The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation.

The present research examined the effect of procedural fairness and trust in an authority on people's willingness to cooperate with the authority across a wide range of social situations. Prior research has shown that the presence of information about whether an authority can be trusted moderates the effect of procedural fairness. If no trust information is available, procedural fairness influences people's reactions. This is not the case when information about the trustworthiness of the authority is present. In the present article, it is argued that information about whether the authority can or cannot be trusted may also moderate the effect of procedural fairness in predicting levels of cooperation. Assuming that the use of fair procedures by authorities that cannot be trusted is less influential than is the enactment of procedures by trustworthy authorities, it is predicted that trust in authority moderates the influence of procedural fairness on cooperation in such a way that procedural fairness has a positive effect on cooperation primarily when trust in authority is high. Results from 4 studies (2 experimental studies and 2 field studies) provide supportive evidence for this interaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that when information about whether an authority can be trusted is not available, people will resolve the question of how they should interpret the decisions of the authority by relying on perceived procedural fairness. As a consequence, people who do not have information about authority's trustworthiness react more positively toward the outcomes of authority's decisions if the authority is using fair as opposed to unfair procedures. However, when people know that the authority either can or cannot be trusted, they are less in need of procedural fairness information, yielding less strong effects of procedural fairness on people's reactions. The findings of 2 experiments support the authors' line of reasoning. It is concluded that people especially need procedural fairness when information about an authority's trustworthiness is lacking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Rewarding Leadership and Fair Procedures as Determinants of Self-Esteem.

In the present research, the authors examined the effect of procedural fairness and rewarding leadership style on an important variable for employees: self-esteem. The authors predicted that procedural fairness would positively influence people's reported self-esteem if the leader adopted a style of rewarding behavior for a job well done. Results from a scenario experiment, a laboratory experiment, and an organizational survey indeed show that procedural fairness and rewarding leadership style interacted to influence followers' self-esteem, such that the positive relationship between procedural fairness and self-esteem was more pronounced when the leadership style was high in rewarding behavior. Implications in terms of integrating the leadership and procedural fairness literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not.

This article extends research on leader procedural fairness as well as the social identity model of leadership effectiveness (SIMOL) by demonstrating that leader prototypicality can act as a substitute for procedural fairness. Although procedural fairness in general and voice in particular have been found to have a robust positive influence on leader endorsement, the authors showed in an experimental scenario study and a correlational field study that the influence of voice on leader endorsement is substantially reduced when leaders are perceived as prototypical for the group that they lead and followers are highly identified with their group. Additionally, supportive of predictions of the SIMOL, leader prototypicality interacted with follower identification in predicting leader endorsement, such that prototypicality had a positive effect on leader endorsement, which was enhanced among high identifiers. Overall, these results suggest that leaders who are attuned to their followers' group identity can afford to go it alone, for the better or the worse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility.

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness.

This article focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that people especially need fairness when they are uncertain about things that are important to them. Following terror management theory, the authors focus on a basic kind of human uncertainty: fear of death. Integrating these two theoretical frameworks, it is proposed that thinking about their mortality should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of three experiments support the authors' line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about their mortality led to stronger fair process effects (positive effects of perceived procedural fairness on subsequent reactions) than not asking them to think about mortality. It is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are uncertain about fundamental aspects of human life such as human mortality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological mechanisms of process-control effects.

The psychological mechanisms underlying process-control effects—the tendency to evaluate a decision-making process more favorably when given an opportunity to express one's views before the decision is made—were examined. The hypothesis was that process-control effects would disappear for the favorable component of an outcome. This pattern was confirmed in a survey of Hong Kong citizens who were affected by a new subway-fare scheme. Several critical conditions that may qualify process-control effects were also tested. For perceived procedural fairness, the belief that citizens' views were considered and that the subway authority acted in good faith were found to be critical factors. For distributive fairness and reactions to the new fare scheme, the perceived favorableness of the new fare scheme was the critical factor. Implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty.

Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees’ work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees’ tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people’s uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers’ reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Moderating Influence of Procedural Fairness on the Relationship Between Work-Life Conflict and Organizational Commitment.

To help employees better manage work-life conflict, organizations have introduced various initiatives, which have met with mixed results. The present studies examined the utility of a procedurally based approach to understanding employees' reactions to work-life conflict. The authors examined whether the fairness of procedures used by organizational authorities to plan and implement decisions moderates the (inverse) relationship between work-life conflict and employees' organizational commitment. Three studies using different methodologies showed support for the moderating role played by procedural fairness. That is, the tendency for greater work-life conflict to lead to lower commitment was significantly less pronounced when procedural fairness was high rather than low. Theoretical contributions to the work-life conflict and organizational justice literatures are discussed, as are practical implications. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments.

The authors refine and extend their explanation of the psychology of the fair process effect (the positive influence of procedural fairness on outcome evaluations). On the basis of fairness heuristic theory's substitutability proposition, the authors predicted and found that outcome evaluations show strong effects of procedural fairness when outcomes are better or worse than expected, whereas less strong fair process effects appear when outcomes are equal to or differ from the outcome of a comparison other. This finding suggests some important differences in how people use expectations versus social comparisons as reference points for evaluating outcomes. Findings also revealed that fairness judgments do not always show the same effects as do satisfaction judgments, indicating differences in the way people form judgments on these two dimensions of outcome evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of procedural fairness and leader support on interpersonal relationships among group members.

