IndexPrevious researchSubtle sexismSensitivity to justiceMoral indignationAllyConclusionCases of sexism occur daily in different contexts. In organizations, sexism has implications at all levels of the workforce. The negative consequences of sexism range from harming individuals (Jones et al., 2016) to costs to organizations (Prime & Moss-Racusin, 2009). Research has established that common reactions to overt displays of sexism are a mix of behavioral and attitudinal responses. Instances of overt sexism are visible and obvious manifestations of unfair treatment (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986). Such apparent displays of inequality often generate more hostility in individuals than nonovert displays (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005) and conceivably a sense of disapproval in observers. Based on the deontic justice framework ( Folger, 1998 , 2001 ), third-party observers who witness overt sexism would respond predictably. The observer will experience moral outrage and obvious inequality and subsequently engage in punitive behavior toward the instigator. However, in today's world, sexism has moved 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-party reactions to injustice may be more variable. In this article, I consider what happens to individuals' reactions when a case of subtle sexism occurs in the workplace. Drawing from deontic justice, I argue that, upon witnessing subtle sexism, a third-party observer will experience moral indignation if and only if he or she has a high sensitivity to justice. Furthermore, I argue that people will be more likely to act on their own moral injustice if they are an ally, in which case they will be more likely to engage in the use of supportive behaviors to help an individual because of self-identification with the individual . allied label, despite the presence of organizational identities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Explicit consequences of overt discrimination within organizations, such as lower employee attitudes and lower organizational commitment, have been documented (King, Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2010; Gifford, 2009). Furthermore, the negative impacts of subtle discrimination have been identified to reduce psychological health (Lim & Cortina, 2005) and worsen work-related outcomes (Gifford, 2009; Stewart, King, Botsford, Gilrane, Hylton, & Jones, 2010). Both overt and subtle sexism have experienced negative impacts on individuals and organizations. Furthermore, research has shown that events that happen to one's group, but not directly to oneself, can still have consequences for a minority group member (Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013; Leigh & Melwani, 2019). Applying this logic to sexism within organizations, minority individuals may be equally affected by subtle sexism displayed to someone else as they can be by subtle sexism against themselves, thus increasing the number of people potentially affected. While the negative impacts of subtle sexism are known, little is known about how third parties respond to sexism at work compared to responses to overt sexism. I will explore this topic in the rest of my proposal. My research proposal develops as follows. I will begin by examining deontic justice, the theoretical framework from which I will draw. In the next section, I will outlinethe key variables in my model and will 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 alliance. 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 proposal contributes to the literature in two ways. First, I add the paucity of research on male allies in the workplace. Secondly, my question and subsequent hypotheses leverage deontic theory as a basis for framing the mechanisms underlying 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 towards others. One perspective is that of self-interest (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). In support of this position there are several theories such as that of Lind and Tyler (1988), the relational model of justice which maintains that care for the mistreatment of others is linked to the perception of social position. Another view in line 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 observe a cost for unjust incidents (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015) . Another possible explanation is the moral one in which people act out of obligation to do things the right way (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). Morality and justice, although the two constructs may seem intuitively related, were not studied together until 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 more connected within the theory of deonance. Deonance theory holds that people are duty-bound in some situations (Folger & Glerum, 2015). Deriving from the Greek word deon, meaning morality centered on right and wrong ("Deon", The Free Dictionary), deonance theory is based on the idea that people ascribe rules of right and wrong that govern their decision-making beyond the consequences of right and wrong. potential actions. For people who subscribe to deonization theory, ends are more important than means (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015), and people believe that fair treatment is a debt owed to others (Folger & Glerum, 2015) . Deontic theorists believe that support for morality arises from evolutionary impulses that force people to experience emotional reactions to events when such events violate moral mores of social conduct (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). The hallmark of a deonization perspective is what it “should” be. In this framework, people who break the rules “should” be punished (Folger, 2001). People feel obligated to be just and hold others accountable by believing that they too