The role of fairness perceptions and accountability attributions in predicting reactions to organizational events

Researchers have found that fairness perceptions relate to many different outcomes (e.g., J. A. Colquitt, D. E. Conlon, M. J. Wesson, C. Porter, & K. Y. Ng, 2001). However, they cannot predict when an employee will react against a specific individual or against the organization itself. To address this question, the authors integrated the fairness and blame-attributions literatures. They predicted that blame attributions would strengthen the relationship between fairness perceptions and reactions to specific organizational agents. They surveyed 48 employees who believed there were inaccuracies in their most recent performance appraisals. Employees reported perceptions of fairness and attributions of blame to both their supervisor and the organization and rated their commitment to both targets. Supervisors simultaneously rated each employee's citizenship behavior toward each target. For supervisor reactions and organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization, blame and fairness perceptions interacted; unique positive reactions were elicited only when the supervisor was perceived as blameless and fair.     

Parent perceptions and attributions for children's math achievement

From junior high school on, girls report lower estimations of their math ability and express more negative attitudes about math than do boys, despite equivalent performance in grades. Parents show this same sex-typed bias. This paper examines the role that attributions may play in explaining these sex differences in parents' perceptions of their children's math ability. Mothers and fathers of 48 junior high school boys and girls of high, average, and low math ability completed questionnaires about their perceptions of their child's ability and effort in math, and their causal attributions for their child's successful and unsuccessful math performances. Parents' math-related perceptions and attributions varied with their child's level of math ability and gender. Parents credited daughters with more effort than sons, and sons with more talent than daughters for successful math performances. These attributional patterns predicted sex-linked variations in parents' ratings of their child's effort and talent. No sex of child effects emerged for failure attributions; instead, lack of effort was seen as the most important, and lack of ability as the least important, cause of unsuccessful math performances for both boys and girls. Implications of these attributions for parents' influence on children's developing self-concept of math ability, future expectancies, and subsequent achievement behaviors are discussed.This paper is based on a master's thesis by the first author. This research was funded by grants to Jacquelynne S. Eccles from the following agencies: the Foundation for Child Development, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Child Health and Development.We wish to express our thanks to Linda Buford, Sandra Hamman, and Samuel D. Miller, who helped collect and code these data, and especially to the parents, students, and teachers in the Ann Arbor Public School district, whose cooperation made this project possible.     

The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions

Purpose

Drawing mainly upon Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART), we clarify and underscore the role of attribution dimensions (personal control, external control, and stability) in forming applicant fairness perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral reactions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Students seeking (or about to seek) jobs (N = 264) participated in an experimental study in which procedural justice rules and outcome favorability (selected or rejected) were manipulated. Participants reported their attributions, fairness perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Hypotheses were tested through SEM and bootstrapping.

Findings

Applicant attributions were predicted by outcome favorability and the extent to which the interview process satisfied/violated procedural justice rules. In line with AART, process fairness perceptions mediated relationships between applicant attribution dimensions and both organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Organizations should satisfy justice rules in employee selection processes because such rules affect applicant attributions, which in turn predict perceptions and behavioral intentions. In addition to identifying antecedents and consequences of fairness perceptions, antecedents and consequences of applicant attributions should be investigated, as both relate to important organizational outcomes.

Originality/Value

This study is one of a very few to test propositions from AART. Through an experimental design of high internal validity, we show that outcome favorability and the satisfaction/violation of justice rules predict job applicant attributions (personal control, external control, and stability). We further show that applicants’ attributions explain unique variance in their perceptions of the employing organization and in their behavioral intentions (e.g., recommend organization to others; litigate) beyond that explained by selection outcome and fairness perceptions.     

