The Influence of National Culture on the Perceived Fairness of Grading Procedures: A Comparison of the United States and China

Although the desire to be treated fairly is a fundamental human preference, perceptions of fair treatment can be influenced by cultural beliefs and values. For this article, the author used a scenario-based experimental study to examine students' fairness perceptions of grading procedures in 2 countries with distinct national cultures, China and the United States. The results suggest that culture can influence students' perceptions of the fairness of 2 aspects of procedural justice: voice and interpersonal justice. Chinese students were more likely to value interpersonal justice (i.e., being treated with dignity and respect, and being provided with explanations of grading procedures) and perceived the lack of interpersonal justice as less fair than did U.S. participants. In contrast, U.S. students were more likely to perceive voice (i.e., the opportunity to discuss and appeal a grading decision) as fair. These findings are connected to differences in the cultural values of the United States and China.     

Understanding the motivational effects of procedural and informational justice in feedback processes

Building upon traditional feedback models, this study examined the role of fair treatment in feedback contexts. Structural equation modelling using data from 236 undergraduate students highlighted perceived accuracy as a mediator in the credibility‐motivation relationship as well as a relationship between accuracy and perceptions of procedural and informational justice. In addition, the results showed that the motivating effects of feedback accuracy partially occurred through procedural justice perceptions. Tests of an alternative model also demonstrated the interactive effects of credibility and accuracy on justice perceptions. Overall, this study provides insight into the role of fairness in appraisal processes, as well as how fairness might enhance recipients' reactions to appraisal and, subsequently, the effectiveness of appraisal systems.     

The influence of national culture on the perceived fairness of grading procedures: a comparison of the United States and China

Although the desire to be treated fairly is a fundamental human preference, perceptions of fair treatment can be influenced by cultural beliefs and values. For this article, the author used a scenario-based experimental study to examine students' fairness perceptions of grading procedures in 2 countries with distinct national cultures, China and the United States. The results suggest that culture can influence students' perceptions of the fairness of 2 aspects of procedural justice: voice and interpersonal justice. Chinese students were more likely to value interpersonal justice (i.e., being treated with dignity and respect, and being provided with explanations of grading procedures) and perceived the lack of interpersonal justice as less fair than did U.S. participants. In contrast, U.S. students were more likely to perceive voice (i.e., the opportunity to discuss and appeal a grading decision) as fair. These findings are connected to differences in the cultural values of the United States and China.     

Understanding Employee Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Procedural and Distributive Justice

The importance of perceived fair treatment and its effect on employee job satisfaction cannot be overlooked. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that structural procedural justice, interpersonal procedural justice, and distributive justice each accounted for significant unique variance in employee job satisfaction. In addition, when job satisfaction was regressed on all three types of organizational justice, all three justice perceptions significantly predicted job satisfaction. However, interpersonal procedural justice and distributive justice were more strongly related to job satisfaction with distributive justice having the strongest relationship of the three fairness perceptions.     

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.     

Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural justice principles

Differences in perceptions of fairness may result from differential emphasis on distributive and procedural justice. The author found that organizational role and gender influenced the extent to which distributive and procedural justice principles were used when participants allocated and evaluated pay raises. When participants took the role of a supervisor, they were more likely to use procedural justice principles; when they took the role of a subordinate, they were more likely to use distributive justice principles. Also, men were more likely to use distributive justice than procedural justice principles when allocating and evaluating raises. These findings suggest that organizations should become aware of individual and role-based differences in emphasis on justice-related factors that could potentially lead to perceptions of unfairness.     

Decision Frame,Procedural Justice,and Survivors′ Reactions to Job Layoffs

Behavioral decision theory suggests that the perceived favorability of outcomes depends on how they are framed. Recent research in the justice literature suggests that perceived outcome favorability and procedural fairness interactively combine to influence employees′ reactions to a resource allocation decision. The present study tested a hypothesis derived from the integration of these two literatures: that decision frame-by affecting perceived outcome favorability-would interact with procedural fairness to influence individuals′ reactions to the decision. All participants were layoff survivors; the primary dependent variable was their trust in and support for the organization subsequent to the layoff. Through a framing manipulation, half evaluated the criteria that the organization used to keep certain employees rather than others (Keep condition), whereas the other half judged the criteria that the organization used to dismiss certain employees rather than others (Dismiss condition). Survivors also evaluated the procedural fairness of the layoff. As predicted, decision frame and procedural fairness interacted to influence survivors′ trust in and support for the organization. When procedural fairness was low, survivors reacted more favorably in the positive frame (Keep) than in the negative frame (Dismiss) condition. When procedural fairness was high, however, decision frame had no effect on survivors′ reactions. Possible explanations of the findings, as well as their theoretical and practical implications, are discussed.     

Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

The literature on organizational justice has identified 3 key components of this process: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, we reasoned that employees may use perceptions of these 3 components as a basis for drawing inferences about the fairness of the organization as a whole (i.e., their perceptions of systemic justice). A field study was conducted on a sample of 232 employees working in various organizations. Results show that employees' perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice in their organizations positively predicted perceptions of systemic justice (i.e., that the organization was fair overall). Perceptions of distributive justice, however, did not predict perceptions of systemic justice. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

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.     

Effects of Electronic Monitoring Types on Perceptions of Procedural Justice,Interpersonal Justice,and Privacy1

Electronic performance monitoring and control systems (EPMCSs) are raising fairness and privacy concerns in many organizations. Researchers typically have treated different types of EPMCSs as equal, yet various EPMCS types (e.g., computer monitoring, eavesdropping, surveillance) may exert differential influences on fairness and privacy perceptions. In this study, 246 participants read scenarios describing different technologies for evaluating performance. Results indicated that EPMCS types significantly influenced perceptions of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and privacy. Computer monitoring was perceived as the most procedurally just; but traditional direct observation by a supervisor without electronic monitoring was perceived as the most interpersonally just, and the least invasive in terms of privacy. These findings suggest that employers should be cautious in the type of monitoring used.     

Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations

A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victim's revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.     

Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions: perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator

Building on 2 paradigms in organizational justice research and on fairness heuristic theory, the author argues that employees' perceptions about the fairness of social entities (their supervisor and their organization) moderate the relationship between their perceptions about the fairness of specific events and their reactions. A survey of 265 supervisor-employee pairs in 4 companies was conducted to test this argument. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that when employees perceived their organization to be generally fair, this perception moderated the relationship between the perceived justice of a particular event and their reactions to the organization (organizational commitment and organization-directed citizenship behavior). In addition, employees' perceptions of the fairness of their supervisor were found to moderate the relationship between the perceived justice of a particular event and their supervisor-directed responses (trust in managers and supervisor-directed citizenship behavior) and their organization-directed responses. The results suggest that employee attitudes and behavior can be better understood when both event justice perceptions and social entity justice perceptions are considered together.     

Due process model of procedural justice in performance appraisal: promotion versus termination scenarios

In a laboratory study, 318 student participants (148 male, 169 female, and one who did not report sex; M age 25.0, SD = 6.0) in introductory organizational behavior classes responded to scenarios in which performance appraisal resulted in either employee promotion or termination. Each scenario had varying levels of three procedural justice criteria for performance appraisal. For both promotion and termination outcomes, analysis showed that, as the number of criteria increased, perceptions of procedural fairness increased. A comparison between the two outcomes showed that perceptions of fairness were significantly stronger for the promotion outcome than for termination.     

Organizational Citizenship and Mood: An Experimental Test of Perceived Job Breadth1

This study examined the impact of induced mood and fairness on the categorization of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs). Positive mood and perceptions of fair job conditions were predicted to lead to broader categorization of job tasks. Mood, procedural, and distributive justice were manipulated. Participants in a positive mood were more likely than were participants in a negative mood to label extra‐role job tasks as in‐role. This supports the notion that employees in a positive mood may inadvertently engage in OCBs because such behaviors are perceived to be part of the job. No differences in categorization were found between positive and neutral mood conditions, indicating that participants in the negative condition were more narrow in categorization breadth than were those in the positive condition in distinguishing in‐role behaviors from extra‐role behaviors.     

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.     

