同事公正氛围：构念、测量、效能与展望

以往对公正氛围的探讨主要集中于源自权威的公正氛围上，而对来自同事的公正氛围关注较少。同事公正氛围是指团队成员对团队内同事之间相互对待公正性的共同知觉。本文首先对比总结界定了同事公正氛围的概念，明晰了其结构维度与测量工具，然后着重梳理评价了同事公正氛围的影响效能。未来研究应致力于：加强探讨同事公正氛围的前因变量，探讨同事公正氛围影响效能的内在机制和边界条件，运用纵向设计研究同事公正氛围的形成机制及影响效能，以及探索同事公正氛围研究的本土化。     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

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。     

消极情绪在程序和互动不公正感与员工偏离行为间的中介作用:传统性的调节机制

采用问卷调查法对341名员工及其同事进行调查,从情绪和文化传统性视角,探讨了程序和互动不公正对员工偏离行为的影响及其内在作用机制.结果表明:(1)消极情绪是组织不公正感对员工偏离行为作用的中介变量;(2)传统性对组织不公正感对员工偏离行为的影响作用具有调节效果;(3)使用总效应调节模型对消极情绪在组织不公正感对员工偏离行为的中介效应及传统性的调节作用进行综合性分析,发现传统性主要在第二阶段,即消极情绪对员工偏离行为的影响作用上调节效果显著.     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

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。     

分配不公正下的退缩行为：程序公正和互动公正的影响

以160名中学教师为被试,采用2×2的完全随机设计,以模拟故事（scenarios）的方法呈现刺激,研究了在职称评定中分配不公正的前提下,程序公正/不公正,互动公正/不公正对教师的退缩行为（消极怠工、拒绝帮助、离职、对校长的消极态度）的影响。结果表明,在分配不公正条件下：（1）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的消极怠工程度;（2）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的拒绝帮助行为程度,而且交互作用显著;（3）互动公正影响教师对上司的消极态度,程序公正无显著影响;（4）程序公正和互动公正对离职意愿影响均不显著     

心理虐待与忽视对志愿投入的影响:链式中介效应分析

本研究根据道德认同模型与亲社会行为理论,以808名大学生志愿者为被试,通过问卷调查探索心理虐待与忽视对志愿投入的影响机制。结果发现:心理虐待与忽视对志愿投入的影响主要由公正世界信念与道德认同的中介作用来实现。本研究揭示了心理虐待与忽视与志愿投入的关系及内在机制,丰富了公正世界信念和道德认同的相关研究。     

自我不确定感对程序公正效应的调节作用:回顾与展望

自我不确定感是指个体怀疑“自我”,并且对其看法不稳定而产生的内隐与外显的主观感受及反应.其研究方法主要有自我报告法与情境实验法.自DeCremer和Sedikides首先通过实证研究验证了自我不确定感对程序公正效应的调节作用后,研究者们通过将自我不确定感分解为情绪自我不确定、地位不确定和归属不确定以及探讨程序公正认知机制,不断扩展了此领域的研究成果.未来可以通过自我不确定感调节效应的本土化研究,自我不确定感特质与情境成分交互作用的探讨,自我不确定感与自我肯定、信息不确定感等相关变量的关系研究,进一步深化此领域的研究.     

刑事简易程序价值定位分析

刑事简易程序作为一种特别的诉讼程序,由于其所适用的案件性质而决定了简易程序在价值选择上的特点即简易程序能够在坚持最基本的程序公正的同时,获取最大的效率,从而使公正与效率得到合理的价值组合,并在实践层面上实现其价值定位.     

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。     

变革型领导对员工绩效和满意度的影响：心理资本的中介作用及程序公平的调节作用

通过对国内一家企业共785位员工及其直接主管的问卷调查, 考察了下属心理资本在变革型领导与下属工作绩效及满意度之间关系的中介作用以及程序公平对该关系的调节作用。研究结果显示：1)下属的心理资本与其工作绩效和满意度正向相关; 2)下属的心理资本部分中介了变革型领导对下属工作绩效及满意度的正向关系; 3) 下属的程序公平调节了变革型领导对下属心理资本的影响。具体而言, 下属的程序公平感越高, 变革型领导与下属心理资本的正向关系越强, 反之越弱; 4) 进一步地, 程序公平调节了下属心理资本对变革型领导－工作绩效和满意度的中介作用, 即：程序公平感越高, 变革型领导通过心理资本对下属的工作绩效和满意度所产生的作用就越强, 反之越弱。最后讨论了该研究的理论意义和应用价值。     

