Group belongingness and procedural justice: social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice

The authors focus on the relation between group membership and procedural justice. They argue that whether people are socially included or excluded by their peers influences their reactions to unrelated experiences of procedural justice. Findings from 2 experiments corroborate the prediction that reactions to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures are affected more strongly when people are included in a group than when they are excluded from a group. These findings are extended with a 3rd experiment that shows that people who generally experience higher levels of inclusion in their lives respond more strongly to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures. It is concluded that people's reactions to procedural justice are moderated by people's level of inclusion in social groups.     

"All in a day's work": how follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior

The authors draw on theories of social exchange and prosocial behavior to explain how employee perceptions of procedural justice and individual differences in reciprocation wariness, empathic concern, and perspective taking function jointly as determinants of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) role definitions and behavior. As hypothesized, empirical findings from a field study show both direct and interactive effects of procedural justice perceptions and individual differences on OCB role definition. In turn, OCB role definitions not only predict OCB directly but also moderate the effects of procedural justice perceptions on OCB. The authors explore the implications of these findings for practice as well as research.     

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。     

Referent cognitions theory: the role of closeness of reference points in the psychology of voice

The most generally accepted and best documented manipulation in procedural justice experiments is varying whether or not participants are allowed an opportunity to voice their opinion about a decision. To better understand the psychology of voice, the authors focus on Referent Cognitions Theory (RCT). It is argued that thus far RCT has not been used to explain the psychology of voice and that previous RCT research suffers from methodological problems and has been more outcome oriented than necessary. Two experiments resolve these problems and show that people react more strongly to procedures (especially no-voice procedures) when reference points are close as opposed to distant. These findings suggest that closeness of reference points plays an important role in the psychology of voice. The findings expand RCT in significant ways and indicate that insight into the role of reference points is essential for understanding the psychology of justice.     

The multi-value basis of procedural justice

Three experiments demonstrate that multiple values can account for the relation between respectful treatment and judgments of procedural fairness. The Group Value Theory of procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988) asserts that respectful treatment is viewed as fair because it communicates positive information about one's standing within one's group. We propose that other values introduced in other contexts, including a desire for positive intergroup standing, and self-interest, will also mediate the relation between respect and procedural fairness. Three experiments are reported in which individuals have encounters with ingroup or outgroup members who treat them respectfully or disrespectfully. Results from these experiments support this multiple value model by showing that: (1) Each of the value judgments of intragroup standing, intergroup standing, and self-interest has positive direct effects on procedural fairness; and (2) The effect of respect on procedural fairness is mediated by each of these value judgments. Additionally, evidence is summarized that is generally supportive of a third, ancillary hypothesis: (3) The meaning of respect varies across contexts that highlight different values. These findings suggest that theorizing about procedural fairness will benefit by recognizing the multiply-determined and contextually-dependent nature of procedural fairness.     

Procedural Justice and Culture

The past fifteen years have seen the development of a considerable research literature on the social psychology of procedural justice (see Lind & Tyler, 1988, for a review). Procedural justice research reveals some serious shortcomings in the exchange theories that have traditionally dominated Western analyses of the social psychology of groups, and in so doing, the procedural justice literature has important ramifications for cross-cultural psychology. Results from a number of studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe show that individualistic, self-interest based models of human behaviour are insufficient to explain procedural justice phenomena. Instead, procedural justice effects frequently reveal strong group-oriented concerns and motivations even in cultural contexts generally thought to be characterized by individualistic orientations. The research literature also shows that if a group's procedures are judged to be fair, people are more likely to show group-oriented behaviour and to hold more favourable attitudes toward the group and its leaders. These findings have led to the development of a theory of justice judgments—the Lind and Tyler group-value theory—which is based on group norms and relations rather than on social exchange theory. We describe a general model of social behaviour that integrates group- and individually-oriented behaviour, and we discuss the implications of the model for social and cross-cultural psychology.     

Procedural justice and intragroup status: Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedures

The current research investigates the role of relative intragroup status as a moderator of people’s reactions to procedural justice. Based on a review of the procedural justice literature, the authors argue that information about intragroup status influences people’s reactions to variations in procedural justice. In correspondence with predictions, two experiments show that reactions of people who have been informed about their intragroup status position (either low, average, or high) are influenced more strongly by voice as opposed to no-voice procedures than people who are not informed about their intragroup status. It is concluded that knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice.     

Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice

We propose that self-uncertainty moderates responsiveness to perceived variations (e.g., breaches or provisions) in procedural justice. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals are more responsive to variations in procedural justice, because they use procedural information to infer their organizational acceptance, respect, or social standing. In six experiments, high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals responded with affective, cognitive, and behavioral intensity to perceived variations in procedural justice. In particular, they felt worse, judged the procedure as unfair, and were unwilling to cooperate when they were deprived (as opposed to granted) voice. However, this pattern was cancelled out when these individuals engaged in a self-affirming activity. The findings establish the self in general, and self-uncertainty in particular, as a crucial moderator of responses to procedural information.     

Procedural justice and the hedonic principle: how approach versus avoidance motivation influences the psychology of voice

The authors investigate the relation between the hedonic principle (people's motivations to approach pleasure and to avoid pain) and procedural justice. They explore whether approach or avoidance motivation increases the effect that people feel they were treated more fairly following procedures that do versus do not allow them an opportunity to voice their opinion. Experiments 1 and 2 reveal that these procedures influence procedural justice judgments more strongly when people conduct approach motor action (arm flexion) than when they conduct avoidance motor action (arm extension). Experiment 3 indicates that individual-difference measures of participants' approach motivations predicted procedural justice judgments following voice versus no-voice procedures. The authors conclude that people's motivational orientations stimulate their fairness-based reactions to voice procedures.     

