The impact of coworker justice on interpersonal behavior: do different types of trust make a difference?

Employees typically gauge fairness in their workplace based on two primary sources: organizations and supervisors (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Bies & Moag, 1986; Mustafa, Vinsent, & Badri, 2023). Justice scholarship builds on this distinction by delineating multiple dimensions of fairness. Distributive and procedural justice capture employees’ evaluations of organizational outcomes and procedures, while interactional justice reflects their evaluations of supervisors’ treatment of employees and the adequacy and honesty of the explanations they provide (Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Kyei-Poku, 2014; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Subsequent research has shown that employees rely on all dimensions when forming overall judgments of organizational fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Moreover, studies indicate that justice perceptions tied to organizational systems primarily foster trust in the organization, whereas justice perceptions attributed to supervisors strengthen trust in them and encourage positive relational behaviors (e.g. Aryee et al., 2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). However, recent studies have expanded this perspective by recognizing coworkers – colleagues with whom they regularly work and interact, typically of similar status within the work unit – as an additional source of fairness judgments (e.g. Adamovic, 2023; Arnéguy, Ohana, & Stinglhamber, 2022; Harris, Lavelle, & McMahan, 2020; Haynie, Richardson, Fuller, Martin, & Bush, 2024). Coworker justice refers to how fairly employees perceive they are treated by their peers (Estreder, Álvarez, Martínez-Tur, Cropanzano, & Tomás, 2024). As organizations increasingly adopt flatter hierarchies and team-oriented structures, the impact of coworkers on workplace fairness is expected to become more significant (Au & Leung, 2016; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Harrison, Johns, & Martocchio, 2000).

Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), extant research provides support for a connection between coworker justice and employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as commitment, turnover intention and citizenship behavior (e.g. Harris et al., 2020; Lavelle et al., 2009a, Lavelle, McMahan, & Harris, 2009b). However, surprisingly little research has examined the relationship between coworker justice and trust in coworkers. This is an important gap because Cropanzano & Mitchell (2005) suggested that trust is a key mechanism for explaining the social exchange benefits of justice and subsequent behaviors. When employees perceive fair treatment from their coworkers, it strengthens social exchange relationships with their coworkers by building trust, which in turn, influences their behaviors in the workplace. As a result, employees are more likely to engage in desirable prosocial behaviors and avoid undesirable antisocial behaviors toward their coworkers. Therefore, we propose that trust in coworkers is a psychological mechanism that sheds light on the relationship between coworker justice and employee interpersonal behavior. Empirical research is now needed to explore this relationship.

Dirks & Ferrin (2002) identified two fundamental bases of trust: one is exchange-based or emotional from the heart and the other is character-based or rational from the head (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008; Hussain, Shujahat, Malik, Iqbal, & Mir, 2018; McAllister, 1995; Tomlinson, Schnackenberg, Dawley, & Ash, 2020). Specifically, affective trust stems from the emotional bond that exists between individuals, while cognitive trust is based on the assessment of key characteristics, such as ability, integrity and reliability (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Extant research further indicates that these two dimensions of trust are differently related to outcomes (e.g. Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2009; Yang & Mossholder, 2010; Zhu, Newman, Miao, & Hooke, 2013). To better understand the distinct psychological process associated with each type of trust and their effects, we propose a model in which different dimensions of trust in coworkers act as underlying mechanisms for the impact of coworker justice on employee behavioral reactions in different ways.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we propose that when employees are fairly treated by their coworkers, they form a social exchange relationship, which leads to increased interpersonal citizenship behaviors and reduced deviant behaviors toward their coworkers. Second, we propose that two forms of trust in coworkers function as psychological mechanisms that link or mediate the relationships between coworker justice and employee engagement in interpersonal behaviors toward their coworkers. By doing so, this study aims to contribute to coworker justice literature in two important ways. First, we empirically demonstrate that employees experiencing fair treatment from their coworkers are more likely to develop strong emotional bonds (i.e. affective trust) and a sense of reliability and dependability (i.e. cognitive trust) in their coworkers. Second, we show that these two forms of trust play distinct roles in mediating the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal behaviors. Thus, our study emphasizes the significance of coworker justice in fostering trust in coworkers and shaping employee interpersonal behaviors. To address the preceding gaps, we propose an integrative social exchange model linking coworker justice, two distinct forms of trust in coworkers and employee interpersonal behaviors.

