Cited by 24Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Third-party perceptions of mistreatment: A meta-analysis and integrative model of reactions to perpetrators and victims

Hill, Edwyna T., Colquitt, Jason A., Burgess, Rachel, Priesemuth, Manuela, McClain, Jefferson T.·2025·Journal of Applied Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0001211

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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