Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability

The present research examines whether or not endowment asymmetry leads those with many endowments to contribute more than those with few endowments towards the public good (i.e., a first-order dilemma), but also towards the implementation of a sanctioning system (i.e., a second-order dilemma). In Experiment 1, we found that those with many endowments contributed more than those with few endowments in a public good dilemma without a sanctioning system present, whereas those with many endowments did not contribute more than those with few endowments toward the implementation of a sanctioning system. The latter effect, however, was eliminated when participants were accountable (i.e., when expectations that they would have to justify their decisions to others in the group were high). Experiment 2 showed that when participants were accountable, the contributions of those with many endowments (and not those with few endowments) toward the sanctioning system increased, but only when they perceived the group to be more self-evaluative in terms of morality (i.e., high-evaluation expectancy). Experiment 3 showed that this effect of evaluation expectancy only emerged when participants were accountable to the whole group rather than to only one group member.     

When does procedural justice influence perceived legitimacy? The role of standing uncertainty and group identification

Many empirical studies have shown that procedural justice is the key determinant of whether an individual perceives an authority figure as legitimate. However, based on relational models of procedural justice and the uncertainty management model, there is reason to believe that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy may be stronger for individuals who are uncertain about their standing as group members (moderation); this interaction might predict group identification and, in turn, perceived legitimacy (mediation). We tested this mediated moderation model in two experiments (Studies 1a and 1b) and a field study (Study 2) using different operationalizations of standing uncertainty across studies. The results of Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy was stronger for participants with high (vs. low) standing uncertainty. Study 2 showed that group identification mediated the association between this interaction effect and perceived legitimacy. Together, the results of the mediated moderation analysis showed that procedural justice was positively associated with perceived legitimacy through high group identification when standing uncertainty was high. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings 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).     

Group belongingness and procedural justice: social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice

The authors focus on the relation between group membership and procedural justice. They argue that whether people are socially included or excluded by their peers influences their reactions to unrelated experiences of procedural justice. Findings from 2 experiments corroborate the prediction that reactions to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures are affected more strongly when people are included in a group than when they are excluded from a group. These findings are extended with a 3rd experiment that shows that people who generally experience higher levels of inclusion in their lives respond more strongly to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures. It is concluded that people's reactions to procedural justice are moderated by people's level of inclusion in social groups.     

Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages aid: social categorization and procedural justice together improve intergroup cooperation and dual identity

We propose that social categorization can encourage particular forms of intergroup cooperation because it differentiates a group in need from a group that can give aid. Moreover, social categorization is most likely to occur when individuals perceive procedural justice (i.e., fair treatment) from authorities in a superordinate group that includes the individuals' subgroup. Two field studies investigating relations between local and foreign coworkers tested not only this prediction, but also whether high social categorization and procedural justice would yield a dual identity, in which group members identify simultaneously with their social category and the superordinate group. Both studies supported our predictions: Local employees engaged a dual identity and offered knowledge to aid a foreign coworker's adjustment more often when local-foreign categorization and procedural justice from organizational authorities were high than when these variables were low. These discoveries point to controllable mechanisms that enable intergroup cooperation, and our findings have important implications for intergroup aid, expatriate adjustment, immigration, and multiculturalism.     

A Moderator of the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favorability: Importance of the Relationship

Justice literature has documented that procedural justice interacts with outcome favorability in determining people's reactions to a decision. Specifically when people perceive the outcome as negative, procedural justice has remarkably strong and positive influence on their attitudes and reactions to the decision. The present study extended past research by illustrating that the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability is dependent on the perceived importance of the relationship with the other party. Two studies yielded converging results that the interaction effect is operative only when the relationship with the other person or group is important to the person.     

程序公正、不确定性对公共政策可接受性的影响:情感信任、认知信任的中介作用

为了研究程序公正、不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间的关系,并进一步考察情感信任和认知信任在其中的中介效应,本研究选取公共政策领域,通过问卷调查的方法随机选取510名北京市民进行研究。研究发现,程序公正与公共政策可接受性正相关,不确定性与公共政策可接受性负相关,情感信任中介程序公正与公共政策可接受性,并对不确定性与公共政策可接受性之间有遮掩效应,而认知信任不存在显著的中介作用。     

团队权力分布差异对团队冲突的影响：程序公平和合法性的作用

近年来团队权力分布差异与团队冲突间关系受到了学界较大关注, 但相关研究结果仍存在分歧。通过对70个工作团队的调查, 探讨了团队权力分布差异对团队冲突(任务冲突、关系冲突)作用的边界条件。结果发现, 程序公平调节了两者间关系：当程序公平较高时, 团队权力分布差异与任务冲突、关系冲突负相关; 当程序公平较低时, 团队权力分布差异与任务冲突、关系冲突正相关。此外, 被中介的调节模型分析显示, 团队合法性感知中介了程序公平的上述调节作用。     

Predicting Satisfaction and Outcome Acceptance with Advisory Committee Meetings: The Role of Procedural Justice1

Research on procedural justice shows that when people view procedures as fair, they are more satisfied with the process and accepting of the outcomes. The group value model, in particular, argues that people care about procedural justice because it communicates whether those in charge are neutral, trustworthy, and respectful of people's rights. This study tested the group value model using survey data from people attending U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings. The results confirmed a strong role for procedural justice, even when controlling for procedural knowledge, tolerance for potential conflicts of interest among committee members, and respondents' stakes in the outcomes. [T]o seem to be just to the disappointed participant, to retain his allegiance, this must surely be one of the more difficult tests that a decision‐making system can undergo ( Thibaut & Walker, 1975 , p. 68).     