Previous research has primarily conceptualized coworker justice – often referred to as peer justice climate – as a group-level construct, reflecting shared perceptions of how employees are generally treated by their coworkers within the same group (Cropanzano, Li, & Benson, 2011; Li, Cropanzano, & Bagger, 2013; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Misati, 2017). However, employees within the same group may hold different perceptions of justice or fairness due to their unique experiences, personality traits and social interactions (e.g. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Estreder et al., 2024; Holtz & Harold, 2009), leading to variations in how they interpret and respond to it (Lavelle et al., 2007). Moreover, social exchange theory emphasizes individualized reciprocity rather than collective experiences when conceptualizing justice or fairness. While unit-level coworker justice (i.e. peer justice climate) can shape team cohesion and shared norms (Cropanzano et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013), fairness perceptions are shaped by psychological processes that operate at the individual-level (Lavelle et al., 2007). As such, conceptualizing coworker justice at the individual-level aligns more closely with theoretical frameworks that prioritize personal experiences as key drivers of fairness-related individual outcomes (Estreder et al., 2024). In addition, although justice research has evolved from an individual to a multilevel perspective, studies on coworker fairness have primarily focused on the unit level, often overlooking the subjective and nuanced nature of individual perceptions of coworker justice (Estreder et al., 2024).

Based on this reasoning, we conceptualize coworker justice as an individual-level construct, defined as an employee’s individual perception of fair treatment by their coworkers, typically shaped by coworkers providing accurate and sufficient information about decisions and actions as well as treating them with respect and courtesy (Estreder et al., 2024). Social exchange theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding how coworker justice influences trust in coworkers (Au & Leung, 2016). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), relationships involve the exchange of two types of resources: economic and socioemotional. Economic resources, such as goods, wealth and property, have measurable value. In contrast, socioemotional resources, like respect, social support, information and care, are inherently different. When socioemotional resources are exchanged, reciprocation is expected, though the timing and form of return are often unspecified. These resources are often seen as “symbols of supportiveness or friendliness” (Blau, 1964, p. 95), and their exchange is likely to foster high-quality relationships characterized by trust (Cooper, Kong, & Crossley, 2018; Niven, Holman, & Totterdell, 2012).

When employees interact with their coworkers politely and avoid inappropriate remarks or comments, these behaviors convey benevolence, kindness and warmth. In turn, this strengthens the emotional and relational bond between employees and their coworkers, fostering high levels of affective trust (e.g. Tomlinson et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2013). Moreover, employees who thoroughly explain procedures and communicate candidly with their coworkers signal dependability, reliability and integrity (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012). These behaviors provide insight into their ability to handle task-related issues and demonstrate their knowledge and expertise, thereby fostering higher levels of cognitive trust among coworkers. Conversely, when communication is unclear, incomplete or misleading, employees may question their coworkers’ reliability and competence, resulting in lower levels of cognitive trust in coworkers. Furthermore, many organizations promote environments that emphasize positive relationships, supportiveness, morale and warmth (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003). In these environments, disrespectful or improper communication is often viewed as a lack of professionalism, which is another element of cognitive trust (Colquitt et al., 2012). Taken together, we propose that coworker justice positively influences both the development of emotional bonds among coworkers and employees’ assessments of their coworker’s reliability and competence:

While trust in coworkers has received relatively scant scholarly attention compared to well-developed literature on trust in leaders, research has shown that it plays a crucial role in facilitating social exchange relationships among coworkers (e.g. Au & Leung, 2016; Ferres, Connell, & Travaglione, 2004). The norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) within social exchange theory highlights that when individuals receive help or favors, they develop a sense of obligation toward those who provided them (Duan, Wang, Janssen, & Farh, 2022). Individuals are likely to view social exchange relationships in the workplace with a long-term orientation, with the pattern of reciprocity over time balancing the exchanges (Rousseau, 1989). Therefore, trust in coworkers is important in understanding exchange relationships because it reduces uncertainty about their intentions to reciprocate while fostering a sense of obligation (Colquitt et al., 2012). When employees trust their coworkers, they are more willing to help each other (Gouldner, 1960). In contrast, when trust is lacking, employees experience higher levels of stress and strain (e.g. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Spector & Jex, 1998) and their performance is hindered because they have to allocate cognitive resources into monitoring and self-protective behaviors (e.g. Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Given the different natures of affective and cognitive trust (Schaubroeck et al., 2011), it is important to distinguish between them when examining their impact on employee interpersonal behaviors.

