Procedural justice in managerial selection: Identification of fairness determinants and associations of fairness perceptions

The study examined procedural fairness in managerial selection practices. A sample of professional managers were asked to make first, fairness judgments about managerial selection procedures in general; and second, specific fairness judgments based on their own previous experiences in applying for such positions. Using the general fairness ratings, the determinants of procedural fairness in selection were identified by the factor analysis technique. Five procedural factors (three process and two decision factors) accounted for 57.4% of the total variance. The factor scores derived from fairness ratings of specific selection procedures were then correlated with ratings of candidates' later organizational commitment, work satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Results showed that process factors were significantly associated with candidate variables but decision factors were not. The findings were discussed in the context of current procedural justice theories.     

Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

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 .     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity

In social psychology it has been argued that the importance of justice cannot be overstated. In the present paper, we ask whether this indeed is the case and, more precisely, examine when fairness is an important determinant of human reactions and when it is less significant. To this end we explore what drives people's reactions to perceived fairness and argue that although social justice research has reported effects of fairness perceptions on people's affective feelings, a close examination of the literature shows that these reactions appear less frequently and less strong than one would expect. It is proposed here that this has to do with the neglect in the social psychology of justice of an important determinant of affective reactions: individuals' propensity to react strongly or mildly toward affect-related events. As hypothesized, findings of two empirical studies show that especially people high in affect intensity show strong affective reactions following the experience of outcome fairness (Study1) and procedural fairness (Study2). When affect intensity is low, however, weak or no fairness effects were found, suggesting that then fairness may not be an important issue. In the discussion it is thus argued that incorporating affect intensity into the justice literature may further insights into the psychology of reactions toward fairness.     

Communication in family court: financial remedy proceedings from the perspective of litigants in person

The article presents a rationale for communicative, conceptual, cognitive and procedural challenges experienced by litigants in person in financial remedy proceedings. The article also explores oscillation between written and spoken legal genres and narrative development strategies which litigants in person have to use throughout different stages (from the early stages of starting proceedings, filling in court forms and providing documentation, through the negotiation process to interaction in court). While legal professionals express themselves in paradigmatic legal mode influenced by legal acts and legislation, litigants in person tend to express themselves in narrative mode similar to everyday storytelling. The objective is to investigate obstacles litigants in person experience during the process originally designed by legal professionals for legal professionals. The article evaluates different options for empowering lay people involved in legal proceedings and argues for the need to provide more specific support for different stages of family proceedings.     

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.     

Toward general principles of managerial fairness

The present study identified the principles employees use for judging a broad range of managerial actions. A cross-sectional sample of 44 executives were asked to describe recent fair and unfair treatment in seven areas of management responsibility: planning, staff development, delegating, motivating, coordinating, daily activities, and representing the organization to the public. These responses were coded to yield 16 rules guiding judgments about perceived managerial fairness. Aggregation of these rules yielded six major clusters of fairness concerns. The paper describes these clusters in detail and highlights their potential usefulness to a broader understanding of the complex nature of procedural fairness judgments in organizations.     

Real Personal Uncertainty Induced by Means of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Reactions to Voice and No-Voice Procedures

Building and extending on research on uncertainty management and voice and no-voice procedures, we examine how real personal uncertainty moderates the way in which people react to getting or being denied an opportunity to voice one??s opinions about decisions to be made. Specifically, results of two experiments show that conditions in which participants receive task-related feedback that induces personal uncertainty (versus conditions that produce more personal certainty) lead to stronger effects of voice and especially no-voice procedures on participants?? procedural fairness judgments (Experiments 1 and 2). Findings also reveal that in these conditions stronger effects of voice and particularly no-voice procedures can be found on participants?? anger about the way they have been treated, especially when participants are predisposed to react in intense terms to affect-related events (Experiment 2). Implications for the literature on uncertainty management and the social psychology of voice and no-voice procedures are discussed.     

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.     

“程序公正感受”研究及其启示

从 #" 世纪 ’" 年代开始,西方学者对程序公正的研究从伦理哲学分析转向社会心理学分析,试图揭示程序公正的心理规律。研究发现：程序公正的要素并没有绝对标准,具有一定的情境敏感性;不过,程序公正在促进人们接受法律、法律决定和从事积极行为等方面具有比结果公正更为重要的地位,这种现象甚至具有跨越文化、种族、性别的普遍性。为了对此进行解释,西方学者提出了发言权理论、团体价值理论、人际关系理论和公正启发理论等模式,各自都具有一定的解释力。不过,程序公正也有可能成为社会权威转移真实矛盾“欺骗”社会成员的统治策略。对于转型期的我国,程序公正感受研究带给我们的不是其具体的结论,而是告诉我们,研究公正问题时,应当抛开宏大话语,努力探寻中国人心目中的公正观。     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.     

