分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

组织公正、组织认同与教师离职意向的关系

通过对700名教师施测Mael和Tetrick组织认同问卷、组织公正问卷和离职意向问卷,结果发现：（1）组织公正能够正向的预测个体的组织认同水平;（2）组织公正能够负向的预测个体的离职意向水平;（3）组织认同在组织公正和离职意向关系中的中介作用不显著。     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

组织不公正及其效果研究述评

从组织公正感的研究出发,比较全面地介绍了国外关于3种组织不公正,即分配不公、程序不公正和互动不公正研究及其效果,特别分析了组织不公正对组织的具体危害,这种危害包括隐蔽的攻击、退缩行为和公开的攻击。文章还介绍了我国学者关于分配不公平方面的研究。最后,作者指出组织不公正研究可能存在的问题,即组织不公正可能本质上不同于组织公正,组织不公正研究存在操作定义狭隘和跨文化障碍,以此为基础描述了未来的研究方向     

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。     

程序公正及其心理机制

程序公正是组织公正的重要成分。自从Thibaut和Walker（1975）提出程序公正的概念以后,程序公正被引入了很多领域的研究,得到了极大的发展,但是程序公正的内容需要整合统一。发言权效应和尊重效应讨论了影响程序公正判断的因素,个人利益模型和团体价值模型则分析了其内在的心理机制。程序公正影响了大量与工作有关的态度和行为,并与分配结果产生了交互作用,其内在机制也在文章中得到了讨论。     

儿童道德义愤的发展及其对第三方公正行为的影响

为了探讨儿童道德义愤的发展及其对第三方公正行为的影响，实验1考察106名幼儿园大班、小学2年级和4年级儿童的道德义愤在年级以及数目和价值不公平分配上的差异；实验2考察57名小学儿童在有无代价条件下，其道德义愤对第三方公正行为的影响。结果表明：儿童的道德义愤呈现随年级增长而不断增强的趋势；儿童由数目不公平分配引发的道德义愤得分显著高于价值不公平分配；幼儿园大班和2年级儿童在数目不公平分配中的道德义愤得分均显著高于价值不公平分配，而4年级儿童在数目和价值不公平分配中的道德义愤得分不存在显著差异；诱发道德义愤的儿童更多地做出第三方公正行为，并且更愿意选择补偿受害者；在不同诱发道德义愤条件下，是否需要付出代价都不会影响儿童的第三方公正行为。研究说明儿童的道德义愤随年级增长而发展，并影响第三方公正行为。     

组织公正和职位对进谏行为的影响

本实验目的在于验证组织是否公正、职位的高低对进谏行为的影响.选取158名大学生为被试,采用2×2完全随机设计,以情境故事法呈现刺激,研究了组织公正与否、职位的高低对进谏行为的影响.结果表明,组织氛围(公正/不公正)的主效应显著,职位的主效应不显著,组织氛围与职位的交互作用显著,具体表现为:低职位的在组织氛围不同情况下,进谏行为差异显著;而在组织不公正的氛围下,职位不同其进竦行为差异显著.     

社会公正对权威合法性的影响:社会阶层的调节作用

社会层面中的权威合法性研究是国内外学者和管理实践者近来关注的重要问题。而社会公正的两个维度——分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性的交互作用的结果并不一致。本研究基于解释水平理论,提出社会阶层能调节分配公正和程序公正对权威合法性感知的交互作用,并通过实验室研究和情境启动两种方法进行验证。结果发现对低阶层者来说,无论是否程序公正,分配公正能显著提高个体的权威合法性感知;在分配公正和多得不公条件下,程序公正显著降低权威合法性感知。对高阶层者来说,分配公正能显著提高程序公正时的权威合法性感知;程序公正能显著提高分配公正时的权威合法性感知。研究结果启示社会管理者在推行依法治国时应针对不同阶层民众的思维方式采取管理策略。     

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。     

The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis

The correlates of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were examined using 190 studies samples, totaling 64,757 participants. We found the distinction between the three justice types to be merited. While organizational practices and outcomes were related to the three justice types, demographic characteristics of the perceiver were, in large part, unrelated to perceived justice. Job performance and counterproductive work behaviors, considered to be outcomes of perceived justice, were mainly related to procedural justice, whereas organizational citizenship behavior was similarly predicted by distributive and procedural justice. Most satisfaction measures were similarly related to all justice types. Although organizational commitment and trust were mainly related to procedural justice, they were also substantially related to the other types of justice. Findings from laboratory and field studies are not always in agreement. Future research agendas are discussed.     