Interpersonal citizenship behavior refers to voluntary behaviors that benefit coworkers and colleagues, such as providing assistance, keeping them informed about relevant matters and maintaining a positive attitude (Lee & Allen, 2002). Affective trust is a strong indicator of social exchange processes (Zhu et al., 2013) and tends to have a greater impact on interpersonal citizenship behavior because it is more relational and aligns closely with social exchange mechanisms (Newman, Kiazad, Miao, & Cooper, 2014; Yang & Mossholder, 2010). Employees who perceive high levels of affective trust in coworkers are more likely to experience positive emotions toward them and feel a strong obligation to reciprocate by helping and supporting them. Moreover, due to the strong emotional bond, they ensure that their coworkers would reciprocate their help in the future (Gouldner, 1960). Existing studies support a positive relationship between affective trust and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). For example, Yang et al. (2009) found that affective trust in the leader is positively related to helping behavior, whereas cognitive trust in the leader is not. Similarly, Zhu et al. (2013) demonstrated that only affective trust in a supervisor, not cognitive trust, is related to OCB.

Regarding interpersonal deviant behavior, if employees cannot rely on their coworkers to be responsible, dependable and reliable, they may respond to this uncertainty with negative actions. One potential response involves engaging in aggressive and intentional behavior aimed at harming coworkers, such as rude and impolite communication, poor manners or even hostile physical actions. According to frustration-aggression theory (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), aggression arises from frustration, which occurs when something obstructs the attainment of an expected goal. Similarly, Spector (1998) developed a model linking job stress to counterproductive behavior (CWB), suggesting that such behaviors often emerge as maladaptive responses to workplace stress. In the workplace, situational constraints, such as unreliable or incompetent coworkers, can interfere with an employee’s goals (Fox & Spector, 1999). These constraints create frustration because they prevent employees from achieving their desired objectives, which in turn increases the likelihood of interpersonal deviant behavior. Cognitive trust plays a central role in this process. Employees must coordinate and cooperate with their coworkers to achieve their individual goals, especially in team setting (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991; van der Vegt & van de Vliert, 2005). When coworkers are perceived as unreliable or irresponsible, cognitive trust diminishes, making employees more vulnerable to frustration and more likely to engage in interpersonal deviant behavior. Conversely, when cognitive trust is high, employees are less concerned about whether their coworkers will reciprocate the exchanges and benefits or take advantage of them (Mayer & Gavin, 2005), which can reduce interpersonal deviant behavior.

Based on these arguments and consistent with prior studies on the mediating role of trust on the relationship between organizational justice and its behavioral outcomes (e.g. Aryee et al., 2002; Colquitt et al., 2012; Crawshaw & Brodbeck, 2011), we propose that when employees perceive fair treatment from their coworkers, they are more likely to develop affective trust in coworkers, leading to increased interpersonal citizenship behavior. Simultaneously, they are also more likely to build cognitive trust in coworkers, reducing the likelihood of engaging in interpersonal deviant behavior:

To test the hypotheses, we collected data from a large government organization in South Korea using a survey-based approach. With the help of a chief commissioner, the purpose of the survey was introduced to supervisors (e.g. junior officials). Survey packages including a supervisor survey, employee surveys and return envelopes were distributed to each supervisor who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. A cover letter accompanying the survey explained the overview of the research and included statements regarding the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. After completing their surveys, employees sealed them in envelopes and returned them to their direct supervisor. The final sample consisted of 174 matched pairs of employees and supervisors, from approximately 250 surveys distributed to employees, resulting in a 69.6% response rate.

To reduce common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), employees reported on coworker justice, affective and cognitive trust in coworkers and their immediate supervisors rated their citizenship and deviant behaviors. Initially developed in English, all survey measures were translated into Korean by one author and then back-translated into English by another author to ensure consistent meaning (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Participants responded to all the measures using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Coworker justice. We assessed coworker justice using the scale of interactional justice developed and validated by Colquitt (2001). Following the reference-shift approach suggested by Klein, Dansereau, & Hall (1994), we used the six-item scale of interactional justice and replaced reference to the supervisor with reference to the coworkers. Example items are “My coworkers have treated me in a polite manner” and “My coworkers have explained the procedures thoroughly.” Internal consistency reliability for coworker justice was 0.93.

Affective and cognitive trust in coworkers. We assessed affective trust and cognitive trust using Yang & Mossholder’s (2010) scale. Each of the five items measured affective and cognitive trust, respectively. An example item for affective trust is “I am confident that my coworkers will always care about my personal needs at work.” An example item for cognitive trust is “I can depend on my coworkers to meet their responsibilities.” Internal consistency reliabilities for affective and cognitive trust in coworkers were 0.88 and 0.90, respectively.

