Drug Testing and Procedural Fairness: The Influence of Situational Variables

This study examines the effect of four variables (i.e., interpersonal treatment, organizational reputation, testing context, and consequence of testing) on perceptions of the procedural fairness of a drug-testing program. Main effects for each of these variables on perceptions of procedural fairness were expected. In addition, interactions were predicted between interpersonal treatment and organizational reputation, testing context and consequence, and testing context and interpersonal treatment. Results generally supported the hypotheses, revealing main effects for the four variables and two significant interactions. The implications of these findings for justice research and the design and implementation of drug-testing programs are discussed.     

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.     

Context effects on procedural justice: Effects of interrelatedness,trust, and penalty on procedural preferences

The relationship of context to procedural preferences was studied by examining the effects of interrelatedness, trust, and penalty on preferences for adversary and inquisitorial hearing procedures. Subjects imagined themselves members of different communities and were led to believe that they had been accused of committing an offense of which they knew they were innocent. Interrelatedness, trust, and penalty interacted to affect subjects' ratings of both hearing procedures. Subjects in highly trusting settings (i) preferred the inquisitorial procedure more than those in nontrusting settings and (ii) preferred the adversary procedure less than their nontrusting counterparts. A penalty effect was also found. As penalty increased, subjects increased in their preference for the adversary procedure and decreased in their preference for the inquisitorial procedure, but only in noninterrelated communities. The implications for prior research and for the role of interrelatedness in procedural choice are discussed.     

The Interplay Between Greed,Efficiency, and Fairness in Public-Goods Dilemmas

The Greed–Efficiency–Fairness hypothesis (H. A. M. Wilke, In European Review of Social Psychology, Wiley, New York, Vol. 2, pp. 165–187, 1991) states that people in resource dilemmas are greedy and wish to defect, but that greed is constrained by preferences for efficient resource use and fair distributions. This paper reviews research where the GEF hypothesis was generalized to public-goods dilemmas. Results from both surveys and experiments on people's willingness to contribute to resources for social services were interpreted in light of the GEF hypothesis. Whereas earlier research on social dilemmas and fairness considerations have focused on the correlation between estimated fair and actual cooperation rates, the present results provide an extension where cooperation rates are influenced by perceived fairness of how a resource is distributed. Two experiments contribute further insights into the interplay, in terms of effects on cooperation, between greed, efficiency, and fairness. The collective consequences of individual choices were either highlighted or not (Experiment 1) and the outcome structure in prior social dilemma tasks was either collectively or individually framed (Experiment 2). These manipulations influenced (a) cooperation rates and (b) the extent to which decisions were based on greed, efficiency, or fairness.     

Equality and differentiation: Effects of group structure on allocations

Two studies using vignettes explore some conditions under which equity, equality, and need as allocation rules are taken into account by an outside allocator. Independent variables include information about success or failure of a work group, level of morale of the group, relative contributions of work group members, responsibility for outcome, and influence of one individual on others. Results suggest that differentiation based on both equity and need results from a focus on individual deserving while equality among status equals results from focus on group level factors. An interaction between outcome and contribution appears when group level factors are included; these effects also appear when there are two rather than only one target person differing from the rest of a group; an overreward effect depends on attributions of responsibility for outcome; and an influential member is seen as deserving even if a low contributor. No gender differences were found.     

公正的旁观者:亚当·斯密经济伦理思想的伟大创新

斯密从经济理论的人性假设出发,对其独特的经济模型和看不见的手理论进行了创新性研究,指出道德标准和公正原则是其经济模型赖以实现的价值支撑.公正的旁观者是价值的最高裁判者,是上帝、自然神性与人的德性的统一.公正的旁观者在经济伦理思想的演进中发挥着承前启后的作用.以公正的旁观者理论的提出为标志,经济与伦理的关系在现代性语境中发生了重大的转向.公正的旁观者是现代经济伦理思想的伟大创新,是实现现代经济社会良序运行的伦理保障.     

