Bus Psychol
success of colleagues (r = .11) and working conditions and
benefits (r = .12) as sources of gratitude. There were no dif-
ferences across age in responses to gratitude. Older workers
were more likely to report effective task-oriented leadership as
a source of admiration. There were no differences across age
in responses to admiration. Older workers were less likely to
report a lack of recognition as a source of anger (r = −.14) and
more likely to report third-party observations of unfair treat-
ment as a source of anger (r = .13). Older workers were less
likely to report withdrawal (r = −.16) or complaining to others
outside of work (r = −.15) in response to anger and were more
likely to report praying (r = .16) in response to anger. Age was
uncorrelated with the incidents that triggered contempt.
Finally, older workers were less likely to report focusing on
tasks and channeling their emotion in response to contempt
(r = −.16) and were more likely to report praying in response
to contempt (r = .19).
Theoretical Implications of the Critical Incidents
The results for the critical incidents that trigger the moral
emotions warrant further discussion in light of the first prop-
osition, which was based on moral foundations theory. We
proposed that based on moral foundations theory and other
theoretical work on moral principles (Graham et al. 2011;
Rai and Fiske 2011), incidents that involved harming or help-
ing, fairness or reciprocity, loyalty to the group, and respect
for others would fall within the moral domain and trigger
moral emotions toward responsible individuals or entities. In
Tables 7 and 8, we link each of the incident categories to the
moral foundation or foundations to which each seems most
closely aligned.
The most fundamental of the moral foundations, harming
and helping, was implicated in many of the positive incidents
that involved receiving or observing help from others or the
organization at large. Pay-based recognition (e.g., raises, bo-
nuses) is helpful to the recipient, as are some other forms of
recognition. Having a job, promotion and development oppor-
tunities, and good benefits and working conditions are helpful
and thus triggered gratitude and admiration. Having pleasant
and enjoyable work tasks, having the resources to perform the
work, and feeling a sense of accomplishment with work com-
pletion are all helpful to the worker and were found to be
common antecedents to gratitude in particular. Coworker, sub-
ordinate, and leader support, usually in the form of instrumen-
tal or socio-emotional assistance, were also common anteced-
ents to gratitude and admiration. Finally, third-party observa-
tions of helping behavior by others or the organization as a
whole were found as antecedents to admiration. As a whole,
these results suggest that behavior and conditions that help
workers or their colleagues are the most common and salient
antecedents to gratitude and admiration in the workplace.
J Bus Psychol

Table 7 Moral foundations and

associated incidents for the Category Harm/help Fairness/ Loyalty to Respect for
positive moral emotions reciprocity the group others

Non-pay recognition X X
Pay-based recognition X X
Observing others being recognized X
Having a job X
Promotion and development opportunities X X
Benefits and working conditions, X
non-task-related aspects of work
Desirable work tasks and responsibilities X
Sense of accomplishment and achievement X
Interactions with external beneficiaries X
of one’s work
Having the resources to do one’s work X
Performance and success of colleagues X
Performance and success of one’s supervisor, X
mentor, and/or leader
Performance and success of subordinates X
Supervisor, leader, and/or mentor support X X
Coworker and subordinate support X X
Communication from the organization X
Effective leadership on task-related issues X
General positive evaluation of the organization
Third-party observations of others’ X
moral excellence
Socially responsible organization X

BX^ indicates that the incident category represents situations that reflect the given moral foundation

The other moral foundations were less prominent among embedded in the responses. Fairness and reciprocity was often
the positive moral emotions incidents but were sometimes implicit and sometime explicit in incidents involving

Table 8 Moral foundations and

associated incidents for the Category Harm/ Fairness/ Loyalty to the Respect for
negative moral emotions help reciprocity group others

Distributive or procedural injustice X

Third-party observations of unfair treatment X
Politics, general unfairness X
False accusations X
Unethical behavior by the supervisor X X
Terminations, layoffs, and furloughs X
Compensation and benefits X
Lack of promotion and development opportunities X X
Lack of support from the organization X
Lack of supervisor support X X
Poor organizational performance and X
mismanagement
Supervisor incompetence and poor performance X
Poor coworker performance X X
Undesirable work task situations X
Lack of resources to perform the work X
Coworker/subordinate interpersonal issues X
Coworker counterproductive or unethical behavior X
toward the organization
Poor interactions with beneficiaries X
Lack of recognition X
Disloyalty from the organization X

