Moral disagreement and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects

Procedural voice is a widely used and effective means to reduce or eliminate conflict. Moral disagreements, however, are particularly inflammatory, divisive, and difficult to manage. The current article reports two studies that demonstrated the unique challenge that moral disagreements pose. Specifically, the studies tested the extent to which procedural voice affected justice judgements, group climate, and decision acceptance when people perceived decisions to have moral implications. Results indicated that when people's outcome preferences represent strong moral convictions, outcomes were the primary determinant of perceived fairness and related judgements, irrespective of whether people had voice in the decision‐making process.     

The role of standing in the psychology of procedural justice: Towards theoretical integration

In the current chapter, the authors explore the relation between social standing and procedural justice. Standing is an important construct in procedural justice theories and tends to be broadly defined as the position that people have in social groups. It is argued that the standing construct suffers from conceptual ambiguity: In procedural justice literature two distinct interpretations of standing can be distinguished, one defining standing as intragroup status and one defining standing as the extent to which people are included in social groups. Furthermore, it is argued that research findings on the relation between standing and procedural justice are not conclusive. The authors review recent empirical findings that address these concerns, and conceptually integrate these findings. In closing, the authors outline avenues for future research that the procedural justice field may want to take, and discuss implications of the work reviewed here.     

Counseling psychology trainees' social justice interest and commitment

Scholars within the field of counseling psychology have for some time now articulated eloquent and compelling calls for attending to social justice in the social sciences. To date, counseling psychologists have been at the forefront of addressing social justice issues in research, practice, and professional development. The present study advances empirical perspectives on social justice by testing the external validity of M. J. Miller et al.'s (2009) social-cognitive model of social justice interest and commitment in a sample of 229 doctoral trainees in counseling psychology. Present findings support the ability of the model to explain, in part, counseling psychology trainees' social justice interest and commitment. In addition, the present study provides novel findings that demonstrate the direct and indirect ways in which program training environment and personal moral imperative relate to social justice interest and commitment. Study limitations, future directions for research, and implications for training are discussed.     

Value-based praxis in community psychology: moving toward social justice and social action

The purpose of this paper is to articulate a rationale for value-based praxis in community psychology. Although values need to promote personal, collective, and relational wellness at the same time, it is argued that community psychologists pay more attention to personal and relational wellness than to collective wellness. In order to address this imbalance it is important to promote the value of social justice. While praxis requires that we engage in a cycle of reflection, research, and social action, community psychologists devote more resources to the first two phases of praxis than to the last one. This paper offers a framework for deciding what values and what praxis considerations we should attend to and how we may advance social justice and social action in community psychology.     

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

When procedural fairness does not influence how positive I feel: the effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness need

The present research examined the effect of receiving voice or not on positive affect as a function of how the enacting authority was selected and the extent to which people experienced strong belongingness needs. Participants were asked to generate ideas with respect to an electronic portfolio. Their opinions were then evaluated by a group leader who was either appointed by the experimenter, elected by the group and who reflected the participant's own choice, or elected by the group but who did not reflect the participant's own choice. This group leader then gave participants the opportunity to voice their ideas or not. Participants reported positive affect did not vary as a function of receiving voice or not when the enacting leader was elected and did not reflect the participant's own choice. The voice effect on positive affect did, however, appear in the other two leadership selection conditions. Further, this pattern was found only among those with a strong need to belong. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the subjective quality of social justice: the role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments

This article argues that it is not uncommon for people forming justice judgments to lack information that is most relevant in the particular situation. In information-uncertain conditions, people may therefore construct justice judgments by relying on how they feel about the events they have encountered, and justice judgments may hence be strongly influenced by affect information. Findings show that in information-uncertain conditions, the affective states that people had been in prior and unrelated to the justice event indeed strongly influenced their justice judgments. These findings thus reveal that in situations of information uncertainty, people's judgments of justice can be very subjective, susceptible to affective states that have no logical relationship with the justice judgments they are constructing. Implications for the social psychology of justice and the literature on social cognition and affect are discussed.     

Eliciting human intelligence: The effects of social exclusion and inclusion on information disclosure

Eliciting information from semicooperative sources presents a major challenge in investigative and intelligence settings. This research examines the role of the human need to belong in individuals' willingness to disclose critical information. We hypothesised that social exclusion would exert a threat to individuals' need to belong and self‐esteem, which would make them strive for social reconnection through sharing information with others. In two experiments (N = 150 and N = 135), social exclusion and inclusion were manipulated before participants were given the opportunity to disclose critical information in a semicooperative game setting (Study 1) or a mock intelligence interview (Study 2). Social exclusion did not influence information disclosure in any of the experiments. Instead, however, social inclusion unexpectedly increased information disclosure in the interview setting. We conclude that prior social experiences can influence the outcome of subsequent interviews, but the precise mechanisms underlying such influence are currently unknown.     

Fair process revisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information

The competing views of fairness theory ( [Folger and Cropanzano, 1998] and [Folger and Cropanzano, 2001]) and fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) were tested by studying the effects of interactional (IJ), procedural (PJ), and distributive justice (knowledge of others’ outcomes [OO]) upon evaluations of outcome fairness and customer satisfaction. The participants, 369 undergraduates, were randomly allocated to scenario-based experimental conditions. A 2 (IJ) × 2 (PJ) × 4 (OO) MANOVA and stepdown analyses provided evidence of “fair process” across all levels of distributive justice for outcome fairness (p<.001) and satisfaction (p<.001), but only in relation to the effects of interactional justice. No such effects were found for procedural justice. Implications for the development of justice theory are discussed.     