Employer Treatment of Employees During a Community Crisis: The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice

This study applies organizational justice principles to human resource decisions made during a crisis situation. Three-hundred and sixty-six working individuals of ice storm affected households responded to a telephone survey that included measures of interactional, procedural and distributive justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested collapsing the interactional and procedural justice measures into one measure of procedural treatment. Overall, there was considerable support for the relevance of procedural justice and its interaction with distributive justice in predicting the work attitudes of employee following a disaster. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceptions of procedural justice most strongly predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Consistent with existing theory, an interaction between distributive and procedural was found to predict job satisfaction. The predicted interaction was not detected for organizational commitment.We would like to acknowledge the capable research assistance of Paula Warnholtz and the financial assistance from the Senate Research Committee at Bishop’s University.     

组织公正感研究进展

章先介绍了公正及公正感的概念,进而分析了组织公正感的概念。国外组织公正感的研究可分成3个阶段,首先由Adams提出分配公平,之后Thibaut、Leventhal等提出程序公正,最后Bies等提出相互作用公正。尽管国外对组织公正感研究比较广泛,但对公正感的结构及测量方法还存在分歧,有单因素理论、双因素理论、三因素理论和四因素理论。     

分配制度公平对员工分配公平感的影响:中国组织情境下的实证研究*

西方组织公平领域的主流观点认为要想提高员工的分配公平感,应着力提高分配过程的公平性以及上下级互动的公平性,即程序公平和互动公平。本研究发现:在中国组织情境下,较之程序公平和互动公平(人际公平、信息公平),分配制度公平对员工分配公平感的解释力最强;在分配制度不公平的情境下,程序公平和人际公平才会影响分配公平感,仅仅起到亡羊补牢的作用。     

绩效、能力、职位对组织分配公平观的影响

旨在探索基于组织分配公平的认知评价和决策行为的影响因素,为此提出了不公平阈限的概念,即在追求公平和谋求自我利益的动机权衡中,个体为了追求公平而愿意放弃的最高限度的个人利益。采用最后通牒博弈和独裁者博弈的二阶段实验范式,样本量为60。结果发现,工作绩效、工作能力均对个体的不公平阈限有显著的影响;对于公平判断和基于公平的回应行为,工作绩效起着首要作用,工作能力的影响次之,再次是对方的提议数额的影响。第一阶段对方提议的分配方案对被试越有利,则第二阶段被试的回应行为越有利于对方。排除能力差别的作用之后,职位差别并未引起不公平阈限的显著差异。根据研究结果,总结出分配公平的三项原则：绩效原则、能力原则和互惠原则     

Perception of Injustice as a Predictor of Support for Workplace Aggression

In order to determine the relationship between perceptions of injustice and support for workplace aggression, 139 subjects were presented with four scenarios representing different levels and types of injustice. Subjects then responded to an eight-item aggression scale. Support for aggressive behavior across the scenarios generally corresponded to the amount and type of perceived injustice; a procedural injustice scenario was perceived as the most unjust and led to the most support for aggression. Although the interpersonal and distributive injustice scenarios were seen as virtually identical in terms of injustice, there was significantly more support for aggression with interpersonal injustice. The strongest predictor of support for aggression in the justice scenarios, however, was simply the degree of support for aggression in a neutral, or control, scenario. It is suggested that employers need to be concerned both about fair and courteous relations with employees and also with identifying generally aggressive employees.     

Exploring the black box of the contingent reward leadership–performance relationship: The role of perceived justice and emotional exhaustion

Using data collected from three different sources (N = 294), we examined a model in which perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) and emotional exhaustion mediate the relationship between contingent reward leadership (CRL) and two performance indicators, namely organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB) and absenteeism. We found that procedural justice mediates the negative relationship between CRL and emotional exhaustion while controlling for work overload and transformational leadership. We also found that emotional exhaustion plays a mediating role in the relationship between two dimensions of justice (procedural and interactional) and both OCB and absenteeism. Interactional justice and distributive justice were also directly linked to OCB. Implications of these findings for research on leadership, psychological health, and organizational justice are discussed.     

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.