Interpersonal citizenship and deviant behaviors. Supervisors were asked to rate their employee’s interpersonal citizenship behaviors using the eight-item OCB-I scale by Lee & Allen (2002) and interpersonal deviant behaviors using the seven-item CWB-I scale from Bennett & Robinson (2000). An example item of interpersonal citizenship behavior is “This employee gives up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems.” An example item of interpersonal deviant behavior is “This employee acts rudely toward others at work.” Internal consistency reliabilities for interpersonal citizenship and deviant behavior were 0.91 and 0.94, respectively.

Controls. We controlled for employee tenure in the work unit (in years) because previous research has shown that it affects interpersonal behavior within work units (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). We also controlled for employee gender (1 = male, 2 = female), as it has been demonstrated to influence discretionary behaviors (Frame, Roberto, Schwab, & Harris, 2010; Ng, Lam, & Feldman, 2016).

To test all hypotheses simultaneously in a multivariate manner, we conducted structural equation modeling with Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Given our sample size and better model convergence, we formed a total of 17 parcels using a random assignment approach (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). These parcels consisted of four-item parcels for interpersonal citizenship behavior and deviant behavior, and three-item parcels for coworker justice, affective trust and cognitive trust. Following the approach outlined by Little et al. (2002), we combined item scores to create these parcels. To test the mediation hypotheses (H3 and H4), we adopted the procedures outlined by James, Mulaik, & Brett (2006) for a full mediation model, where the effects of coworker justice on interpersonal citizenship behavior and deviant behavior are mediated by affective and cognitive trust, respectively. Mediation is considered established if the mediation model has an acceptable fit, the path coefficients from the predictor to the mediator are statistically significant, the path coefficients from the mediator to the outcome variable are statistically significant and the indirect effect is statistically significant. We also used the macro developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008) to assess the significance of the indirect effects and obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for specific indirect effects. The full mediation model was compared to three alternative models: one with a direct path from coworker justice to interpersonal citizenship behavior (alternative Model 1), one with a direct path from coworker justice to interpersonal deviant behavior (alternative Model 2) and one with direct paths from coworker justice to both interpersonal citizenship and deviant behaviors (alternative Model 3). In addition, trust scholars suggest that affective trust often develops from a foundation of cognitive trust (e.g. Newman et al., 2014; Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Therefore, we included a path from cognitive trust to affective trust when testing the hypothesized relationships.

Before testing and comparing the four alternative structural models, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the soundness of our measurement model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The hypothesized five-factor model fits the data well (χ²[109] = 121.97, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.03) and better than a four-factor model combining affective and cognitive trust (χ²[113] = 223.39, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.06), a three-factor model combining coworker justice and affective and cognitive trust (χ²[116] = 521.63, CFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.14, SRMR = 0.08), a two-factor model loading all employees responses on one factor and all supervisor provided responses on a second factor (χ²[118] = 1175.68, CFI = 0.58, RMSEA = 0.23, SRMR = 0.15) and a one-facotr model (χ²[119] = 1707.25, CFI = 0.37, RMSEA = 0.28, SRMR = 0.20) in terms of all fit indices. In the five-factor model, all item parcels loaded significantly onto their intended latent constructs. Taken together, the results demonstrate the discriminant validity for the focal study variables.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for all study variables. Next, we fit the hypothesized structural model to the data and found that the model fits well (χ²[141] = 166.63, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.05). After controlling for employee gender and tenure in the work unit, coworker justice was found to be positively related to affective trust in coworkers (b = 0.32, s.e. = 0.08, p < 0.01) and cognitive trust in coworkers (b = 0.64, s.e., = 0.08, p < 0.01), supporting H1 and H2. In terms of employee interpersonal behaviors, affective trust in coworkers is positively related to interpersonal citizenship behavior (b = 0.45, s.e. = 0.17, p < 0.01). In addition, coworker justice had a statistically significant indirect effect on interpersonal citizenship behavior through affective trust in coworkers (b = 0.15, s.e. = 0.07, p < 0.05). A similar pattern of relationships was found with interpersonal deviant behavior. Cognitive trust in coworkers is negatively related to interpersonal deviant behavior (b = −0.38, s.e. = 0.16, p < 0.05), and coworker justice had a statistically significant indirect effect on interpersonal deviant behavior through cognitive trust in coworkers (b = −0.24, s.e. = 0.10, p < 0.05).