Demographics in Service Encounters: Effects of Racial and Gender Congruence on Perceived Fairness

We investigated the effects of outcome favorability, opportunity for voice, and demographic congruence on customer reactions to bank loan decisions. Applicants for loans engaged in a transaction with loan officers who were either congruent or incongruent with respect to race and gender. Results suggest that perceptions of outcome favorability and opportunity for voice explain significant variance in customer reactions. Customers responded more positively to unfavorable outcomes when they resulted from a race-congruent loan officer, and female customers responded more positively to low opportunity for voice from male loan officers than from female officers. Implications of the results for organizations serving customers who are diverse in race and gender are discussed.     

司法中公正和效率之关系辨正--兼评刑事普通程序简易审

公正是司法的本质属性。而效率,一方面作为司法的外在价值尺度,是评价司法好坏的重要标准;另一方面又作为公正的内涵之一,通过公正这一中介与司法产生密切的内部联系。从公正与效率的内部关系来讲,效率只有在其本身就是公正时,它对司法才是有意义的,才是可被司法接受和容纳的。而从公正与效率的外部关系来讲,公正的地位和权重远高于效率,故提高司法效率的上线不能越过维护司法本质(公正)的底线。据此,"普通程序简易审"一类的程序改革是可行的,但应以公正作为程序改革的底线。     

Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler

Napier and Tyler (this issue) question whether moral convictions about outcomes really override the influence of procedural fairness (PF) on fairness judgments and decision acceptance. The empirical answer to this question is “yes.” When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, perceptions of outcome fairness and decision acceptance are primarily shaped by whether the morally “correct” outcomes are achieved. Pre-decision perceptions of PF have surprisingly little or no effect on these judgments. That said, pre-outcome perceptions of PF sometimes predict post-outcome perceptions of PF, even when people have morally vested outcome preferences. We provide further details supporting the validity and superiority of our data analytic approach and argue that our original conclusions were justified.

Prior Experiences as Temporal Frames of Reference in Social Justice: The Influence of Previous Fairness Experiences on Reactions to New and Old Supervisors

This paper focuses on the psychology of social change and social justice. Specifically, we focus on subordinates’ reactions to new and old supervisors, and we argue that in evaluating these different types of supervisors, subordinates may rely on prior fair or unfair experiences as temporal frames of reference. We further propose that a result of these frames of reference may be that previous fairness experiences have a bigger impact on subordinates’ reactions to subsequent neutral communications when an old rather than when a new supervisor is the source of that communication. Findings of two empirical studies indeed show that subordinates who had had fair experiences with a particular supervisor reacted more positively toward subsequent neutral messages when the communication was coming from the old supervisor rather than from the new supervisor. Subordinates who had had unfair experiences, however, reacted more negatively toward the communication when the source was the old rather than the new supervisor. Some evidence was also found for contrast effects such that people who react to a new supervisor may react more positively with the neutral demand from this authority figure when they have earlier experienced unfair as opposed to fair treatment by a different supervisory agent. These findings were obtained on subordinates’ satisfaction with the supervisors’ communication and their acceptance of the supervisor. Finally, we discuss the implications for the psychology of social change and social justice.     

A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance Effects of Informational and Interpersonal Justice

It has been argued that authorities attract greater compliance when they treat people according to principles of interactional and procedural justice. Set in the context of taxation, the present research investigates the effects on behavioral compliance of reminder letters adopting principles of informational and interpersonal fairness compared with a standard reminder notice. Study 1 with 199 students confirmed that both fairness letters were regarded as fairer than the standard letter. In Study 2, a field experiment, 2052 Australian taxpayers who had an obligation to file a tax declaration but failed to file on time were randomly sent one of the three reminder letters. The two fairness letters yielded a significantly greater compliance rate than the control letter.

