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.     

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).     

Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice,Procedural Justice,and Social Resource Theories

The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.     

Introduction: Continuing the Effort to Understand the Relationship Between Positive and Negative Resource Allocations and How They Affect Our Justice Conceptions

Social Justice Research -     

Theoretical Integration and Unification: A Focus on Justice

A commonly shared goal among scientists is to reach the ‘holy grail’ of theoretical integration or unification. We list several examples of such attempts within sociology and psychology in general and, more specifically, within the subarea of social justice. A distinction is made between the seemingly interchangeable terms integration and unification. We note the scarcity of work concerned with untangling the meaning of theoretical integration, with differentiating among forms of integration, and with mapping the variety of ways in which integration might be accomplished. The five articles published in this issue of Social Justice Research, and here briefly reviewed, address these and related questions and/or exemplify theoretical integration with a focus on justice.     

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.     

The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest

The present study extends earlier research on procedural unfairness by assessing subjects' reactions to a procedural change before they learn about the outcome of the changed procedure. Subjects performed a series of four tests. After three tests, the procedure to calculate the test scores was changed into a procedure that was very inaccurate or slightly inaccurate compared to what subjects had experienced until then. The very inaccurate procedure was judged as more unfair as the slightly inaccurate procedure. As predicted, the unfair procedure raised negative affect and motivated subjects to protest. Implications of the results for procedural justice theory are discussed.     

Physiological Relaxation: Stress Reduction Through Fair Treatment

The effects of fair treatment on physiological stress reactions of participants in a moderately high or low mental pressure condition are studied. On the basis of Injustice Stress Theory IST; Vermunt, R., and Steensma, H. In: Cropanzano, R. (ed.), Justice in the Workplace (Vol. 2), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48,2001, predictions were made about procedural fairness as stress reducing factor. The results supported the expected effect of fair treatment, in that lower cardiovascular activity was measured after fair treatment but not after unfair treatment. Moreover, three-way interactions showed that participants with type-A behavior in the low mental pressure conditions had lower cardiovascular activity after fair treatment but not after unfair treatment, while participants with type-B behavior showed lower cardiovascular activity after fair treatment in the moderately high mental pressure condition. The discussion focuses on the difference between fair treatment and social support as well as on the several ways to reduce stress by being fair.