How is justice understood in classic Confucianism?

ABSTRACT

In Sinicized Asia, justice, conceptualized and institutionalized in its current form on a Western mold is part of a singular and ancient Confucian legal tradition.

In this paper, it will be argued that Confucians initially articulated the concept of justice in relation to their own explanation of the world and their ideal, which distinguishes and rewards men’s actions according to their merits and social condition.

It will be shown that Confucius’s thinking is primarily political and suggests ways of harmoniously organizing and reforming society in which justice is conceived both as a principle of government, a principle of social conduct and one of the essential virtues, or a ‘moral sense’ that everyone must possess, while, in practice, Confucian justice will put forward the imperatives of retributive justice. This, despite its philosophical aversion for sanctions and for what upsets harmony.     

Culture,context, and cognition: The Semantic Procedural Interface model of the self

Several studies have found evidence that social information processing is strongly influenced by the person either primarily defining his or her self as an autonomous entity (independent self-construal) or as related to other people (interdependent self-construal). In this chapter, we describe the psychological mechanisms by which independent and interdependent self-construals affect individual experience. We propose the Semantic Procedural Interface (SPI) model of the self, which distinguishes two such mechanisms. In addition to differences in the semantic content areas from which independent and interdependent self-construals arise (semantic application mechanism), there are also different procedural modes of thinking (procedural application mechanism) associated with them. Independent self-definitions coincide with the tendency to process stimuli unaffected by the context in which they appear. Relating the self to the social contexts within interdependent self-construals facilitates context-bounded thinking (i.e., processing stimuli by paying attention to their relation to the given context). The results of several experiments attesting to the value of the differentiation between both application mechanisms are presented. We discuss how far differences in information processing between members of different cultural groups can be traced back to the mechanisms described in the SPI model.     

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。     

The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework

In this article, which takes a person-situation approach, the authors propose and test a cross-level multifoci model of workplace justice. They crossed 3 types of justice (procedural, informational, and interpersonal) with 2 foci (organization and supervisor) and aggregated to the group level to create 6 distinct justice climate variables. They then tested for the effects of these variables on either organization-directed or supervisor-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behavior. The authors also tested justice orientation as a moderator of these relationships. The results, based on 231 employees constituting 44 work groups representing multiple organizations and occupations, revealed that 4 forms of justice climate (organization-focused procedural and informational justice climate and supervisor-focused procedural and interpersonal justice climate) were significantly related to various work outcomes after controlling for corresponding individual-level justice perceptions. In addition, some moderation effects were found. Implications for organizations and future research are discussed.     

A social categorisation approach to distributive justice

In this chapter, I put forward an approach to distributive justice in terms of categorisation processes. It is assumed that a hierarchical set of social categorisations determine the identity of those individuals or groups considered for an allocation in a given situation, and whether or how these potential recipients are subcategorised and differentiated for decisions on their relative entitlement. I review empirical evidence for the approach and its predictions that (1) the salience of a shared inclusive identity enhances perceptions of equal entitlement, whereas (2) perceptions of different entitlements are based on the perceived defining values of the relevant inclusive category. Following from either process, (3) people are more justice motivated when they identify with the relevant inclusive category. Further, (4) subgroup identities influence the representation of the inclusive categorisation and/or the target of one's justice concerns, and thus the meaning of justice.     

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or not they were granted or denied voice in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed that the effects of voice versus no-voice on fairness-based perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions were significantly more pronounced for individuals with proself orientations than for individuals with prosocial orientations. These findings were extended in Study 4, a field study in which perceived procedural justice was a stronger predictor of satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors among proselfs than among prosocials. These findings suggest that procedural justice effects can be accounted for by self-oriented motives or needs, rather than prosocial motives that are often conceptualized as being associated with justice.     

Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice,interactional justice,perceived organizational support,and supervisory trust

Organizational justice researchers recognize the important role organization context plays in justice perceptions, yet few studies systematically examine contextual variables. This article examines how 1 aspect of context--organizational structure--affects the relationship between justice perceptions and 2 types of social exchange relationships, organizational and supervisory. The authors suggest that under different structural conditions, procedural and interactional justice will play differentially important roles in determining the quality of organizational social exchange (as evidenced by perceived organizational support [POS]) and supervisory social exchange (as evidenced by supervisory trust). In particular, the authors hypothesized that the relationship between procedural justice and POS would be stronger in mechanistic organizations and that the relationship between interactional justice and supervisory trust would be stronger in organic organizations. The authors' results support these hypotheses.     

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.     

When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect

It is widely acknowledged that procedural justice has many positive effects. However, some evidence suggests that procedural justice may not always have positive effects and may even have negative effects. We present three studies that vary in method and participant populations, including an archival study, a field study, and an experiment, using data provided by the general American population, Indian software engineers, and undergraduate students in the US. We demonstrate that key work-related variables such as people’s job satisfaction and performance depend on procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and risk aversion such that risk seeking people react less positively and at times negatively to the same fair procedures that appeal to risk averse people. Our results suggest that one possible reason for these effects is that being treated fairly reduces people’s perception of uncertainty in the environment and while risk averse people find low uncertainty desirable and react positively to it, risk seeking people do not. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of procedural justice including the uncertainty management model of fairness, the fair process effect, and fairness heuristic theory.