BX^ indicates that the incident category represents situations that reflect the given moral foundation

recognition and promotion and development opportunities.
Participants might feel they deserve a raise, recognition, and/
or a promotion opportunity based on principles of equity or
fairness, and thus it is possible that fair distribution and a bal-
anced reciprocal relationship between the employee and the
organization are another factor in gratitude and admiration.
The foundation of in-group loyalty is represented in the dedi-
cation and task effectiveness of supervisors, coworkers, and
subordinates to the work group and organization. The respect
for others foundation is reflected in the incidents involving
support from supervisors and coworkers as well as in positive
interactions with beneficiaries and communication from the
organization. Each of these incidents involves being treated
with respect and dignity by others. It is also noteworthy that
admiration sometimes occurred in response to the competence
of others. Competence may in some cases lead to better out-
comes for the group, thus having implications for the well-
being of the group and representing the in-group loyalty moral
foundation. However, in some cases, the participants’ descrip-
tions suggested the admiration had more to do solely with the
success and competence of others than with the effect on the
work group. As such, admiration may in some cases occur in
response to competent behavior and performance, which does
not necessarily fit into any of the aforementioned moral
foundations. This was also noted by Algoe and Haidt (2009)
in their discussion of admiration.
With respect to the negative incidents, the harming and
helping foundation was represented in a number of situations,
including terminations, layoffs and furloughs, poor compen-
sation and benefits, a lack of promotion and development
opportunities, a lack of support from the organization and
supervisors, having undesirable work tasks, and not having
the resources to perform the work. In each of these types of
situations, the recipient is harmed in some way and/or does not
receive the help and resources needed. The harmful nature of
these experiences would trigger anger and/or contempt ac-
cording to moral foundations theory.
Additionally, the fairness/reciprocity foundation was
prominent among the negative incidents, more so than
among the positive incidents. Incidents involving distribu-
tive or procedural injustice, third-party observations of un-
fair treatment, politics, false accusations, a lack of deserved
recognition, and unethical behavior by the supervisor typi-
cally included specific references to unfair decisions or
treatment that violate principles of equity or equality of
treatment. A lack of promotion or development opportuni-
ties was sometimes discussed as leading to anger or con-
tempt, because these opportunities had been promised, sug-
gesting a lack of psychological contract fulfillment and per-
ceived violation of the norm of reciprocity. Incidents of
disloyalty also often involved a failure to keep promises,
causing a violation of the expected employee-organization
relationship.
J Bus Psychol
The in-group loyalty foundation was represented by inci-
dents in which the organization, supervisors, and coworkers
performed poorly or engaged in counterproductive behavior,
hurting the effectiveness, integrity, and well-being of the
group and organization as a whole. It is worth noting that poor
coworker performance was by far the most common type of
incident that participants reported as causing them to feel an-
ger or contempt. In some cases, the poor performance of co-
workers also caused the participant to have to perform more
work, creating an unfair situation while also harming the
group. Finally, the respect for others foundation was promi-
nent among the negative incidents. Unethical behavior by the
supervisor, lack of supervisor support, and poor interactions
with coworkers and beneficiaries all involve situations in
which one is not treated with respect and dignity.
Some overall trends are notable when examining the links
between the incident categories and moral foundations. First, it
appears that helping is the most prominent foundation among the
incidents triggering the positive moral emotions of gratitude and
admiration. Actions in which individuals or the organization are
helpful are the most likely to trigger gratitude and/or admiration.
By contrast, fairness and reciprocity, in-group loyalty, and re-
spect for others seem to be more prominent among the incidents
associated with the negative moral emotions of anger and con-
tempt. This suggests that fairness and reciprocity, in-group loy-
alty, and respect for others tend to represent moral obligations
that trigger negative moral emotions when not met but are less
likely to trigger positive moral emotions when they are met. For
example, a worker may feel angry or contemptuous when treated
disrespectfully or unfairly because these are violations of oblig-
atory moral treatment; however, the worker may not necessarily
feel gratitude or admiration toward someone who is fair and
respectful as this only meets expectations and does not represent
excellence. Helping, on the other hand, often involves going
beyond obligations and may represent a moral ideal that triggers
gratitude and admiration. This parallels the distinction between
obligations and ideals in Higgins’s influential regulatory focus
(1997) and self-discrepancy (1987) theories.
It is also notable that many of the incident categories, while
more closely linked to one particular foundation, touch on
multiple moral foundations. For example, unfair treatment is
sometimes also harmful and disrespectful. Pay raises or pro-
motion opportunities can be both helpful while also fulfilling
principles of fairness. Counterproductive or poor coworker
performance creates unfair situations while also potentially
harming others by forcing them to work more and fix mis-
takes. Further research might consider more directly assessing
the extent to which the moral foundations are fulfilled or vio-
lated by the organization, supervisors, and coworkers in order
to tease apart the critical features of these events.
Finally, it was notable that there were some incidents that
