Effect of applicant sample on ratings of valid information in an employment setting.

Studied the effect of the previous job applicant upon ratings of test results for the following applicant. 2 informational aspects of the previous job applicant were varied: overall level of information favorability, and order of information within the previous job applicant. Interviewers were life insurance agency managers who through classroom instruction had been trained in the interpretation of test results. Results indicate that 55% of the criterion variance was accounted for by the test results while the favorability of the previous job applicant accounted for 4%. Thus, although the quality of the previous job applicant had a statistically significant effect on the evaluation of valid test results, its effect on the employment decision was negligible. By implication, the results also points to the necessity of building models on additional criteria than statistical significance. (25 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system.

This study examined several consequences of applicants' expectations of organizational justice at multiple stages in a selection process. The authors assessed the justice expectations of 1,832 job applicants prior to their participation in a testing process and examined how these expectations influenced their pretest attitudes and intentions as well as their perceptions of the testing process. Results revealed that applicants with higher expectations of justice reported higher levels of pretest motivation and more positive job acceptance and recommendation intentions. Justice expectations were also positively related to applicants' perceptions of justice in the testing process. Results provided some evidence that justice expectations have a moderating influence, such that justice perceptions have a greater influence on applicants' affective and cognitive states when expectations of justice are high. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in the context of research on organizational justice and applicant perceptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 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)     

Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice in an organizational change context.

Our study drew on past theorizing on anticipatory justice (D. L. Shapiro & B. L. Kirkman, 2001) and fairness heuristic theory (K. Van den Bos, E. A. Lind, & H. A. M. Wilke, 2001) to build and test a model of employee reactions to a smoking ban. The results of a longitudinal study in a hospital showed that employee levels of preban anticipatory justice were predicted by their global sense of their supervisor’s fairness. The combination of anticipatory justice and global supervisory fairness then predicted the experienced justice of the ban 3 months after its implementation, with the effects of the 2 predictors dependent on perceptions of uncertainty and outcome favorability regarding the ban. Finally, experienced (interpersonal) justice predicted significant other ratings of employee support for the ban. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system.

Procedural and distributive justice were examined in an employee selection situation. Along procedural justice dimensions, job relatedness of and explanation offered for the selection procedures were manipulated. Distributive justice was examined through manipulation of a selection decision and collection of a priori hiring expectations. Dependent measures included fairness reactions, recommendation intentions, self-efficacy, and actual work performance. Undergraduates (n?=?260) were selected/rejected for paid employment. Job relatedness influenced performance and interacted with selection decision on perceptions of distributive fairness and self-efficacy. Explanations influenced recommendations of rejected applicants. Interactions between hiring expectations and selection decision were observed on perceived fairness and recommendation intentions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study.

Although laboratory studies have found that selection information can affect applicant perceptions, this has not been tested in the field. The authors followed 2 cohorts of police applicants (N = 274) in a longitudinal study to examine the relationship between information, applicant perceptions, and behavior (e.g., turnover). Information was related to perceived fairness measured at the time of testing and 1 month later when applicants received their results. Information moderated the relationship between outcome favorability and test-taking self-efficacy among African Americans but not among Whites. Information was not related to the behavioral measures. The discussion focuses on why certain findings from previous studies were not replicated and on the use of information when applicants have an investment in getting a job. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation.

This study examined the differential effects of 4 types of organizational justice on daily job satisfaction at between- and within-individual levels. Specifically, the authors predicted that interpersonal justice and informational justice would exhibit meaningful daily variations and would have direct impacts on individuals’ job satisfaction on a daily basis. They further theorized that distributive justice and procedural justice at a between-person level would moderate the within-person relationships. The authors used hierarchical linear modeling to test their hypotheses with a sample of 231 full-time employees in Hong Kong over the course of 25 working days. The results showed that both daily interpersonal and informational justice were positively related to daily job satisfaction. As hypothesized, between-individual distributive justice moderated the relationship between daily interpersonal justice and daily job satisfaction, and between-individual procedural justice moderated the relationship between daily informational justice and daily job satisfaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest.

Examined the effects of outcome on reactions to an adjudication procedure and the effects of procedures on reactions to an adjudication outcome. 111 male undergraduates were led to believe they had been charged with wrongdoing of which they knew they were innocent. The charge was tried, and the Ss outcomes were determined using procedures (adversary or nonadversary) high or low in perceived procedural justice. Ss were then told that they had been found innocent or guilty. Perceptions of the trial process were assessed either before or after the verdict was announced. After the verdict, additional questionnaires assessed perceptions of the verdict and overall perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness. Results show that disputants saw the adversary procedure as fairer than the nonadversary and that they saw the verdict as more fair and satisfying, and as more accurate and unbiased, when it followed an adversary trial. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect.

Considerable research has demonstrated that fair procedures help improve reactions to decisions, a phenomenon known as the fair process effect. However, in the present research, the authors identify when and why objectively fair procedures (i.e., receiving voice) may not always improve justice perceptions. Findings from 2 studies (Ns = 108 and 277) yield support for the proposed identity violation effect, which posits that when an outcome violates a central aspect of one's self (i.e., personal and/or social identity), objectively fair procedures do not improve procedural and distributive justice perceptions. Further, consistent with the motivated reasoning hypothesis, the Voice × Identity Violation interaction on justice perceptions was mediated by participants' tendency to find a procedural flaw--namely, to doubt that opinions were considered before making the decision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exploring the Role of Emotions in Injustice Perceptions and Retaliation.

