When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation

The present research examined the effect of procedural fairness and trust in an authority on people's willingness to cooperate with the authority across a wide range of social situations. Prior research has shown that the presence of information about whether an authority can be trusted moderates the effect of procedural fairness. If no trust information is available, procedural fairness influences people's reactions. This is not the case when information about the trustworthiness of the authority is present. In the present article, it is argued that information about whether the authority can or cannot be trusted may also moderate the effect of procedural fairness in predicting levels of cooperation. Assuming that the use of fair procedures by authorities that cannot be trusted is less influential than is the enactment of procedures by trustworthy authorities, it is predicted that trust in authority moderates the influence of procedural fairness on cooperation in such a way that procedural fairness has a positive effect on cooperation primarily when trust in authority is high. Results from 4 studies (2 experimental studies and 2 field studies) provide supportive evidence for this interaction.     

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.     

Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation

The present research examined the effectiveness of leadership in influencing cooperation in social dilemmas by focusing on the procedural fairness and favorability of leaders’ outcome decisions. We predicted that leader’s influence on cooperation would be determined by the fairness of the procedures used, but only so when received outcomes were unfavorable. Across two experimental studies, support for this hypothesis was found. Both in Study 1 (using accuracy as a manipulation of procedural fairness) and Study 2 (using voice as a manipulation of procedural fairness), it was found that procedural fairness influenced contributions in a public good dilemma only if outcomes were unfavorable (i.e., participants received less than an equal share), whereas procedural fairness did not influence level of contributions when outcomes were favorable (i.e., participants received more than an equal share).     

When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes?: The moderating effect of prevention focus

The present studies were designed to delineate when procedural fairness would be more versus less likely to be inversely related to people’s self-evaluations in response to unfavorable outcomes. Prior theory and research have shown that: (1) the more that people assign psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes, the more likely are their self-evaluations to be adversely affected by such outcomes, and (2) people who are more prevention focused in their self-regulatory orientation assign greater psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes. Consequently, we predicted that in the face of unfavorable outcomes, the inverse relationship between procedural fairness and self-evaluations would be more likely to emerge among those who are more prevention focused. Using different conceptions or operationalizations of all of the independent and dependent variables, we found support for this prediction in three studies, spanning different cultures, contexts, and methodologies.     

“When passion breeds justice”: procedural fairness effects as a function of authority's passion

The present research examined how procedural fairness predicts negative emotions and withdrawal behavior as a function of authority's display of passion. A first study revealed that reinforcing the concept of passion made the concept of justice and fairness more accessible to participants, as such suggesting that authority passion should make people focus more on procedural fairness information. Corroborating this line of reasoning, a scenario experiment and a laboratory experiment thereafter yielded consistent evidence that the effects of procedural fairness (i.e., voice vs. no voice) were stronger on negative emotions and willingness to withdraw when the authority was passionate relative to not being passionate. In addition, the results of both studies also revealed that negative emotions mediated the effect of procedural fairness on withdrawal, but only so when the authority was passionate (i.e., mediated moderation). It is concluded that more research is needed focusing on the interactions between different authority styles/characteristics and procedural fairness effects. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Procedural Fairness and Creativity: Does Voice Maintain People's Creative Vein Over Time?

Although some research suggests a link between procedural fairness and creativity, so far no study has directly tested whether a real manipulation of procedural fairness affects creativity. Additionally, research on procedural fairness effects consists mostly of unique studies, but more realistic, life-like longitudinal experiments with repeated fairness manipulations are lacking. This study investigated the influence of procedural fairness (i.e., having voice) on similar creativity tasks over a period of 4 weeks. Participants in the fair procedure condition maintained their level of creativity during the course of the experiment, whereas participants who were treated unfairly showed a decline in creativity. This research confirms the supporting role of conditions of procedural fairness regarding creativity and the importance of longitudinal designs to fully explore procedural fairness effects.     

小学儿童程序公平认知及其归因取向的发展

为了探讨小学儿童的程序公平认知以及不同程序信息下程序公平认知归因取向的发展特点,研究采用自编的程序公平认知情境故事材料,对150名小学1、3、5年级儿童进行测查。结果表明：小学儿童的程序公平认知能力随年级增长而提高,在有投票权且同等和有投票权但不等下的程序公平认知得分显著高于在无投票权下,在消极结果信息下的程序公平认知得分显著高于在积极结果信息下,且年级、程序信息、结果信息两两之间和三者之间均存在显著交互作用。随年级增长,小学儿童的程序公平认知归因在结果取向和权威取向上不断减少,在过程取向上不断增多,在能力取向上则是上升到3年级之后又逐渐减少。研究说明小学儿童的程序公平认知能力随年龄增长而发展,并受程序信息和结果信息的影响;小学儿童的程序公平认知归因随年龄增长越来越倾向于过程取向。     

High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis

Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and procedural fairness often interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when procedural fairness is low, high procedural fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on people’s use of procedural fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem

In the present research, the authors examined the effect of procedural fairness and rewarding leadership style on an important variable for employees: self-esteem. The authors predicted that procedural fairness would positively influence people's reported self-esteem if the leader adopted a style of rewarding behavior for a job well done. Results from a scenario experiment, a laboratory experiment, and an organizational survey indeed show that procedural fairness and rewarding leadership style interacted to influence followers' self-esteem, such that the positive relationship between procedural fairness and self-esteem was more pronounced when the leadership style was high in rewarding behavior. Implications in terms of integrating the leadership and procedural fairness literature are discussed.     

