Shaping cooperation behavior: The role of accessibility experiences and uncertainty

The present research investigates the influence on cooperative behavior of accessibility experiences associated with the retrieval of fairness‐relevant information from memory. We argue that the decision whether to cooperate in negotiations depends not only on information about the appropriateness of the negotiation procedure, but also on the experience of how difficult or easy it is to come up with this information. Supporting this hypothesis, it is shown that in the context of a bargaining experiment, participants' experiences of ease or difficulty in retrieving unfair aspects of the respective negotiation procedure strongly influence their cooperation behavior. In addition, we hypothesize and empirically substantiate that the influence of accessibility experiences on cooperation behavior occurs particularly in situations of certainty salience. Implications for future research on cooperation and on accessibility experiences are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ease‐of‐retrieval effects on procedural justice judgements under conditions of informational and personal uncertainty

This study tests whether individuals' reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval processes when forming procedural justice judgements are moderated by informational and personal uncertainty. In Studies 1 and 2 we examined the predicted effects of informational uncertainty. Results indicated that participants in information‐uncertain conditions relied on ease‐of‐retrieval, whereas those in information‐certain conditions relied on content information to make procedural justice judgements. In Study 3 we examined the combined effects of informational uncertainty and personal uncertainty on reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval when forming procedural justice judgements. The findings of Study 3 indicated that personal uncertain participants who were in informational certain conditions based their procedural justice judgements on content information, whereas all other participants based their procedural justice judgements on ease‐of‐retrieval. This is the first paper to demonstrate that the joint effect of informational uncertainty and personal uncertainty on reliance on ease‐of‐retrieval is different from the two uncertainties acting alone.     

The Social Construction of Injustice: Fairness Judgments in Response to Own and Others' Unfair Treatment by Authorities

The research literature in organizational justice has examined in some detail the dynamics and consequences of justice judgments based on direct experiences with fair and unfair authorities, but little is known about how people form justice judgments on the basis of reports of injustice by others or how group discussion changes justice judgments. The present study examined the consequences of distributed injustice, in which all members of a group experience some denial of voice, and concentrated injustice, in which one member experiences repeated denial of voice and others do not. It was predicted and found that mild personal experiences of injustice are a more potent source of group impressions of injustice than are reports of more severe injustice experienced by others. In both conditions, group ratings of unfairness were more extreme than were the mean of individual ratings either before or after discussion.     

When Fluency Signals Truth: Prior Successful Reliance on Fluency Moderates the Impact of Fluency on Truth Judgments

Repeated statements are more frequently judged to be true. One position relates this so‐called “truth effect” to metacognitive experiences of fluency, suggesting that repeated statements are more frequently judged to be true because they are processed more fluently. Although most prior research focused on why repetition influences truth judgments, considerably less is known about when fluency is used as information. The present research addresses this question and investigates whether reliance on fluency is moderated by learning experiences. Specifically, we focus on changes in the reliance on fluency over the course of time. A series of experiments reveals that fluency is more likely to be used in truth judgments when previous reliance on fluency has resulted in valid judgments, compared with when previous reliance on fluency was misleading. These findings suggest that reliance on fluency in judgments is a finely tuned process that takes prior experiences with fluency‐based judgments into account. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Age and Trust as Moderators in the Relation between Procedural Justice and Turnover: A Large‐Scale Longitudinal Study

The current study investigated the moderating roles of age and trust in the relation of procedural justice with turnover. It was expected that the relation between procedural justice and turnover was weaker for older workers and those with high prior trust in their leader. Older workers are better at regulating their emotions, and focus more on positive aspects of their relationships with others, and therefore react less intensely to unfair treatment. Moreover, people with high trust are more likely to attribute unfair treatment to circumstances instead of deliberate intention than people with low trust. Finally, we expected a three‐way interaction between age, trust, and procedural justice in relation to turnover, where older workers with high trust would have less strong reactions than younger workers and older workers with low trust. Results from a three‐wave longitudinal survey among 1,597 Dutch employees indeed revealed significant interactions between trust and procedural justice in relation to turnover. Furthermore, the three‐way interaction was significant, with negative relations for younger workers, but a non‐significant relation was found for older workers with low trust. Contrary to expectations, negative relations were found between procedural justice and turnover for older workers with high trust.     

