Cognitive foundations of impartial punitive decision making in organizations: Attribution and abstraction
研究发现，当惩罚者自身与不当行为有间接关联时，会因防御性归因而减轻惩罚；而通过认知抽象（高水平建构）可以促进公正决策。
Summary Partial decision making about disciplinary responses to misbehavior is generally considered unfair and undermines the effectiveness of punishment. Nonetheless, organizational actors often struggle to remain impartial in situations that call for punishment. Impartiality appears specifically hard to obtain when some element of the transgression reflects badly upon the punisher themselves, for instance, when in the past the punisher has benefited from the misbehavior, even if just derivatively. In this paper, we argue that in such cases, punishers tend to defensively attribute causes of the transgression to the circumstances in order to protect their own self‐image, thus leading them to relatively lenient punishments. However, we also suggest that psychological impartiality can be obtained through cognitive abstraction. An abstract understanding (high‐level construal) of the punitive situation puts the focus squarely on the gist of the situation and makes circumstantial details less likely to be cognitively available. This hinders defensive circumstantial attribution. We show in a field study and an experiment that partiality in making decisions about punishments occurs under conditions of low‐level (i.e., concrete) construal, whereas impartiality is facilitated by high‐level (i.e., abstract) construal.