Procedural justice and the hedonic principle: how approach versus avoidance motivation influences the psychology of voice

The authors investigate the relation between the hedonic principle (people's motivations to approach pleasure and to avoid pain) and procedural justice. They explore whether approach or avoidance motivation increases the effect that people feel they were treated more fairly following procedures that do versus do not allow them an opportunity to voice their opinion. Experiments 1 and 2 reveal that these procedures influence procedural justice judgments more strongly when people conduct approach motor action (arm flexion) than when they conduct avoidance motor action (arm extension). Experiment 3 indicates that individual-difference measures of participants' approach motivations predicted procedural justice judgments following voice versus no-voice procedures. The authors conclude that people's motivational orientations stimulate their fairness-based reactions to voice procedures.     

The Influence of Decision Makers' Goals on Their Concerns About Procedural Justice1

Two studies examine how decision makers' goals of enhancing organizational effectiveness and promoting positive interpersonal relations shape their decision making when they are allocating scarce resources among group members. Past research has conceptualized this problem as one of balancing between the use of two distributive justice principles: equity and equality. The studies reported examine the degree to which authorities are also concerned about issues of procedural justice. The results suggest that experienced decision makers—both managerial and administrative—believe that when trying to maintain positive interpersonal relations it is as important to use decision-making procedures that will be regarded as fair (procedural justice) as it is to allocate outcomes in ways which will be regarded as fair (distributive justice). Decision makers' definitions of procedural justice are also examined.     

A Taste for Justice: Unpacking Identity Politics in a Nascent Democracy

This article examines attention to justice cues in the novel context of the nascent democracy of Tanzania. Using secondary national survey data, we illustrate Tanzanian citizens' attention to justice cues. We then test two competing hypotheses about the impact of religious identity on attention to justice cues. The first hypothesized model, based on System Justification Theory, predicts that subordinate group members (Muslims) will stay more loyal than dominant group members (Christians) to their government due to a decreased attention to justice cues. The second hypothesized model, based on the relational model of procedural justice, predicts that subordinate group members (Muslims) will dissent more than dominant group members (Christians) from their government due to an increased attention to justice cues. Multiple regression and mediational analyses indicate support for the procedural justice framework, with trust in the dominant political party mediating the relationship between process satisfaction and party identification. Implications for political and psychological theorizing about democratic processes will be discussed.     

Understanding Employee Job Satisfaction: The Importance of Procedural and Distributive Justice

The importance of perceived fair treatment and its effect on employee job satisfaction cannot be overlooked. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that structural procedural justice, interpersonal procedural justice, and distributive justice each accounted for significant unique variance in employee job satisfaction. In addition, when job satisfaction was regressed on all three types of organizational justice, all three justice perceptions significantly predicted job satisfaction. However, interpersonal procedural justice and distributive justice were more strongly related to job satisfaction with distributive justice having the strongest relationship of the three fairness perceptions.     

领导情绪智力对团队绩效和员工态度的影响——公平氛围和权力距离的作用

本研究共收集了74个工作团队的数据, 探讨了领导情绪智力对团队层面绩效(任务绩效、利他行为)和态度(满意度、团队承诺)的影响、公平氛围的中介作用以及团队权力距离的调节作用。研究结果表明：领导的情绪智力对团队绩效和态度均有显著的正向影响; 程序公平氛围中介了领导情绪智力对团队任务绩效和利他行为的影响, 交互公平氛围中介了领导情绪智力对团队任务绩效、满意度和团队承诺的影响; 团队权力距离调节了领导情绪智力和交互公平氛围的关系, 该调节关系通过交互公平氛围的中介作用影响团队任务绩效、满意度和团队承诺。     

The moderating effect of perceived organizational support on the relationships between organizational justice and objective measures of cardiovascular health

This paper builds on a recent meta-analytic review on the relationships between organizational justice and health. Specifically, we examine the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS) on the relationships between organizational justice and three objective cardiovascular health measures, namely, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure, among a population of 290 public construction workers. The interaction between justice and POS was statistically significant using procedural justice, demonstrating that procedural justice is associated with improvements in the three health outcomes only when POS is relatively high. In other words, higher levels of both procedural justice and POS were needed for reduced heart rate and reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure. However, the interaction between distributive justice and POS did not significantly relate to the health outcomes. This study makes a contribution to the field by focusing the effects of psychosocial workplace variables on measures of cardiovascular health, and demonstrating an important boundary condition of the relationships between procedural justice and cardiovascular risk factors.     

Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions to procedural justice in teams

This article reported the results of 2 studies that examined reactions to procedural justice in teams. Both studies predicted that individual members' reactions would be driven not just by their own procedural justice levels but also by the justice experienced by other team members. Study 1 examined intact student teams, whereas Study 2 occurred in a laboratory setting. The results showed that individual members' own justice interacted with others' justice, such that higher levels of role performance occurred when justice was consistent within the team. These effects were strongest in highly interdependent teams and weakest for members who were benevolent with respect to equity sensitivity.     

When and how communicated guilt affects contributions in public good dilemmas

Two laboratory studies investigated how groups may deal with the strong emotions that social dilemmas often elicit. A first study showed that a new group member evaluated guilt communicated by a fellow group member as more instrumental than neutral emotion feedback when the amount of required resources to obtain the public good (i.e., provision point) was perceived as difficult to obtain. A second study revealed that participants use communicated guilt to draw inferences about both past and future contributions from all fellow group members. Participants also contributed more themselves and adhered to equality more often when guilt versus no emotion was communicated, but only when the provision point was high. Expected contributions from fellow group members mediated this effect.     

社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向

社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任,并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平,将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任,采用实验室情境设计的方法,引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式,通过2个实验系统探讨"公正无私,一言而万民齐"的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向,在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型:外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任,进而触发公共合作;内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任,进而触发公共合作;二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。     

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.