The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.     

The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study

Distributive and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, have been found to be salient antecedents of many correctional staff attitudes, such as job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; however, little correctional research has examined their relationships with the life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent. Multivariate regression equations were estimated to determine the association of personal characteristics, distributive justice, and procedural justice with the life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent of correctional employees based on a survey of 160 staff at a private midwestern maximum security institution. Both distributive and procedural justice had a statistically significant inverse association with burnout and turnover intent, while procedural justice had a significant positive relationship with life satisfaction. Additionally, the results indicated that the association of procedural justice was larger than the association for distributive justice. Similar results were obtained using only responses from correctional officers.     

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

Using nationally representative data, we test three theories about distributive and procedural justice and their relation to job satisfaction. Our results support the group-value model more than the personal outcomes model by showing that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than is distributive justice. Furthermore, although other research has supported the psychological contract model by showing that experiences with downsizing alter how procedural justice and distributive justice are related to organizational commitment, we find that downsizing does not alter their relationship with job satisfaction.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

Procedural justice and parents' satisfaction in a field study of child custody dispute resolution

The relative importance of procedural and distributive factors for satisfaction was tested in a field study of 71 couples who were randomly assigned to mediate or litigate their child custody dispute. Multiple regression analyses showed that procedural factors (decision control and respect) and distributive factors (feeling of winning what one wanted) were equally influential for parents' satisfaction as a group. However, the relative importance of procedural fairness and outcome favorability differed depending on disputant gender, favorability of outcomes, and level of conflict in the relationship. Support was found for Tyler's (1989) assertion that the specific procedural factor of decision control is especially important in dispute resolution settings. However, contrary to expectation, decision control was relatively more important to satisfaction in mediation than in litigation. It is suggested that the type of allocation setting may not be as influential for satisfaction as participants' status in the proceedings and their perceptions of the level of conflict.     

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its expected-value (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.     

Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status—the importance of procedural fairness deservingness—and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.     

Procedural Justice in Resolving Family Conflict: Implications for Youth Violence Prevention

The fairness of our legal system is often judged by individuals and the public at large along dimensions of procedural and distributive justice. People seem to care about how legal decisions are made as well as about the specific outcomes reached by juries and judges. In fact, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice or injustice may influence public perceptions and confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. This paper focuses mainly on procedural justice. Using an ecological framework, we tested the hypothesis that older adolescents use the same or similar criteria for evaluating fairness in the context of family decision making that people in general use to evaluate the fairness of legal processes and decisions. We also tested the hypothesis that family decision-making procedures that are perceived to be unfair contribute to increased risk for acting out and deviant behavior among older adolescents. Principal components analysis confirmed that older adolescents use several distinct criteria for evaluating procedural fairness in the family context and that these criteria are comparable to those that people use to evaluate the fairness of legal procedures (rational and objective treatment conveying personal respect, consistent and non-discriminatory treatment reflecting social status or standing, and instrumental participation or having "an opportunity to be heard"). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis confirmed that procedural justice factors are associated with adolescent deviant behavior. We discuss implications for adolescent deviance and youth violence prevention.     

Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff

Fairness and justice are fundamental concepts in society, including in the workplace where they are referred to as organizational justice. Distributive and procedural justice are two dimensions of organizational justice. It is theorized that organizational justice impacts the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated, factor analysis was performed, and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equations were computed from the results of a survey of staff at a midwestern correctional facility. It was found that distributive and procedural justice are distinct concepts among correctional staff, and both have significant positive effects on job satisfaction. Additionally, procedural justice, but not distributive justice, has a significant positive impact on organizational commitment.     

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners,Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

Social scientists have long investigated the social, cultural, and psychological forces that shape perceptions of fairness. A vast literature on procedural justice advances a central finding: the process by which a dispute is played out is central to people's perceptions of fairness and their satisfaction with dispute outcomes. There is, however, one glaring gap in the literature. In this era of mass incarceration, studies of how the incarcerated weigh procedural justice versus substantive justice are rare. This article addresses this gap by drawing on unique quantitative and qualitative data, including face‐to‐face interviews with a random sample of men incarcerated in three California prisons and official data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Our mixed‐methods analysis reveals that these prisoners privilege the actual outcomes of disputes as their barometer of justice. We argue that the dominance of substantive outcomes in these men's perceptions of fairness and in their dispute satisfaction is grounded in, among other things, the high stakes of the prison context, an argument that is confirmed by our data. These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice, but show the power of institutional context to structure perceptions of and responses to fairness, one of the most fundamental principles of social life.     

