Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments

The authors assessed the impact that social value orientations--prosocial (i.e., concerned about outcomes for both oneself and others) versus proself (i.e., concerned about one's own outcome only)--had on fairness judgments in a non-negotiation setting. The results indicated that prosocials generally formed fairness judgments in a manner suggested by equity theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw an equal outcome as fairer than a favorable or unfavorable outcome. The fairness determinations of proselfs, however, tended to follow the tenets of self-interest theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw a favorable outcome as fairer than an unfavorable outcome. Contrary to self-interest theory, proselfs did not find a favorable outcome fairer than an equal outcome. These findings indicate that social value orientations differentially affect the evaluation of outcome information in the formation of fairness judgments.     

What's fair is fair--or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice

Individual differences in judgments of the fairness of various sociopolitical phenomena were examined in three surveys. Scales measuring two value dimensions thought to underlie the meaning of fairness were constructed, and survey respondents endorsing these different values were compared on their evaluation of the procedural and distributive fairness of political objects. Those endorsing the value of proportionality, hypothesized by equity theorists to underlie fairness judgments, judged equity-based public policies to be fairer than equality-based policies and judged that Ronald Reagan would be a fairer president than Walter Mondale. These people also emphasized the procedural aspects of government when judging government fairness. Respondents endorsing the value of egalitarianism, hypothesized by developmental theorists and some political philosophers to underlie fairness judgments, judged equality-based public policies to be fairer than equity-based policies and judged that Mondale would be a fairer president than Reagan. These people emphasized the distributive aspects of government when judging government fairness. Results support the naive moral philosopher image of the individual as judge of political objects (Tyler, 1984a). Political fairness judgments are ideological responses and are subject to the influence of the value structure of the judge (Tetlock, 1986).     

The psychology of markets vs. hierarchies: The procedural fairness of alternative allocation procedures for benefits and burdens

This paper reports two studies examining the influence of social context on judgments about the fairness and desirability of two allocation mechanisms — markets and hierarchies. Two allocation contexts are compared: distributing benefits and burdens. The results show that people prefer to allocate burdens through markets and benefits through hierarchies. In both cases desirability is linked to procedural fairness, suggesting that people always prefer to use the fairer procedure for allocation, but view different procedures as fairer in these different contexts. Procedural fairness judgments were found to be linked to respondents' judgments about the impact of using different procedures to make allocations in each context, with people in each case preferring the procedure that they believe will have the most positive impact upon group cohesion. These findings suggest that what is construed as a fair procedure in one social context is not the same as what is construed as a fair procedure in another social context.     

Self-interest and fairness in coalition formation: A social utility approach to understanding partner selection and payoff allocations in groups

In this chapter we present a social utility approach to coalition formation. The central tenet of our approach is that outcome allocations and partner selection in multiparty situations are affected by self-interest and fairness. Inspired by the social utility model we argue that the relative weight assigned to both components is affected by structural aspects of the situation and individual characteristics of the negotiators. We first investigate how coalition bargainers substantiate their coalition demands. We show that bargainers are self-serving in their choice of allocation rules, indicating that perceptions of fairness can be coloured by self-interest. Second, we investigate how the alignment of self-interest and fairness fosters the formation of coalitions that maximise the payoffs of its members. Finally, we present a series of experiments that expands the notion of being fair to those who are excluded from a coalition. We show that bargainers are reluctant to benefit themselves when this harms the outcomes of others and that this is dependent on personal factors (e.g., social value orientations), situational factors (e.g., the valence of outcomes), and whether bargainers negotiate in an interindividual or in an intergroup setting.     

Evaluability of outcomes in ultimatum bargaining

In bargaining, two components are important for assessing the utility of a decision outcome: self-interest and fairness. Each of these components corresponds to a comparison of possible outcomes—an interpersonal comparison for fairness, and an intrapersonal comparison for self-interest. We propose that the relative weights these components receive in ultimatum bargaining depend on their evaluability. In two studies, we show that varying the evaluability of these components influences the reactions of recipients towards the offer. Moreover, we show that the relative importance of fairness as well as the perceived fairness of the offer mediate between the evaluability of these components and acceptance rates. Results are discussed in relation to other findings on outcome and procedural framing effects in social decision-making.     

