Voice, control, and procedural justice : instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments

One hundred seventy-nine undergraduate Ss took part in a study of the effects of instrumental and noninstrumental participation on distributive and procedural fairness judgments. In a goal-setting procedure, Ss were allowed voice before the goal was set, after the goal was set, or not at all. Ss received information relevant to the task, irrelevant information, or no information. Both preand postdecision voice led to higher fairness judgments than no voice, with predecision voice leading to higher fairness judgments than postdecision voice. Relevant information also increased perceived fairness. Mediation analyses showed that perceptions of control account for some, but not all, of the voice-based enhancement of procedural justice. The results show that both instrumental and noninstrumental concerns are involved in voice effects.

[1]  F. C. Thorne,et al.  The psychology of control. , 1949, Journal of clinical psychology.

[2]  A. Pepitone.  Motivational Effects in Social Perception , 1950 .

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

[4]  J. Freedman.  Role playing: Psychology by consensus. , 1969 .

[5]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[6]  J. Thibaut,et al.  Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication1 , 1974 .

[7]  E. Lind.  The Exercise of Information Influence in Legal Advocacy1 , 1975 .

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

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

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

[11]  R. Folger.  Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. , 1977 .

[12]  S. LaTour,et al.  Determinations of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication , 1978 .

[13]  John Thibaut,et al.  A Theory of Procedure , 1978 .

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

[15]  Gary P. Latham,et al.  The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. , 1979 .

[16]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Participation in Decision-Making: One More Look , 1979 .

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

[18]  E. Lind,et al.  Procedure and Outcome Effects on Reactions to Adjudicated Resolution of Conflicts of Interest , 1980 .

[19]  J. Tedeschi.  Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research , 1981 .

[20]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. , 1981 .

[21]  H. Reis.  13 – Self-Presentation and Distributive Justice , 1981 .

[22]  R. H. Willis,et al.  Social Exchange: Advances In Theory And Research , 1981 .

[23]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Why Justice? Normative and Instrumental Interpretations , 1982 .

[24]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Equity and Justice in Social Behavior , 1982 .

[25]  R. Lissak.  Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures , 1983 .

[26]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Decision Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments1 , 1983 .

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

[28]  Ronald L. Cohen,et al.  Procedural Justice and Participation , 1985 .

[29]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. , 1985 .

[30]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance and Performance: A Two-Step Model , 1985 .

[31]  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.

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

[33]  P. Earley,et al.  Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance , 1987 .

[34]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings. , 1987 .

[35]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. , 1987 .

[36]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgments. , 1987 .

[37]  Paul W. Paese,et al.  Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems , 1988 .

[38]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Determinants of Goal Commitment , 1988 .

[40]  The Perception of Justice: Tort Litigants' Views of Trial, Court-Annexed Arbitration, and Judicial Settlement Conferences , 1988 .

[41]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. , 1988 .

[42]  Robert E. Lane,et al.  Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets , 1988 .

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

[44]  R. Cohen.  Fabrications of justice , 1989 .

[45]  The Perception of Justice , 1989 .

[46]  N. Vidmar.  The Origins and Consequences of Procedural Fairness , 1990, Law & Social Inquiry.

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

[48]  R. Kanfer.  Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. , 1990 .

[49]  E. A. Locke,et al.  A theory of goal setting & task performance , 1990 .

[50]  Henry L. Tosi.  A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance , 1991 .