What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect

The most generally accepted and best documented manipulation in procedural justice experiments is varying whether participants are allowed an opportunity to voice their opinion about a decision. In the present article, a distinction is made between two types of no-voice procedures—those in which a person is not informed about possible voice opportunities and hence implicitly is not allowed a voice (implicit no-voice procedure) and those in which a person is explicitly told that he or she does not have voice opportunities (explicit no-voice procedure). I focus on the effect perceived outcome fairness may have on judgments of procedural fairness (fair outcome effect). On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, I argue that when information about procedure is not available (as in the case of implicit no-voice procedures), people may find it difficult to decide how they should judge the procedure, and they therefore use the fairness of their outcome to assess how to respond to the procedure. As a result, the procedural judgments of these people show strong fair outcome effects. However, persons who are explicitly denied voice do have explicit information about procedure and hence have to rely less on outcome information, yielding weaker fair outcome effects on procedural judgments. Findings of two experiments provide supportive evidence for this line of reasoning. Implications for our understanding of the psychology of social justice in general and the fair outcome effect in particular 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]  P. Earley,et al.  Voice, control, and procedural justice : instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments , 1990 .

[3]  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.

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

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

[6]  E. Suchman,et al.  The American Soldier: Adjustment During Army Life. , 1949 .

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

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

[9]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[10]  P. Blau.  Exchange and Power in Social Life , 1964 .

[11]  John Thibaut,et al.  The Relation between Procedural and Distributive Justice , 1979 .

[12]  G. W. Walster,et al.  New directions in equity research. , 1973 .

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

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

[15]  T. Tyler.  The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure? , 1996 .

[16]  Robin I. Lissak,et al.  Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments , 1985 .

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

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

[19]  B. Weiner,et al.  Spontaneous" causal thinking. , 1985 .

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

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

[22]  T. M. Tripp,et al.  Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible? , 1996 .

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

[24]  J. Hunton,et al.  The value of voice in participative decision making. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[26]  Ronald L. Cohen,et al.  Perceiving Justice: An Attributional Perspective , 1982 .

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

[28]  M. Deutsch.  Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice? , 1975 .

[29]  G. Peeters,et al.  Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Evaluations: The Distinction Between Affective and Informational Negativity Effects , 1990 .

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

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

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

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

[34]  David M. Messick,et al.  Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives , 1983 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[41]  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.

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

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

[44]  R. Folger.  Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations , 1996 .

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

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