Procedural justice in authority relations: the strength of outcome dependence influences people's reactions to voice

In this article, we study how the strength of outcome dependence, defined as the extent to which people's outcomes depend on authority's decisions, influences their reactions to voice or no-voice procedures. We suggest that in situations where people are strongly outcome dependent they assume that the authority may not consider their views, and therefore voice procedures exert less influence on people's procedure judgments than in situations where they are not strongly outcome dependent. Findings of two experiments corroborate this line of reasoning: In strongly outcome dependent situations, recipients' procedure judgments are influenced less strongly by voice versus no-voice procedures than in moderate or weak outcome dependent situations. Furthermore, these effects were found for both pre-decision voice (Experiment 1) and for post-decision voice (Experiment 2). It is concluded that strong outcome dependence decreases the value-expressive function of voice opportunities. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation

The present research examined the effectiveness of leadership in influencing cooperation in social dilemmas by focusing on the procedural fairness and favorability of leaders’ outcome decisions. We predicted that leader’s influence on cooperation would be determined by the fairness of the procedures used, but only so when received outcomes were unfavorable. Across two experimental studies, support for this hypothesis was found. Both in Study 1 (using accuracy as a manipulation of procedural fairness) and Study 2 (using voice as a manipulation of procedural fairness), it was found that procedural fairness influenced contributions in a public good dilemma only if outcomes were unfavorable (i.e., participants received less than an equal share), whereas procedural fairness did not influence level of contributions when outcomes were favorable (i.e., participants received more than an equal share).     

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.     

Assimilation and contrast in organizational justice: The role of primed mindsets in the psychology of the fair process effect

This paper focuses on the psychology of the fair process effect (the frequently replicated finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects people's reactions). It is argued that when people have received an outcome they usually assimilate their ratings of outcome fairness and affect toward their experiences of procedural fairness. As a result, ratings show fair process effects. It is also possible, however, that when people have received their outcome they compare this outcome to the procedure they experienced: Is the outcome better or worse than the procedure? A result of this comparison process may be that contrast effects are found such that higher levels of procedural fairness lead to more negative ratings of outcome fairness and affect. Research findings suggest that when comparison goals have been primed, contrast effects indeed can be found. The implications for the psychology of the fair process effect and organizational behavior are discussed.     

Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures

The present research tests an important motivational explanation for people's concern with procedural fairness by considering the influence of people's belongingness needs. We predicted that those individuals with a strong need to belong would care more about procedural fairness information and thus they would process that information more carefully, as compared to individuals with a weak need to belong. In Study 1, the need to belong moderated the relationship between the opportunity for voice and self‐evaluations. In Study 2, the need to belong moderated the relationship between the opportunity for voice and organizational identification among employees of a multinational healthcare company. Study 3 extends this finding by demonstrating that people with a strong need to belong engage in more careful and systematic processing of procedural fairness information. Together, these findings provide important insight into understanding the motivations that underlie reactions to procedural fairness. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

All is well that ends well,at least for proselfs: emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation

In step‐level public good dilemmas the equality rule serves as an important distribution rule to tacitly coordinate group members' decisions. In two studies, we examined the motives that may underlie the use of the equality rule. More specifically, we examined whether people use the equality rule out of fairness concerns or out of efficiency concerns. For this purpose, we assessed people's emotional reactions toward a violator of the equality rule when the group succeeded vs. failed, as a function of social value orientation. The results of both experiments showed that proselfs' emotional reactions towards a violator were a function of the success or the failure of the group, whereas prosocials' emotional reactions did not vary as a function of the outcome feedback. These results suggest that prosocials prefer the equality rule out of fairness concerns whereas for proselfs efficiency concerns dominate. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When being disadvantaged grows into vengeance: The effects of asymmetry of interest and social rejection in social dilemmas