Who Delivers Justice? Source Perceptions of Procedural Fairness1

Tyler and Bies (1990) argue that how leaders enact and apply formal procedures can affect perceptions of procedural fairness as much as the formal procedures themselves. This study examined directly the extent to which workers see either formal policies and procedures or their supervisors as the source most responsible for the procedural fairness they receive in their performance evaluations. Group differences in these source perceptions between exempt and nonexempt workers were also explored. Results indicate that workers attribute the responsibility for procedural fairness jointly and independently to both their organization's formal policies and procedures and to their supervisors. Results at the group level of analysis indicate that nonexempt workers perceive formal policies and procedures to be more responsible for procedural fairness than do exempt workers. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Rich man, poor man: Developmental differences in attributions and perceptions

In an examination guided by cognitive developmental and attribution theory of how explanations of wealth and poverty and perceptions of rich and poor people change with age and are interrelated, 6-, 10-, and 14-year-olds (N=88) were asked for their causal attributions and trait judgments concerning a rich man and a poor man. First graders, like older children, perceived the rich man as more competent than the poor man. However, they had difficulty in explaining wealth and poverty, especially poverty, and their trait perceptions were associated primarily with their attributions of wealth to job status, education, and luck. Fifth and ninth graders more clearly attributed wealth and poverty to the equity factors of ability and effort and based their trait perceptions on these attributions. Although the use of structured attribution questions revealed more understanding among young children than previous studies have suggested, the findings suggest a shift with age in the underlying bases for differential evaluation of rich and poor people from a focus on good outcomes associated with wealth (a good education and job) to a focus on personal qualities responsible for wealth (ability and effort).     

Impression (Mis) Management When Communicating Success

People routinely engage in impression management, for example, by highlighting successes. It is not yet known how people attribute their success (to talent vs. effort) to give a positive impression. Three experiments explore this question and test whether people’s attributions of success receive favor from their audience. The findings show that, in impression management situations (e.g., job interview or date), people communicate their effort less than audiences would prefer. Thus, success alone may not be enough to make a positive impression on others; emphasizing effort as the cause for success also matters.     

Anticipating the inevitable: When leader and member attribution styles clash

This article supported the hypothesis that leaders’ and members’ attribution styles have interactive effects on members’ perceptions of the quality of their leader–member relations. Across two samples, results revealed an interactive effect such that members’ perceptions of poor leader–member relations were most accentuated when they were biased toward external and unstable attributions (i.e. optimistic attributions) for their negative outcomes, while their leaders were biased toward attributing negative outcomes to the internal and stable characteristics of the members (i.e. pessimistic attribution styles). In Study 2, results indicated that the members’ perceptions of distributive and procedural justice mediated the interactive effects of leader pessimism and member optimism on relationship quality.     

The Role of Job Relatedness and Self‐efficacy in Applicant Perceptions of Fairness in a High‐stakes Selection Setting

This article presents results from two samples of applicants (total N = 368) for general practitioner posts in the United Kingdom. The roles of job relatedness and self‐efficacy in fairness perceptions were explored, with data gathered at two time points: immediately after testing and one month later following outcome (pass/fail) feedback. Overall, results indicated that in two samples, job relatedness perceptions measured at the time of testing predicted fairness perceptions measured following outcome feedback. In addition, the stage in the selection process (shortlisting vs. assessment center) was important in determining the extent to which job relatedness perceptions predicted fairness. Findings also suggest that self‐efficacy may be a predictor, rather than an outcome variable, in applicant fairness perceptions in this high‐stakes setting. Results are discussed in relation to their practical and theoretical implications.     

Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader

Leadership perception is based on (a) a recognition-based process that involves categorization of leaders’ characteristics into relevant stereotypes; and (b) an inference-based process that involves making attributions for leaders’ characteristics based on outcomes of salient events ([Lord and Maher, 1993]). The present study examined the interactive effects of these two alternative processes of leadership perceptions on attributions of charisma cross-culturally. Groups of participants from either a collectivistic culture (Turkey) or an individualistic culture (United States) read a vignette about a prototypical or antiprototypical leader (manipulation of recognition-based process) whose company produced a slight or significant increase in sales (manipulation of inference-based process). The results showed that the co-occurrence of these two processes produced optimal attribution of charisma to the leader. In addition, the leaders’ prototypical characteristics were more effective in forming a leadership impression in an individualistic culture, whereas collectivistic people made attributions based on the company performance outcome.     

