The effects of overhearing peers discuss an authority's fairness reputation on reactions to subsequent treatment

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 363-372

  Jones, David A ^a,c,e   Skarlicki, Daniel P ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTITUDE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER GROUP; PERCEPTION; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER GROUP; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 17444363355     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.363     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
2. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, A. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3-9.
3. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.
4. Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppards (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
7. Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault? Communications Research, 15, 381-399.
8. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., & Fairchild, G. (2001). When do elements of procedural fairness make a difference? A classification of moderating influences. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 179-212). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9. Brown, D. J., & Lord, R. G. (1999). The utility of experimental research in the study of transformational/charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 531-539.
10. Campbell, J. P. (1986). Labs, fields, and straw issues. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 269-279). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
11. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
12. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
13. Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119-151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. DeGoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 22, pp. 51-102). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
16. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
17. Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnigham (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161-183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21. Folger, R., & Kass, E. E. (2000). Social comparison and fairness: A counterfactual simulations perspective. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 423-441). New York: Plenum Press.
22. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of "voice" and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2253-2261.
23. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1999). Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change, 12, 35-50.
24. Gilliland, S. W., & Chan, D. (2001). Justice in organizations: Theory, methods, and applications. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 143-165). London: Sage.
25. Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
26. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103.
27. Greenberg, J., Eskew, D. E., & Miles, J. A. (1991, August). Adherence to participatory norms as a moderator of the fair process effect: When voice does not enhance procedural fairness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami Beach, FL.
28. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 235-256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
29. Grienberger, I. V., Rutte, C. G., & van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1997). Influence of social comparisons of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 913-919.
30. Jones, D. A. (2002). Employee narratives of procedural justice: A content analysis of 1600 intranet postings. The Canadian Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 18, 15-17.
31. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348.
32. Keppel, G., & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs: Analysis of variance and multiple regression/correlation approaches. New York: Freeman.
33. Lamertz, K. (2002). The social construction of fairness: Social influence and sense making in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 19-37.
34. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
35. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others' unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 1-22.
37. Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions for fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189-210.
38. 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.
39. Lind E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
40. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881-889.
41. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E. T. Higgens & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology handbook of basic principles (pp. 211-238). New York: Guilford Press.
42. Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (2001). Work design: Learning from the past and mapping new terrain. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds,), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 90-109). London: Sage.
43. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-252.
44. Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444-458.
45. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
46. Steil, J. M. (1983). The responses to injustice: Effects of varying levels of social support and position of advantage or disadvantage. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 239-253.
47. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: Interpersonal aspects of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology in business settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Van den Bos, K. (1999). 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, 35, 560-577.
49. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 254-259.
50. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2001). The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324-1333.
51. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
52. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural justice 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 (pp. 49-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 411-428.
54. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). 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, 95-104.
55. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
56. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). 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, 1493-1503.
57. Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verett, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.