In public good dilemmas, group members often differ in the extent to which they benefit from provision of the public good (asymmetry of interest). In the current paper, we argue that people may readily accept such financial differences in interest when their social needs are met by being accepted by the others. When people are socially rejected, however, members having a low rather than a high interest in the public good may display negative emotional and retributive reactions. This reasoning was supported by the findings of a first experimental study in which we manipulated people's interest in the public good and social rejection. These effects were replicated in a second experimental study and it was further shown that this two‐way interaction between social rejection and interest in the public good was moderated by people's social value orientation. The negative reactions to low interest (vs. high interest) in the public good when being socially rejected were especially prominent among group members with a proself orientation. Taken together, the current studies illustrate the importance of studying how financial and social needs interact to determine emotional and retributive actions in social dilemmas. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Friend or foe? Ingroup identification moderates reactions to outgroup members' allocation behavior

In the present article we build on previous work suggesting that people react more strongly to the favorability of outgroup authority allocations than ingroup authority allocations. Based on theorizing and research on intergroup perception and self‐categorization, we refine this argument by suggesting that responses to outgroup authorities depend on people's level of ingroup identification. We present data from an experiment showing that the favorability of treatment by an outgroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among high (vs. low) ingroup identifiers. In line with theory and research based on the relational model of authority, findings of the present study also suggest that ingroup identification has a reversed effect on acceptance of an ingroup authority's decisions. Specifically, the favorability of treatment by an ingroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among low (vs. high) ingroup identifiers. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Social Control Behavior: The Effects of Social Situations and Personal Implication on Informal Social Sanctions

Social control is the generic term used to refer to reactions to counter‐normative behaviors and to informal social sanctions that can be attributed to deviant individuals. This review of theories and experimental findings addresses the determinants of social control reactions. First, we examine researches in experimental social psychology that show how people's reactions can be inhibited by the presence of others; a phenomenon known as the ‘Bystander effect’. Next, we examine the extent to which group membership factors affect social control. According to the ‘Black Sheep effect’, people are more severe with a deviant when they share their social identity than when he is a member of an out‐group. Even though these processes appear as good predictors for social control reactions, other findings highlight that social control and the previous processes could be associated to self‐related motivations that are encouraging people to defend themselves through the protection of their group's norms.     

Hindsight bias and outcome-consistent thoughts when observing and making service provider decisions

Two studies examined the relationship between hindsight bias and corresponding open-ended thoughts for decisions in a service provider setting. Perspectives of those observing and making decisions were examined. In study 1, business students who learned the results of a financial advisor’s stock purchase showed the traditional hindsight effect regardless of outcome favorability, and produced heightened outcome-consistent thoughts. In contrast, study 2 participants were asked to make (rather than to observe) a purchase decision. They produced hindsight bias and consistent thoughts only when their decision outcomes were favorable. Relative to observers, those acting as the service provider (a) showed more bias when outcomes were favorable, and (b) showed less bias when outcomes were unfavorable. Discussion focuses on hindsight implications in service provider decision-making settings.     

A Moderator of the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability: Importance of the Relationship

Justice literature has documented that procedural justice interacts with outcome favorability in determining people's reactions to a decision. Specifically when people perceive the outcome as negative, procedural justice has remarkably strong and positive influence on their attitudes and reactions to the decision. The present study extended past research by illustrating that the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability is dependent on the perceived importance of the relationship with the other party. Two studies yielded converging results that the interaction effect is operative only when the relationship with the other person or group is important to the person.     

Exploring how people respond to conflicts between self‐interest and fairness: Influence of threats to the self on affective reactions to advantageous inequity

Two studies examined how people deal with conflicts between their self‐interest concerns and their striving for fairness. Specifically, the affective reactions to outcome arrangements in which people receive better outcomes than comparable other persons, were studied. These arrangements of advantageous inequity constitute situations in which fairness and self‐interest concerns are in conflict. Building on the social psychology of the self, it was predicted, and found, in both field and lab experiments that when people experience a self‐threat, they react more positively to arrangements of advantageous inequity than when not experiencing this threat. This supports the view that people's need for positive information about their selves is an important factor in the underlying psychological processes of the way that people deal with conflicts between their fairness and self‐interest concerns.     