The role of ability and effort in attributions for sport achievement1

In an initial attempt to assess the applicability of Weiner's (1972) attribution model to sport-related behavior, the effects of ability (high versus low), effort (high versus low) and outcome (success versus failure) on causal attributions were investigated. After riding a bicycle ergometer, subjects were asked to attribute the cause of their increased or decreased performance to ability, effort, task difficulty and/or luck. The results indicated that successful outcomes were attributed to both ability and effort and that unsuccessful outcomes were attributed to a lack of ability but not a lack of effort. While the task was seen as easier following success, the perception of low effort mediated this relationship. The results were interpreted to support a situationally specific conceptualization of sport achievement. First, whereas a motivational bias appears to preclude low ability attributions in intellectual pursuits, such is not the case with a novel physical task contingent on strength and muscular endurance. It was suggested that physiologically related ability may be viewed as relatively unstable. Second, relative to intellectual tasks, sport-related effort may be more salient and more quantifiable and may exert a greater influence on subsequent attributions for sport achievement. Finally, support was obtained for the assertions that affect is codetermined by both effort and ability and that expectancy discrepant performance is accounted for largely by perceptions of task difficulty.     

Re‐examining the effects of noncontingent success on self‐handicapping behaviour

Background: Self‐handicapping refers to the practice on the part of certain individuals to handicap their performance when poor performance is likely to reveal low ability. Noncontingent success (feedback that is inflated relative to performance) is more likely to promote self‐handicapping behaviour than noncontingent failure (failure feedback based on false or misleading information). However, the reasons for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback on self‐handicapping behaviour remain obscure. Aims: The present study sought an explanation for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback, testing the assumption that students high in self‐handicapping behaviour would react more negatively following noncontingent success, reporting more unstable and external attributions, higher anxiety, and a greater propensity to claim handicaps than those low in self‐handicapping behaviour. No differences were expected on any of these measures for high relative to low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. Sample: Participants were 72 undergraduate students, divided equally between high and low self‐handicapping groups. Method: High and low self‐handicappers were assigned to one of three performance feedback conditions: noncontingent failure, success and noncontingent success. High and low self‐handicappers were then given an opportunity to claim handicaps prior to completing measures of attributions and state anxiety. Subsequently, they completed 12 remote associate tasks, serving as an assessment of performance, and 16 unicursal tasks, assessing practice effort. Results: Following noncontingent success, high self‐handicappers reported greater anxiety, more unproductive attributions and claimed more handicaps than low self‐handicappers. However no differences were evident for high and low self‐handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. High self‐handicappers also performed poorly on the remote associates tasks and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks.     

Buying and building success: Perceptions of organizational strategies for improvement

What makes people like a team? We suggest and test here whether people’s perceptions of teams and organizations differ as a function of the strategy the teams pick on their way to success. Two main strategies are compared: (1) Development is a strategy focused on building and enhancing the abilities of current team members; and (2) Acquisition is a strategy focused on buying talent from outside the organization. Does the way to success matter? In other words, will the strategy a team endorse affects how much people like the team? In five studies (N = 1,672) we tested whether people prefer teams that were successful by being (a) built through long-term development of team members or (b) bought by acquiring expensive personal developed elsewhere. Across the five studies, people preferred built teams over bought teams, including sport teams and law firms. Effort and group cohesion were more attributed to build than to bought teams. In a “mediators contest,” effort attributions proved most robust. People like built teams more than bought ones, mostly because they value the effort and hard work that built teams represent.     

Attributional bias instrument (ABI): validation of a measure to assess ability and effort explanations for math performance

The present work investigates the validation of a newly developed instrument, the attributional bias instrument, based on achievement attribution theories that distinguish between effort and ability explanations of behavior. The instrument further incorporates the distinction between explanations for success versus failure in academic performance. An important characteristic of the instrument is that it can be used to assess biased attributions. For instance, attributional gender bias is the tendency to generate different attributions (explanations) for female versus male students’ performance in math. Whereas boys’ successes in math are attributed to ability, girls’ successes are attributed to effort; conversely, boys’ failures in math are attributed to a lack of effort and girls’ failures to a lack of ability. Previous research has shown this bias to be committed by teachers, parents, and students themselves. In the present study, high school students in Mexico were administered the instrument and asked to generate attributions for their successes and failures in math. Findings revealed: (1) a factor analysis confirmed the proposed structure of the instrument, (2) boys and girls committed the attributional gender bias, replicating effects in U.S. samples, and (3) additional analyses involving related measures further supported valid use of the instrument.     

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Do educators assign them a fully human status?