reflected structural conditions and ongoing situations whereas
other incidents reflected discrete episodes. For example, some
J Bus Psychol
participants mentioned situations such as low pay, poor orga-
nizational performance, or a supportive or unsupportive su-
pervisor as triggering moral emotions. These are ongoing sit-
uations that do not change much from day to day but instead
indicate structural conditions and/or impressions that are
based on accumulated experience. By contrast, some partici-
pants mentioned discrete episodes such as particular instances
of poor coworker performance or being passed over for a
specific promotion. This distinction between structural situa-
tional features and discrete episodes aligns with the general
distinction between work environment features and work
events specified in affective events theory (Weiss and
Cropanzano 1996). More recent work has distinguished
chronic from episodic forms of anger and gratitude (Fehr
et al. 2017; Gibson and Callister 2010), and we would expect
that chronic forms of these emotions would tend to be trig-
gered by ongoing situations and structural features, whereas
the episodic forms of these emotions would tend to be trig-
gered by discrete episodes.
Theoretical Implications of Responses to the Moral
Emotions
Drawing on social exchange theory, social learning theory,
and expectancy theory, we proposed that individuals would
respond to incidents that trigger moral emotions by recipro-
cating positive and negative behavior, copying or emulating
positive behavior, and in some cases engaging in rational be-
havior in response to negative moral emotions when recipro-
cation could lead to negative consequences. The results pro-
vide some support for these propositions, but there were some
responses that did not align with these predictions.
Consistent with social exchange theory, individuals often
reciprocated positive treatment when experiencing gratitude
or admiration. Despite the extensive discussion of social ex-
change theory in the organizational psychology literature
(Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), there has been very little
direct investigation of the role of emotions in social exchange
processes. Recent meta-analytic work has considered the role
of generic positive and negative affect in facilitating responses
to fair treatment (Colquitt et al. 2013b), while work in other
domains of psychology has found that gratitude is instrumen-
tal to social exchange relationships (Gordon et al. 2012). We
found qualitative evidence that the moral emotions, which
have a specific target, occur in response to morally relevant
treatment and often facilitate action tendencies toward justice
restoration (Haidt 2003), which play a strong role in social
exchange processes between the employee and the organiza-
tion. Gratitude in particular was found to facilitate positive
reciprocation. Examples of positive reciprocation included
saying thanks, doing something nice or helpful in return,
praising or congratulating the individual, and spending more
time with the individual. Also, consistent with social
exchange theory and with past research on negative recipro-
cation (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007), individuals sometimes
reciprocated negative treatment by attempting to punish the
actor and confronting the actor about the incident. Our find-
ings highlighted the role of anger and contempt in these situ-
ations. In addition, respondents often reported increasing ef-
fort and commitment when feeling grateful and decreasing
effort and commitment when feeling angry or contemptuous.
It may be that the moral emotions play an affective motiva-
tional role in facilitating these forms of reciprocation.
Furthermore, when looking at the relationship between the
incidents and the responses (see Tables 5), it is apparent that the
participants were more likely to behaviorally reciprocate toward
coworkers or subordinates, whereas when receiving recognition
and support from leaders, they were more likely to just express
appreciation. It may be that there are more formal rules for
behavioral interactions with leaders and more discretion for
interactions with coworkers, creating greater ambiguity in
coworker-coworker exchange relationships that amplify posi-
tive social exchange processes. Currently, the literature on so-
cial exchange theory does not specify these types of differences.
More research is needed on these coworker-coworker relations
to better understand these positive exchange processes.
This study also sheds light on the role of emotions in social
learning and behavioral modeling at work, which has receive
little empirical attention in organizational research outside of
the formal training realm (Taylor et al. 2005). Based on social
learning theory (Bandura 1977), we proposed that individuals
would copy or emulate the source when experiencing grati-
tude or admiration. We found this to the be the case in that
individuals sometimes reported trying to be more like the ac-
tor when experiencing gratitude or admiration. Individuals
also sometimes tried to do something nice for others, Bpaying
it forward^ in a way. Such behavior is consistent with work
suggesting that generalized reciprocity is in part driven by
affect (Gray et al. 2014). Analyses (see Table 5) also suggest
that individuals were more likely to attempt to copy the source
when observing a third party performing an exemplary act.
This suggests that third-party observations of helpful or sup-
portive behavior can inspire admiration and attempts to copy
the behavior. These results indicate that responses to gratitude
and admiration go beyond those predicted by social exchange
theory and may be further understood through principles of
social learning and behavioral modeling, which up to this
point have received limited research attention.
In addition, based on expectancy theory, we proposed that
individuals would respond to negative acts in ways that would
have helpful consequences or that would avoid harmful con-
sequences. In particular, we were expecting that individuals
would often avoid reciprocating negative treatment when it
could ultimately be harmful to themselves. Indeed, direct at-
tempts to punish the transgressor, while represented in the
responses, were not as frequent as were attempts to reciprocate

