What Are We Talking about When We Talk about No-Voice Procedures? On the Psychology of the Fair Outcome Effect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 560-577

  Van Den Bos, Kees ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Procedures; outcomes; justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033436861     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1393     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adams J. S. Inequity in social exchange. Berkowitz L. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1965;267-299 Academic Press, New York.
2. Blau P. M. Exchange and power in social life. 1964;Wiley, New York.
3. Brockner J., Heuer L., Siegel P. A., Wiesenfeld B., Martin C., Grover S., Reed T., Bjorgvinsson S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75:1998;394-407.
4. Brockner J., Wiesenfeld B. M. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin. 102:1996;189-208.
5. Cohen R. L. Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. Greenberg J., Cohen R. L. Equity and justice in social behavior. 1982;119-160 Academic Press, New York.
6. Cohen R. L. Justice: Views from the social sciences. 1986;Plenum, New York.
7. Cropanzano R., Folger R. Procedural justice and worker motivation. Steers R. M., Porter L. W. Motivation and work behavior. 1991;131-143 McGraw-Hill, New York.
8. Daly J. P., Tripp T. M. Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible. Social Justice Research. 9:1996;327-349.
9. Deutsch M. Equity, equality, or need. Journal of Social Issues. 31:1975;137-149.
10. Folger R. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of "voice" and improvement of experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35:1977;108-119.
11. Folger R. Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. Bierhoff H. M., Cohen R. L., Greenberg J. Justice in social relations. 1986;145-162 Plenum, New York.
12. Folger R. Distributive and procedural justice: Multi-faceted meanings and interrelations. Social Justice Research. 9:1996;395-416.
13. Folger R., Rosenfield D., Grove J., Corkran L. Effects of "voice" and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37:1979;2253-2261.
14. Greenberg J. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management. 16:1990;399-432.
15. Homans G. C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. 1961;Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York:
16. Hunton J. E., Hall T. W., Price K. H. The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology. 83:1998;788-797.
17. LaTour S. Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36:1978;1531-1545.
18. Lerner M. J., Whitehead L. A. Procedural justice viewed in the context of justice motive theory. Mikula G. Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research. 1980;219-256 Huber, Bern.
19. Leventhal G. S. What should be done with equity theory. Gergen K. J., Greenberg M. S., Willis R. H. Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. 1980;27-54 Plenum, New York.
20. Lind, E. A. (in press), Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In, J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano, (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior, Lexington, MA, New Lexington.
21. Lind E. A., Kanfer R., Earley P. C. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59:1990;952-959.
22. Lind E. A., Kulik C. T., Ambrose M., De Vera Park M. V. Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38:1993;224-251.
23. Lind E. A., Lissak R. I. Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 21:1985;19-29.
24. Lind E. A., Tyler T. R. The social psychology of procedural justice. 1988;Plenum, New York.
25. Messick D. M., Sentis K. Fairness, preference, and fairness biases. Messick D. M., Cook K. S. Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives. 1983;61-94 Praeger, New York.
26. Peeters G., Czapinski J. Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and information negativity effects. Stroebe W., Hewstone M. European review of social psychology. 1990;33-60 Wiley, Chichester.
27. Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Berkowitz L. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1986;123-205 Academic Press, New York.
28. Rutte C. G., Messick D. M. An integrated model of perceived unfairness in organizations. Social Justice Research. 8:1995;239-261.
29. Stouffer S. A., Suchman E. A., DeVinney L. C., Star S. A., Williams R. M. The American soldier: Adjustment during Army life. 1949;Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
30. Sweeney P. D., McFarlin D. B. Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 54:1993;23-40.
31. Thibaut J., Walker L. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. 1975;Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
32. Thibaut J., Walker L. A theory of procedure. California Law Review. 66:1978;541-566.
33. Tyler T. R. The relationship of outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure. Social Justice Research. 9:1996;311-325.
34. Tyler T. R., Lind E. A. A relational model of authority in groups. Zanna M. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1992;115-191 Academic Press, San Diego.
35. Utne M. K., Kidd R. F. Equity and attribution. Mikula G. Justice and social interaction. 1980;63-93 Springer-Verlag, New York.
36. Van den Bos K., Lind E. A., Vermunt R., Wilke H. A. M. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others?: The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72:1997;1034-1046.
37. Van den Bos, K, Lind, E. A, &, Wilke, H. A. M. (in press), The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In, R. Cropanzano, (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Vol. 2. From theory to practice, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
38. Van den Bos K., Vermunt R., Wilke H. A. M. The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26. 26:1996;411-428.
39. Van den Bos K., Vermunt R., Wilke H. A. M. Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72:1997;95-104.
40. Van den Bos K., Wilke H. A. M., Lind E. A. When do we need procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75:1998;1449-1458.
41. Van den Bos K., Wilke H. A. M., Lind E. A., Vermunt R. Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74:1998;1493-1503.
42. Walker L., LaTour S., Lind E. A., Thibaut J. Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 4:1974;295-310.
43. Walker L., Lind E. A., Thibaut J. The relation between procedural and distributive justice. Virginia Law Review. 65:1979;1401-1420.
44. Walster E., Berscheid E., Walster G. W. New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25:1973;151-176.
45. Walster E., Walster G. W., Berscheid E. Equity: Theory and research. 1978;Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
46. Weiner B. Psychological Bulletin. 97:1985;74-84.