The present research investigates the humanity attributions to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). In three studies, professional educators, who worked in day‐care or community centers, were examined. Humanity attributions were assessed using emotion‐based and trait‐based measures. As expected, individuals with IDD were denied a fully human status: they were perceived as having more non‐uniquely than uniquely human attributes. Furthermore, a lower human status was assigned to individuals with IDD in relation to educators. We also discovered that humanity attributions, but not attitudes, were related to approach/avoidance responses. Altogether, findings show the importance of considering humanity perceptions in the study of social relationships of individuals with IDD. Dehumanizing perceptions can explain the differential treatment these individuals face in various social settings.     

Group Status and Hierarchy Legitimacy Effects on Effort Versus Ability Attributions for Ingroup and Outgroup Failures

Previous research has shown that people have a tendency to explain various outcomes in ways that favour their ingroup. However, there is also some evidence that this tendency may be moderated by perceptions of group status and hierarchy legitimacy. In this study, we experimentally test the combined effects of group status and hierarchy legitimacy on effort and ability attributions for ingroup and outgroup failures. It was predicted that participants assigned to an illegitimately low status condition would attribute ingroup but not outgroup failure more to a lack of effort than ability. Conversely, participants assigned to a legitimately high status group were expected to attribute ingroup but not outgroup failure more to a lack of effort than ability. Results supported these predictions and also showed outgroup failure was attributed more to a lack of effort than ability when ingroup status was either legitimately low or illegitimately high. We conclude that intergroup attributions are constrained by perceptions about relative group status and the legitimacy of the status hierarchy.     

Attributions for Exam Performance

The expectancy confirmation and egotism approaches to attributions in achievement settings are contrasted in this study. It was found that students in two psychology classes expected to do well on their exams and that these expectations were based on internal factors (ability, effort). Post-test attributions were determined almost entirely by the simple valence of the outcome (success-failure). High outcomes were associated with internal attributions and low outcomes were associated with external attributions. It appears that students who perform poorly avoid the blame for failure by making ego-defensive external attributions and that these attributions enable them to make unreasonably high predictions for future performance. Some limited support was found for the notion that attribution may be affected by the degree to which outcomes confirm or disconfirm expectations.     

Comparing two attributional models of job performance in retail sales: A field study

Research investigating attributional style and job performance among sales staff has been limited by its focus on specific sales roles: notably selling insurance by telephone. Important questions therefore remain regarding the mechanism by which attributions influence job performance in sales roles more generally. This paper describes a field study comparing two attributional models of job performance: (1) a learned helplessness (LH) model, and (2) an achievement motivation (AM) model. Managers' performance ratings were collected for 452 retail sales assistants who completed a job‐specific attribution questionnaire and a work‐satisfaction questionnaire. Results indicate that sales assistants who made more internalcontrollable attributions for positive outcomes received higher performance ratings (r =.20, p<.01) and were more satisfied in their work (r =.12, p< .05). The findings provide support for an AM model of job performance among retail sales assistants. They suggest that more successful sales assistants proactively manage their environment in order to create opportunities for successful interactions with customers.     

Using Attributions to Understand the Effects of Explanations on Applicant Reactions: Are Reactions Consistent With the Covariation Principle?1

Research has shown that explanations for selection decisions may influence a variety of applicant perceptions and behavior, but an understanding of how and why this occurs remains largely unknown. This study attempts to understand the effects of explanations by adopting Kelley's (1967, 1972) covariation model of the attribution process. Specifically, explanations that vary on consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency covariation information should produce predictable effects on applicant perceptions and attributions. Results from 2 studies, the first a laboratory study and the second a field study with actual applicants, support the utility of the covariation model for understanding the influence of explanations for selection decisions on locus attributions, fairness, self‐perceptions, and organizational attractiveness. These results suggest that the covariation model may be a useful means to construe the explanation‐attribution‐perception relationship, and thus provide a number of theoretical and practical implications.     

Measurements effects in reattribution research

In studies investigating the effects of reattribution training, reattributing to effort is confounded with forcing subjects to think about causes of their performance. An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects on performance of having people think about causes of outcomes by means of measuring attributions for success or failure. The results indicate that measurement has a beneficial effect on performance after failure. Measurement of attributions after success does not affect performance or may even slightly deteriorate it. Explanations for these results are discussed.