We then compared the hypothesized (full mediation) model with three alternative models to further examine the direct and indirect relationships. Alternative Model 1, adding the path from coworker justice to interpersonal citizenship behavior, did not improve the goodness of fit (Δχ² = 0.01, Δdf = 1) compared with the hypothesized model. However, alternative Model 2, adding the path from coworker justice to interpersonal deviant behavior, yielded a better fit to the data (Δχ² = 6.03, Δdf = 1) compared with the hypothesized model and the path coefficient is statistically significant (b = −0.31, s.e. = 0.17, p < 0.05). In alternative Model 2, path coefficients for the direct relationships between coworker justice and cognitive trust in coworkers (b = 0.63, s.e. = 0.10, p < 0.00) and between cognitive trust in coworkers and interpersonal deviant behavior (b = −0.34, s.e. = 0.15, p < 0.05), as well as the indirect relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal deviant behavior (b = −0.22, s.e. = 0.10, p < 0.05) remained statistically significant. Therefore, we compared alternative Model 2 with the remaining Model 3. Alternative Model 3, including both paths from affective trust to interpersonal citizenship behavior and from cognitive trust to interpersonal deviant behavior, did not show a better fit to the data (Δχ2 = 0.67, Δdf =1) than does alternative Model 2. Considering all fit indices and parsimoniousness, Model 2 was found to be the best fit among the four structural models. Taken together, the results indicated that the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal citizenship behavior is fully mediated by affective trust in coworkers, while the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal deviant behavior is partially mediated by cognitive trust in coworkers. The unstandardized path coefficients from alternative Model 2 are summarized in Figure 1.

To further test the robustness of the mediation effects in alternative Model 2, we used a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This method derives an empirical sampling distribution to estimate CIs of indirect effects. Using the macro developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008), we report bias-corrected 95% CIs computed from 5,000 bootstrap resamples. For interpersonal citizenship behavior, the 95% CI, [0.04, 0.30], excluded zero, providing additional evidence for the statistically significant indirect effect. For interpersonal deviant behavior, the 95% CI, [−0.43, −0.08], also did not include zero, reaffirming the statistically significant indirect effect. Thus, we concluded that H3 and H4 were supported.

Finally, following the best practice recommendations of Becker et al. (2016), we conducted a supplemental analysis of alternative Model 2 to test the hypotheses without including the two control variables (employee’s years with their work unit and gender). We obtained the same pattern of results, and the hypotheses remained supported.

In line with our expectations, coworker justice was found to enhance both affective and cognitive trust in coworkers. However, only affective trust mediated the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal citizenship behavior, while only cognitive trust mediated the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal deviant behavior. Coworker justice influenced interpersonal deviant behavior both directly and indirectly.

This study offers three theoretical implications that contribute to literature on justice and trust. First, Estreder et al. (2024) demonstrated that coworker justice is a meaningful individual-level construct, highlighting that employees may perceive the fairness of their treatment by coworkers differently. Building on this insight, our study provides evidence that coworker justice from individual perception can serve as a socioemotional resource that fosters social exchange relationships. Through social exchange process, employees who experience fair treatment from their coworkers are likely to engage in reciprocal behaviors to repay the benefits provided by their peers. The relationship between coworker justice and trust in coworkers reflects how and why employees return the benefits they receive in these social relations. By examining coworker justice at the individual level of analysis, our study extends and complements prior research on coworker justice climate at the unit level. Drawing on social information processing (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), previous studies have shown that coworker justice climate influences collective interpersonal behavior among unit members through interpersonal or cooperative teamwork processes (Cropanzano et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013). Our findings further contribute to this literature by investigating the role of coworker justice in shaping interpersonal behaviors at the individual level and identifying trust in coworkers as the underlying explanatory mechanism. While the significance of coworker justice remains consistent across levels (i.e. its importance in influencing interpersonal behavior), the mediating mechanism differs (i.e. why coworker justice matters) (e.g. Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005). This distinction provides insights into the multilevel perspective of coworker justice, emphasizing the different ways in which coworker justice functions at individual and unit levels.