Impact of procedural factors on perceived justice in divorce settlements

We used a decision-making conceptual framework from family resource management combined with procedural justice frameworks from social psychology to (i) articulate the elements and rules of procedural fairness, (ii) develop a theoretical organization and code to include procedural fairness principles as applied to legal decision processes in divorce, and (iii) describe the perceptions of divorcing parties about the violations of procedural fairness principles in their own divorce process. Procedural fairness principles included accuracy, consistency, ethicality, bias suppression, correctability, and representativeness. Results of qualitative data analyses were consistent with experimental studies in that divorced people were concerned with fair procedures and particularly with violations of the principles of ethicality, consistency, accuracy, and representativeness.     

Procedural fairness and organizational commitment under conditions of growth and decline

We surveyed employees from seven relocating firms undergoing either an expansion or decline. Employees' judgments of procedural fairnes regarding the decision procedures used to implement the change showed a stronger effect on normative commitment for sites undergoing decline than for those undergoing growth. Procedural fairness concerns therefore seem to be more important to employees experiencing organizational decline. The finding has implications for research and for the management of organizational decline.     

The effects of procedural aspects and outcome salience on procedural fairness judgments

The effects of process control and decision control on procedural fairness judgements are examined with regard to the procedure used by commercial banks in granting business credits to entrepreneurs. Male and female entrepreneurs with experience in requests for business credits were interviewed about several aspects of the procedure for granting business credit. Respondents had either a positive or a negative experience with credit granting (i.e., the request was or was not rewarded). The outcome-oriented and the procedure-oriented explanations for the effects of process control on procedural fairness judgments are discussed. The results show that, contrary to expectation, process control had no effect on the procedural fairness judgments. On the contrary, perceived seriousness of treatment, as well as the predicted effects of decision control, did influence procedural justice judgments. Moreover, some support was found for the contention that seriousness of treatment functions as precondition for process control effects (Tyler, 1987). Neither the outcome-oriented, nor the procedure-oriented explanation could fully account for the findings. It is assumed that the specific aspects of the situation are responsible for the results, indicating how important the situational context is in research concerning procedural justice.     

Affirmative Action in an Institutional Context: The Antecedents of Policy Preferences and Political Support

This study broadens the framework within which the psychology of support for affirmative action policies is examined to include the institutional framework within which such policies are developed and implemented. This broader framework includes concern with electoral support for those who implement affirmative action policies, as well as considering the impact of implementing such policies on the overall legitimacy of government. It also includes evaluations of the fairness of the two key social institutions shaping such policies—government authorities and markets. The results of a survey of Americans suggest that this institutional framework had an important influence on reactions to affirmative action policies that was distinct from direct reactions to policies themselves. In particular, people were more supportive of policies intervening in markets when they believed that markets represented unfair social allocation procedures. Those politicians who supported such policies received greater electoral support when people viewed market procedures as being unfair and when they felt that government decision-making procedures were fair. Evidence suggests that outcomes did not directly shape electoral support or judgments about the legitimacy of government.     

The effect of procedural and interactional criteria on procedural fairness judgments

In studying procedural fairness judgments, distinctions are made between (i) the mere presence of rules and procedures in the process of outcome allocation and dispute resolution, (ii) the application of these rules by a decision maker, and (iii) the enactment of procedures and rules in the interaction between a decision maker and involved parties. In line with Bies and Moag (1986), criteria that must satisfy the application of rules to be judged as fair are called procedural fairness criteria as distinguished from interactional fairness criteria. The hypothesis that interactional fairness criteria are more important in affecting fairness judgments than procedural fairness criteria is tested. Fifty-four subjects received information about a fictitious job application situation. The subjects judged the decision maker's handling to the application procedure and his/her treatment of the applicant as fair or unfair. Three procedural and three interactional criteria and the final decision (hired or not) were used in the study. Results show that the decision maker's consistent application of rules and his/her truthfulness to the applicant were judged as the most important factors in determining the fairness of the procedure. Accurate processing of information about the applicant and respectful treatment were judged as least important factors. Contrary to expectation, procedural criteria were judged on the average as equally important for determining fairness as interactional criteria. It is argued that the smaller than expected impact of the interactional criteria may be due to the fact that in the present study the entire application situation was evaluated and not the specific face-to-face aspects of the interaction. Results are in agreement with those of Tyler and Schuller (1990).