Procedures: do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem

This study examined the effects of procedural justice on state-dependent self-esteem using the group-value model and attribution theory to present competing theoretical perspectives. The group-value model predicts a positive relationship between self-esteem and fair procedures. In contrast, attribution theory suggests procedural fairness interacts with outcome favorability to influence self-esteem. Thus, fair procedures will result in higher self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is positive but will result in lower self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is negative. The results of a laboratory and field study provide converging evidence to support the attribution theory predictions. The results of a 2nd laboratory study suggest that self-esteem is influenced by outcome expectancies, not actual outcomes.     

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.     

Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions

Despite the vast amount of applicant reactions studies, few have examined combined effects of selection outcomes with perceived procedural and distributive fairness on both personal and organizational reactions. Further, most have been conducted in laboratory settings, limiting external validity. The present study examined these effects with a longitudinal design, measuring actual applicants' well‐being and organizational attractiveness preinterview and postoutcome. As expected, several interactions between outcomes and fairness were found. Applicants who were hired reported both highest well‐being and organizational attractiveness when they perceived the outcome as fair. In contrast, applicants who were rejected reported highest well‐being when they thought the outcome was unfair. Selection outcome and procedural fairness interacted for organizational attractiveness, with higher procedural fairness leading to higher attractiveness for rejected applicants.     

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.     

Toward understanding why fairness matters: the influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness

This article focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that people especially need fairness when they are uncertain about things that are important to them. Following terror management theory, the authors focus on a basic kind of human uncertainty: fear of death. Integrating these two theoretical frameworks, it is proposed that thinking about their mortality should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of three experiments support the authors' line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about their mortality led to stronger fair process effects (positive effects of perceived procedural fairness on subsequent reactions) than not asking them to think about mortality. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are uncertain about fundamental aspects of human life such as human mortality.     

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

In procedural justice research it has frequently been found that allowing people an opportunity to voice their opinion enhances their judgements of the fairness of a decision-making procedure. The present study investigated how this voice effect is affected by the consistency over time rule, which dictates that, once people expect a certain procedure, deviation from the expected procedure will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. Two experiments were conducted. In both experiments the independent variables manipulated were whether subjects were explicitly told to expect a voice procedure, were explicitly told to expect a no-voice procedure, or were told nothing about a subsequent procedure, and whether or not subjects subsequently received an opportunity to voice their opinion. The manipulations were induced by means of scenarios in Experiment 1, and by means of the Lind, Kanfer and Early (1990) paradigm in Experiment 2. In both experiments it was found that subjects who expected a voice procedure or who expected nothing judged receiving the voice procedure as more fair than receiving the no-voice procedure, but that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure (inconsistency) as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure (consistency). Furthermore, effects of the manipulated variables on subjects' task performance were found in Experiment 2.     

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.     

What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness

Past research has revealed both positive and negative reactions when people receive unfavorable outcomes via fair decision-making procedures. In three laboratory experiments, we reconcile these findings by considering the role of people’s self-identity. Our results suggest that the more that people base their self-identity on their relationships with others—as indexed by a strong interdependent self-construal—the more positively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Conversely, the more that people base their self-identity on achievement—as indexed by a strong independent self-construal—the more negatively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Moreover, these results were stronger when the situation primed interdependence and independence, respectively. Our research indicates that people interpret procedural fairness information in a manner that is consistent with defining aspects of the self.     

Procedural Fairness,the Economy,and Support for Political Authorities

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver to people and by the extent to which they employ fair decision making processes. Furthermore, some of that literature describes a process‐outcome interaction, through which the effect of outcome favorability is reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well‐known individual‐level relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process‐outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on aggregate incumbent parties’ support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes seems to extend beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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).     

Decision Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments1

Process control, the capacity to influence the content of a conflict resolution hearing, has been found repeatedly to affect disputants' judgments of the fairness of conflict resolution procedures, but never has there been an unambiguous test of the effect in nonbinding procedures. It was hypothesized that disputants experiencing nonbinding conflict resolution procedures, as well as those experiencing binding conflict resolution, would judge as more fair procedures high in disputant process control. One hundred nineteen undergraduate males and females were placed in apparent conflict with other suhjects. The procedure used to resolve the conflict was either high or low in disputant process control and was either binding or nonbinding. The outcome of the conflict resolution procedure was either favorable or unfavordblc to the subject. High disputant process control procedures were judged more fair than low disputant process control procedures regardless of whether the decision was binding, confirming the hypothesis. The results support new applications of procedural fairness theory and research and encourage testing of process control-like variables in nonlegal settings.     

Does Outcome Favorability Affect Procedural Fairness as a Result of Self‐Serving Attributions?

In a situation indicating possible pseudo-participation, we examined whether outcome favorability affects perceived procedural fairness and resentment as a result of self-serving attributions for outcomes. Laboratory participants received a production target that was either substantially above (i.e., unfavorable outcome) or substantially below (i.e., favorable outcome) a target they had voiced to a supervisor. As hypothesized, outcome favorability was related to procedural fairness (positively) and resentment (negatively) among participants who lacked persuasive evidence of pseudo-participation. In support of the idea that these effects were a result of self-serving attributions, rather than instrumental concerns, they did not emerge among participants who had persuasive evidence of pseudo-participation.