Procedural justice as autonomy regulation.

The present research investigated the relation between autonomy (i.e., freedom of choice) and procedural justice. Three studies tested the hypothesis that people would be particularly sensitive to the fairness of decision-making procedures when they experience deprivation of autonomy needs. Study 1 indicated that procedural justice judgments indeed were influenced more strongly by variations in decision-making procedures among participants who experienced little autonomy in their life. In Study 2, these findings were conceptually replicated by manipulating whether participants were provided with choice on an issue that was unrelated to the outcomes of the subsequent decision-making process. Study 3 revealed evidence for the hypothesis in a field setting. It is concluded that procedural justice is functional to regulate basic autonomy needs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger?

When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, their judgments of both outcome and procedural fairness become driven more by whether outcomes support or oppose their moral mandates than by whether procedures are proper or improper (the moral mandate effect). Two studies tested 3 explanations for the moral mandate effect. In particular, people with moral mandates may (a) have a greater motivation to seek out procedural flaws when outcomes fail to support their moral point of view (the motivated reasoning hypothesis), (b) be influenced by in-group distributive biases as a result of identifying with parties that share rather than oppose their moral point of view (the group differentiation hypothesis), or (c) react with anger when outcomes are inconsistent with their moral point of view, which, in turn, colors perceptions of both outcomes and procedures (the anger hypothesis). Results support the anger hypothesis. (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)     

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)     

Hypnotically induced pseudomemories: Sampling their conditions among hypnotizable subjects.

Three studies investigated a range of parameters affecting individual differences in the incidence of hypnotically induced pseudomemory among hypnotizable Ss. Study 1 replicated Laurence and Perry's (1983) base rates for hypnotically induced pseudomemory response among hypnotizable subjects; in Study 2 the same response was analyzed under more strictly controlled stimulus conditions. Study 3 was an investigation of the impact of a broader range of stimulus events on response and a more sensitive test of the hypothesis that individual differences in pseudomemory effects are tied essentially to the social context of hypnosis. In all 3 studies, independent groups of Ss were tested who were highly responsive to hypnotic suggestion. Data indicated that the incidence of pseudomemory response was stable and consistent when stringent criteria of scoring were adopted. Also, for some Ss, real and suggested memories were maintained at one and the same time when hypnotically induced memory was examined in different test settings, suggesting that pseudomemories do not permanently overlay real experience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Identifying international assignees at risk for premature departure: The interactive effect of outcome favorability and procedural fairness.

Two studies examined factors that predict expatriate managers' tendencies to think seriously about departing prematurely from their international assignments. Previous research (conducted outside of the expatriate context) has shown that individuals' willingness to stay with or leave their positions is an interactive function of outcome favorability and procedural fairness. A conceptually analogous interaction effect was found in the present studies. Whereas expatriates more seriously thought of departing prematurely when they perceived the non-work-related outcomes of their overseas assignments to be less favorable, this tendency was much less pronounced when procedural fairness was relatively high. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research. (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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Seating arrangement and leadership emergence.

Based on the proposition that seating position effects the flow of communication which, in turn, effects leadership emergence, 20 groups of 5 Ss performed a problem solving task and then rated the group members on exhibited leadership. The seats were arranged so that 2 Ss were opposite 3 Ss. A greater number of leaders than would be expected by chance emerged from the 2-seat side of the table, thus, lending support to the hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 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)     

Gender, motivation, and coping in the evaluation of leadership effectiveness.

Examined the effects of gender, coping, and motivational orientation in evaluating individual leadership. Ss were 17 female and 31 male graduate students in an intensive leadership development program at a leading business school. The Shanan Sentence Completion Technique, Jackson's Personality Research Form, and Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices were used to predict peer ratings of leadership at the end of the 9-mo program. The data reveal significant gender differences on the measures of motivation, with men showing higher levels of agentic instrumental tendencies and women exhibiting higher levels of communal-social qualities. These qualities, in turn were differentially correlated with evaluations of leadership. Women exhibiting strong agentic characteristics were negatively perceived as leaders. There was no relationship between agentic or communal qualities and evaluations of leadership received by male leaders. Finally, individuals with active coping tendencies were evaluated as more effective leaders for both genders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Women and women of color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality.

This article describes the challenges that women and women of color face in their quest to achieve and perform in leadership roles in work settings. We discuss the barriers that women encounter and specifically address the dimensions of gender and race and their impact on leadership. We identify the factors associated with gender evaluations of leaders and the stereotypes and other challenges faced by White women and women of color. We use ideas concerning identity and the intersection of multiple identities to understand the way in which gender mediates and shapes the experience of women in the workplace. We conclude with suggestions for research and theory development that may more fully capture the complex experience of women who serve as leaders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Manipulating the situation to fit the leader's style: Two validation studies of LEADER MATCH.

Describes 2 studies in which LEADER MATCH, a self-programmed leadership training manual, was used with student military leaders. 26 Ss in a controlled experiment and 37 in a field study attempted to manipulate their own leadership situation based on the prescribed contingency model match between their leader style and the favorableness of their situation. Both studies matched experimental Ss against control groups over a 3-mo and 6-wk period, respectively. Rated performance of the experimental Ss was compared to the performance of control Ss at the completion of each study. In addition, Ss in the experimental study were required to provide an analysis of the process by which they manipulated their situation to match their leader style. Results show that leaders who used the manual, when compared with the matched controls, were rated significantly higher than their contemporaries in comparative performance ratings. Analysis of individual strategies provides for comments on the effectiveness, limitations, and utility of the programmed leadership training text. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgeability in person perception: The confidence of leaders.

Leaders are often expected to evaluate their team workers. In the present study, the authors investigated the hypothesis that leaders express social judgments with more confidence than subordinates. Leadership is assumed to play the role of a metainformational cue leading people to feel entitled to judge. In Study 1, supervisors in a Portuguese firm expressed their evaluations of colleagues and superiors. In Study 2, leadership was attributed on the basis of alleged competence. In Study 3, leadership was explicitly attributed on a random basis. The results of the 3 studies support the hypothesis and are discussed within the framework of social judgeability theory (J. P. Leyens, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & G. Schadron, 1992, 1994). The confidence of leaders may become a norm that is constructed by others. Practical implications are discussed. To the same extent that leadership often resides in the eyes of followers, confidence may originate in the mind of leaders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)