Procedural fairness and self-esteem

We argue that people's self-esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self-esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self-esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self-esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.     

Dynamic adjustments of cognitive control during economic decision making

Decision making in the Ultimatum game requires the resolution of conflicts between economic self-interest and fairness intuitions. Since cognitive control processes play an important role in conflict resolution, the present study examined how control processes that are triggered by conflicts between fairness and self-interest in unfair offers affect subsequent decisions in the Ultimatum game. Our results revealed that more unfair offers were accepted following previously unfair, compared to previously fair offers. Interestingly, the magnitude of this conflict adaptation effect correlated with the individual subjects' focus on economic self-interest. We concluded that conflicts between fairness and self-interest trigger cognitive control processes, which reinforce the focus on the current task goal.     

A policy‐modeling approach to examining fairness judgments in organizational acquisitions

Organizational acquisitions may be characterized by the degree of friendliness or hostility as well as the degree of autonomy or absorption of the organizations following the merger. This study examined judgments of fairness across four types of organizational acquisitions. Students read fictitious newspaper accounts of a university acquisition and rated their expectations and perceptions of fairness about possible changes. Results indicated that in an acquisition, both the procedures used and the outcomes provided influenced how fair the acquisition was perceived. As predicted, the relative importance of procedures and outcomes in overall perceptions of fairness shifted depending on the context of the acquisition. As the desirability of the acquisition increased, individuals placed greater importance on the procedural elements. In a friendly and low integration acquisition, the processes and outcomes became equally important. Individuals faced with a high integration acquisition expected more unfair changes and fewer fair changes to occur. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance expectations play in perceptions of fairness. The type of acquisition will influence expectations for fair treatment. Under less desirable conditions (hostile and high‐integration mergers), organizations should take steps early in the process to manage fairness perceptions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effect of Mode of Adjudication,Presence of Defense Counsel,and Favorability of Verdict on Observers' Evaluation of a Criminal Trial1

In an experimental simulation, observers evaluated one of four different legal procedures in the presence of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome in a video-taped reenactment of a criminal trial. The procedures were adversarial, inquisitorial, adversarial without lawyer, and adversarial with plea bargaining. Data were gathered on the fairness and perceived satisfaction of the defendant with the final outcome, and quality of the defense and prosecution. Contrary to previous research, results showed that the several different procedures were seen as equally fair and legitimate, which suggests that how a procedure is implemented may be more important than its structural properties in observers' overall evaluations. It was also found that defendants are seen as least satisfied when the ostensibly fairest procedure (eg, adversarial) yields an unfavorable outcome. This finding supports a frustration interpretation and contradicts previous studies which report adversarial to be the most preferred dispute resolution procedure within all outcome conditions.     

Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments

Variation in decision making and allocation procedures has been shown to affect judgments of the fairness of the procedure and its outcome, but such effects have always been studied in the context of properly enacted procedures. It was hypothesized that the appearance of impropriety in the enctment of a fair procedure would increase the extent to which the procedure is judged in terms of its outcome. One hundred twenty undergraduate males and females were placed in the role of either defendant or observer with respect to an adversary procedure trial. Appearance of impropriety was manipulated during the trial by either including or not including evidence of a friendly personal relationship between the judge and the plaintiff's lawyer. The defendant was said to have either won or lost the case. A significant impropriety × outcome interaction on ratings of procedural fairness, unqualified by higher order effect, supported the hypothesis: a favorable outcome increased and an unfavorable outcome decreased the fairness of the procedure more when the impropriety was present. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for future investigation and theory on procedural justice and for practical issues.     

Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures: The Role of Selection Information,Belief in Tests,and Comparative Anxiety

This study addresses the effects of the provision of information on the reliability and validity of selection procedures and the effects of test–taker attitudes (i.e., belief in tests and comparative anxiety) on fairness perceptions. Prior to an actual selection process, applicants (N= 118) were given either information about the reliability and validity of various selection procedures or no information. Next, they evaluated the fairness of eight selection procedures. No significant effect of selection information was found. Belief in tests had significant effects, with applicants high on test belief giving higher fairness ratings than applicants low on test belief. In addition, an interaction effect between test belief and selection procedure was found. For example, test belief had larger effects on fairness for structured interviews, personality inventories, and cognitive ability tests. No significant effect of comparative anxiety on fairness was found.     