How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns.     

Reputational Implications of Procedural Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-Esteem

Four studies showed that procedural fairness (fair vs. unfair treatment by an authority figure) has reputational implications for personal and relational self-esteem. Participants relied on procedural fairness to infer their reputation, especially when they were identifiable (Study 1). Furthermore, concern for reputation moderated the influence of procedural fairness on self-esteem: Variations in procedural fairness were more strongly associated with the personal self-esteem of individuals high rather than low in concern for reputation (Studies 2–3). Finally, violations in procedural fairness (i.e., unfair treatment) led to a more substantial reduction in the relational self-esteem of positive-reputation than negative-reputation participants: The former felt more relationally devalued than the latter, when they were denied voice (Study 4).     

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.     

Applicant Reactions to Selection Events: Four studies into the role of attributional style and fairness perceptions

In four studies, applicants’ (N = 478) organizational attractiveness perceptions and recommendation intentions following selection outcomes were measured. In three field studies, actual applicants’ perceptions were measured in authentic, high‐stakes application contexts, both preprocedure and postoutcome. A fourth, hypothetical, study was added to increase internal validity. Consistent positive relationships between procedural fairness and reactions were found. Further, attributional style moderated the distributive fairness–attractiveness relationship in the field studies, but not in the laboratory study. In general, optimistically attributing applicants reported higher organization attraction than less optimistic individuals when the outcome was perceived as fair, but lower attraction when the outcome was perceived as unfair. For recommendation intentions, results were less consistent. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.     

Procedural fairness enacted by societal actors increases social trust and social acceptance among ethnic minority members through the promotion of sense of societal belonging

Although procedural fairness has been studied frequently during the past decades, little work has focused explicitly on how procedural fairness affects members of ethnic minorities in the context of multicultural decision-making processes. The aim of the present study was to investigate how perceptions of procedurally fair treatment of fellow minority members by societal actors impact the individual’s sense of societal belongingness, which we define as the feeling that he/she is a valued member of society at large, and how this in turn is related to social trust and social well-being. Three samples of African American and Hispanic American respondents from the United States were collected (total N = 570). Two experimental studies and one questionnaire study were conducted. Experimental manipulation of procedural fairness climate was shown to impact sense of societal belongingness among minority members (Study 1), whereas manipulating sense of societal belongingness itself led to an increase in social trust and social acceptance (Study 2). Study 3 (A self-report survey), finally, affirmed the entire hypothesized mediation model. The present research provides further evidence for the importance of procedural fairness for ethnic minorities. Our research showed that when societal actors enact procedural fairness they may strengthen minority members’ societal belongingness, which in turn may influence their social trust and feelings of being socially accepted.     

The Effects of Hardiness and Cultural Distance on Sociocultural Adaptation in an Expatriate Sales Manager Population

International corporations are increasingly concerned about expatriate executive attrition. There is an urgent need to develop methods for identifying the antecedents to successful expatriate performance. In choosing sales managers for international assignments, special attention should be paid to the candidate’s psychological hardiness and cultural distance between the home and host countries. An empirical study was conducted based on 544 responses from expatriate sales managers originating from 62 countries who are serving in 77 different countries around the globe. Using hierarchical regression, the authors tested main effects of both cultural distance and psychological hardiness on the sales manager’s ability to adapt to a new cultural environment. In addition, psychological hardiness was tested as a moderator of the relationship between cultural distance and sociocultural adaptation. Results suggest that practitioners now include both scales as determinants for justification when selecting expatriate sales assignments. Practically speaking, with both global cultural distance and hardiness scores in hand, companies can better select appropriate personnel who will be able to cope with cultural differences in international placements. Finally, this research provides the first known scholarly study of psychological hardiness in the marketing and sales literature.     

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.     

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.     

The role of goal orientation during expatriation: a cross-sectional and longitudinal investigation

Using cross-sectional and longitudinal data from expatriates in China, the authors investigated the roles of general, work, and interaction adjustment, as well as work stress, as mediators between the antecedents (learning, proving, and avoiding goal orientations, and perceived organizational support) and expatriate outcome (job performance and premature return intention) relationships. Results indicated that goal orientations toward overseas assignments had differential relationships with expatriate job performance and premature return intention. In addition, it was found that these relationships were partially mediated by expatriate adjustment facets. Implications for expatriate adjustment research and practice are discussed.     

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.