The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment

Correctional staff are the heart and soul of any correctional facility. While there was a significant body of research on the impact of the work environment on correctional staff, this study sought to expand that knowledge by examining the effects of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Multivariate models were estimated. Both forms of organizational justice had negative effects on job stress and organizational commitment; however, only procedural justice, but not distributive justice, had a significant impact on job satisfaction.     

Perceptions of justice: Clientele evaluations of conflict adjustment by a utility regulatory agency

During the past 15 years social psychological research on justice has evaluated hypotheses about linkages among various personal and institutional attributes and variables like outcome favorability and perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in decision-making contexts. This article reexamines hypotheses and findings about procedural and distributive justice using data from the dispute adjustment process used by a state regulatory agency. This study differs from any previous studies of perceptions of justice in two respects. First, the study employs data about the perceptions ofboth sides of a disputing experience before a public authority. Second, rather than using multiple regression and path analysis as in many past studies, we illustrate the value of hierarchical log-linear analysis as an analytical technique. The data analyzed through loglinear analysis permit us to reconsider previous conclusions about the procedural neutrality and participation in dispute adjustment and the linkage of these concepts to the legitimacy of the political regime.     

Uncertainty,Fairness Perceptions,and Job Satisfaction: A Field Study

Following uncertainty management theory, we argue that when people face increased uncertainty, fairness becomes more important to them and judgments of fairness affect their reactions more strongly. The organizational field study reported here examines the effects of uncertainty about performance standards and appropriate behaviors on the relationship between fairness and job satisfaction. Results reveal that uncertainty moderates the positive relationship between fairness perceptions and job satisfaction such that the more uncertain people are about performance standards and appropriate behaviors, the stronger the relationship between fairness and job satisfaction. Further results reveal a significant moderating effect of uncertainty specifically for procedural fairness and interactional fairness. We discuss the implications of our findings for the uncertainty management model.     

Managing Reactions to Performance Appraisal: The Influence of Multiple Justice Mechanisms

Despite the potential for conflict in performance appraisal, researchers have devoted little time and attention to justice concerns when studying this process. The present study used scenarios to investigate the effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice mechanisms on responses to performance appraisal reviews. Results suggest that multiple justice mechanisms in the same context may interact to influence perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, and commitment. Practical implications for conducting performance reviews in organizations are discussed.     

Cross-Disciplinary Conversations: A Psychological Perspective on Justice Research with Non-human Animals

Social Justice Research has devoted two recent issues to the topic of inequity responses in non-human animals. The goal of this paper is to provide some commentary from the perspective of psychological theory and research on justice and fairness in humans. In an attempt to build greater cross-disciplinary sharing of ideas and insights, I briefly review the major insights from (a) contemporary research on questions of fairness and justice with non-human primates and how this corpus of knowledge can inform the on-going study of these issues in psychology and related disciplines, and (b) 50-plus years of research on justice and fairness in psychology and related disciplines, and how it can inform contemporary research efforts with non-human animals going forward. The spotlight behavioral economists and justice research with non-human animals places on the primary role of distributive justice is suggestive that it may be time for a renaissance of interest in this topic in psychology and related disciplines. The focus of psychological research on topics such as boundary conditions on equity as key justice concern (e.g., alternative distributive norms such as equality and need), as a well as attention given to procedural, interactional, retributive, and restorative justice, is suggestive that research with non-human animals should broaden its horizons to study alternative conceptions of justice and fairness.     

An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice: Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the integration of distributive and procedural justice in positive and negative outcome allocations. The framework consists of seven basic assumptions, seven propositions, and seven groups of interrelated hypotheses. The expected outcome offers a coherent program for future justice research based on the realization that distributive and procedural aspects of fairness cannot be meaningfully treated (1) in isolation from one another, and (2) without taking into account the valence of the allocated outcome. The framework should also reveal the need to reassess existing distributive and procedural justice study conclusions that neglected to examine the interactive effects of the allocation outcome (distribution) and the procedure and the outcome valence.     

Political Ideology,Perceived Threat,and Justice Towards Immigrants

In multiethnic societies, issues of justice and fairness have become the focus of intense public debate. Although current psychological theories of distributive and procedural justice concentrate on multiple normative rules that guide allocation decisions, there is little research that focuses on the particular relationship between immigrants as recipients and members of the host society as allocators. In the present study Germans were asked about their opinions as to what Turkish immigrants in Germany deserve or are entitled to and to which degree they pose a threat to German culture. Political orientation of the allocator turns out to be an important predictor of how distributive and procedural justice concerns are evaluated. Both conservatives and liberals exhibit a different conception of what counts as distributive justice. With regard to procedural justice, however, liberals and conservatives did not differ much. Moreover, perceived threat to German culture is significantly related to distributive justice but not to procedural justice.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .