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.     

Appropriateness of decisions as a moderator of the psychology of voice

This paper focuses on the psychology of the voice effect (the effect that people show more positive reactions when they are allowed an opportunity to voice their opinion in the decision‐making process than when they are denied such an opportunity). It is argued that it is important to ask about what decisions people are allowed voice. More specifically, results of two experiments suggest that when participation in decision making is appropriate (i.e. voice is allowed about decisions that are relatively important to participants) the voice effect is found: People's procedural judgements and other reactions are more positive following voice as opposed to no‐voice procedures. However, when participation in decision making is inappropriate (i.e. voice is allowed about decisions that are unimportant to participants) no effect or even a reversal of the voice effect is found. These people do not react differently or even react more negatively following voice as opposed to no‐voice procedures. It is concluded that these results further our insights into the psychology of procedural justice in general and voice in particular. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Injustice for All or Just for Me? Social Value Orientation Predicts Responses to Own Versus Other's Procedures

In two experiments, the authors investigated how differences in social value orientation predict evaluations of procedures that were accorded to self and others. Proselfs versus prosocials were either granted or denied an opportunity to voice an opinion in a decision-making process and witnessed how someone else was either granted or denied such an opportunity. Consistent with the hypothesis, procedural evaluations of both proselfs and prosocials were influenced by own procedure when other was granted voice, but only proselfs were influenced by own procedure when other was denied voice. These findings were particularly attributable to prosocials' tendency to evaluate a situation where no-voice procedures are applied consistently between persons more positively than proselfs. It is concluded that proselfs are focused on procedural justice and injustice for self more than prosocials, whereas prosocials value equality in procedures more than proselfs-even when equality implies injustice for all.     

Authorities’ knowledge of shared group membership and its effects on the respect-informing properties of procedural fairness

We observe that the voice-leads-to-respect process underlying relational models of procedural fairness is assumed to follow primarily if not solely from interaction with an in-group authority. Moreover, if the voice recipients believe that the authority is unaware of this shared group membership, then the provision of voice actually says nothing (to the voice recipients) about their standing as group members; the respect-providing information as valued in-group members is absent because the recipients know that the authority does not know of their shared group membership. We tested these assumptions in a three-way design manipulating the group membership of the authority (in-group vs. out-group), the nature of voice (provided vs. denied) and the nature of group membership knowledge (the authority knows or does not know the voice recipient’s group membership). A significant three-way interaction was found, as predicted, on respect and fairness ratings. These data provide clear experimental support for an unstated, and yet untested, assumption of relational models of procedural fairness.     

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership.     

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。     

Reputational Implications of Procedural Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-Esteem

Four studies showed that procedural fairness (fair vs. unfair treatment by an authority figure) has reputational implications for personal and relational self-esteem. Participants relied on procedural fairness to infer their reputation, especially when they were identifiable (Study 1). Furthermore, concern for reputation moderated the influence of procedural fairness on self-esteem: Variations in procedural fairness were more strongly associated with the personal self-esteem of individuals high rather than low in concern for reputation (Studies 2–3). Finally, violations in procedural fairness (i.e., unfair treatment) led to a more substantial reduction in the relational self-esteem of positive-reputation than negative-reputation participants: The former felt more relationally devalued than the latter, when they were denied voice (Study 4).     

Disentangling the effects of voice: the incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness

Many voice studies have failed to distinguish among voice opportunity, perceived voice opportunity, voice behavior, and voice instrumentality. Thus, the authors sought to clarify the roles of each in determining procedural fairness perceptions. Controlling for the effect of voice opportunity, each of the 3 remaining constructs was hypothesized to predict fairness. Furthermore, voice instrumentality was hypothesized to moderate the effect of voice behavior on fairness. Undergraduates (N = 102; 81 for some analyses) participated in an orientation-week design simulation in which voice opportunity was manipulated. The results indicated significant incremental effects of perceived voice opportunity and the predicted Voice Instrumentality x Voice Behavior interaction. Fairness was lowest for individuals who were denied voice opportunity, perceived less voice opportunity, and provided high levels of noninstrumental voice behavior.     

Effects of voice and similarity on procedural fairness and trust: A dual process model of public acceptance based on representatives’ participation

In citizen participation, a few representatives of the total citizen population participate in discussions with authorities regarding public decisions and policies. The present study examines a dual process model in which the representatives’ voice and similarity of values facilitate public acceptance through procedural fairness and trust in representatives, respectively. The results of an experiment employing a scenario method, which included participants from Japan (n = 211) and the Netherlands (n = 200), indicate that the representatives’ voice increased procedural fairness and public acceptance when the similarity of representatives was high. The effects of representatives’ voice on public acceptance via procedural fairness was supported in both nations, while other effects of representatives’ similarity on acceptance via trust were indicated only in Japan. These results suggest that the indirect voice of citizens, as conveyed by representatives, plays an important role in increasing perceptions of procedural fairness and public acceptance among citizens.     

When does giving voice or not matter? Procedural fairness effects as a function of closeness of reference points

The present study examined whether manipulating the closeness of reference points can provide further insights into explaining why people care so much about receiving voice (i.e., the opportunity to express one’s opinion with respect to allocation decisions). Participants read a scenario portraying a situation where they had always been a member of the relevant team (i.e., distant referent point condition) or where they had just become a member of the relevant team (i.e., close referent point condition). Thereafter, they were either told that they would receive voice or no voice with respect to the issue of distributing a financial bonus. The results showed that people cared more about voice when they were placed in the distant referent condition rather than in the close referent condition. This effect was strongest on participants’ positive emotions (i.e., being positive when receiving voice vs. receiving no voice) than on their negative emotions. The findings are discussed in light of procedural fairness, counterfactual thinking, and emotion literature.     

To whom does voice in groups matter? Effects of voice on affect and procedural fairness judgments as a function of social dominance orientation

The authors investigated the effects of voice--the opportunity to provide input in decision-making processes--on perceptions of procedural fairness. In particular, the authors studied the moderating role of social dominance orientation (SDO) in shaping this relation. SDO is an important individual differences variable that causes people to favor unequal relationships within and between social groups. Results revealed that voice was more strongly related to fairness judgments when participants had a high rather than low SDO. Moreover, positive affect mediated this moderation effect. The authors interpreted these results to indicate that high-SDO participants were especially sensitive to voice manipulations because such manipulations enhance perceptions of control over group resources and outcomes. The authors conclude by discussing alternative explanations based on other fairness theories.     

When does giving voice or not matter? Procedural fairness effects as a function of closeness of reference points

The present study examined whether manipulating the closeness of reference points can provide further insights into explaining why people care so much about receiving voice (i.e., the opportunity to express one’s opinion with respect to allocation decisions). Participants read a scenario portraying a situation where they had always been a member of the relevant team (i.e., distant referent point condition) or where they had just become a member of the relevant team (i.e., close referent point condition). Thereafter, they were either told that they would receive voice or no voice with respect to the issue of distributing a financial bonus. The results showed that people cared more about voice when they were placed in the distant referent condition rather than in the close referent condition. This effect was strongest on participants’ positive emotions (i.e., being positive when receiving voice vs. receiving no voice) than on their negative emotions. The findings are discussed in light of procedural fairness, counterfactual thinking, and emotion literature.     

When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

In procedural justice research it has frequently been found that allowing people an opportunity to voice their opinion enhances their judgements of the fairness of a decision-making procedure. The present study investigated how this voice effect is affected by the consistency over time rule, which dictates that, once people expect a certain procedure, deviation from the expected procedure will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. Two experiments were conducted. In both experiments the independent variables manipulated were whether subjects were explicitly told to expect a voice procedure, were explicitly told to expect a no-voice procedure, or were told nothing about a subsequent procedure, and whether or not subjects subsequently received an opportunity to voice their opinion. The manipulations were induced by means of scenarios in Experiment 1, and by means of the Lind, Kanfer and Early (1990) paradigm in Experiment 2. In both experiments it was found that subjects who expected a voice procedure or who expected nothing judged receiving the voice procedure as more fair than receiving the no-voice procedure, but that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure (inconsistency) as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure (consistency). Furthermore, effects of the manipulated variables on subjects' task performance were found in Experiment 2.     

How School can Teach Civic Engagement Besides Civic Education: The Role of Democratic School Climate

Civic engagement, defined as involvement in community life, is influenced by reciprocal relationships between individuals and contexts and is a key factor that contributes to positive youth development. The present study evaluates a theoretical model linking perceived democratic school climate with adolescent civic engagement (operationalized as civic responsibility and intentions for future participation), taking into account the mediating role of civic discussions and perceived fairness at school. Participants were 403 adolescents (47.9 % male) ranging in age from 11 to 15 years old (mean age = 13.6). Path analysis results partially validated the proposed theoretical model. Higher levels of democratic school climate were associated with higher levels of adolescent civic responsibility; the association was fully mediated by civic discussions and perceived fairness at school. Adolescents’ civic responsibility, then, was positively associated with a stronger intention to participate in the civic domain in the future.     

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.     

人工智能决策的公平感知

不平等问题是全球社会和经济发展需要应对的首要挑战, 也是实现全球可持续发展目标的核心障碍。人工智能(artificial intelligence, AI)为缓解不平等、促进社会公平提供了新的途径。然而, 新近研究发现, 即使客观上AI决策具有公平性和准确性, 个体仍可能对AI决策的公平感知较低。因此, 近年来越来越多的研究开始关注AI决策公平感知的影响因素。然而, 目前研究较为分散, 呈现出研究范式不统一、理论不清晰和机制未厘清等特征。这既不利于跨学科的研究对话, 也不利于研究者和实践者对AI决策公平感知形成系统性理解。基于此, 通过系统的梳理, 现有研究可以划分为两类: (1) AI单一决策的公平感知研究, 主要聚焦于AI特征和个体特征如何影响个体对AI决策的公平感知; (2) AI-人类二元决策的公平感知研究, 主要聚焦于对比个体对AI决策与人类决策公平感知的差异。在上述梳理基础上, 未来研究可以进一步探索AI决策公平感知的情绪影响机制等方向。     

大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响

通过两项研究考查大学生在社会困境中的行为决策及公平感体验,检验社会价值取向的影响作用,有效被试分别为85名和84名。结果表明:(1)亲社会者比亲自我者更倾向做公平决策;信息对称比不对称条件更促进被试做公平决策;女生比男生更倾向做公平决策。(2)性别在社会价值取向与信息对称性对公平决策的影响中起调节作用,社会价值取向显著影响男生的公平决策,信息对称性显著影响女生的公平决策。(3)社会价值取向显著影响个体对不公平的容忍度,亲社会者更不容忍不公平行为。(4)对于利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向接受,亲社会者并不比亲自我者体验到更强的内疚情绪;对于不利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向拒绝,且产生较强的不公平感及气愤情绪。     

Overcoming negative reactions of nonbeneficiaries to employment equity: the effect of participation in policy formulation

In 2 experimental studies, we examined a way to overcome nonbeneficiaries' resistance to employment equity (EE) policies-participation in formulating the policy. We operationalized participation in terms of instrumental versus noninstrumental voice and proposed that nonbeneficiaries would be more likely to support an EE policy when allowed instrumental participation in the policy's development. Further, we proposed psychological ownership as the mediating mechanism underlying the effects of instrumental participation. Study 1 examined participation effects for a gender-based EE policy and Study 2 for a race-based EE policy. As predicted, we found that nonbeneficiaries (men in Study 1; Whites in Study 2) in the instrumental participation condition expressed greater behavioral intentions to promote the policy (Studies 1 and 2) and were more likely to engage in a behavior promoting the policy (Study 2). We also found support for psychological ownership as the underlying mediating mechanism in both studies. Contributions to theory and practice are discussed.     

A policy‐modeling approach to examining fairness judgments in organizational acquisitions

Organizational acquisitions may be characterized by the degree of friendliness or hostility as well as the degree of autonomy or absorption of the organizations following the merger. This study examined judgments of fairness across four types of organizational acquisitions. Students read fictitious newspaper accounts of a university acquisition and rated their expectations and perceptions of fairness about possible changes. Results indicated that in an acquisition, both the procedures used and the outcomes provided influenced how fair the acquisition was perceived. As predicted, the relative importance of procedures and outcomes in overall perceptions of fairness shifted depending on the context of the acquisition. As the desirability of the acquisition increased, individuals placed greater importance on the procedural elements. In a friendly and low integration acquisition, the processes and outcomes became equally important. Individuals faced with a high integration acquisition expected more unfair changes and fewer fair changes to occur. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance expectations play in perceptions of fairness. The type of acquisition will influence expectations for fair treatment. Under less desirable conditions (hostile and high‐integration mergers), organizations should take steps early in the process to manage fairness perceptions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.