Procedural justice and the development and use of peer evaluations in business and accounting classes

Journal of Accounting Education

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 225-246

  Kilpatrick, D J ^a   Linville, Mark ^b   Stout, David E ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS   (United States)

^b School of Accounting   (United States)

^c VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accounting; Business; Peer evaluations; Procedural justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043241717     PISSN: 07485751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00021-5     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Objectives of education for accountants: position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education. 5(2):1990;307-312.
2. The first course in accounting: position statement number two. Issues in Accounting Education. 7(2):1992;249-251.
3. Future accounting education: preparing for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education. 1(1):1986;168-195.
4. Bies R.J., Shapiro D.L. Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research. 1(2):1987;199-218.
5. Cottell P., Millis B. Cooperative learning and accounting. 1994;South-Western Publishing Co, Cincinnati, OH.
6. Cropanzano R., Folger R. Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 74(2):1989;293-299.
7. Ehlen C.R., Welker R.B. Procedural fairness in the peer and quality review programs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 15(1):1996;38-52.
8. Folger R., Konovsky M.A. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal. 32(1):1989;115-130.
9. Greenberg J. Organizational performance appraisal procedures: what makes them fair? Lewicki R.J., Sheppard B.H., Bazerman M.H. Research on negotiation in organizations, Vol. 1. 1986;25-41 JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
10. Greenberg J. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75(5):1990;561-568.
11. Greenberg J. Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management. 16(2):1990;399-432.
12. Hunton J.E., Price K.H. A framework for investigating involvement strategies in accounting information systems development. Behavioral Research in Accounting. 6(Suppl.):1994;128-157.
13. Johnson C.B., smith f.l. Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice, and Research. 2(1):1997;21-40.
14. Korsgaard M.A., Roberson L. Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Journal of Management. 21(4):1997;657-669.
15. Leventhal G.S. What should be done with equity theory? Gergen R.J., Greenberg M.S., Willis R.H. Social exchange: advances in theory and research. 1980;27-55 Plenum Press, New York.
16. Libby T. The influence of voice and explanation on performance in a participative budgeting setting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society. 24:1999;125-137.
17. Lindquist T.M. Fairness as an antecedent to participative budgeting: examining the effects of distributive justice, procedural justice and referent cognitions on satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research. 7:1995;122-147.
18. Lord A.T., Melvin K.B. The prof/peer method: a technique to rate class participation. Issues in Accounting Education. 9(1):1994;109-115.
19. Magner N., Johnson G.G., Elfrink J. Evidence on the relationship between procedural and distributive justice in performance appraisal and accounting faculty attitudes and performance. Journal of Accounting Education. 12(4):1994;325-341.
20. Sweeney P.D., McFarlin D.B. Workers' evaluations of the 'ends' and 'means': an examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes. 55(1):1994;23-40.
21. Tyler T.R. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review. 22(1):1988;103-135.