The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace
Abstract
This study proposes and tests a model that applies the concept of restorative justice to the enactment of revenge and forgiveness in organizations. The model draws from theories of cognitive attribution and consistency, as well as more recent theories of revenge in organizations, to describe the process by which a personal offense triggers revenge and forgiveness cognitions and behavior. Attributions of blame were predicted to directly influence the contemplation of revenge and forgiveness strategies. In turn, these cognitions were hypothesized to be the immediate precursors of behavior. It was also predicted that the likableness of the offender would be positively associated with both revenge and forgiveness cognitions. Finally, blame attribution was expected to be influenced by offense severity. To test these predictions, a survey was administered to one hundred and eighty employees of a government agency. Structural equation modeling was used to assess the significance of the pathways in the model and compare its fit to theoretically plausible rivals. Although the theoretical model fit the data well, a less constrained alternative showed a superior fit. In both the theoretical model and less constrained alternative, all but two of the predicted pathways in the model were upheld. The implications of the findings for organizations are discussed and future research directions are offered.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(1977) · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10517-x · Cited by 2,457
Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030 · Cited by 1,687
Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance.
Baron, R. A. (1988) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.199 · Cited by 408
Forgiveness: A developmental view
Enright, R. D., Gassin, E. A., & Wu, C. (1992) · Journal of Moral Education · doi:10.1080/0305724920210202 · Cited by 327
The cognitive and emotive uses of forgiveness in the treatment of anger.
Fitzgibbons, R. P. (1986) · Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training · doi:10.1037/h0085667 · Cited by 268
Cited by
The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019993 · Cited by 749
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Self–Forgiveness: The Stepchild of Forgiveness Research
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2005) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.5.621 · Cited by 475
Designing fair AI for managing employees in organizations: a review, critique, and design agenda
Robert, L. P., Pierce, C., Marquis, L., Kim, S., & Alahmad, R. (2020) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2020.1735391 · Cited by 268
A Model of Third Parties' Morally Motivated Responses to Mistreatment in Organizations
O'reilly, J., & Aquino, K. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0311 · Cited by 223
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bradfield, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 607-631
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999403088
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 6.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00018-5
- The paper
- Bradfield, M. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00018-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.