positive treatment. Instead, participants often reported
complaining to coworkers or others outside of work about
negative events. While consistent with expectancy theory,
such complaining behavior is consistent with other past re-
search suggesting that individuals often engage in emotion-
focused coping strategies such as venting (e.g., Day and
Livingstone 2001). Participants also often tried to avoid the
source by walking away or avoiding interaction in general,
consistent with other work on withdrawal responses to poor
treatment (e.g., Mawritz et al. 2014). In addition, participants
often reported active attempts to control their moral emotions,
using phrases such as Bbit my tongue^ and Bbottle it up and
then go home…^ These attempts are likely a rational response
driven by the expectation that expressing those emotions
would bring harmful consequences. Still, participants often
complained to management as another way to deal less direct-
ly with the source of the anger. In other cases, they confronted
the source in attempt to correct the behavior, even if not to
punish the person. Participants also sometimes reported at-
tempts to be constructive by fixing the situation and
preventing it from occurring again. Analyses even suggested
that respondents were more likely to confront their supervisors
in response to a lack of support than they were to confront
others (see Table 6).
On the whole, these latter responses to negative treatment
suggest that workers exert a great deal of top-down control
over their emotional impulses. Such findings are consistent
with the extensive work on emotional labor in organizations,
which shows that workers often suppress their felt emotion in
favor of an emotion that fulfills the emotional display rules of
the situation (Grandey and Gabriel 2015). We suspect that this
self-control is driven to a large degree by expectancies for the
outcomes of their behavior. As noted earlier, anger has been
conceptualized as a fundamentally approach-oriented emo-
tion, while contempt has been discussed as more of an
avoidance-oriented emotion. Yet, individuals often acted con-
structively when experiencing anger and contempt. It would
be interesting to further study the role of expectancies on this
type of behavior more directly, while also considering the role
of more constructive anger and contempt responses to team
conflict resolution.
Finally, some responses were not easily predicted by the
aforementioned theories but warrant further consideration. In
responses to the positive events, individuals often reported
expressing the gratitude or admiration to others or savoring
the emotion by celebrating in some ways. This type of coping
with positive events has received little emphasis in the re-
search literature but might be useful in extending the psycho-
logical benefits of pleasant situations such as those that trigger
gratitude or admiration. Other work has also suggest that pos-
itive self-reflection may have similar benefits (Bono et al.
2013), indicating that positive event coping warrants further
research and theoretical attention. Another response to the
J Bus Psychol
negative events that some participants reported involved fo-
cusing more on their work. Participants sometimes reported
trying to work harder even though they were angry about
something. This sort of resilience to the negative effects of
anger or contempt is also interesting but not easily understood
through the aforementioned theories.
Practical Implications
This study has some important implications for practice in
organizations. First, this study highlights several managerial
practices to be encouraged. Non-pay recognition emerged as a
frequent predictor of gratitude and admiration. Examples in-
cluded receiving thanks, being praised for one’s work, or even
receiving a birthday card. These indicators of appreciation are
not expensive, but they communicate that an employee is
valued, apparently having a positive effect on many of the
participants in this study. Managers should be made aware
of the usefulness and meaningfulness of individually recog-
nizing their employees in a genuine way from time to time.
Offering benefits and good working conditions such as flexi-
ble work arrangements or floating holidays also were appre-
ciated and may inspire greater performance and commitment,
helping confirm some of the conclusions from a recent meta-
analysis by Butts et al. (2013), which found positive relation-
ships between work-family support policies and employee
attitudes.
Another prominent factor that emerged from this study was
the performance of other coworkers and management in gen-
eral. Participants often reported being grateful for and admir-
ing others who performed well, while poor coworker perfor-
mance was the most common reported antecedent to anger
and contempt. This suggests that effective performance man-
agement plays an important role in employee moral emotions,
which in turn are associated with effort and commitment.
Furthermore, the results suggest that good performance is con-
tagious and support among coworkers is reciprocated through
thanks, praise, and helpful acts in return. This suggests that
supportive behavior and good performance are contagious and
may emerge at a collective level. On the other hand, it appears
that poor performers can be toxic and that organizations need
to pay special attention toward dealing with their performance
in some way.
Finally, there is some work suggesting that interventions
can be used to induce positive moral emotions such as grati-
tude, and that these interventions can improve well-being.
Workers taking part in these interventions typically reflect
on aspects of work that they are grateful for (e.g., Kaplan
et al. 2014) or on positive work events in general (Bono