When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism

Prior research suggests that consumers evaluate firms more negatively if they attribute the firm's business practices to firm‐serving motivations rather than to motivations that serve the public good. We propose an alternative hypothesis: Firm‐serving attributions lower evaluation of the firm only when they are inconsistent with the firm's expressed motive. As such, the negative effect of consumer skepticism regarding a firm's motives can be inhibited by public acknowledgment of the strategic benefits to the firm. The power of this inhibition procedure was demonstrated in an experiment in which we manipulated the salience of firm‐serving benefits and the firm's publicly stated motive. Consumer evaluation of the sponsoring firm was lowest in conditions when firm‐serving benefits were salient and the firm outwardly stated purely public‐serving motives. This experiment also revealed that the potential negative effects of skepticism were the most pronounced when individuals engaged in causal attribution prior to company evaluation. Finally, in this study we measured the different effects on attribution and evaluation of 2 distinct forms of skepticism: situational skepticism, which is a momentary state of distrust of an actor's motivations, and dispositional skepticism, which is an individual's ongoing tendency to be suspicious of other people's motives.     

The relationship of time investment and task outcome to causal attributions and self-esteem1

This study examined the relationship between performance outcome, time spent working at a task, and attributions to ability versus effort. It also explored differences in performance time as a function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancies. Subjects worked on a series of concept-attainment items and then were given either success or failure feedback regarding their performance and also information that they had worked either faster or slower than other subjects. They then evaluated their performance and that of a fictitious subject who had also purportedly done the task. Subjects attributed their own and other subjects' successes more to ability if they spent less time at the task and failure outcomes more to ability if they had spent more time at the task. Attributions to success and failure outcomes differed as a function of the interactive effect of self-esteem and task-specific expectancies. Low self-esteem subjects tended to attribute expected outcomes more to ability and unexpected outcomes more to effort, whereas high self-esteem subjects attributed successes more to ability and failure more to effort. Practice time and criteria for satisfaction were also a joint function of self-esteem and task-performance expectancy. The results suggest that task-performance expectancies must be considered when evaluating the role of self-esteem in determining people's responses in performance situations.     

The Selective Laziness of Reasoning

Reasoning research suggests that people use more stringent criteria when they evaluate others' arguments than when they produce arguments themselves. To demonstrate this “selective laziness,” we used a choice blindness manipulation. In two experiments, participants had to produce a series of arguments in response to reasoning problems, and they were then asked to evaluate other people's arguments about the same problems. Unknown to the participants, in one of the trials, they were presented with their own argument as if it was someone else's. Among those participants who accepted the manipulation and thus thought they were evaluating someone else's argument, more than half (56% and 58%) rejected the arguments that were in fact their own. Moreover, participants were more likely to reject their own arguments for invalid than for valid answers. This demonstrates that people are more critical of other people's arguments than of their own, without being overly critical: They are better able to tell valid from invalid arguments when the arguments are someone else's rather than their own.     

Contrast and accentuation effects in category learning

This study examines the accentuation of perceived intercategory differences. In Experiment 1, 2 sets of trait adjectives were presented--a neutral set and a set of either favorable traits or unfavorable traits. Ss estimated the mean favorability of each set. The mean favorability of the neutral set was then increased or decreased by adding new traits. As predicted, the estimated mean favorability of the neutral set changed more when the set became more distinct from a contextual set than when it became more similar. In Experiment 2, estimated category means were displaced away from each other (contrast effect), and they moved even farther apart when new information increased the variability of trait favorability (accentuation effect). This change was illusory because the actual category means remained constant. Experiment 3, in which trait adjectives described members of 2 novel groups, replicated Experiment 2. The relevance of contrast and accentuation effects to the development and maintenance of differentiated intergroup perceptions is discussed.     

Test-Taker Reactions to the Selection Process: Effects of Outcome Favorability, Explanations, and Voice on Fairness Perceptions

This study examined the effects of providing an explanation and voice on fairness perceptions and reactions of test takers under favorable and unfavorable selection decisions. Participants took either a cognitive ability test or an overt integrity test in a simulated selection situation. Then, the voice manipulation was introduced. Participants were informed of the hiring decision with or without an explanation. Results showed that type of test had effects on procedural fairness perceptions such that these reactions were more positive when a cognitive ability test was used. The results of voice and explanation manipulations on fairness perceptions indicated that providing an explanation had a positive effect on perceptions but, surprisingly, face-validity perceptions were less favorable when participants had voice opportunity.