A TEST OF THE GROUP VALUES AND CONTROL MODELS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE FROM THE COMPETING PERSPECTIVES OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

A path model was developed to determine the predictive power of the group values (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and the self-interest/control (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) models in the justice judgments of three state impasse resolution procedures for teacher bargaining disputes. Surveys were returned by 90 school superintendents and 74 union presidents from districts that had used the procedures during the last contract negotiations. The group values variables of perceived neutrality of, and trust in, third parties were most predictive of procedural justice judgments. Process control was also predictive of procedural justice judgments, whereas decision control was not. Neither model was predictive of distributive justice judgments. Further, the path analysis clearly indicates the importance in this context of examining procedural and distributive justice from the competing perspectives of labor and management. Labor/management affiliation was strongly related to trust in third parties, perceptions of relative pay, and overall distributive justice judgments.     

SO YOU DIDN'T GET THE JOB … NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK? EXAMINING OPPORTUNITY‐TO‐PERFORM FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS

Although the last 10 years have witnessed an increased recognition of the importance of procedural fairness in selection contexts, most empirical research has focused on job relevance as the primary influence on fairness perceptions. There is reason to believe, however, that "opportunity-to-perform" (OTP) perceptions are also an important aspect of fairness perceptions and become particularly important following negative feedback (i.e., not receiving a job offer). Using both qualitative and quantitative data from a large sample of applicants to an agency of the U.S. government ( N = 754), we examine (a) how OTP relates to fairness judgments, (b) how receiving negative feedback affects this relationship, (c) differences in OTP across a variety of different selection methods, and (d) determinants of OTP perceptions. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses confirmed that OTP was an important predictor of overall procedural fairness and was the single most important procedural rule after receiving negative feedback. Practical implications of this pattern, the obtained differences in OTP across assessments, and results regarding the determinants of OTP are discussed.     

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.     

Revisiting the self-interest versus values debate: The role of temporal perspective

Scholars of public opinion have struggled to explain why people often vote against their economic self-interest in favor of a value-based rationale. Based on Construal Level Theory (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007), we argue that both values and material self-interest affect social and political attitudes, but in different temporal contexts. Specifically, because material self-interest is more concrete and applicable to everyday concerns, we predict that it should carry more weight with regard to judgments made in the context of the near future. In contrast, values, which are more abstract by nature, should carry greater weight for judgments made in the distant future. In an experimental test of this hypothesis, we presented participants with a fictitious policy that affected their pocketbooks in an otherwise value-laden domain. We found that people's financial self-interest more strongly predicted attitudes toward a proposal to increase tuition in the near condition, whereas antiegalitarian values more strongly predicted attitudes in the far condition. These findings offer new insights into the symbolic politics debate.     

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.     

Fairness Evaluations of Encounters With Police Officers and Correctional Officers1

The fairness of treatment can be inferred from 2 aspects of the relationship between authority and other party: the person-related aspect and the role-related aspect. One hundred seventy-five American detainees were interviewed about their encounters with police officers and correctional officers. The role-related aspect affected procedural fairness judgments most when first-time incarcerated detainees evaluated the encounter with police officers. The person-related aspect affected procedural fairness judgments most when first-time detainees and repeatedly incarcerated detainees evaluated encounters with correctional officers. Consequences for the group value model of procedural fairness as well as for the legal practice are discussed.     

Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior

In this study we investigate how outcome valence affects the importance of self-interest and fairness in ultimatum bargaining. In three experiments we systematically study the effect of outcome valence on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior. Results on all three aspects show strong evidence for the hypothesis that fairness becomes more important and self-interest becomes less important in negative valence bargaining. Fairness accessibility was higher when bargaining involved negative payoffs than when it involved positive payoffs (Experiment 1), the fairness norm was stronger in negatively versus positively valenced bargaining when an identical unequal offer benefiting the allocators was evaluated (Experiment 2), and allocators allocated more to recipients in negative valence bargaining than in positive valence bargaining (Experiment 3). We relate our findings to insights derived from the do-no-harm principle.     

Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves?

Previous research has shown that people's self-esteem and their group-oriented behavior are influenced by their judgments about the status of the groups to which they belong (pride) and assessments of their status within those groups (respect). These findings are important to justice researchers because the key antecedent of such status judgments is typically found to be the assessment of the fairness of group procedures (i.e., procedural justice). Research suggests that (1) procedural justice shapes status and that (2) status shapes self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. The paper reports the results of three studies comparing two different forms of these status judgments. The first form are autonomous judgments of pride and respect that are linked to the characteristics associated with membership in different groups. People link such judgments to inclusion or membership in the group. The second are comparative judgments of pride and respect that are linked to comparisons of one's status to the status of other people or groups. The results indicate that, within groups, people are influenced primarily by autonomous assessments of status based on their internal standards, which develop from the status associated with prototypical characteristics linked to inclusion in a group. People are less strongly influenced by comparisons of their status to the status of external comparison standards. Further, justice-based status inferences are shown to be primarily autonomous, and not comparative, in nature.     