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.     

不确定性、情绪对公正判断的影响

本研究以不确定管理模型为理论来源,采用实验法探讨了公正判断中的情绪效应。实验1采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×4（四种结果：比自己多/一样多/比自己少/不知道）被试间设计。实验2采用2（两种情绪状态：愉快/愤怒）×3（三种程序：有发言权/外显无发言权/无发言权信息）被试间设计。分别考察了分配公正与程序公正判断中的情绪影响。结果发现：不确定性调节了情绪与公平判断之间的关系。当用于公平判断的外部信息不明确时,情绪充当了公平判断的线索。     

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.     

Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice

We propose that self-uncertainty moderates responsiveness to perceived variations (e.g., breaches or provisions) in procedural justice. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals are more responsive to variations in procedural justice, because they use procedural information to infer their organizational acceptance, respect, or social standing. In six experiments, high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals responded with affective, cognitive, and behavioral intensity to perceived variations in procedural justice. In particular, they felt worse, judged the procedure as unfair, and were unwilling to cooperate when they were deprived (as opposed to granted) voice. However, this pattern was cancelled out when these individuals engaged in a self-affirming activity. The findings establish the self in general, and self-uncertainty in particular, as a crucial moderator of responses to procedural information.     

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.     

STATUS AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY: HOW ORGANIZATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL STATUS AFFECT JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS OF HIRING SYSTEMS

Despite the fact that cognitive ability tests are highly predictive of job applicants’ future performance, these tests are often viewed as procedurally unfair by both hiring managers and job applicants. In this paper, we build on existing rationales by theorizing that status—both personal and organizational—may affect individuals’ procedural justice perceptions of selection tests. In 2 quasi‐experimental studies representing 435 managers and executives across both the United States and United Kingdom, we demonstrate that status is a double‐edged sword: helpful for high‐status organizations that use demanding selection tests to choose applicants but harmful because high‐status job applicants view these selection tests as more procedurally unjust than low‐status applicants.     

Habitual self-regulatory orientation and ease-of-retrieval: Regulatory focus qualifies the impact of subjective experiences in judgment

Eager strategies of self-regulation, known as promotion orientation, and cautious or vigilant strategies of self-regulation, known as prevention orientation, have been found to be associated with distinct patterns of goal attainment and information exploration. Building on these findings, we hypothesize that self-regulation in a promotion versus prevention focus triggers specific patterns of information use in judgment. Specifically, we predict that reliance on ease-of-retrieval??the feeling of ease or difficulty associated with accessing information??is particularly pronounced with a predominant promotion- compared to prevention-orientation. Two experiments that manipulate ease-of-retrieval and assess habitual differences in regulatory focus orientation support this prediction. The current contribution thus extends previous research by documenting that habitual tendencies of promotion-oriented as compared to prevention-oriented self-regulation are associated with reliance on distinct information sources in judgment.     

A multi-dimensional model of the origins of attitude certainty: teachers’ attitudes toward attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

This research tested and extended a laboratory-derived model of the origins of attitude certainty using a real attitude object: Teaching children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In Study 1, an experiment manipulated the amount of information, thought, and consistency of information delivered to pre-service teachers ( $n = 224$ ) with no prior experience with ADHD. Structural equation modelling (SEM) of Study 1 did not support the original model, in which relationships between attitude certainty and objective knowledge, thought, and consistency were mediated by perceived knowledge, thought, and ambivalence. Instead, objective amount of information, thought, and consistency interacted in their effect on attitude certainty. Study 2 ( $n = 368$ ) used a survey to test whether experiences with ADHD (personal, direct and indirect) among in-service and pre-service teachers were antecedents of attitude certainty, and to test perceived accessibility as a mediator. SEM supported both these hypotheses. Perceived accessibility and perceived knowledge mediated the relationship between attitude certainty and prior experiences with ADHD, and between attitude certainty and objective knowledge. Together, the results suggest that psychological processes underlying strong attitude certainty differ according to the familiarity and personal relevance of the attitude object, and the context and stage of attitude formation. The results have practical utility for teacher training at pre-service and in-service levels.     