A trickle-down model of organizational justice: relating employees' and customers' perceptions of and reactions to fairness

This study developed and tested a trickle-down model of organizational justice that hypothesized that employees' perceptions of fairness should affect their attitudes toward the organization, subsequently influencing their behaviors toward customers. In turn, customers should interpret these behaviors as signals of fair treatment, causing them to react positively to both the employee and the organization. The model was tested on a sample of 187 instructors and their students. The results revealed that instructors who perceived high distributive and procedural justice reported higher organizational commitment. In turn, their students reported higher levels of instructor effort, prosocial behaviors, and fairness, as well as more positive reactions to the instructor. Overall, the results imply that fair treatment of employees has important organizational consequences because of customers' attitudes and future intentions toward key service employees.     

Hierarchy as a Mediator of Fairness: A Contingency Approach to Distributive Justice in Organizations1

Employees of one organization were asked to indicate the fairness of six different ways of allocating a hypothetical lump sum. As expected, the results suggest an overall preference for equity-based allocations. However, the employee's level in the hierarchy was found to mediate perceptions of fairness: upper managers viewed organization-wide equity as being most fair; middle managers saw intra-departmental equity as fairest; and clericals, unable to differentiate between equality and equity, perceived both these principles as being fairest. The results were interpreted in terms of a “contingency” approach to distributive justice which aims at integrating institutional, situational, and individual determinants of fairness.     

Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats,fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers

A social identity framework was employed to understand why people support the exclusionary treatment of refugee claimants (‘asylum seekers’) in Australia. Over and above individual difference effects of social dominance orientation and individuals' instrumental threat perceptions, insecure intergroup relations between citizens and asylum seekers were proposed to motivate exclusionary attitudes and behaviour. In addition, perceived procedural and distributive fairness were proposed to mediate the effects of social identity predictors on intergroup competitiveness, serving to legitimise citizens' exclusionary behaviours. Support for these propositions was obtained in a longitudinal study of Australians' social attitudes and behaviour. Small and inconsistent individual‐level effects were noted. In contrast, after controlling for these variables, hostile Australian norms, perceived legitimacy of citizen status, and threatening socio‐structural relations were strongly and consistently linked to intentions to support the harsh treatment of asylum seekers, and exclusionary attitudes and action at Time 2. Moreover, perceived procedural and distributive justice significantly mediated these relationships. The roles of fairness and intergroup socio‐structural perceptions in social attitudes and actions are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Gender and mental health: An examination of procedural justice in a specialized court context

The procedural justice framework has been applied in the criminal justice contexts of policing, corrections, and courts. According to this perspective, fair treatment, respectful dialogue and being given a proper voice will contribute to citizens' positive views of authority figures. While this literature has grown immensely, several questions remain unanswered. Do males and females perceive similar levels of procedural justice? Does mental health status influence perceptions of fair treatment? Whether procedural justice is a general perspective that can be applied across social groupings has important implications for correctional treatment in that programs that truly “work” for all are more cost‐effective. Toward that end, the current study investigates the relationships among procedural justice perceptions, gender, and mental health status in specialized drug courts, a context that has received little empirical attention. We do so using secondary data originally collected between 2003 and 2009 for Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel and Lindquist's Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). Results from a full‐sample analysis reveal that women report higher levels of procedural justice; that drug court participation significantly influences procedural justice perceptions; and that depressive symptomology is a significant predictor of procedural justice perceptions. In male‐ and female‐specific subsamples, drug court participation exerts similar effects for males and females, as does depressive symptomology. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.     

Toward an Explanation of Applicant Reactions: An Examination of Organizational Justice and Attribution Frameworks

This study used the organizational justice and attribution theory frameworks to understand the processes by which applicants perceive and react to selection procedures and decisions. Actual applicants were studied at two stages in a selection process (i.e., pre-application and post-offer). Interactions between process and outcome fairness were observed for intentions (recommendation and reapplication) and self-assessed performance. Although the form of the interaction was specific to each measure, in general fair procedures resulted in more favorable perceptions, and this become more pronounced when individuals also perceived fair outcomes. An interaction was also observed for process fairness and the actual selection decision; self-efficacy was lowest for those who were selected and perceived unfair procedures. The causal attributions for the selection decision were related to intentions and self-perceptions, and applicants demonstrated self-serving biases, but only when procedures were perceived as fair. Potential links between the organizational justice and attribution frameworks were also examined. Both frameworks were found to provide insight into the psychological processes that influence applicants' intentions and self-perceptions.