Table of ContentsPrevious ResearchSubtle SexismJustice SensitivityMoral OutrageAllyConclusionInstances of sexism occur daily in all contexts. In organizations, sexism has implications at all levels of staff. The negative consequences of sexism range from harm to individuals (Jones et al., 2016) to costs to organizations (Prime and Moss-Racusin, 2009). Research has established that common reactions to overt displays of sexism are a mixture of behavioral and attitudinal responses. Instances of overt sexism are visible and obvious manifestations of unfair treatment (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986). Such apparent manifestations of inequality often generate more hostility among individuals than non-overt manifestations (Barreto and Ellemers, 2005) and, presumably, a feeling of disapproval among observers. Drawing on the deontic justice framework (Folger, 1998, 2001), third-party observers witnessing overt sexism would react in predictable ways. The observer will experience moral outrage and obvious inequality and will subsequently engage in punitive behaviors toward the instigator. However, in today's world, sexism has shifted from overt to subtle, where manifestations of unfair treatment are more insidious and difficult to perceive (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986; Jones et al., 2016; Swim & Cohen, 1997). In situations of subtle sexism, third parties' reactions to injustice may be more variable. In this article, I examine what happens to individuals' reactions when an instance of subtle sexism occurs in the workplace. Drawing on deontic justice, I argue that upon witnessing subtle sexism, a third-party observer will experience moral outrage if and only if they are highly justice-sensitive. Additionally, I argue that people will be more likely to act in response to their moral injustice if they are an ally, in which case they will be more likely to engage in supportive behaviors to help an individual due to their self- identification with the other. ally label, despite the presence of organizational identities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The explicit consequences of overt discrimination within organizations have been documented, such as decreased employee attitudes and less organizational commitment (King, Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2010; Gifford, 2009). Additionally, the negative impacts of subtle discrimination have been identified as reduced psychological health (Lim & Cortina, 2005) and worse work-related outcomes (Gifford, 2009; Stewart, King, Botsford, Gilrane, Hylton, & Jones, 2010). Sexism, both overt and subtle, has known negative impacts on individuals and organizations. Additionally, research has shown that events that happen to a group, but not to oneself directly, can still have consequences for a member of a minority group (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013; Leigh & Melwani, 2019 ). Applying this logic to sexism within organizations, minority individuals may be just as affected by subtle sexism displayed toward someone else as by subtle sexism toward themselves, thereby increasing the number of people potentially affected. Although the negative impacts of subtle sexism are known, little is known about how third parties respond to it at work compared to responses to overt sexism. I will explore this topic in the remainder of my proposal. My research proposal goes as follows. I start by reviewing thedeontic justice, the theoretical framework from which I will draw inspiration. In the following section, I describe the key variables in my model and show how the model can be used to expand current understanding of third-party responses to subtle sexism in the workplace. Additionally, I explore moderating variables, including justice sensitivity and allyship. In the third section, I propose an empirical methodology to evaluate my research question. In addition to using the key lens of deontic justice, I will highlight an understudied area of ​​allies at work and suggest possible limitations of my methodology. This proposition contributes to the literature in two ways. First, I add to the lack of research on male allies in the workplace. Second, my question and subsequent hypotheses draw on deontic theory to define the mechanisms behind this phenomenon. This allows me to integrate relevant information from different bodies of literature to explain why there may be differences in responses to overt and subtle sexism. Previous Research There are different ideas about why people care about injustice toward others. One perspective is that of self-interest (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, and Kulik, 2015). This position is supported by several theories such as that of Lind and Tyler (1988), according to which the relational model of justice in which concern for the mistreatment of others is linked to perceptions of social status. Another view that aligns with the logic of self-interest is the instrumental model of justice which implies that people are motivated to protect their own interests when they see the cost of unjust incidents (Skarlicki, O' Reilly and Kulik, 2015). Another possible explanation is morality where people act out of an obligation to do things right (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). Morality and justice, although the two concepts may seem intuitively linked, were only studied together in the early 2000s because they come from different bodies of literature; ethics is rooted in philosophy and justice comes from the discipline of social psychology (Colquitt and Zipay, 2015). Morality and justice are most closely linked in deonance theory. Deonance theory argues that people have duties in certain situations (Folger & Glerum, 2015). Coming from the Greek word deon, meaning morality centered on what is right and wrong ("Deon", The Free Dictionary), deonance theory focuses on the idea that people assign rules of right and wrong that govern their decision beyond the consequences of potential actions. For people who subscribe to deonance theory, the ends are more important than the means (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015) and people believe that fair treatment is a debt we owe to others ( Folger and Glerum, 2015). The deontic theorist believes that adherence to morality arises from evolutionary drives that compel people to experience emotional reactions to events when those events violate moral mores of social conduct (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). The hallmark of a deonance perspective is what “ought” to be. In this framework, people who break the rules “should” be punished (Folger, 2001). People feel obligated to be fair and hold others accountable, believing that they also had a duty to be fair (Folger and Glerum, 2015). The theory of deonance has been applied in the field of management in situations of third-party injustice, known as deontic justice (Beugre, 2012). Deontic responses include a range of emotionspossible such as anger, indignation, hostility and resentment (Folger, 1998). , 2001; Folger and Butz, 2004; Folger, Cropanzano