Due to the progress in information technology, cyber-bullying is becoming one of the most common forms of interpersonal harm, especially among teenagers. The present study (N = 548) aimed to investigate the relation between perceived parenting style (in terms of autonomy support and psychological control) and cyber-bullying in adolescence. Thereby, the study tested for the intervening role of adolescent need satisfaction (i.e., autonomy and relatedness), empathic concern towards others, and adolescents’ recognition of full humanness to cyber-bullying offenders and victims. Findings revealed both a direct and an indirect relation between parenting and cyber-bullying. More specifically, parental psychological control directly predicted cyber-bullying, whereas parental autonomy support related to less cyber-bullying indirectly, as it was associated with the satisfaction of adolescents’ need for autonomy, which predicted more empathic concern towards others, which in turn differentially related to recognition of humanness to victims and bullies. The discussion focuses on the implications of the current findings.

Introduction: The incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in organizations is pivotal to deal with work-related tasks and challenges effectively, yet little is known about the organizational factors that influence AI acceptance (i.e., employee favorable AI attitudes and AI use). To address this limitation in the literature and provide insight into the organizational antecedents influencing AI acceptance, this research investigated the relationship between competitive organizational climate and AI acceptance among employees. Moreover, given the critical role of a leader in employee attitude and behavior, we examined the moderating role of leaders’ power construal as responsibility or as opportunity in this relationship.Methods: Study 1 was a three-wave field study among employees (N = 237, M_age = 38.28) working in various organizations in the UK. The study measured employees’ perception of a competitive organizational climate at Time 1, leaders’ power construal (as perceived by employees) at Time 2, and employee attitudes towards AI and their actual use of AI in the workplace at Times 2 and 3. Study 2 was a 2 (climate: highly competitive vs. low competitive) by 2 (power construal: responsibility vs. opportunity) experiment among employee participants (N = 150, M_age = 37.50).Results: Study 1 demonstrated a positive relationship between competitive climate and employee AI use over time. Furthermore, both studies revealed an interaction between competitive climate and leader’s power construal in the prediction of employee AI acceptance: In Study 1, competitive climate was negatively related to AI acceptance over time when leaders construed power as opportunity. In Study 2 competitive climate was positively related to AI acceptance when leaders construed power as responsibility rather than as opportunity.Discussion: These results underscore the organizational factors that are required in order for employees to shape favorable attitudes towards AI and actually use AI at work. Importantly, this research expands the limited body of literature on AI integration in organizations.

To maintain a positive overall view of their group, people judge likeable ingroup members more favourably and deviant ingroup members more harshly than comparable outgroup members. Research suggests that such derogation of deviant ingroup members aims to restore the image of the group by symbolically excluding so‐called ‘black sheeps’. We hypothesized that information about a harm‐doer's group membership influences observers’ justice‐seeking reactions. Motives for punishment vary based on whether the goal is to punish past harm‐doing (i.e., retributive motives), help harm‐doers recognize the harm inflicted and reintegrate into society (i.e., restorative motives), or control harm‐doer's future behaviour through incapacitating practices and exclusion from society (i.e., utilitarian motives). We hypothesized that immoral behaviours by ingroup rather than outgroup members jeopardize the group's reputation and therefore activate utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) motives for punishment. Study 1 ( N  = 187) confirmed that people displayed more utilitarian motives and less restorative motives when sanctioning an ingroup as opposed to an outgroup harm‐doer. Study 2 ( N  = 122) manipulated typicality to the ingroup. Participants displayed stronger utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) punishment motives when the harm‐doer was presented as a typical ingroup rather than an outgroup member. Study 3 ( N = 292) replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 and further showed that people displayed stronger utilitarian punishments against an ingroup offender through the experience of increased identity threat. Contrary to our expectations, observers’ ingroup identification did not moderate the effect of group membership or typicality to the ingroup on justice reactions. Yet, ingroup identification influenced both experienced identity threat (i.e., mediator) and utilitarian motives for punishment with high identifiers experiencing higher threat and displaying stronger utilitarian punishment motive. We discuss the results in terms of people's concern for the protection of their group identity.

How leaders construe their power may greatly affect the quality of relationships they have with their followers. Indeed, we propose that when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as responsibility, this will positively affect the extent to which followers perceive high quality leader-follower relationships (LMX), whereas the opposite will be true when leader power is (perceived to be) construed as opportunity. Moreover, we argue that these relationships are contingent on contextual influences, such that the effects will be particularly strong in environments characterized by competition, because such environments exacerbate the impact of leaders’ behavior. The results of a scenario experiment (Study 1), and a two-week time-lagged study among organizational employees (Study 2), showed that a manipulation of leaders’ tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 1), and followers’ perception of the extent to which their leader sees power as responsibility (Study 2) is positively related to follower LMX perceptions. Moreover, both Studies 1 and 2 and a dyadic field study in which we asked leaders to report on their tendency to view power as responsibility (Study 3) showed that this effect is stronger when the organizational climate is highly competitive. The results pertaining to power as opportunity were less consistent, but suggest a negative relationship with perceived LMX (Study 2), particularly when the organizational climate is highly competitive (Study 3). We conclude that the potential effects of leaders’ construal of power as responsibility or opportunity deserve more research attention than previously awarded and provide managerial ramifications of our findings.

The purpose of this experiment was to test how ethnic group membership of both the bullies and the victims influence the way that observers attribute human characteristics to bullies. Ethnic group membership was manipulated in terms of bullies’ and victims’ ethnicity (ingroup-majority group versus outgroup-minority group). Furthermore, we examined the mediating role of empathic concern towards the victim and perspective taking of the bully in the relation between ethnic group membership of bullies and victims and attributions of humanness to the bullies. We hypothesized that observers would attribute lower human characteristics to outgroup bullies when bullies inflict harm on an ingroup victim. Moreover, we expected that perspective taking of the bully and empathic concern towards the victim would mediate this relation. Analysis of data from a sample of 293 Greek-Cypriot adolescents fully corroborated our hypotheses. The findings are discussed in terms of the discrimination-based nature of bullying at school.

In the present research, we examined a discrepancy between people's beliefs about, versus punitive reactions towards, offenders. Particularly, appraisals of offenders along the dimension of communion (i.e., being friendly or trustworthy) should primarily affect people's beliefs about them, as reflected in demonizing and conspiracy theories, and to a lesser extent observers’ punitive reactions. However, actual evidence of transgression should (more strongly than beliefs) influence observers’ punitive reactions. In two studies, we manipulated communion and transgression ambiguity in the context of financial offences. The transgression was presented as either an observable and clear‐cut immoral case (non‐ambiguous transgression) or as a case that involves a grey area between what is legal or illegal (ambiguous transgression). Study 1 revealed that viewing an offender as low (as opposed to high) in communion predominantly influenced demonization and conspiracy beliefs involving the offender. The transgression manipulation, however, mostly influenced observers’ punitive reactions and their underlying punitive motives. Similar findings were obtained in Study 2. We conclude that although beliefs about offenders and punitive reactions are often strongly related, they are actually grounded in different psychological processes.