Third-party perceptions of mistreatment: A meta-analysis and integrative model of reactions to perpetrators and victims
Abstract
Third parties have increasingly become the focus of research on mistreatment in organizations. Much of that work is grounded in deonance theory, which argues that third parties should react to the perpetrators of mistreatment with anger. Deonance theory is less explicit as to how third parties should react to the victims of mistreatment, though empirical work has pointed to empathy as one potential reaction. Deonance theory is less capable of explaining recent findings suggesting that third parties may react to mistreatment events with schadenfreude. The purpose of our study was to conduct a meta-analytic test of an integrative model specifying the relationships between third-party perceptions of mistreatment and reactions to perpetrators and victims. That model predicted that third-party perceptions of mistreatment would be associated with emotional reactions (anger toward the perpetrator, empathy toward the victim, schadenfreude from the event), cognitive reactions (evaluations of the perpetrator and victim), and behavioral reactions (antisocial and prosocial behaviors toward the perpetrator and victim). Our model testing provides the first quantitative synthesis of the third-party mistreatment literature while surfacing counterintuitive findings that would not be anticipated from deonance theory's arguments. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our work while providing guidance for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights rese…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An observer's pleasure from mistreatment is not consistent with a deontic desire.
“an observer’s pleasure from the mistreatment is not consistent with a deontic desire.”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Hill et al., 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ağaoğlu, M., & Erdil, O. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16071191
- Authors
- Hill, E. T., Colquitt, J. A., Burgess, R., Priesemuth, M., & McClain, J. T.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- University of Notre Dame (US)
- Arizona State University (US)
- Villanova University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2025-01
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-130
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W4400777926
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 11
- FWCI
- 17.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Keywords
- empathy toward victims, schadenfreude, antisocial behavior, prosocial behavior, workplace abuse, integrative model
- MeSH terms
- Empathy, Employment, Humans, Models, Psychological, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Crime Victims
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review