Kim · Journal of personality and social psychology 2020 · Multi-study experimental behavioral series and internal meta-analysis · n=?

Understanding contemporary forms of exploitation: Attributions of passion serve to legitimize the poor treatment of workers.

Cited 112 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

By design analogy, not clinical CEBM (multi-study experimental behavioral series with internal meta-analysis).

PubMed 30998042 · doi:10.1037/pspi0000190 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Across a series of studies (studies 1 through 8) and an internal meta-analysis, researchers tested whether perceiving employees as passionate about their work legitimizes poor treatment, such as assigning demeaning tasks outside job descriptions or requiring unpaid overtime. The studies evaluated two proposed mediating mechanisms (beliefs that passionate workers would volunteer for the work and beliefs that work is its own reward), tested the reverse association (attributing passion to already-exploited workers), and tested moderation by individual differences in belief in a just world.

What was found

The abstract provides no numerical data, effect sizes, or test statistics. Directionally, poor worker treatment was rated as more legitimate when workers were presumed to be passionate. This relationship was mediated across multiple studies by the assumption that passionate workers would have volunteered for the tasks and that work serves as its own reward. Furthermore, participants attributed higher passion to exploited workers compared to nonexploited workers, and the legitimization effect was strongest among participants with a strong belief in a just world.

Why it matters

This work identifies a cognitive bias wherein societal praise for work passion paradoxically rationalizes and encourages exploitative labor conditions and unfair management demands.

Limits

The abstract reports no sample sizes, demographic details, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. The findings rely on attribution and vignette-style judgment paradigms rather than observations of actual workplace behavioral outcomes or policy impacts.

Cited by