The multi-value basis of procedural justice

Three experiments demonstrate that multiple values can account for the relation between respectful treatment and judgments of procedural fairness. The Group Value Theory of procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988) asserts that respectful treatment is viewed as fair because it communicates positive information about one's standing within one's group. We propose that other values introduced in other contexts, including a desire for positive intergroup standing, and self-interest, will also mediate the relation between respect and procedural fairness. Three experiments are reported in which individuals have encounters with ingroup or outgroup members who treat them respectfully or disrespectfully. Results from these experiments support this multiple value model by showing that: (1) Each of the value judgments of intragroup standing, intergroup standing, and self-interest has positive direct effects on procedural fairness; and (2) The effect of respect on procedural fairness is mediated by each of these value judgments. Additionally, evidence is summarized that is generally supportive of a third, ancillary hypothesis: (3) The meaning of respect varies across contexts that highlight different values. These findings suggest that theorizing about procedural fairness will benefit by recognizing the multiply-determined and contextually-dependent nature of procedural fairness.     

How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority’s biased attitudes

The authors focus on the effects an authority’s apparent inconsistency between persons on judgments of relational treatment and procedural justice following negative procedures (i.e., procedures that people commonly regard as unfair). In Experiment 1, participants responded most negatively following a procedure that denied them, but granted another participant, an opportunity to voice an opinion when the intergroup context raised suspicions of bias (i.e., when both the experimenter and another participant were outgroup members). In Experiment 2, participants responded most negatively when the experimenter had expressed biased attitudes in favor of another participant, but this effect occurred only following procedures that denied participants a voice opportunity. We conclude that authority’s biased attitudes help people to make sense of negative procedure information.     

The malleable meaning of subjective ease

People can generate the same thoughts or process the same information with different degrees of ease, and this subjective experience has implications for attitudes and social judgment. In prior research, it has generally been assumed that the experience of ease or fluency is interpreted by people as something good. In the two experiments reported here, the meaning or value of ease was directly manipulated, and the implications for evaluative judgments were explored. Across experiments, we replicated the traditional ease-of-retrieval effect (more thought-congruent attitudes when thoughts were easy rather than difficult to generate) when ease was described as positive, but we reversed this effect when ease was described as negative. These findings suggest that it is important to consider both the content of metacognition (e.g., "those thoughts were easy to generate") and the value associated with that content (e.g., "ease is good" or "ease is bad").     

Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves?

Previous research has shown that people's self-esteem and their group-oriented behavior are influenced by their judgments about the status of the groups to which they belong (pride) and assessments of their status within those groups (respect). These findings are important to justice researchers because the key antecedent of such status judgments is typically found to be the assessment of the fairness of group procedures (i.e., procedural justice). Research suggests that (1) procedural justice shapes status and that (2) status shapes self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. The paper reports the results of three studies comparing two different forms of these status judgments. The first form are autonomous judgments of pride and respect that are linked to the characteristics associated with membership in different groups. People link such judgments to inclusion or membership in the group. The second are comparative judgments of pride and respect that are linked to comparisons of one's status to the status of other people or groups. The results indicate that, within groups, people are influenced primarily by autonomous assessments of status based on their internal standards, which develop from the status associated with prototypical characteristics linked to inclusion in a group. People are less strongly influenced by comparisons of their status to the status of external comparison standards. Further, justice-based status inferences are shown to be primarily autonomous, and not comparative, in nature.     

Task difficulty reduces the left visual hemispace bias for judgments of emotion in chimeric faces

A prior study (Carbary, Almerigi, & Harris, 2001) of adults' judgments of emotional chimeric faces showed that the left visual hemispace (LVH) bias normally found on a free-viewing chimeric faces test is reduced when the task is judged to be difficult. Taking into account theory and research on hemispheric differences in styles, or strategies, of information processing, we proposed that the reduction was related to a change in these strategies. Two new experiments are presented that independently manipulate task difficulty and show the same task difficulty-related effect as in our prior study. Data are also presented suggesting that the strategy most commonly adopted for difficult judgments is part-based or feature-oriented, whereas the strategy most commonly adopted for easy judgments is reliance on "first impression."