Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, it is argued in this article that people especially need fairness when they are reminded about aspects of their lives that make them uncertain. It is therefore proposed that thinking about uncertainty should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of 3 experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking (vs. not asking) participants 2 questions that solicited their thoughts and feelings of being uncertain led to stronger effects of perceived procedural fairness on participants' affective reactions toward the way they were treated. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness matters to people especially when they are trying to deal with things that make them uncertain. An implication of the current findings therefore may be that fairness is important to people because it gives them an opportunity to manage uncertain aspects of their lives.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed.     

Identifying international assignees at risk for premature departure: the interactive effect of outcome favorability and procedural fairness

Two studies examined factors that predict expatriate managers' tendencies to think seriously about departing prematurely from their international assignments. Previous research (conducted outside of the expatriate context) has shown that individuals' willingness to stay with or leave their positions is an interactive function of outcome favorability and procedural fairness. A conceptually analogous interaction effect was found in the present studies. Whereas expatriates more seriously thought of departing prematurely when they perceived the non-work-related outcomes of their overseas assignments to be less favorable, this tendency was much less pronounced when procedural fairness was relatively high. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research.     

Feeling bad about being sad: the role of social expectancies in amplifying negative mood

Our perception of how others expect us to feel has significant implications for our emotional functioning. Across 4 studies the authors demonstrate that when people think others expect them not to feel negative emotions (i.e., sadness) they experience more negative emotion and reduced well-being. The authors show that perceived social expectancies predict these differences in emotion and well-being both more consistently than-and independently of-personal expectancies and that they do so by promoting negative self-evaluation when experiencing negative emotion. We find evidence for these effects within Australia (Studies 1 and 2) as well as Japan (Study 2), although the effects of social expectancies are especially evident in the former (Studies 1 and 2). We also find experimental evidence for the causal role of social expectancies in negative emotional responses to negative emotional events (Studies 3 and 4). In short, when people perceive that others think they should feel happy, and not sad, this leads them to feel sad more frequently and intensely.     

Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness

This study sought to identify the standards people invoke when judging the fairness or unfairness of outcomes of everyday events, and to determine whether their standards of judgment vary according to the fairness of the outcome and to their perspective, i.e. whether the outcomes are ones they personally experienced or witnessed. The standards of fairness laypeople were found to invoke, even when unprompted, coincided with the standards social scientists have emphasized (e.g. distributive, procedural) in their theories of psychological justice. However, laypeople emphasized these standards differently when accounting for the fairness–unfairness of personal experiences versus those they had witnessed, and when accounting for fair versus unfair outcomes. As predicted, they were more likely to invoke procedural and interpersonal criteria when judging the fairness–unfairness of their own outcomes, but more likely to invoke distributive criteria when judging others' outcomes. Regardless of perspective, laypeople cited procedural criteria as the major determinants of their fairness judgements; but cited procedural, distributive and interpersonal criteria as comparably influential in determining their unfairness judgments. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions

Previous research on coalition formation has established that people will not hesitate to exclude others in order to maximize their payoff. The authors propose that this view is too narrow and that the decision to exclude depends on the valence of the payoff. Consistent with a “do-no-harm” hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed that participants were more reluctant to exclude in order to minimize their losses than to maximize their gains. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and showed that participants were most affected by payoff valence when they were disposed to consider the viewpoint of others. Additional analyses revealed that participants were more motivated by fairness (Experiment 1) and that fairness was more cognitively accessible (Experiment 2) when payoffs were negative rather than positive.     

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.     

What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness

Past research has revealed both positive and negative reactions when people receive unfavorable outcomes via fair decision-making procedures. In three laboratory experiments, we reconcile these findings by considering the role of people’s self-identity. Our results suggest that the more that people base their self-identity on their relationships with others—as indexed by a strong interdependent self-construal—the more positively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Conversely, the more that people base their self-identity on achievement—as indexed by a strong independent self-construal—the more negatively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Moreover, these results were stronger when the situation primed interdependence and independence, respectively. Our research indicates that people interpret procedural fairness information in a manner that is consistent with defining aspects of the self.     

Performance‐based pay is fair,particularly when I perform better: differential fairness perceptions of allocators and recipients

We examined in two experiments the impact of the roles that people enact (allocator or recipient) and performance attributions (talent or effort) on fairness perceptions of pay systems (performance‐based pay or job‐based pay). To test the relative effects of the roles that people enact, in the control conditions, participants were asked to evaluate the fairness of both allocation norms from ‘behind a veil of ignorance’ (Rawls, 1971 ). As hypothesized, the results consistently demonstrate that whereas recipients were biased in their fairness perceptions, allocators tended to be non‐biased in their fairness perceptions. The self‐interest bias among recipients was particularly strong when talent rather than effort attributions were imposed on them. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Meaning-Making in Delayed-Return Cultures: The Case of Personal Uncertainty

The large majority of humans nowadays live in cultures in which there is often a delay between the efforts they exert and the feedback they receive regarding the outcome of their efforts. As a result, individuals may experience uncertainty between their efforts and outcomes, leading them to pay special attention to uncertainty information. In particular, we propose that when people feel uncertain about themselves, this may be alarming to them as it may signal that their personal contract with their delayed-return culture may be in jeopardy. Therefore, under conditions of personal uncertainty, people are looking forward to events that bolster their cultural worldviews and detest events that violate these worldviews. We review research findings that show that personal uncertainty indeed has a special role in the social psychology of meaning-making and worldview defense, sometimes even yielding a better explanation of worldview defense reactions than terror management theory.     

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.     

Retributive justice and social categorizations: the perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status

In the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Thinking About One’s Subjective Well-Being: Average Trends and Individual Differences

In two studies, participants reported what they had been thinking about while completing measures of subjective well-being (SWB). These thought reports were analyzed with respect to life domain, valence, and how strongly they were related to actual levels of SWB. Most people focused on their life circumstances (e.g., career) rather than on dispositional predictors (e.g., personality) of SWB. The domains mentioned most frequently (career, family, romantic life) were also the ones that were most strongly related to actual SWB, indicating that most of people think about things that actually contribute to their SWB. Some domains are predominantly mentioned in positive contexts (e.g., family) whereas others are predominantly mentioned in negative contexts (e.g., money). On average, people thought more about positive than about negative things, a result that is magnified for respondents high in extraversion or emotional stability. In sum, these findings provide insight into what people think contributes to their SWB; beliefs that may guide them as they make important decisions.     

Effect of ingroup membership on organizational meta-representation

The present study considers the importance of analyzing what very powerful or influential people think about their employees. We assumed that belonging to a specific category has a differential effect on the perception of others' thoughts in the organization ("meta-representation"). Therefore, experts in organization and human resources from diverse organizations and institutions assessed seven dimensions which structure the organizational image (context, structure, organizational processes, working climate, culture, satisfaction and efficacy). The results showed that belonging to a group (managers or leaders, academicians, consultants, technicians or employees' representatives) modulated the meta-representation, as the experts' opinion about what they think that the employees consider important was related to their group. This was specifically the case for the managers' and leaders' representations, which differed from the other groups and especially from that of the technicians and employees' representatives. The implications of the present findings are discussed.     

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.