et al. 2013). Interventions such as these, in which workers
bring gratitude-inducing events and conditions to conscious
awareness, may be useful.
J Bus Psychol
In a more general sense, these results suggest that managers
and organizations should consider the moral principles of
helping and harming, fairness and reciprocity, the integrity
and performance of the group, and respect for others through-
out their practices. Many specific manifestations of these gen-
eral principles emerged from this inductive study, with con-
crete examples listed in the quotes on Tables 1 and 3.
Limitations
There are some notable caveats and limitations that should
be noted in considering the findings of our analysis. First,
our method in collecting qualitative data was to allow
participants to choose an event or situation that triggered
the given moral emotion. It is possible that there is some
variance in what the moral emotions, and words used to
describe them, mean to participants. The words that we
listed in order to priming responses may have triggered
different emotions than were intended. In a minority of
cases, participants might have felt admiration or contempt
when they themselves were admired or held in contempt,
rather than when they admired or held in contempt some-
one else. Furthermore, by not standardizing the responses,
it is possible that the frequency of responses in each cat-
egory does not necessarily represent their relative influ-
ence on the moral emotion; it may just be that these situ-
ations are most salient to workers. Some factors that in-
fluence these moral emotions may be outside of the em-
ployee’s awareness, and this method fails to capture such
processes being that it relies on the employee’s memory
and introspection.
A second limitation is that there were some missing data.
As participants went through the survey, some provided un-
usable responses and these became more common throughout
the survey. Thus, the results for contempt, which were the last
moral emotion we asked about, yielded fewer incidents than
the results for anger or gratitude. The nature of the online
panel method for collecting data likely contributed to this
limitation. However, one advantage of our open-ended re-
sponse method was that participants could not randomly give
answers to questions without us detecting them as such an-
swers were quite obvious. Random responses to close-ended
surveys, on the other hand, are more difficult to detect as they
do not necessarily stand out. Thus, although we did have some
missing data, we are confident that the data we collected are
not based on random responding but rather the actual experi-
ences of the workers we sampled.
Third, as with most qualitative analyses, this one involved a
subjective coding process. Although several individuals were
involved in coding, it is possible that some different categories
would emerge among a different set of coders. Furthermore,
the codes varied in their specificity, with some codes being
very specific (e.g., Bjob status^) and others being more general
(e.g., Bcoworker or subordinate support^). This subjectivity
and variability may have caused the moderately low Cohen’s
kappa values of 0.54 and 0.59 on the coding agreement indi-
ces for anger and contempt incidents. This represents a limi-
tation of the paper. With that said, the coding process was
iterative and an attempt was made to ensure all relevant cate-
gories were included in this final paper. All incidents and
responses were coded independently by two individuals, and
all discrepancies were resolved through group discussion and
consensus judgment. Follow-up research with more standard-
ized responses can help verify and expand on the findings
from this study. Furthermore, computerized text analysis
might be a useful way to augment subjective coding
procedures.
There are some other limitations that are worth noting
as well. This research was cross sectional in that all data
were collected in a single setting. Thus, we cannot draw
strong empirically based causal inferences about the rela-
tionships among the event, emotions, and behavioral re-
sponses. Additionally, data were based on retrospective
self-reports. It is possible that individuals forgot elements
of the situations they were recalling or did not correctly
remember how they felt. Future research might consider
collective qualitative, narrative data on episodes as they
are occurring to see if the results are different. Finally, all
data were collected from the USA. It is possible that the
types of events that yield these moral emotions and the
behavioral responses would differ across individuals from
different cultural backgrounds. Further research is needed
to develop and test cross-cultural hypotheses about the
moral emotions at work.
Conclusion
The goals of this paper were to (a) present a theoretical
framework for moral emotions toward others at work
and responses to situations that elicit these moral emo-
tions and (b) collect and analyze qualitative data on the
types of experiences and responses associated with the
moral emotions of gratitude, anger, elevation, and con-
tempt among workers. The results point to several types
of experiences that lead to these moral emotions, some
of which have received limited attention in organization-
al research. These experiences generally align with mor-
al foundations of harming/helping, fairness/reciprocity,
in-group loyalty, and respect for others. The results also
call attention to several types of meaningful responses
to these situations, with implications for theory and or-
ganizational practice. Still, further research is needed on
these moral emotions, their causes, and their implica-
tions for the employee’s well-being and performance.