社会公正与政治信任：民众对政府的合作行为机制

胡锦涛在中共十八大上提出：必须坚持维护社会公平正义。对社会公正的认知直接决定着民众的政治信任, 进而影响民众对政府的合作。近年来频发的群体性事件即是非合作行为的典型表征。然而, 国内外研究中至今没有直接探讨社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的实证支持, 更无法进一步揭示其作用于合作行为的过程和条件。鉴于此, 本研究将社会公正分为分配公正和程序公正, 将政治信任分为工具信任和情感信任, 采用实验室研究、现场研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法, 探讨社会公正对合作行为的过程机制, 建立其通过工具信任和情感信任作用于合作行为的双路径模型; 并进一步分析结果依赖性对这一路径模型的调节作用。本研究有望提出社会公正与政治信任影响合作行为的双路径模型及其调节变量, 一方面在理论上深化和拓展本领域的研究, 另一方面实践中通过提升公正感、强化过程变量(政治信任)、干预调节变量(结果依赖性)等策略促进合作行为。     

Exploring the black box of the contingent reward leadership–performance relationship: The role of perceived justice and emotional exhaustion

Using data collected from three different sources (N = 294), we examined a model in which perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) and emotional exhaustion mediate the relationship between contingent reward leadership (CRL) and two performance indicators, namely organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) and absenteeism. We found that procedural justice mediates the negative relationship between CRL and emotional exhaustion while controlling for work overload and transformational leadership. We also found that emotional exhaustion plays a mediating role in the relationship between two dimensions of justice (procedural and interactional) and both OCB and absenteeism. Interactional justice and distributive justice were also directly linked to OCB. Implications of these findings for research on leadership, psychological health, and organizational justice are discussed.     

When does procedural justice influence perceived legitimacy? The role of standing uncertainty and group identification

Many empirical studies have shown that procedural justice is the key determinant of whether an individual perceives an authority figure as legitimate. However, based on relational models of procedural justice and the uncertainty management model, there is reason to believe that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy may be stronger for individuals who are uncertain about their standing as group members (moderation); this interaction might predict group identification and, in turn, perceived legitimacy (mediation). We tested this mediated moderation model in two experiments (Studies 1a and 1b) and a field study (Study 2) using different operationalizations of standing uncertainty across studies. The results of Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy was stronger for participants with high (vs. low) standing uncertainty. Study 2 showed that group identification mediated the association between this interaction effect and perceived legitimacy. Together, the results of the mediated moderation analysis showed that procedural justice was positively associated with perceived legitimacy through high group identification when standing uncertainty was high. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings are discussed.     

Validation française d’un questionnaire des perceptions de justice en milieu judiciaire

To improve the quality of the national justice system, the aim is to test the validity of a questionnaire on the justice perceptions of the criminal procedures and the justice decisions. One hundred and thirty-two defendants were questioned. A factorial analysis directs to a four factors solution: the distributive justice, the procedural justice, the interpersonal justice and the informative justice. After regression analyses, the procedural justice predicts the sentence satisfaction and the procedure satisfaction as well as the anger and the trust. The interpersonal justice predicts the procedure satisfaction and the trust, and the informative justice the satisfaction of the procedure. The results confirm the importance of the perceptions of the justice dimensions to favor positive attitudes towards the judicial institution.     

公正的启发理论述评

组织公正感包括分配公正、程序公正、互动公正等重要的组成要素。尽管这些公正感的构成要素有不同的内涵和影响因素,然而在许多情况下,这些要素之间有较高的一致性。与过去注重这些要素的差异性相反,Lind看到了这些公正感要素之间的一致性,提出了试图整合这些一致性的公正理论：公正的启发理论。该文比较全面地介绍了公正的启发理论的含义,如何启发等核心概念,并对启发理论存在的问题进行了分析,指出了启发理论研究的方向。     

The relationship between justice and attitudes: An examination of justice effects on event and system-related attitudes

Research in organizational justice has always been interested in the relationship between justice and attitudes. This research often examines how different types of justice affect different attitudes, with distributive justice predicted to affect attitudes about specific events (e.g., performance evaluation) and procedural justice predicted to affect attitudes about organizations (e.g., organizational commitment). However, there is mixed support for these predictions. Moreover, this approach generally ignores the relationship between attitudes about the specific event and attitudes toward the organization. In this study we identify three alternative models of justice and attitudes. We use customer responses to complaint handling to test these alternative conceptualizations. Results generally support a mediated model, wherein event attitudes mediate the effect of justice perceptions on system-related attitudes. The implication of these findings for organizations and justice researchers are discussed.     

The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis

The correlates of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were examined using 190 studies samples, totaling 64,757 participants. We found the distinction between the three justice types to be merited. While organizational practices and outcomes were related to the three justice types, demographic characteristics of the perceiver were, in large part, unrelated to perceived justice. Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors, considered to be outcomes of perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice, whereas organizational citizenship behavior was similarly predicted by distributive and procedural justice. Most satisfaction measures were similarly related to all justice types. Although organizational commitment and trust were mainly related to procedural justice, they were also substantially related to the other types of justice. Findings from laboratory and field studies are not always in agreement. Future research agendas are discussed.