The article was titled: “The Effects of Overhearing Peers Discuss an Authority's Fairness Reputation on Reactions to Subsequent Treatment.”  Their study demonstrated that hearing peers discuss an authority figure’s reputation for fairness biased individuals’ interpretations of the fairness of the authority’s actual behavior.  The authors also predicted and found that individuals who were treated less fairly retaliated more after being led to expect fair treatment through the reputation information than did individuals who heard no prior information about the authority figure.

Article Abstract:
Fairness heuristic theory was used to examine how information from one's peers affects an individual's interpretation of, and reactions to, an authority's subsequent behavior.  Participants (N = 105) overheard their peers discuss an experimenter's reputation (fair, unfair, or absent) before interacting with the experimenter who behaved more versus less fairly.  Results showed that the social cues biased participants' subsequent information processing: Controlling for the experimenter's behavior, interactional justice mediated the effect of social cues on retaliation.  Social cues and the authority's behavior also interacted to predict retaliation.  Participants who were treated less fairly retaliated more after being led to expect fair treatment than did participants who heard no prior information about the experimenter. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)  

Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority’s reputation for fairness on reactions to subsequent treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 363-372.