程序公正作用机制中的调节变量

程序公正是指用于决定分配的过程是否公正。回顾近年来程序公正作用机制的相关理论以及实证研究结果发现, 对程序公正的效果起调节作用的主要有四类因素, 分别为情景因素、个体特征因素、分配结果因素以及领导者因素。今后该主题的研究应进一步关注发言权效应的跨文化验证、探索本土化程序公正原则、进一步考察情景变量的调节效应、加强领导者因素的研究、结合分配公正进行研究, 并应加强程序公正的应用性研究。     

想象积极群际接触对利他型集体行动意愿的影响:系统公正感和群际评价的中介作用

集体行动是维护和实现社会公平正义的有效途径之一。以往研究主要聚焦于弱势群体利己型集体行动,很少有研究考察利他型集体行动的影响因素。本研究采用双随机设计,通过三个实验探讨积极群际接触与利他型集体行动的中介效应因果模型。实验1采用想象性群际接触范式操纵积极群际接触,发现积极群际接触促进利他型集体行动,系统公正感和群际评价中的热情维度起中介作用。实验2与实验3分别操纵系统公正感和热情,检验中介变量与因变量间的因果关系,证实了积极群际接触-系统公正感、热情-利他型集体行动的因果关系链。     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

论社会公正与自由的关系

自由的本义是不受限制和阻碍 ,政治哲学中的自由概念具有明确的含义 ,它并不离开常识很远 ,主要指社会制度所加于个人的限制的范围应尽可能小 ,并且以合理性为条件并向选择性开放。罗尔斯等政治哲学家对自由都作过详细的论述 ,包括自由与平等、自由与法律的关系 ,以及只能以更大的自由为理由来限制当下的自由。一方面 ,服从良法可以捍卫公民的自由 ,但另一方面 ,正如洛克所说 ,法律的目的不是否弃或限制自由 ,而是保护并扩大自由。法律与自由在此原则基础上一致了起来 ,不应片面地只强调一个方面。自由与社会整合关系密切 ,不尊重公民个人自由选择权的整合是表面的、难以持久的 ,真正的社会团结是以负责任的个人的充分自由选择为基础的。中国改革开放的实践是扩大公民自由选择权、加强社会整合的一个实例。自由与公正关系密切 ,公正分为实质公正和程序公正 ,实质公正强调的是分配结果的平等 ,而程序公正则要求分配标准的普适性 ,同等情况同等对待。程序公正看起来比实质公正具有更大的可行性 ,强调的是竞争起点的平等。就可行性而言 ,以程序公正为主、实质公正为辅 ,看起来是更现实合理的分配方式。     

公正世界信念的文化差异

公正世界信念的文化差异是该领域较少关注的研究方向, 但具有一定的理论意义和实践价值。公正世界信念的水平、功能和测量工具存在文化差异, 其影响因素主要包括社会文化因素、自我概念、认知方式和不公平的社会现实。文章进一步探讨了提高公正世界信念跨文化比较准确性的途径和文化影响公正世界信念的机制。未来的研究需要深入探讨文化对公正世界信念功能的影响, 推进公正世界信念的本土化研究。     

程序公正、不确定性对公共政策可接受性的影响:情感信任、认知信任的中介作用

为了研究程序公正、不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间的关系,并进一步考察情感信任和认知信任在其中的中介效应,本研究选取公共政策领域,通过问卷调查的方法随机选取510名北京市民进行研究。研究发现,程序公正与公共政策可接受性正相关,不确定性与公共政策可接受性负相关,情感信任中介程序公正与公共政策可接受性,并对不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间有遮掩效应,而认知信任不存在显著的中介作用。     

不确定感在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用

以公平启发理论为基础,结合不确定管理理论,采用情境实验法(实验1)和行为实验法(实验2),探讨了不确定感这一工具性动机在他人的程序公正与自我的合作行为之间的中介作用。研究结果发现:(1)他人的程序公正会促进自我的合作行为的出现;(2)不确定感降低了自我的合作行为的出现;(3)不确定感中介了他人的程序公正对自我的合作行为的影响。     

论公正

公正的基准是权利。权利在本质上是一种获得性的社会性资格。公正就是这样的原则 :以权利为本位而义务与权利相对等、对称和对应。公正作为美德就是尊重他人的权利和尊重公共规则。公正作为制度伦理首先就是以权利为本位 ,其次是普遍和平等 ,再次是公开、明确和有既定程序。     

公正敏感性的研究现状与展望

公正敏感性是一种独立的、稳定的人格特质, 体现为个体知觉不公正的难易程度以及对知觉到的不公正所作出的反应的强烈程度。它包含受害者敏感性、观察者敏感性、得益者敏感性、犯过者敏感性四个成分, 主要使用量表法进行测量。公正敏感性是公正问题中的一个重要视角, 与亲社会行为、反社会行为密切相关, 对认知过程也有一定影响。目前的研究主要集中于公正敏感性对结果变量的影响, 今后的研究应该进一步探讨公正敏感性的影响因素。     

不同动机和材料因素对学习判断影响的实验研究

本研究主要考察不同动机和材料因素对学习判断的影响。采用标准R-J-R实验程序,运用有意义与无意义词对对120名被试进行实验。结果发现：（1）成就目标、记忆自我效能、材料因素对JOL有显著影响,材料因素对JOL影响最大,记忆自我效能次之,成就目标最小;（2）成就目标与记忆自我效能存在交互作用对JOL有显著影响;（3）成就目标以记忆自我效能为中介影响JOL;（4）JOL准确性与回忆成绩存在显著正相关。     