Although organizational justice scholars often describe unfairness as an emotionally laden experience, the role of emotion is underresearched. In a study of individuals who experienced being laid off (N = 173), the authors found that outcome favorability interacts with both procedural and interactional justice to predict participants' emotions. The pattern of interaction differed for inward-focused (i.e., shame and guilt) and outward-focused (i.e., anger and hostility) negative emotions. Attributions of blame mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and outward-focused negative emotion. Outward-focused emotion mediated the relationship between fairness perceptions and retaliation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action.

Using organizational justice as a guiding framework, the authors studied perceptions of affirmative action programs by presumed beneficiaries. Three conceptual issues were addressed: (a) the content of different affirmative action plans; (b) the 3-way interaction among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; and (c) the distinction between outcome favorability and distributive justice. These ideas were tested with a sample of Black engineering students who responded to 1 of 6 plans. Participants distinguished among the various plans, with some policies being viewed as more fair than others. In addition, a 3-way interaction among the 3 types of organizational justice was observed. Specifically, the 2-way interaction between distributive and interactional fairness was only significant when procedural justice was low. Implications for organizational justice and for the design of affirmative action programs are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement.

This study examined several unexplored issues in research on applicants' perceptions of fairness. First, the study explored possible differences between procedural violations that advantage individuals vs. those that are disadvantageous. Second, the study examined the complex relationship between process and outcome fairness across the stages of the selection process. A longitudinal, simulated selection process was used; procedural justice was manipulated by varying the consistency of test administration, and distributive justice was manipulated by varying perceptions of equity. Results indicate that favorable rule violations are perceived similar to rule satisfaction and that a complex and dynamic relationship exists between process and outcome fairness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Applicant self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process.

The authors examined applicant self-selection from a multiple hurdle hiring process. The relationships of the selection status of 3,550 police applicants (self-selected out prior to 1 of the hurdles, passing, or failing) and perceptions of the organization, commitment to a law enforcement job, expectations regarding the job, employment status, the need to relocate, the opinions of family and friends, and perceptions, of the hiring process were examined. Differences between those who stayed in the process and those who self-selected out were observed in most areas, and those who self-selected out at early stages differed from those self-selecting out at later stages. African Americans' and women's perceptions also differed from the majority group, indicating some of the difficulties an organization faces in attempting to diversify. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants' reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations.

The effects of explanation features on participants' reactions toward a selection decision were examined in 2 studies. In Study 1, students were provided with scenarios where informational (justification, procedural, personal, control) and sensitivity (sensitive or control) features of explanations were crossed with a selection decision to assess their effects on 3 applicant reactions: process fairness, self-perceptions, and organizational perceptions. In general, personal information enhanced fairness and organizational perceptions but harmed the reported self-perceptions of students role-playing rejected applicants. Explanations given in a sensitive manner accentuated these effects. Study 2 used a similar methodology to assess the effects of giving different types of procedural information. Self-reported reactions were influenced by the interactive effects of the type of procedural information provided and the selection decision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Interactive effect of job content and context on the reactions of layoff survivors.

A field survey and laboratory experiment examined the determinants of survivors' reactions to job layoffs. Independent variables included (1) change in the perceived intrinsic quality of the content of survivors' jobs relative to before the layoffs and (2) context favorability, as determined by (a) the perceived fairness of the layoffs and (b) survivors' perceptions of their co-workers' reactions to the layoffs. Both studies revealed similiar Job Content?×?Context interaction effects on the primary dependent variable of commitment: Change in job content was more strongly (positively) related to survivors' organizational and task commitment when the context was more favorable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Survivor reactions to reorganization: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.

This study tested a model of survivor reactions to reorganization, which incorporated multiple predictors and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. The 3 justice types had different correlates: all 4 antecedents (employee input, victim support, implementation, and communication quality) predicted interpersonal fairness, implementation and communication quality were associated with informational fairness, and employee input was the sole predictor of procedural justice. Procedural justice was strongly related to all 4 outcome variables, and interpersonal and informational justice added unique variance to the prediction of trust in management. The reorganization effort was still predictive of employee outcomes, although primarily through procedural justice approximately 1 year after its completion. (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)     

Is There Rest for the Test Weary?

This commentary raises questions and concerns about psychological employment tests. The author recounts her husband's exhausting experience as an applicant to numerous companies and agencies that required psychological tests. To be faced with testing day after day can create a very negative attitude on the part of the applicant, especially when the only evaluation he receives is either a positive or negative reply concerning the job. Also, one cannot help but meet a certain type of test over and over. If there are a great many test-wise people on the market, how does this affect industrial testing? The author suggests some standardization of industrial testing--a central clearinghouse for test scores, references, and general information where an industrial applicant could present his resume, professional qualifications, and references, and take a good battery of tests. The anonymous letter is followed by brief comments by Lee J. Cronbach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does the Justice of the One Interact With the Justice of the Many? Reactions to Procedural Justice in Teams.

This article reported the results of 2 studies that examined reactions to procedural justice in teams. Both studies predicted that individual members' reactions would be driven not just by their own procedural justice levels but also by the justice experienced by other team members. Study 1 examined intact student teams, whereas Study 2 occurred in a laboratory setting. The results showed that individual members' own justice interacted with others' justice, such that higher levels of role performance occurred when justice was consistent within the team. These effects were strongest in highly interdependent teams and weakest for members who were benevolent with respect to equity sensitivity. (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)