Decision frame and procedural justice: interactive effects on perceptions of distributive justice

This work examined the effect of procedural justice and item frame on responses to positively and negatively worded survey items. Under conditions of low procedural justice, there is a significant difference in the rating of distributive justice items positively and negatively framed, but not when procedural justice is high. Implications for decision frame theory and biasing of responses to survey items are considered.     

The effects of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems on social inclusion and exclusion

Human beings have a strong fundamental need to form and maintain relationships. Social exclusion therefore evokes social pain in excluded individuals, whereas social inclusion evokes pleasure in those individuals who are included. The present study used near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to investigate whether individual differences in personality, specifically differences in behavioral inhibition and activation system (BIS and BAS) functioning, affect the experiences of social pleasure and pain. Thirty-seven undergraduates participated in an NIRS session that involved both social rejection and inclusion during an online ball-tossing game. People with greater BIS sensitivity experienced more social pain during social exclusion, while people with greater BAS sensitivity reported more social pleasure during social inclusion. BIS sensitivity was negatively correlated with ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) activity during social exclusion. Finally, VLPFC activity partially mediated the relationship between BIS sensitivity and social pain experienced during social exclusion.     

The influence of accuracy as a function of leader's bias: the role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice

The present research examined the combined effect of accuracy of procedures and leader's bias on fairness judgments and the experience of positive emotions. The results of two studies showed that the strongest positive effects on both types of reactions were found when procedures were accurate and the leader was unbiased. In addition, accuracy of procedures only revealed an impact when the leader was perceived as unbiased rather than biased. Moreover, this interactive effect was found to be mediated, at least partly, by perceptions of trustworthiness. These findings show that more research is needed on examining different types of procedural fairness, both as single and combined predictors of people's reactions.     

How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness

Although studies have linked procedural justice to a range of positive attitudes and behaviors, the focus on justice has neglected other aspects of decision-making procedures. We explore one of those neglected aspects: procedural timeliness—defined as the degree to which procedures are started and completed within an acceptable time frame. Do employees react to how long a procedure takes, not just how fair it seems to be? To explore that question, we examined the potential effects of procedural timeliness using six theories created to explain the benefits of procedural justice. This integrative theory-based approach allowed us to explore whether “how long” had unique effects apart from “how fair.” The results of a three-wave, two-source field study showed that procedural timeliness had a significant indirect effect on citizenship behavior through many of the theory-based mechanisms, even when controlling for procedural justice. A laboratory study then replicated those effects while distinguishing procedures that were too fast versus too slow. We discuss the implications of our results for research on fostering citizenship behavior and improving supervisors’ decision-making procedures.     

Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects

In the terms of referent cognitions theory, high-justification procedures are those sufficiently appropriate to inhibit resentment regardless of the outcomes they produce. With low-justification procedures, however, resentment is predicted to increase the more unfavorably actual outcomes compare with those that would have resulted from using other procedures instead. The ordinary-context conditions of an experiment in which subjects had been instructed that their responses were used merely to index typical reactions to experiments produced such results. But within endorsement-context conditions in which subjects thought their responses were used to determine whether their experimenter would be hired as someone placed in charge of conducting research subjects expressed uniformly greater resentment in the low-justification conditions than in the high-justification conditions regardless of how favorable their outcomes might have been otherwise. The results are discussed in terms of reasons why the appropriateness of procedures sometimes becomes a predominant concern.     

Event justice and social entity justice: A cross-lagged analysis

IntroductionThe life of organizations is punctuated by a wide range of managerial decisions (e.g., hiring and selection procedure, performance appraisal, new working methods). Facing such events, employees evaluate the fairness of the situation experienced (event justice). They can also examine the fairness demonstrated by a specific entity, such as the organization or the supervisor (social entity justice). So far, little is known about how justice judgments about events vs. entities are related to each other, especially in a context of organizational change.ObjectiveBuilding on decision-making and organizational justice literature, we investigate the directionality of the causal relationships between event justice and social entity justice within a context of organizational change in a Belgian company (a significant reorganization at the level of the organization chart resulting in different changes for employees).MethodsWe used two samples (team leaders and executives) and realized a cross-lagged panel analysis with two measurement times.ResultsThe study shows that, in both samples, employees’ fairness perceptions about their organization (social entity justice) influence their interpretation of the fairness of subsequent events involving the organization (event justice).ConclusionBuilding and fostering a climate of justice is therefore of primary importance to organizations, since global fairness perceptions about the organization may help employees to perceive a specific event, such as an organizational change, as being fair.     

Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages aid: social categorization and procedural justice together improve intergroup cooperation and dual identity

We propose that social categorization can encourage particular forms of intergroup cooperation because it differentiates a group in need from a group that can give aid. Moreover, social categorization is most likely to occur when individuals perceive procedural justice (i.e., fair treatment) from authorities in a superordinate group that includes the individuals' subgroup. Two field studies investigating relations between local and foreign coworkers tested not only this prediction, but also whether high social categorization and procedural justice would yield a dual identity, in which group members identify simultaneously with their social category and the superordinate group. Both studies supported our predictions: Local employees engaged a dual identity and offered knowledge to aid a foreign coworker's adjustment more often when local-foreign categorization and procedural justice from organizational authorities were high than when these variables were low. These discoveries point to controllable mechanisms that enable intergroup cooperation, and our findings have important implications for intergroup aid, expatriate adjustment, immigration, and multiculturalism.