Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects : On the psychology of the fair process effect

This article focuses on the psychology of the fair process effect (the frequently replicated finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects people's reactions). It is argued that when people receive an unfavorable outcome, they may start looking for causes that explain why they received this outcome. Furthermore, the authors propose that unfair procedures provide an opportunity to attribute one's unfavorable outcome to external causes, whereas fair procedures do not. As a consequence, people may react more negatively after fair as opposed to unfair procedures (a reversal of the fair process effect). The findings of 3 experiments corroborate the authors' line of reasoning and show that if unfavorable outcomes strongly instigate attribution-seeking processes, a reversal of the fair process effect indeed can be found. In this way, these findings show that sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects.

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

[2]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

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

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

[5]  H. Wilke,et al.  When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. , 1998 .

[6]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-serving conclusion , 1985 .

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

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

[9]  Henk A. M. Wilke,et al.  The consistency rule and the voice effect : The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance , 1996 .

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

[11]  L. Furby.  Psychology and Justice , 1986 .

[12]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Procedural Justice, Participation, and the Fair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations , 1983 .

[13]  E. Lind,et al.  The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest , 1996 .

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

[15]  K. Bos,et al.  What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect , 1999 .

[16]  R. Folger,et al.  Referent Cognitions and Task Decision Autonomy: Beyond Equity Theory , 1989 .

[17]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Basic group processes , 1983 .

[18]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects of self-esteem and social pressure. , 1990 .

[19]  H. Wilke,et al.  Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments , 1998 .

[20]  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.

[21]  P. Jackson,et al.  Justice : views from the social sciences , 1988 .

[22]  R. Folger,et al.  Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions , 1989 .

[23]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. , 1995 .

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

[25]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations , 1986 .

[26]  J. Greenberg.  Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals , 1987 .

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

[28]  John Innes,et al.  The effect of presence of an audience, evaluation apprehension and objective self-awareness on learning , 1975 .

[29]  Gerold Mikula,et al.  Justice and Social Interaction: Experimental and Theoretical Contributions, from Psychological Research , 1980 .

[30]  Richard M. Steers,et al.  Motivation and Work Behaviour , 1978 .

[31]  Kathleen Holt,et al.  Maintaining Consistency between Self-Serving Beliefs and Available Data , 1985 .

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

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

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

[35]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  Procedural Justice and Culture , 1992 .

[36]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity , 1993 .

[37]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

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

[39]  D. Messick,et al.  An integrated model of perceived unfairness in organizations , 1995 .

[40]  J. Harvey,et al.  New Directions in Attribution Research , 2018 .