Publications Database

Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!

The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:

  • Faculty Member’s Name;
  • Area of Expertise;
  • Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
  • Journal Name; and
  • Date Range.

At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.

If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Search Results

Aquino, K., Yang, C., You, H. and Zhu, L. (2021). "Identity Affirmation as a Response to Justice Failure", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 156, 53-68.

Open Access Download

Abstract This paper examines how and why third parties respond to the failure of worldly justice when offenders go unpunished. We propose that justice failure threatens third parties’ perceived control and motivates them to regain control by affirming alternative sources of control. We further propose that third parties can regain control by affirming important identities. Supporting our hypotheses, studies demonstrated that exposure to justice failure resulted in greater prosociality by third parties via perceived control, but only if they were high in moral identity. Similarly, via perceived control, exposure to justice failure also resulted in greater favoritism by third parties toward their organizations, but only if they were high in organizational identity. Implications of these findings for management practice and future research are discussed.

Aquino, K., Baumeister, R.F., Howard, C., Kim, J., Okimoto, T., Reynolds, T., Sjåstad, H. and Zhu, L. (2020). "Man up and take it: Gender bias in Moral Typecasting", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120-141.

Open Access Download

Abstract Informed by moral typecasting theory, we predicted a gender bias in harm evaluation, such that women are more easily categorized as victims and men as perpetrators. Study 1 participants assumed a harmed target was female (versus male), but especially when labeled ‘victim’. Study 2 participants perceived animated shapes perpetuating harm as male and victimized shapes as female. Study 3 participants assumed a female employee claiming harassment was more of a victim than a male employee making identical claims. Female victims were expected to experience more pain from an ambiguous joke and male perpetrators were prescribed harsher punishments (Study 4). Managers were perceived as less moral when firing female (versus male) employees (Study 5). The possibility of gender discrimination intensified the cognitive link between women and victimhood (Study 6). Across six studies in four countries (N = 3,137), harm evaluations were systematically swayed by targets’ gender, suggesting a gender bias in moral typecasting.

Everett, J., Neu, D. and Rahaman, A.A. (2018). "Ethics in the Eye of the Beholder: A Pluralist View of Fair-Trade", Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 36(1), 1-40.

View Paper

Abstract This paper examines fair trade through a variety of ethical lenses as a means of determining whether or not it is, indeed, fair. The specific lenses employed are utilitarianism, justice, rights, virtue, and care. The context examined is coffee production and the analysis is based on twenty-three interviews conducted with fair trade coffee producers and other associated actors in the country of Guatemala. The paper highlights how each of these lenses draws attention to the unique moral dimensions of fair trade, and demonstrates how a pluralist view enables a better grasp of the complexity of the ethics surrounding fair trade than is provided by any one, singular framing. Implications of the analysis are provided for business educators, practitioners, and students of fair trade.

Folger, R., Rupp, D.R., Shao, R., Shapiro, D.L. and Skarlicki, D.P. (2017). "A Critical Analysis of the Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Justice: Is It Time for Reassessment?", Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 919-959.

View Paper

Abstract This paper provides a historical review of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice. We demonstrate how, over time, a dominant norm for conceptualizing and measuring justice has emerged. We posit that although consistent conceptualization and measurement across justice studies can enable the accumulation of knowledge, if the dominant approach is incomplete, this can impede the accumulation of knowledge and risk construct reification. We suggest that these risks are high given that (a) contemporary approaches to measuring fairness perceptions fail to capture the full domain of organizational justice as it was initially conceptualized by early scholars; (b) despite a foundation of “classic” theories, our field has yet to systematically map the justice domain; and (c) the normative operationalizations of organizational justice are based on observations that predate the 21st century workplace. We offer suggestions for future research and new approaches to assessing workplace fairness. Our paper’s goal, ultimately, is to reconsider how justice is conceptualized and measured so that the findings obtained from future empirical justice studies can go beyond the constraints of the current paradigm.

Bell, C., Gelfand, M.J., Imai, L., Mayer, D.M. and Shteynber, G. (2017). "Prosocial Thinkers and the Social Transmission of Justice", European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 429-442.

Open Access Download

Abstract Feeling the sting of another’s injustice is a common human experience.We adopt a motivated information processing approach and explore howindividual differences in social motives (e.g., high vs. low collectivism)and epistemic motives (e.g., high vs. low need for closure) drive individ-uals’ evaluative and behavioral reactions to the just and unjust treat-ment of others. In two studies, one in the laboratory (N =78) and onein the field (N = 163), we find that the justice treatment of others hasa more profound influence on the attitudes and behaviors of prosocialthinkers, people who are chronically higher (vs. lower) in collectivismand lower (vs. higher) in the need for closure. In all, our results suggestthat chronically higher collectivism and a lower need for closure work inconcert to make another’s justice relevant to personal judgment andbehavior.

Jones, K., Liao, H. Rupp, D.E. and Shao, R.. "The Utility of a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Organizational Justice: A Meta-analytic Investigation into the Consideration of Normative Rules, Moral Accountability, Bandwidth-fidelity, and Social Exchange", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159-185.

View Paper

Abstract Multifoci justice pulls from research on social exchange theory to argue that despite the proliferation of rule sets in the literature (often referred to as the “types” of justice), individuals seek to hold some party accountable for the violation/upholding of such rules, and it is these parties (e.g., supervisors, the organization as a whole) that are most likely to be the recipients of attitudes and behaviors (i.e., target similarity effects). To explore these issues, we meta-analytically (k = 647, N = 235,682) compared the predictive validities of source- vs. type-based justice perceptions and found that (a) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted outcomes directed at matched sources than did type-based justice perceptions, (b) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted target similar than dissimilar outcomes, and (c) the relationships between multifoci justice perceptions and target similar outcomes were mediated by source-specific social exchange.