In this article, the authors examine the impact of fair treatment by a group leader on people's relationships with and feelings toward other individual group members. Previous studies neglected procedural fairness effects on interpersonal relationships between group members. The authors hypothesized that fairness affects interpersonal relationships and feelings toward another group member only when the leader is regarded as representative and supported by the other group members. In three studies, the authors manipulated procedural fairness (no voice vs. voice) and other group member's support for the leader (full vs. mixed support for the leader). Two vignette studies supported the hypothesis. In addition, an experimental laboratory study showed that this interaction effect between procedural fairness and leader support was most pronounced among those with high belongingness needs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions.

Three studies examined the effects of perceived procedural justice and the favorability of a group-level outcome on the endorsement of a group-level decision and the evaluation of the authority responsible for the decision. Results showed that, contrary to findings usually seen with individual-level decisions, collective outcome favorability was more important than procedural justice in influencing the endorsement of the decision. Furthermore, increased identification with the group reduced the importance of procedural justice but accentuated the importance of collective outcome favorability. With regard to the evaluation of the authority, the results were similar to those obtained in individual-level decisions: Procedural fairness mattered more than collective outcome favorability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness.

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedural justice in contacts with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study.

A relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992) emphasizes the role of procedural justice (the fairness of methods used to achieve outcomes) in public support for and evaluation of the police. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study tested the model in the context of victim–police interactions. In-depth interviews were conducted with 110 people who had reported a crime (personal or property) to the police in the previous year. Quantitative findings supported the predictions that higher perceived antecedents of procedural justice would be associated with higher perceived legitimacy (obligation to obey the law), outcome fairness, and satisfaction with the contact. Antecedents of procedural justice were a stronger predictor of outcome fairness and satisfaction than the realization of a desired outcome, and a stronger predictor of legitimacy than criminal history. Qualitative findings supported these results. It appears that procedural justice has the potential for helping to motivate individuals with criminal history to obey the law. Implications for evaluation of police performance are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reactions to decisions with uncertain consequences: Reliance on perceived fairness versus predicted outcomes depends on knowledge.

Many decisions made by authorities pose uncertain consequences for the individuals affected by them, yet people must determine the extent to which they will support the change. Integrating the social justice and behavioral decision theory literatures, the article argues that individuals determine their support for proposed initiatives by assessing how knowledgeable they feel and using 2 main sources of information more or less heavily: their prediction of how the outcome of the initiative is likely to affect them or the perceived fairness of the decision maker. Three studies (2 experiments, 1 longitudinal field survey) assessing support for proposed public policies reveal that when individuals feel very knowledgeable they rely more on their prediction of how the outcome will affect them, whereas when they feel less knowledgeable they rely more on an overall impression of procedural fairness. The theoretical account and findings shed interdisciplinary insights into how people use process and outcome cues in reacting to decisions under uncertainty and ambiguity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem.

This study examined the effects of procedural justice on state-dependent self-esteem using the group-value model and attribution theory to present competing theoretical perspectives. The group-value model predicts a positive relationship between self-esteem and fair procedures. In contrast, attribution theory suggests procedural fairness interacts with outcome favorability to influence self-esteem. Thus, fair procedures will result in higher self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is positive but will result in lower self-esteem ratings than unfair procedures when the outcome is negative. The results of a laboratory and field study provide converging evidence to support the attribution theory predictions. The results of a 2nd laboratory study suggest that self-esteem is influenced by outcome expectancies, not actual outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do recipients of unfair treatment sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. The authors proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, prevention-focus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed, and suggestions for future research are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Implicit effects of justice on self-identity.

The authors provide one of the first tests of whether justice has effects at implicit or subconscious levels. By manipulating justice in a laboratory experiment, they found that the activation of interdependent and individual self-identities were higher when people experienced fairness and unfairness, respectively. Although these effects occurred at both implicit and explicit levels, they were stronger in the former case. These identity-based effects proved to be important because they mediated the effects of justice on trust and on cooperative and counterproductive behaviors. Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model.

Research on the psychology of procedural justice has been dominated by Thibaut and Walker's (1975) theory about the psychology of procedural preference. That theory suggests that people are concerned with their direct and indirect control over decisions. Lind and Tyler (1988) proposed a group-value theory that suggests that several noncontrol issues—the neutrality of the decision-making procedure, trust in the 3rd party, and the information the experience communicates about social standing—influence both procedural preferences and judgments of procedural justice. This study examines 3 issues. The first is whether judgments about neutrality, trust, and social standing have an independent impact on judgments of procedural justice. The results suggest that they do. The second is how Thibaut and Walker's control theory developed. The results suggest that control issues are central to the setting studied by Thibaut and Walker—disputes—but are less important in other situations. Finally, the implications of these findings for a group-value theory of procedural justice are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)