References
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: the
‘other praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 105–127. doi:10.1080
/17439760802650519.
Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Anderson, L., & Wilson, S. (1997). The critical incident technique. In D.
L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement methods
in industrial psychology (pp. 88–112). Palo Alton, CA: Davies-
Black.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange & power in social life. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. (2013).
Building positive resources: effects of positive events and positive
reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management
Journal, 56, 1601–1627. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0272.
Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are
work-family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their
effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
1–25. doi:10.1037/a0030389.
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related
affect: evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–
204. doi:10.1037/a0013965.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
doi:10.1177/001316446002000104.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P.,
Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013a). Justice at the millennium, a
decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.
doi:10.1037/a0031757.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2013b). What is
organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J.
A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–58).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily dairy study of affective
responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287–302. doi:10.1002
/job.139.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001).
Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. doi:10.1037/1076-
8998.6.1.64.
Crockett, M. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Siegel, J. Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J.
(2014). Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision
making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111,
17320–17325. doi:10.1073/pnas.1408988111.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: an
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
doi:10.1177/0149206305279602.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social ex-
change theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice.
Group & Organization Management, 27, 324–351. doi:10.1177
/1059601102027003002.
de Jong, J., Clinton, M., Rigotti, T., & Bernhard-Oettel, C. (2015).
Nonlinear associations between breached obligations and employee
well-being. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 374–389.
doi:10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0171.
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2001). Chronic and acute stressors
among military personnel: do coping styles buffer their negative
J Bus Psychol
impact on health? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,
348–360. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.6.4.348.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 500–507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2, 335–362. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., Awtrey, E., & Miller, J. (2017). The grateful work-
place: a multilevel model of gratitude in organizations. Academy of
Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0374.
Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: the
characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 103–115. doi:10.1037
/0022-3514.93.1.103.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: an emotion script approach to
anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers,
and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 147–
162 doi: 0.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<147::AID-
JOB35>3.0.CO;2-T.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological
Bulletin, 41, 237–358. doi:10.1037/h0061470.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931. doi:10.1002
/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6<915::AID-JOB918>3.3.CO;2-Y.
Gibson, D. E., & Callister, R. R. (2010). Anger in organizations: review
and integration. Journal of Management, 36, 66–93. doi:10.1177
/0149206309348060.
Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2012).
To have and to hold: gratitude promotes relationship maintenance in
intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103,
257–274. doi:10.1037/a0028723.
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161–178 Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.
org/stable/2092623.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90036-5.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H.
(2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847.
Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads:
where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 323–349.
doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400.
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way:
explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 946–955.
doi:10.1037/a0017935.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent percep-
tions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 505–520. doi:10.1037/a0013748.
Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: general-
ized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 143, 247–254. doi:10.1037/a0031047.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuition-
ist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–
834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, &
H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–
870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposed justice: conser-
vatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social
Justice Research, 20, 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z.
J Bus Psychol
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and
moral conation: a capacity approach to explaining moral thought
and action. Academy of Management Review, 36, 663–685.
doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0128.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect.
Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295
X.94.3.319.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,
52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125.
Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: a social-
functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 719–737. doi:10.1037
/a0022408.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the moral land-
scape: moral motives and group-based moralities. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 17, 219–236. doi:10.1177
/1088868313480274.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus
prescriptive morality: two faces of moral regulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521–537. doi:10.1037