have a duty to be just (Folger & Glerum, 2015). The theory of deonance has been applied in the field of managing situations of injustice towards third parties, known as deontic justice (Beugre, 2012). Deontic responses include a range of possible emotions such as anger, indignation, hostility, and resentment (Folger, 1998). , 2001; Folger & Butz, 2004; Folger, Cropanzano, &Goldman, 2005; 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 of a personal 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 also be true for spectators of such injustice. Deontic justice differs from other forms of justice in that it allows someone to experience frustration even if they are personally unaffected by a situation (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). Furthermore, under the deontic lens, one can be indignant even if no relationship with the victim exists (Skarlicki, O'Reilly, & Kulik, 2015). Indeed, people who make judgments about the unfair treatment of others may sometimes do so at personal expense, as in the case of whistleblowers who receive considerable public backlash and criticism (Rehg, Miceli, Near, & Van Scotter, 2008). This is known as the deontic effect, people try to punish the transgressor even when it is bad for them to do so (Turillo et al., 2002). A common outcome in deontic justice response is to punish behaviors (Beugre, 2012). ). This is partly due to the evolutionary nature of the deontic response; triggers an automatic response that is not always rational (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). Strong emotions triggered after witnessing the event guide behavior to restore justice (Folger & Skarlicki, 2008). As such, deontic responding often induces organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB) ( Haidt, 2003 ). Applying this deontic justice framework (e.g., Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Folger & Skarlicki, 2008), consider a situation in which overt sexism occurs at work. Overt sexism is unequal treatment that is “easily noticeable, visible, and observable and can be easily documented” (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986, p. 30). In this situation, when someone witnesses an obvious (or blatant) case 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 equally. Therefore, witnessing overt sexism will trigger the 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 punishing behaviors, such as ORB. Applying the deontic framework, the following model (Figure 1) illustrates the process applied to overt sexism. Moral outrage mediates the relationship between witnessing overt sexism and adopting punitive behaviors. Now, this article turns to consider 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 was identified in the mid-1980s, but despite numerous advances in equality, subtle sexism persists in modern society (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2014; Subtle sexism differs from overt sexism in as it is specifically unequal treatment seen as regular behavior, frequently exhibited interpersonally (Hebl et al., 2002; Swim & Cohen, 1997).social interactions (Hebl et al., 2002). As previously pointed out, subtle sexism is less obvious and visible than overt sexism, so much so that it is more difficult to identify (Hebl et al., 2002; King, et al., 2011) and more difficult to respond to due to its 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, & Ferguson, 2001) and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Research has shown that subtle sexism is still just 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 process because individuals can more easily make a negative attribution to the individual who expressed the discrimination (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). The ambiguity involved in subtle sexism can also intensify 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). Furthermore, acts of subtle sexism occur more frequently than overt sexism, increasing overall negative effects (Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). Scholars know of numerous negative workplace outcomes of subtle sexism. Researchers have found that women perform worse when discrimination is expressed subtly, rather than overtly (Singletary, 2009). Furthermore, subtle sexism has been shown to reduce workplace commitment of female police officers (Tougas, Rinfret, Beaton, & de la Sablonniere, 2005). Subtle sexism has also been shown to limit an individual's self-efficacy and worsen relationships with managers (Gifford, 2009). Clearly, negative impacts have important 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 indignation and that being an ally moderates the relationship between moral indignation and engaging in ally-supportive behaviors. Below, I will explore these differences in depth. Justice Sensitivity Justice sensitivity is a trait-like characteristic that predicts people's ability to perceive injustice and respond to it (Baumert & Schmitt, 2016). Specifically, justice sensitivity can be defined as the degree to which people notice and are influenced by issues related to justice and fair treatment (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). People with greater observer sensitivity are more aware of injustice-related language (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, & Fetchenhauer, 2011). People with high justice sensitivity often show greater bystander support (Rothmund, Baumert, & Zinkernagel, 2014; Lotz, et al., 2011) and altruistic punishment (Lotz et al., 2011). Ultimately, people with high observer sensitivity are more likely to have stronger expressions of emotional and behavioral reactions to the perceived unfair treatment of others, reflecting a legitimate concern for maintaining justice (Baumert, Rothmund, Thomas, Gollwitzer and Schmitt, 2013). Hypothesis 1. : The.