Predicting the Outcomes of Disputes: Consequences for Disputant Reactions to Procedures and Outcomes1

Third parties in dispute settings often make predictions to disputants regarding the likely outcome of their dispute at arbitration. However, virtually no research has examined the impact of predictions on disputant satisfaction with dispute resolution procedures and outcomes. One explanation for the lack of attention to this variable may be that current theorizing regarding dispute resolution procedures is too narrowly stated to incorporate this procedural variation. Theories about predictability from nondispute settings are used to generate hypotheses regarding the consequences of such outcome prediction. In a laboratory setting, disputants prepared arguments in anticipation of an arbitration hearing. Prior to the arbitrator's decision, the experimenter read the disputants' arguments and made a prediction regarding the arbitrator's decision. Their arguments were then presented to an arbitrator who imposed a binding decision. Dependent measures include the disputants' anxiety while awaiting the arbitrator's decision, and their postdecision satisfaction with dispute resolution procedures and outcomes. Internal analyses support the hypothesis that outcome prediction has benefits for disputants' predecision coping, ratings of procedural fairness, and satisfaction judgments. Also, as hypothesized, correct predictions produced greater postdecision satisfaction with outcomes and decision-makers than did incorrect predictions.     

The Effects of Leader Fairness and Pay Outcomes on Superior/Subordinate Relations1

This study assessed the effects of procedurally fair leadership and payment outcomes on subordinate reactions to the supervisor in a pay-for-performance task. Procedurally fair leadership was operationalized by the extent to which supervisors enacted three specific behaviors: facilitation of voice, accuracy, and adherence to formal policies and procedures. The payment outcomes were high and low cash payments for performance evaluated as above or below average. Subordinate reactions to these treatments focused on perceptions of supervisory fairness (both procedural and distributive) and the subordinate's relationship with his or her supervisor (in terms of both satisfaction and commitment). Procedurally fair leadership showed a main effect on subordinate perceptions of leader fairness and on their relationship with the leader. No other effects were noted. Implications are discussed.     

Equity,equality, and the protestant ethic: Allocating rewards following fair and unfair competition

Female undergraduates scoring high and low on the Mirels-Garrett Protestant Ethic (PE) Scale divided a fixed reward between themselves and a co-worker following competition on a clerical task. Half the subjects were told that they had either won or lost in fair competition. The remaining subjects were told they had either won or lost because of an error that gave a favorable advantage to one of the performers. When the competition was fair, high PEs distributed the rewards available according to an equity norm, keeping more than half when they won and less than half when they lost. When the competition was unfair, high PEs attempted to reestablish fairness by compensating the performer with the unfair disadvantage. However, low PEs kept approximately half the reward regardless of fairness and regardless of whether they won or lost.     

The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment

To help employees better manage work-life conflict, organizations have introduced various initiatives, which have met with mixed results. The present studies examined the utility of a procedurally based approach to understanding employees' reactions to work-life conflict. The authors examined whether the fairness of procedures used by organizational authorities to plan and implement decisions moderates the (inverse) relationship between work-life conflict and employees' organizational commitment. Three studies using different methodologies showed support for the moderating role played by procedural fairness. That is, the tendency for greater work-life conflict to lead to lower commitment was significantly less pronounced when procedural fairness was high rather than low. Theoretical contributions to the work-life conflict and organizational justice literatures are discussed, as are practical implications.     

Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control

Research on procedural justice has suggested that the distribution of control among participants can be used to classify dispute-resolution procedures and may be an important determinant of preference for such procedures. This experiment demonstrates that control can be meaningfully divided into two components: control over the presentation of evidence and control over the final decision. The experiment placed subjects (law students and undergraduates) in a situation of conflict and varied two between-subjects factors: (1) Role, whether subjects expected to role-play third parties (law students) or litigants (undergraduates), and (2) Orientation, whether individuals focused on equity claims (appeals to a norm of fairness) or legal claims (appeals to a strict, legal interpretation of events). As a control, a third-party neutral-orientation condition was included. In addition, subjects were presented with four dispute-resolution procedures which varied in third-party control over the presentation of evidence (Process Control) and third-party control over the final decision (Decision Control) as within-subjects factors. Results revealed that both litigants and third parties preferred high rather than low third-party decision control. Litigants with an equity orientation preferred low third-party control over the presentation of evidence, particularly when third parties had high rather than low decision control. Third parties and litigants with a legal orientation preferred low rather than high third-party process control only when there was high third-party decision control. Litigant preferences were more affected by variation in process control than variation in decision control while third-party preferences were more affected by variation in decision control than in process control. As a check on external validity, military judges given a neutral orientation were asked to evaluate and express preferences for the four dispute-resolution procedures. Their results were not detectably different from those of the law students who role-played third parties in the main portion of the study.     