Intergroup fairness and bias in children

In recent years in research on intergroup relationships, the assumption has increasingly been made that discrimination dominates decisions when individuals allocate resources between (members of) own and other group. Conversely, in empirical studies of interpersonal decision-making, including an extensive literature on the development of children's allocation rules within dyadic relationships, it has been repeatedly observed that in dyadic relationships choices though responsive to various changes in the environment, are more strongly governed by fairness rules. The present research extends the interpersonal fairness paradigm to the intergroup case, and examines the effects of some of those variables, namely, children's age, input and attitudes toward other, that have been observed to influence choice behaviour within interpersonal relationships. The findings indicate that as children are socialized, fairness rules also play an increasing dominant role in intergroup allocation decisions, and that both relative input and the language of the outgroup influence such decisions. At the same time, there is some preliminary evidence to indicate that the relative strength of self-interest may be somewhat stronger in intergroup than in interpersonal relationships. Finally, a number of the issues that must be confronted in comparing the two more important forms of human social choices, interpersonal and intergroup decision-making, are considered.     

Procedural justice and status: status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed.     

Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects

In the current article, we investigate the influence of self-construal level on procedural fairness effects, that is, the finding that fair versus unfair procedures influence people’s evaluations of their relation with decision-making authorities. In two experiments, we manipulated self-construal level by activating the individual self (“I”) or the social self (“We”), and we induced a control condition. Furthermore, we manipulated procedural fairness by granting versus denying participants an opportunity to voice their opinion in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed stronger procedural fairness effects if the individual self is activated than if the social self is activated. It is concluded that sometimes the individual self, rather than the social self, constitutes the psychological basis for procedural fairness effects.     

The Effects of Regulatory Fit between Explanation Framing and Applicants’ Regulatory Foci on Applicant Reaction

Abstract

Drawing from regulatory fit theory and the literature on persuasion, the current study is the first to explore whether the fit between explanation framing and applicants’ regulatory foci could enhance applicant reaction. We hypothesized that a positively framed explanation fits with applicants’ promotion foci and that a negatively framed explanation fits with applicants’ prevention foci. Three studies were conducted in which participants with different regulatory foci rated their perceived procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness after reading differently framed recruitment advertisements, rejection letters, and job offer letters. The results supported our hypothesis by showing significant interactions between explanation framing and participants’ regulatory foci on procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness perception in the contexts of recruitment advertising and rejection letters. In these contexts, compared with receiving a negatively framed explanation, promotion-focused recipients reported higher levels of perceived fairness and organizational attractiveness after receiving a positively framed explanation, and promotion-focused recipients’ fairness and attractiveness perceptions were higher than prevention-focused recipients’, after receiving a positively framed explanation. Moreover, perceived procedural fairness mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and perceived organizational attractiveness. However, regulatory fit effects were not found in the context of job offer letters.     

Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self‐esteem concerns

Three experimental studies examined to what extent leader's consistent use of procedures constitutes an important procedural fairness rule and influences people's reactions as a function of social self‐esteem. In line with a recent claim that more attention should be devoted to different procedural fairness rules (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001 ), the findings of Study 1 demonstrated that inconsistent leaders were evaluated as less procedurally fair and influenced feelings of uncertainty about oneself in ongoing interpersonal interactions. Study 2 showed that manipulating leader's consistency influenced people's procedural fairness judgments and willingness to replace the leader, but only among those low in social self‐esteem (SSE). Finally, Study 3, using another consistency manipulation, demonstrated that variations in consistency made participants feel bad about themselves, particularly when they were low in SSE. These findings are discussed in light of research on relational models of justice and sociometer theory. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making

Recent multifoci research reports that multiple sources of justice exist in organizations. In expanding this framework, we address how judgments of overall procedural fairness and behavioral intentions are influenced by different experiences of voice-based participation across a multi-stage decision-making process. The results of two experiments were consistent with a fairness theory framework. Overall, decision procedures were judged to be the fairest and the intention to volunteer was highest when participants were allowed voice in their team and when their team was allowed voice by organizational authorities. When voice was denied by both the team and the organization or was denied by either party, fairness ratings, and participant intentions were depressed and did not significantly differ from each other. This pattern of results suggests that individuals are influenced by transactions across decision-making stages and that such interdependence should be considered when attempting to understand the meaningfulness of voice-based participation.     

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.