/a0013779.
Kaplan, S., Bradley-Geist, J. C., Ahmad, A., Anderson, A., Hargrove, A.
K., & Lindsey, A. (2014). A test of two positive psychology inter-
ventions to increase employee well-being. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 29, 367–380. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9319-4.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its
methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agree-
ment for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307
/2529310.
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). Application of social-learning
theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 239–246. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.64.3.239.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup
incivility: impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 95–107. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95.
Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate,
abusive supervision, and employee coping: does conscientiousness
matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 737–747. doi:10.1037
/a0035863.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B.
(2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127,
249–266. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciproc-
ity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel
betrayed: a model of how psychological contract violation develops.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 226–256. doi:10.5465
/AMR.1997.9707180265.
Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2015). What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feel-
ing at rest or worried? Development and validation of an affective
work events taxonomy using concept mapping methodology.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 15–35. doi:10.1007
/s10869-013-9328-3.
Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regu-
lation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportion-
ality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75. doi:10.1037/a0021867.
Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness
and employee health: a meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 235–272. doi:10.1037/a0025408.
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an ex-
change framework: clarifying organizational justice distinctions.
J o u r n a l o f M a n a g e m e n t , 3 2 , 2 9 9 – 3 2 2 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7
/0149206305280115.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad
hypothesis: a mapping between the three moral emotions (contempt,
anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divin-
ity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574.
Rudolph, U., & Tscharakstschiew, N. (2014). An attributional analysis of
moral emotions: naïve scientists and everyday judges. Emotion
Review, 6, 344–352. doi:10.1177/1754073914534507.
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: the effects
of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the medi-
ating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
971–978. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.971.
Rupp, D. E., McCance, A. S., Spencer, S., & Sonntag, K. (2008).
Customer (in)justice and emotional labor: the role of perspective
taking, anger, and emotion regulation. Journal of Management,
34, 903–923. doi:10.1177/0149206307309261.
Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2015). Workplace bullying: considering the
interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of
Business Ethics. Advanced online publication. doi. doi:10.1007
/s10551-015-2653-x.
Sanders, S., Wisse, B. M., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). Holding others in
contempt: the moderating role of power in the relationship between
leaders’ contempt and their behavior vis-à-vis employees. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 25, 213–241. doi:10.1017/beq.2015.14.
Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2010). Elevation leads to
altruistic behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 315–320.
doi:10.1177/0956797609359882.
Schonfeld, I. S., & Mazzola, J. J. (2015). A qualitative study of stress in
individuals self-employed in solo businesses. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20, 501–513. doi:10.1037/a0038804.
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2015). Deciding between work and
family: an episodic approach. Personnel Psychology, 68, 283–318.
doi:10.1111/peps.12077.
Silvers, J. A., & Haidt, J. (2008). Moral elevation can induce nursing.
Emotion, 8, 291–295. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.2.291.
Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Understanding
cycles of abuse: a multimotive approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100, 1798–1810. doi:10.1037/apl0000031.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18, 503–
515. doi:10.1037/h0045185.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: a model and review of
the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815–829. doi:10.1111
/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02125.x.
Taber, T. D., & Deosthali, K. (2014). Analysis of self-reported motives for
task-related helping: implications for an integrated theory of help-
ing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 343–366. doi:10.1007
/s10869-013-9327-4.
Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The sunny side
of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and
disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry).
Psychological Science, 19, 339–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02091.x.
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic
review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 692–709. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692.
Vianello, M., Galliani, E. M., & Haidt, J. (2010). Elevation at work: the
effects of leaders’ moral excellence. Journal of Positive Psychology,
5, 390–411. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.516764.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Deciding what’s right: the role
of external sanctions and embarrassment in shaping moral

judgments in the workplace. Research in Organizational Behavior,
28, 81–105. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.004.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The
role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational
support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 590–598. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590.
J Bus Psychol
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: a the-
oretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of af-
fective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,
18, 1–74.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice
conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
786–794. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.786.