Justice in Teams: The Context Sensitivity of Justice Rules Across Individual and Team Contexts1

Two empirical studies investigated the context sensitivity of various rules for fostering organizational justice using hypothetical vignettes. Study 1 compared the importance of distributive justice rules (equity, equality, need) and procedural justice rules (process control, decision control, consistency, correctability, accuracy, bias suppression, ethicality) across individual and team contexts. The results showed that team contexts enhanced the importance of equality, consistency, and decision control. Study 2 compared the importance of procedural justice rules across different types of teams. The results showed that the accuracy rule was more important in small teams, while the consistency and bias suppression rules were more important in diverse teams. The importance of other rules, including interpersonal and informational justice, did not vary across the experimental conditions.     

Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural justice principles

Differences in perceptions of fairness may result from differential emphasis on distributive and procedural justice. The author found that organizational role and gender influenced the extent to which distributive and procedural justice principles were used when participants allocated and evaluated pay raises. When participants took the role of a supervisor, they were more likely to use procedural justice principles; when they took the role of a subordinate, they were more likely to use distributive justice principles. Also, men were more likely to use distributive justice than procedural justice principles when allocating and evaluating raises. These findings suggest that organizations should become aware of individual and role-based differences in emphasis on justice-related factors that could potentially lead to perceptions of unfairness.     

Employer Treatment of Employees During a Community Crisis: The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice

This study applies organizational justice principles to human resource decisions made during a crisis situation. Three-hundred and sixty-six working individuals of ice storm affected households responded to a telephone survey that included measures of interactional, procedural and distributive justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested collapsing the interactional and procedural justice measures into one measure of procedural treatment. Overall, there was considerable support for the relevance of procedural justice and its interaction with distributive justice in predicting the work attitudes of employee following a disaster. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceptions of procedural justice most strongly predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Consistent with existing theory, an interaction between distributive and procedural was found to predict job satisfaction. The predicted interaction was not detected for organizational commitment.We would like to acknowledge the capable research assistance of Paula Warnholtz and the financial assistance from the Senate Research Committee at Bishop’s University.     

Perceived Fairness of Promotion Procedures: Identification of Justice Rules and Consequences for Job Attitudes

Two studies were concerned with the perceived fairness of the promotion procedures adopted by a police organization. The first study used Leventhal's (1980) theory of procedural justice to analyse the reasons given by unsuccessful candidates for their appeals against the decision. A content analysis revealed that the rules of ‘consistency and accuracy’ accounted for 81.8% of all the reasons stated. The second study applied the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1989a; 1989b) to examining the effect of perceived procedural fairness on unsuccessful candidates' self-efficacy and job attitudes related to police work. Results show that ‘procedural fairness’ was predictive of ‘self-efficacy and procedural satisfaction’, both of which in turn predicted officers' organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Theoretical implications of the studies for procedural justice and social cognitive theory were discussed.     

社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向

社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任,并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平,将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任,采用实验室情境设计的方法,引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式,通过2个实验系统探讨"公正无私,一言而万民齐"的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向,在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型:外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任,进而触发公共合作;内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任,进而触发公共合作;二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。     

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual’s level of social identification with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identification promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These effects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an influence of identification and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.     

The Influence of Decision Makers' Goals on Their Concerns About Procedural Justice1

Two studies examine how decision makers' goals of enhancing organizational effectiveness and promoting positive interpersonal relations shape their decision making when they are allocating scarce resources among group members. Past research has conceptualized this problem as one of balancing between the use of two distributive justice principles: equity and equality. The studies reported examine the degree to which authorities are also concerned about issues of procedural justice. The results suggest that experienced decision makers—both managerial and administrative—believe that when trying to maintain positive interpersonal relations it is as important to use decision-making procedures that will be regarded as fair (procedural justice) as it is to allocate outcomes in ways which will be regarded as fair (distributive justice). Decision makers' definitions of procedural justice are also examined.     

Enhancing Procedural Justice in Local Government Budget and Tax Decision Making

Two studies examined criteria for procedural justice in the related contexts of local government budgeting (Study 1) and taxation (Study 2). Questionnaire data were gathered from 272 municipal police chiefs in Study 1 and 81 municipal property owners in Study 2, Regression analysis indicated that ethicality. accuracy, and bias suppression were signiticant ( p < 0.05) predictors of procedural justice in both studies. Other significant predictors of procedural justice in Study I were correctability and justification. However. the relationship between justification and procedural justice in Study I was negative. which is contrary to theory. The results suggest strategies that local government officials can use to enhance the perceived fairness of budget and tax decision-making procedures.     

程序公正及其心理机制

程序公正是组织公正的重要成分。自从Thibaut和Walker（1975）提出程序公正的概念以后,程序公正被引入了很多领域的研究,得到了极大的发展,但是程序公正的内容需要整合统一。发言权效应和尊重效应讨论了影响程序公正判断的因素,个人利益模型和团体价值模型则分析了其内在的心理机制。程序公正影响了大量与工作有关的态度和行为,并与分配结果产生了交互作用,其内在机制也在文章中得到了讨论。