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance

A laboratory study was conducted to examine the role of two components of participatory work evaluation procedures on fairness attitudes and work performance. Opportunity for influential opinion expression and knowledge of evaluation criteria were manipulated in a business simulation exercise. Thirty-eight male and 49 female undergraduates worked under a task evaluation procedure that either did or did not allow them to express their opinions to the evaluator. In addition, subjects either were or were not provided with specific information about the criteria to be used in making the performance evaluation, and they received either a favorable or an unfavorable outcome. Questionnaire responses indicated that influential opinion expression enhanced perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness independently of the outcome of the evaluation. Both knowledge of evaluation criteria and perceptions of evaluation fairness correlated with subsequent task performance. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to understanding the influence of procedural justice on attitudes and task behavior in organizational settings.     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

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.     

Fairnes issues and job satisfaction among korean employees: The significance of status value and procedural justice in work orientation

This study investigates how justice or fairness issues such as procedural justice, distributive justice, and status equity affect job satisfaction among Korean employees. Incorporating cultural values and social norms salient in Korea, the study hypothesizes that perceptions of procedural justice enhance more job satisfaction than perceptions of distributive justice among Korean employees. Another hypothesis, based on Korean employees' aspiration for higher occupational status, predicts that perceptions of status equity, i.e., occupational prestige of their current jobs relative to their human capital, also increase job satisfaction more than perceptions of distributive justice. These two hypotheses were tested with a sample of 501 full-time employees in Korea. Supporting the hypotheses, the results indicated that (i) perceptions of procedural justice produce more job satisfaction than do perceptions of distributive justice; and (ii) perceptions of status equity are the most important factor predicting job satisfaction among the three fairness issues. Cross-cultural implications of these findings are discussed in more detail.The author thanks Professor Hyunho Seok and the Korean Social Science Council (KSSC) for their 1990 national survey data sets.     

Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences

A preliminary statement of a theoretical framework integrating psychological and societal determinants of justice in human affairs is presented. It is proposed that the social structure provides the rules of entitlement and decision making that regulate the course of routine social interaction. These societally based norms are representable in people's conscious thought processes. By contrast, the psychologically generated rules of entitlement, typically contradict conventionally accepted rules of thought and discourse and thus remain unconscious. The major part of the discussion considers the motivationally important circumstances that engage the unconscious psychologically compelling determinants and how their appearance in behavior is both shaped and legitimized by the situationally prevailing normative context. The final section considers some of the more important methodological, theoretical, and social policy implications of this social psychological theory of entitlements.     

Ambivalence in Intergroup Evaluation: The Role of Fairness Norm

We conducted two studies to examine the role of the social norm of fairness on cognitive (beliefs and judgments) and affective (emotions and feelings) ambivalence in an intergroup context of evaluation. As predicted, we found that ambivalence toward the ingroup is constantly higher in the cognitive dimension than in the affective dimension. Instead, cognitive and affective ambivalence toward the outgroup are generally similar but when the outgroup is highly protected by the fairness norm (i.e., the elderly), cognitive ambivalence is considerably lower than affective ambivalence. These findings provide evidence that (1) cognitive ambivalence is more controlled by the fairness norm than affective ambivalence, and that (2) it holds an adaptive function, changing in accordance with the demands of the normative context.

Lineup Identification by Children: Effects of Clothing Bias

This study examined effects of clothing cues on children's identification accuracy from lineups. Four- to 14-year-olds (n = 228) saw 12 video clips of individuals, each wearing a distinctly colored shirt. After watching each clip children were presented with a target-present or target-absent photo lineup. Three clothing conditions were included. In 2 conditions all lineup members wore the same colored shirt; in the third, biased condition, the shirt color of only one individual matched that seen in the preceding clip (the target in target-present trials and the replacement in target-absent trials). Correct identifications of the target in target-present trials were most frequent in the biased condition, whereas in target-absent trials the biased condition led to more false identifications of the target replacement. Older children were more accurate than younger children, both in choosing the target from target-present lineups and rejecting target-absent lineups. These findings suggest that a simple clothing cue such as shirt color can have a significant impact on children's lineup identification accuracy.