Self-esteem and outcome fairness: differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Results of a survey of 222 detainees in Dutch jails and police stations showed that outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with high self-esteem were more strongly related to outcome considerations than to procedural considerations, whereas outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with low self-esteem were more strongly related to procedural considerations than to outcome considerations. It was proposed that these differences were due to the fact that (a) procedures more strongly express a social evaluation than outcomes and (b) individuals with low self-esteem are more concerned with social evaluations than individuals with high self-esteem. The implications of the results for other individual-differences factors and other populations than detainees are discussed.

[1]  S. Waters.  Citizenship and Social Change , 2003 .

[2]  D. Knippenberg,et al.  Individuation or Depersonalization: The Influence of Personal Status Position: , 2000 .

[3]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  In the eye of the beholder , 2000, Nature.

[4]  Relational considerations in the use of influence tactics , 1999 .

[5]  Paul E. Tesluk,et al.  Personality as a Moderator in the Relationship Between Fairness and Retaliation , 1999 .

[6]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. , 1999 .

[7]  Yuen J. Huo,et al.  The Self-Relevant Implications of the Group-Value Model: Group Membership, Self-Worth, and Treatment Quality , 1998 .

[8]  E. Lind,et al.  Fairness Evaluations of Encounters With Police Officers and Correctional Officers1 , 1998 .

[9]  Christopher L. Martin,et al.  The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: converging evidence from five studies. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  T. Tyler.  The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary Deference to Authorities , 1997, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[11]  R. Folger,et al.  RETALIATION IN THE WORKPLACE: THE ROLES OF DISTRIBUTIVE, PROCEDURAL, AND INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE , 1997 .

[12]  H. Wilke,et al.  How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  H. Wilke,et al.  Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. , 1997 .

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

[15]  T. Tyler,et al.  Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. , 1996 .

[16]  Yuen J. Huo,et al.  Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns: Is Separatism the Problem; Is Assimilation the Answer? , 1996 .

[17]  Rita C. Manning,et al.  Social justice in a diverse society , 1997 .

[18]  R. Baumeister,et al.  The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. , 1994 .

[20]  M. Konovsky,et al.  Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange , 1994 .

[21]  Elizabeth A. Mannix,et al.  WILL WE MEET AGAIN? EFFECTS OF POWER, DISTRIBUTION NORMS, AND SCOPE OF FUTURE INTERACTION IN SMALL GROUP NEGOTIATION , 1994 .

[22]  Connie J. G. Gersick,et al.  Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research , 1994 .

[23]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[24]  C. Judd,et al.  Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  Paul D. Sweeney,et al.  Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. , 1993 .

[26]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. , 1993 .

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

[28]  Roy F. Baumeister,et al.  Understanding the Inner Nature of Low Self-Esteem: Uncertain, Fragile, Protective, and Conflicted , 1993 .

[29]  J. Campbell,et al.  Who am I? The Role of Self-Concept Confusion in Understanding the Behavior of People with Low Self-Esteem , 1993 .

[30]  R. Baumeister.  Self-esteem : the puzzle of low self-regard , 1993 .

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

[32]  Robert H. Moorman,et al.  Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors : do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship ? , 1991 .

[33]  R. Ryan,et al.  Relation of Self-Projection Processes to Performance, Emotion, and Memory in a Controlled Interaction Setting , 1991 .

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

[35]  Robert Folger,et al.  The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level on victims' layoff reactions. , 1991 .

[36]  R. Lewicki.  Research on Negotiation in Organizations , 1990 .

[37]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[38]  R. Riggio,et al.  Social skills and self-esteem , 1990 .

[39]  T. Tyler,et al.  In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System , 1990 .

[40]  M. Kernis,et al.  Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  M. Banaji,et al.  Is Self-Esteem a Central Ingredient of the Self-Concept? , 1988, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

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

[43]  K. Rasinski,et al.  What's fair is fair--or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  C. Hill,et al.  Affiliation motivation: people who need people ... but in different ways. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? , 1987 .

[46]  Robert Folger,et al.  Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. , 1987 .

[47]  R. Bies.  Interactional justice : communication criteria of fairness , 1986 .

[48]  C. Cooper,et al.  International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 1986 .

[49]  H. Martin,et al.  A revised measure of approval motivation and its relationship to social desirability. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[50]  S. Brodsky.  Criminal Justice and Behavior , 1980 .

[51]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction With Citizen-Police Encounters , 1980 .

[52]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory , 1980 .

[53]  Robert Folger,et al.  Effects of "Voice" and Peer Opinions on Responses to Inequity , 1979 .

[54]  Scott H. Decker,et al.  Law and Society Review , 1979 .

[55]  M. Rosenberg.  Conceiving the self , 1979 .

[56]  J. Traupmann,et al.  Equity: Theory and Research , 1978 .

[57]  G. Leventhal.  What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. , 1976 .

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

[59]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[60]  J. S. Adams,et al.  Inequity In Social Exchange , 1965 .