Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 767-780

  Lind, E Allan ^a,c   Tyler, Tom R ^b   Huo, Yuen J ^b,d  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031497713     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.767     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-157. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
3. Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700-710.
4. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
6. Kidder, L. H., & Muller, S. (1991). What is "fair" in Japan? In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social and psychological origins of justice: Societal and psychological consequences of justice and injustice (Vol. 2, pp. 139-154). New York: Plenum.
7. Kramer, R., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8. LaTour, S., Houlden, P., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1976). Procedure: Transnational perspectives and preferences. Yale Law Review, 86, 258-290.
9. Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134-1140.
10. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
11. Limerick, D., & Cunnington, B. (1993). Managing the new organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Lind, E. A. (1994). Procedural justice and culture: Evidence for ubiquitous process concerns. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 15, 24-36.
13. Lind, E. A. (1995). Social conflict and social justice: Some lessons from the social psychology of justice. Leiden, the Netherlands: Leiden University Press.
14. Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318-341.
15. Lind, E. A., Huo, Y. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1994). . . . And justice for all: Ethnicity, gender, and preferences for dispute resolution procedures. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 269-290.
16. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C., Ambrose, M., & Park, M. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
17. Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T. R. (1989). The perception of justice: Tort litigants' views of trials, court-annexed arbitration, and judicial settlement conferences. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
18. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
19. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
20. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
21. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
22. Pruitt, D. G., Pierce, R. S., McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L., & Castrianno, L. M. (1993). Long-term success in mediation. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 313-330.
23. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
24. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B., & Cheraskin, L. (1992, October). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 365-378.
25. Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Coleman, H. J., Jr. (1992). Managing 21st century organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 5-20.
26. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541-566.
28. Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271-1289.
29. Tichy, N. M. (1993). Revolutionizing your company. Fortune, 128, 114-118.
30. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
31. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Law and Society Review, 22, 301-355.
32. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 333-344.
33. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1990). Intrinsic versus community-based justice models: When does group membership matter? Journal of Social Issues, 46, 83-94.
35. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-192). New York: Academic Press.
36. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295-310.