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.     

Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication1

An important aspect of conflict resolution by judgment of a third party is the extent to which participants and observers are satisfied that both the procedure and the outcome are fair and impartial. Male undergraduates participated in a business simulation, which resulted in a controversy placing them in the position of defendants in a trial. An examination was then made of the effects of adversary and nonadversary procedures, prior belief about guilt, and favorableness of the judgment on participant subjects’perceptions of the adjudication. Another group of subjects who had no prior information about the guilt or innocence of the defendent served as observers. Participant subjects viewed the adversary procedure as most fair and satisfying. They were also most satisfied with judgments resulting from the adversary procedure, independently of pretrial belief or favorableness of verdict. Participants also preferred innocent to guilty verdicts, regardless of their pretrial belief. Subjects who held a pretrial belief of innocence were particularly dissatisfied with guilty verdicts and with the nonadversary trial procedure. Observers also found the adversary procedure to be most fair, and expressed a preference for innocent verdicts.     

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.     

Who Would Claim to Be That,Who Was Not? Evaluations of an Ethnic Validation Procedure

We investigated the fairness implications of a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership. In addition, procedural justifications, or justifications before the procedure were tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced. Of 2 procedural justifications—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the NSF justification was hypothesized as being perceived as more fair. Results showed that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair under most conditions. Additionally, results indicated that procedural justifications influenced evaluations of the degree of fairness of the procedure. Implications for Lumbee American Indian Federal recognition are discussed.     

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.     

Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure

A review of recent research demonstrates that people are more willing to accept decisions when they feel that those decisions are made through decision‐making procedures they view as fair. Studies of procedural justice judgements further suggest that people evaluate fairness primarily through criteria that can be provided to all the parties to a conflict: whether there are opportunities to participate; whether the authorities are neutral; the degree to which people trust the motives of the authorities; and whether people are treated with dignity and respect during the process. These findings are optimistic and suggest that authorities have considerable ability to bridge differences and interests and values through the use of fair decision‐making procedures. The limits to the effectiveness of such procedural approaches are also outlined.     

Contextualizing Procedural Fairness: Factors Mediating the Effect of Process Control on Leadership Evaluation in Organizations

Two studies were conducted to examine contextual mediators of the relationship between process control and evaluations of authority in organizations. Specifically, the studies investigated the role in this relationship of intragroup conflict, the necessity for future cooperation, and group members' level of experience. In Study 1, subjects with current experience working in schools were led to believe that future cooperation among teachers in a hypothetical school was important, and thus were more likely to give a favorable evaluation to a leader who used a decision-making procedure lacking in process control than were subjects who had not worked in a school. The experienced subjects in the future cooperation condition also judged that cooperation among group members would more likely be saved by this procedure. In Study 2 -- a survey conducted in several elementary and high schools -- experienced teachers who perceived considerable need for future cooperation in their schools placed less emphasis on process control when they evaluated their supervisors. Results suggest the need for further examination of group and individual factors as mediators of the procedural fairness effect in organizations.     

阶段转移事件对公平稳定性的影响

摘要：目前,组织公平的研究多集中于组织公平与组织结果变量之间关系,较少关注组织公平的稳定性。本文采取4（公平模式：公平控制/初始公平/不公平控制/初始不公平）×2（实验阶段：阶段1/阶段2）混合实验设计,探讨阶段转移事件对被试公平反应稳定性的影响。研究结果显示,公平对待导致积极的公平反应,不公平对待导致消极的公平反应;公平程序向不公平程序的转移导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向的评价显著降低;而不公平程序向公平程序的转移并没有导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向评价的显著增加,从而说明了公平反应的有限稳定性。     

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.