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

Abstract 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.

[1]  J. Brockner,et al.  An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  J. Sinacore.  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[3]  T. Tyler,et al.  A Relational Model of Authority in Groups , 1992 .

[4]  Russell Cropanzano,et al.  Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. , 1993 .

[5]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Explanations for selection decisions : Applicants' reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations , 1999 .

[7]  S. Gilliland,et al.  Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. , 1994 .

[8]  K. van den Bos,et al.  Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects : On the psychology of the fair process effect , 1999 .

[9]  J. L. Price.  Handbook of Organizational Measurement , 1975 .

[10]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[11]  G. Homans,et al.  Social Behaviour, Its Elementary Forms , 1962 .

[12]  M. Rosenberg.  Society and the adolescent self-image , 1966 .

[13]  B. Weiner.  "Spontaneous" causal thinking. , 1985, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  T. M. Amabile,et al.  The Work Preference Inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  J. Greenberg,et al.  The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. , 1993 .

[16]  R. Folger.  Rethinking Equity Theory , 1986 .

[17]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[18]  Robert Folger,et al.  Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management , 1998 .

[19]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Review of personality and social psychology , 1980 .

[20]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Toward an Explanation of Applicant Reactions: An Examination of Organizational Justice and Attribution Frameworks. , 1997, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[21]  R. Bies,et al.  The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. , 1987 .

[22]  W. V. D. Kloot,et al.  The effect of procedural and interactional criteria on procedural fairness judgments , 1993 .

[23]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[24]  Robert Folger,et al.  Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. , 2001 .

[25]  K. Bos.  Fairness heuristic theory : Assessing the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding organizational justice , 2001 .

[26]  Robert Folger,et al.  Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. , 1983 .

[27]  A. Kluger,et al.  The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. , 1996 .

[28]  Daan van Knippenberg,et al.  Procedural fairness and self-esteem , 1993 .

[29]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments , 1995 .

[30]  J. L. Price,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Measurement , 1975 .

[31]  D. J. Lee.  Society and the Adolescent Self-Image , 1969 .

[32]  T. Heatherton,et al.  Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. , 1991 .

[33]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[34]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Justice in social relations , 1986 .

[35]  Dirk D. Steiner,et al.  Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice , 2001 .

[36]  Holly A. Schroth,et al.  Procedures: do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[37]  G. C. Homans,et al.  Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. , 1975 .

[38]  R. Folger,et al.  Responses to relative deprivation: A conceptual framework. , 1984 .

[39]  E. Blumenthal,et al.  A Deservingness Approach to Respect as a Relationally Based Fairness Judgment , 1999 .

[40]  Michael W. Morris,et al.  When is Criticism Not Constructive? The Roles of Fairness Perceptions and Dispositional Attributions in Employee Acceptance of Critical Supervisory Feedback , 2001 .

[41]  L. Porter,et al.  The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. , 1979 .