Procedural Justice and Affirmative Action

There is widespread agreement among both supporters and opponents that affirmative action either must not violate any principle of equal opportunity or procedural justice, or if it does, it may do so only given current extenuating circumstances. Many believe that affirmative action is morally problematic, only justified to the extent that it brings us closer to the time when we will no longer need it. In other words, those that support affirmative action believe it is acceptable in nonideal theory, but not ideal theory. This paper argues that affirmative action is entirely compatible with equal opportunity and procedural justice and would be even in an ideal world. I defend a new analysis of Rawlsian procedural justice according to which it is permissible to interfere in the outcomes of procedures, and thus I show that affirmative action is not morally problematic in the way that many have supposed.     

公正的启发理论述评

组织公正感包括分配公正、程序公正、互动公正等重要的组成要素。尽管这些公正感的构成要素有不同的内涵和影响因素,然而在许多情况下,这些要素之间有较高的一致性。与过去注重这些要素的差异性相反,Lind看到了这些公正感要素之间的一致性,提出了试图整合这些一致性的公正理论：公正的启发理论。该文比较全面地介绍了公正的启发理论的含义,如何启发等核心概念,并对启发理论存在的问题进行了分析,指出了启发理论研究的方向。     

同事公正氛围：构念、测量、效能与展望

以往对公正氛围的探讨主要集中于源自权威的公正氛围上,而对来自同事的公正氛围关注较少。同事公正氛围是指团队成员对团队内同事之间相互对待公正性的共同知觉。本文首先对比总结界定了同事公正氛围的概念,明晰了其结构维度与测量工具,然后着重梳理评价了同事公正氛围的影响效能。未来研究应致力于：加强探讨同事公正氛围的前因变量,探讨同事公正氛围影响效能的内在机制和边界条件,运用纵向设计研究同事公正氛围的形成机制及影响效能,以及探索同事公正氛围研究的本土化。     

Perceived Fairness of Promotion Procedures: Identification of Justice Rules and Consequences for Job Attitudes

Two studies were concerned with the perceived fairness of the promotion procedures adopted by a police organization. The first study used Leventhal's (1980) theory of procedural justice to analyse the reasons given by unsuccessful candidates for their appeals against the decision. A content analysis revealed that the rules of ‘consistency and accuracy’ accounted for 81.8% of all the reasons stated. The second study applied the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1989a; 1989b) to examining the effect of perceived procedural fairness on unsuccessful candidates' self-efficacy and job attitudes related to police work. Results show that ‘procedural fairness’ was predictive of ‘self-efficacy and procedural satisfaction’, both of which in turn predicted officers' organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Theoretical implications of the studies for procedural justice and social cognitive theory were discussed.     

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.     

Justice as a dynamic construct: effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes

Despite an amassing organizational justice literature, few studies have directly addressed the temporal patterning of justice judgments and the effects that changes in these perceptions have on important work outcomes. Drawing from Gestalt characteristics theory (Ariely & Carmon, 2000, 2003), we examine the concept of justice trajectories (i.e., levels and trends of individual fairness perceptions over time) and offer empirical evidence to highlight the value of considering fairness within a dynamic context. Participants included 523 working adults who completed surveys about their work experiences on 4 occasions over the course of 1 year. Results indicate that justice trends explained additional variance in distal work outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions) after controlling for end-state levels of justice, demonstrating the cumulative effects of justice over time. Findings also reveal that change in procedural justice perceptions affected distal work outcomes more strongly than any other justice dimension. Implications for theory and future investigations of justice as a dynamic construct are discussed.     

When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect

It is widely acknowledged that procedural justice has many positive effects. However, some evidence suggests that procedural justice may not always have positive effects and may even have negative effects. We present three studies that vary in method and participant populations, including an archival study, a field study, and an experiment, using data provided by the general American population, Indian software engineers, and undergraduate students in the US. We demonstrate that key work-related variables such as people’s job satisfaction and performance depend on procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and risk aversion such that risk seeking people react less positively and at times negatively to the same fair procedures that appeal to risk averse people. Our results suggest that one possible reason for these effects is that being treated fairly reduces people’s perception of uncertainty in the environment and while risk averse people find low uncertainty desirable and react positively to it, risk seeking people do not. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of procedural justice including the uncertainty management model of fairness, the fair process effect, and fairness heuristic theory.     

Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence of justice climates

Justice climates are considered to be an emergent phenomenon, which originates in the cognition, affect and behaviors of individuals, but is amplified by their interactions and manifests itself as a collective construct (see Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). However, researchers have given little attention to the role of social interaction in the convergence of member justice perceptions in teams. Using conversational data from 372 students working in a team business simulation with two levels each of procedural treatment and outcome favorability, this study examines how treatment fairness arouses sensemaking in teams and the features of such sensemaking processes that give rise to shared justice perceptions. The results highlight an interactive effect of outcomes and procedures on team sensemaking, which is shown to influence justice climate strength. The results also provide insight into the effects of discussion content, intensity and duration on the emergence of justice climates.     

Prospects for an Inclusive Theory of Justice: The Case of Non‐Human Animals

In this article, I argue that there are three widely accepted views within contemporary theorising about justice that present barriers to accepting that non‐human animals possess direct entitlements of justice. These views are (1) that the basis of entitlements of justice is either contribution to a cooperative scheme for mutual advantage or the capacity to so contribute; (2) political liberalism, that is, the view that requirements for coercive state action can be justified only by appeal to the ideal of citizens as free and equal and the principles of justice that are entailed by that ideal; and (3) that the principles of justice apply directly to the institutions of what John Rawls calls the ‘basic structure of society’, and not to the conduct of individuals. I then consider several attempts to ground direct entitlements of justice for animals via modest revisions to one or more of these widely accepted views, and argue that they fail, and that, more generally, any such attempt must fail. I claim that any theory that can include direct entitlements for animals must reject (1) and at least one of (2) and (3), and that there are reasons to think that those who are inclined to endorse direct entitlements for animals are unlikely to be satisfied with any view that does not reject all three of the widely accepted views. I conclude by briefly noting some of the important implications of rejecting all of these views.     

Fair process revisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information

The competing views of fairness theory ( [Folger and Cropanzano, 1998] and [Folger and Cropanzano, 2001]) and fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) were tested by studying the effects of interactional (IJ), procedural (PJ), and distributive justice (knowledge of others’ outcomes [OO]) upon evaluations of outcome fairness and customer satisfaction. The participants, 369 undergraduates, were randomly allocated to scenario-based experimental conditions. A 2 (IJ) × 2 (PJ) × 4 (OO) MANOVA and stepdown analyses provided evidence of “fair process” across all levels of distributive justice for outcome fairness (p<.001) and satisfaction (p<.001), but only in relation to the effects of interactional justice. No such effects were found for procedural justice. Implications for the development of justice theory are discussed.     

Procedural Justice and Culture

The past fifteen years have seen the development of a considerable research literature on the social psychology of procedural justice (see Lind & Tyler, 1988, for a review). Procedural justice research reveals some serious shortcomings in the exchange theories that have traditionally dominated Western analyses of the social psychology of groups, and in so doing, the procedural justice literature has important ramifications for cross-cultural psychology. Results from a number of studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe show that individualistic, self-interest based models of human behaviour are insufficient to explain procedural justice phenomena. Instead, procedural justice effects frequently reveal strong group-oriented concerns and motivations even in cultural contexts generally thought to be characterized by individualistic orientations. The research literature also shows that if a group's procedures are judged to be fair, people are more likely to show group-oriented behaviour and to hold more favourable attitudes toward the group and its leaders. These findings have led to the development of a theory of justice judgments—the Lind and Tyler group-value theory—which is based on group norms and relations rather than on social exchange theory. We describe a general model of social behaviour that integrates group- and individually-oriented behaviour, and we discuss the implications of the model for social and cross-cultural psychology.     

Enhancing Procedural Justice in Local Government Budget and Tax Decision Making

Two studies examined criteria for procedural justice in the related contexts of local government budgeting (Study 1) and taxation (Study 2). Questionnaire data were gathered from 272 municipal police chiefs in Study 1 and 81 municipal property owners in Study 2, Regression analysis indicated that ethicality. accuracy, and bias suppression were signiticant ( p < 0.05) predictors of procedural justice in both studies. Other significant predictors of procedural justice in Study I were correctability and justification. However. the relationship between justification and procedural justice in Study I was negative. which is contrary to theory. The results suggest strategies that local government officials can use to enhance the perceived fairness of budget and tax decision-making procedures.     