Second, our study reveals the distinct roles of affective and cognitive trust in coworkers as psychological mechanisms that explain the impact of coworker justice. While previous research has established the effect of coworker justice on interpersonal citizenship behavior (Harris et al., 2020; referred to as workgroup justice) through perceived workgroup support (Lavelle et al., 2009b), our study extends this understating by emphasizing the centrality of trust inherent in the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal behavior. Specifically, we examine the indirect effects of coworker justice on prosocial behavior (i.e. interpersonal citizenship behavior) as well as on antisocial behavior (i.e. interpersonal deviant behavior) as individual outcomes. Notably, consistent with prior research highlighting the distinct influence of affective and cognitive trust in leadership (e.g. Legood, van der Werff, Lee, & Den Hartog, 2021), our findings suggest that affective and cognitive trust in coworkers, stemming from coworker justice, can motivate employees differently to engage in prosocial behavior and avoid antisocial behavior as a way of reciprocating the social exchange relationships. By distinguishing between these two forms of trust, this study provides deeper insight into their nuanced and complex roles in shaping the relationship between coworker justice and employee interpersonal behaviors.

Third, we find the direct effect of coworker justice on interpersonal deviant behavior, indicating that fair treatment from coworkers can influence behavioral responses beyond cognitive trust in coworkers. Prior research demonstrates that perceived injustice is a major driver of workplace deviance and that employees often reciprocate the treatment they receive, whether positive or negative (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Holtz & Harold, 2013). Justice perceptions often trigger strong emotional reactions (Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999), which may lead employees to either engage in or refrain from deviant behaviors. In particular, when employees experience disrespect or unfair treatment from coworkers, they may respond with frustration or retaliation, consistent with the frustration–aggression framework (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). This dynaimc may help explain the direct relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal deviance.

Turning to the practical implications, our findings suggest that affective trust translates coworker justice into increased positive behaviors, while cognitive trust helps mitigate negative behaviors in response to coworker justice. Organizations should not only promote coworker justice but also understand how it influences the development of both affective and cognitive trust. They should encourage employees to act with integrity and take personal responsibility to reduce the likelihood of low cognitive trust in negatively impacting workplace deviance (Zhu et al., 2013). Training programs designed to strengthen emotional bonds among coworkers and build affective trust, such as team-building activities, appreciation and recognition initiatives, empathy training and collaborative opportunities, can effectively promote voluntary behaviors that benefit coworkers.

The findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations, particularly regarding the sample. Because South Korea has a collectivistic culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), there is a strong emphasis on social relations, cooperation among individuals and the cohesiveness and well-being of people working together (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, 2000). This cultural focus likely fosters an environment where individuals are more attuned to social norms and obligations (Fischer & Mansell, 2009). In collectivist societies, people prioritize building and maintaining relationships more than in individualist societies, leading to more frequent interaction among coworkers and higher levels of affective trust (Zhu et al., 2013). Consequently, such cultural context may play a role in developing trust among coworkers within the Korean workplace.

Second, because we used a cross-sectional rather than an experimental design, we cannot make definitive claims about causality. Although our conceptual model suggests that coworker justice influences interpersonal behaviors through two types of trust in coworkers, the survey design limits our ability to draw strong causal conclusions. Experimental research that explores the link between coworker justice and its outcomes is necessary to establish the causal ordering of these variables more clearly. In addition, trust evolves over time and is shaped by trustors’ evaluations of trustees’ behaviors and actions (e.g. Levin, Whitener, & Cross, 2006). Therefore, longitudinal studies investigating the mediating role of trust could provide deeper insights into how coworker justice affects key employee outcomes.

Third, job performance can be conceptualized along three dimensions: task performance, citizenship behavior and counterproductive behavior (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Citizenship and counterproductive behaviors can each be further categorized into interpersonal and organizational forms – namely, OCB-I and OCB-O for citizenship behaviors, and CWB-I and CWB-O for counterproductive behaviors (Choi, Miao, Oh, Berry, & Kim, 2019). Future research could build on our study by examining how both individual and collective perceptions of coworker justice influence all five dimensions of job performance.

Finally, prior studies emphasized the importance of task interdependence, suggesting that when tasks are interdependent, there are greater opportunities for social interaction and exchange (e.g. Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & Pierotti, 2015). Consequently, task interdependence may strengthen the relationship between trust in coworkers and employee attitudes and behaviors. Future research should explore the moderating role of task interdependence on the effects of coworker justice and trust in coworkers.

This study highlights the role of coworker justice in shaping employees’ interpersonal behaviors and identifies trust in coworkers as a key psychological mechanism underlying this process. By differentiating between affective and cognitive dimensions of trust, the findings further offer a more nuanced perspective on how coworker justice influences both positive and negative forms of interpersonal behavior. Specifically, affective trust mediates the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal citizenship behavior, while cognitive trust mediates the relationship between coworker justice and interpersonal deviant behavior. These insights advance our understanding of coworker dynamics within the framework of social exchange theory.