and Goldman, 2005; Folger and Skarlicki, 2005) all of which fall into the category of negative and reactive emotions in the circumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980). As such, these emotions are more action-oriented than others (Russell, 1980). Moral emotions are linked to the experience of injustice as they arise from concern for the interests of others (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). Furthermore, moral emotions are “hot” emotions that are personal in nature (e.g. Mikula, Semin, & Krahé, 1987). Deontic responses to injustice tend to be automatic and evolutionarily adaptive (e.g., Folger & Cropanzano, 2010; Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). This may be true even for spectators of such injustice. Deontic justice differs from other forms of justice in that it allows someone to experience frustration even if they themselves are not personally affected by a situation (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, and Kulik , 2015). Furthermore, from a deontic perspective, one can be outraged even if there is no relationship with the victim (Skarlicki, O'Reilly and Kulik, 2015). In fact, people who express judgment about the unfair treatment of others can sometimes do so at their own expense, such as whistleblowers who experience significant backlash and public criticism (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008). This is called the deontic effect: people try to punish the wrongdoer even when it seems negative to them (Turillo et al., 2002). A common outcome of the deontic justice response is punitive behaviors (Beugre, 2012). ). This is partly due to the evolving nature of the deontic response; this triggers an automatic response that is not always rational (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). Strong emotions triggered after witnessing the event lead to behavior aimed at restoring justice (Folger and Skarlicki, 2008). As such, the deontic response often elicits organizational retaliatory behaviors (ORB) (Haidt, 2003). Applying this deontic justice framework (e.g., Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Folger & Skarlicki, 2008), consider a situation in which overt sexism exists at work. Overt sexism is unequal treatment that is “easily apparent, visible and observable, and can be easily documented” (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986, p. 30). In this situation, when a person witnesses an obvious (or overt) instance of sexism, the sexist event triggers the deontic process, regardless of the context in which it occurs. In this case, sexism elicits automatic responses because it violates the general sensibility that people should be treated fairly. Thus, witnessing overt sexism will trigger a deontic response because it is clear that a social norm of equality has been violated. As a result, the witness will begin to feel moral indignation or moral anger. This is the next step in the deontic response. Experiencing moral outrage then leads to punitive behaviors, such as ORB. Applying the deontic framework, the following model (Figure 1) illustrates the process applied to overt sexism. Moral outrage plays a mediating role in the relationship between witnessing overt sexism and engaging in punitive behaviors. This article now examines what happens when we consider subtle sexism. How does a situation involving subtle (less obvious) sexism change the response of third parties in the workplace? Subtle sexism Subtle sexism has been identified in the middle1980s, but despite many advances in equality, subtle sexism persists in modern society (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2014; Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986). Subtle sexism differs from overt sexism in that it is specifically unequal treatment that is considered a regular behavior, frequently exhibited in interpersonal relationships (Hebl et al., 2002; Swim and Cohen, 1997). This can manifest through nonverbal as well as verbal exchanges in social interactions (Hebl et al., 2002). As noted previously, subtle sexism is less obvious and less visible than overt sexism, such that it is more difficult to identify (Hebl et al., 2002; King, et al., 2011) and against which it is more difficult to react due to his vague intentions. Other terms used to study subtle discrimination include microaggressions (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2009), incivility (Cortina, 2008), everyday racism (Essed, 1995), everyday sexism (Swim , Hyers, Cohen and Ferguson). , 2001) and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Research has shown that subtle sexism is still as harmful to individuals as overt sexism (Cortina, 2008; Jones et al., 2016). Researchers in several contexts have found that reactions to overt discrimination are easier to deal with because individuals can more easily attribute a negative situation to the person who expressed the discrimination (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). The ambiguity involved in subtle sexism can also increase the experience of subtle discrimination, such that possible reactions feel limited by the lack of objective certainty that the event occurred (Jones et al., 2016 ). Additionally, acts of subtle sexism are more common than overt sexism, increasing overall negative effects (Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). Many negative results of subtle sexism in the workplace are known to researchers. Researchers have found that women perform worse when discrimination is expressed in subtle rather than overt ways (Singletary, 2009). Additionally, subtle sexism has been shown to reduce female police officers' engagement at work (Tougas, Rinfret, Beaton, & de la Sablonnière, 2005). Subtle sexism has also been shown to limit an individual's self-efficacy and deteriorate relationships with managers (Gifford, 2009). Clearly, negative impacts have major consequences for both employees and organizations. Applying the deontic framework discussed in the previous section to subtle sexism, I propose the following model (Figure 2). There are key differences between the subtle sexism model and the overt sexism model. I argue that justice sensitivity moderates the relationship between subtle sexism and moral outrage and that being an ally moderates the relationship between moral outrage and engagement in supportive ally behaviors. In the following, I explore these differences in depth. Justice Sensitivity Justice sensitivity is a trait-like characteristic that predicts people's ability to perceive and respond to injustice (Baumert & Schmitt, 2016) . More specifically, justice sensitivity can be defined as the extent to which people notice and are affected by issues of justice and fair treatment (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). People high in compliance sensitivity are more aware of language related to injustice (Baumert, Gollwitzer, Stauback, & Schmitt, 2011) and tend to punish others even when they pay a personal financial cost (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Lotz, Baumert, Schlösser, Gresser). and Fetchenhauer, 2011). THE.