THE PRECURSORS AND PRODUCTS OF JUSTICE CLIMATES: GROUP LEADER ANTECEDENTS AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDINAL CONSEQUENCES

Drawing on the organizational justice, organizational climate, leadership and personality, and social comparison theory literatures, we develop hypotheses about the effects of leader personality on the development of 3 types of justice climates (e.g., procedural, interpersonal, and informational) and the moderating effects of these climates on individual-level justice–attitude relationships. Largely consistent with the theoretically derived hypotheses, the results showed that leader (a) Agreeableness was positively related to procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice climates; (b) Conscientiousness was positively related to a procedural justice climate; and (c) Neuroticism was negatively related to all 3 types of justice climates. Further, consistent with social comparison theory, multilevel data analyses revealed that the relationship between individual justice perceptions and job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment) was moderated by justice climate such that the relationships were stronger when justice climate was high.     

Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

The literature on organizational justice has identified 3 key components of this process: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, we reasoned that employees may use perceptions of these 3 components as a basis for drawing inferences about the fairness of the organization as a whole (i.e., their perceptions of systemic justice). A field study was conducted on a sample of 232 employees working in various organizations. Results show that employees' perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice in their organizations positively predicted perceptions of systemic justice (i.e., that the organization was fair overall). Perceptions of distributive justice, however, did not predict perceptions of systemic justice. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Procedural justice in the context of civil commitment: an analogue study

Procedural justice theory posits that the process by which disputes are resolved influences perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with outcomes, even if the outcomes are unfavorable. Within the context of civil commitment, Tyler (1992) has suggested that enhancing respondents' perceptions of procedural justice (i.e., participation, dignity, and trust) during commitment proceedings might facilitate accommodation to an adverse judicial determination (i.e., commitment) and subsequently enhance therapeutic outcomes. The study reported here used videotapes of mock commitment hearings to examine whether patients committed for involuntary treatment are sensitive to procedural justice manipulations. Results suggest that patients are sensitive to procedural justice manipulations and, further, that such manipulations are likely to influence the patients' attitude toward psychiatric care. These findings suggest that the development of strategies to enhance patients' perceptions of procedural justice in commitment hearings may indeed have positive therapeutic implications and warrants further investigation.     

组织公正氛围的理论机制、研究视角及研究框架

组织公正是员工对工作场所公正环境的心理感知, 研究层面有个体与群体之分。以往研究多集中在个体层面, 以致研究结果缺乏对群体现象的有效解释。进入新世纪学者们开始关注群体层面的公正氛围研究, 并在理论和实证方面取得了较大突破。通过回顾相关研究可以发现：(1)在理论机制上, 公正氛围的形成可以通过社会信息加工理论、吸引-选择-磨合模型、公正传染概念和公正启发理论来解释; (2)在研究视角上, 主要存在维度视角、整体视角、感知来源视角、氛围属性视角和第三方视角; (3)在研究主题上, 主要涉及领导、团队和组织三方面对公正氛围的影响, 以及公正氛围对个体、团队和组织三个层面的影响效果。未来研究可着重从多种领导行为对不同公正氛围影响的比较、其他领导因素对公正氛围的影响、不同公正氛围对结果变量影响的比较、新视角公正氛围测量方法的尝试, 以及文化因素对公正氛围的影响研究等方面入手。     

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.     

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.     

Do procedures really matter when rewards are more important? A Pakistani perspective on the effects of distributive and procedural justice on employee behaviors

Introduction

Researchers agree that procedural justice and distributive justice interact so that high procedural fairness reduces the negative consequences of distributive unfairness.

Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self‐esteem concerns

Three experimental studies examined to what extent leader's consistent use of procedures constitutes an important procedural fairness rule and influences people's reactions as a function of social self‐esteem. In line with a recent claim that more attention should be devoted to different procedural fairness rules (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001 ), the findings of Study 1 demonstrated that inconsistent leaders were evaluated as less procedurally fair and influenced feelings of uncertainty about oneself in ongoing interpersonal interactions. Study 2 showed that manipulating leader's consistency influenced people's procedural fairness judgments and willingness to replace the leader, but only among those low in social self‐esteem (SSE). Finally, Study 3, using another consistency manipulation, demonstrated that variations in consistency made participants feel bad about themselves, particularly when they were low in SSE. These findings are discussed in light of research on relational models of justice and sociometer theory. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.