The role of standing in the psychology of procedural justice: Towards theoretical integration

European Review of Social Psychology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 33-58

  van Prooijen, Jan‐Willem ^a   van den Bos, Kees ^b   Wilke, Henk A M ^c  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27144456304     PISSN: 10463283     EISSN: 1479277X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10463280340000108     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adams, JS. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. 2: 267
2. Ambrose, ML, and Kulik, CT. 2001. How do I know that's fair? A categorization approach to fairness judgements. 1: 35
3. Bargh, JA, and Chartrand, TL. 2000. The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research 253–285
4. Baumeister, RF, and Leary, MR. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529
5. Brewer, MB. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 475–482
6. Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, PA, Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., and Grover, S., 1998. The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 394–407
7. Brockner, J., and Wiesenfeld, BM. 1996. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120: 189–208
8. Chen, S., Lee-Chai, AY, and Bargh, JA. 2001. Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 173–187
9. Chen, Y-R, Brockner, J., and Greenberg, J., When is it “a pleasure to do business with you”? The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 921–21
10. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, ZS, Bobocel, DR, and Rupp, DE. 2001. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 58: 164–209
11. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, DE, Mohler, CJ, and Schminke, M., Three roads to organizational justice. 201
12. de Cremer, D., 2002. Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 1335–1341
13. Feather, N., 1994. Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and research concerning tall poppies. 26: 1
14. 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
15. Folger, R., 1984. Emerging issues in the social psychology of justice 3–24
16. Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R., 1998. Organizational justice and human resource management
17. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., and Corkran, L., 1979. Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 2253–2261
18. Greenberg, J., and Folger, R., 1983. Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations 235–256
19. Hafer, CL. 2000. Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 165–173
20. Leary, MR, Kelly, KM, Cottrell, CA, and Schreiendorfer, LS. 2001. Individual differences in the need to belong
21. Lind, EA. 2001. Thinking critically about justice judgements. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 58: 220–226
22. Lind, EA, Kanfer, R., and Earley, PC. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 952–959
23. Lind, EA, and Tyler, TR. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice
24. Miedema, J., Bos, K Van den, and Vermunt, R., 2000. Rechtvaardigheid, onrechtvaardigheid, en tapas [Justice, injustice, and tapas]
25. Skitka, LJ. 2003. Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 286–297
26. Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., and de Gilder, D., 2003. The carrot and the stick. Respect and group serving effort: Collective and individual motives to exert effort in task-groups
27. Smith, HJ, and Tyler, TR. 1997. Choosing the right pond: The impact of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33: 146–170
28. Smith, HJ, Tyler, TR, Huo, YJ, Ortiz, DJ, and Lind, EA. 1998. The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 470–493
29. Ståhl, T., Van Prooijen, J-W and Vermunt, R
30. Steiner, DD, Guirard, S., and Baccino, T., 1999. Cognitive processing of procedural justice information: Application of the oculometer
31. Tajfel, H., and Turner, JC. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict 33–47
32. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L., 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis
33. Turner, JC, Hogg, MA, Oakes, PJ, Reicher, SD, and Wetherell, MS. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory
34. Tyler, TR. 1987. Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of form models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 333–344
35. Tyler, TR. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the groupvalue model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 830–838
36. Tyler, TR. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 850–863
37. Tyler, TR, and Blader, SL. 2000. Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement
38. Tyler, TR, and Blader, SL. 2002. Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 813–838
39. Tyler, TR, Degoey, P., and Smith, H., 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 913–930
40. Tyler, TR, and Lind, EA. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. 25: 115
41. Bos, K Van den. 1999. What are we talking about when we talk about novoice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 560–577
42. Bos, K Van den. 2001. Uncertainty management: The influence of human uncertainty on reactions to perceived fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 931–941
43. Bos, K Van den, Bruins, J., Wilke, HAM, and Dronkert, E., 1999. Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 324–336
44. Bos, K Van den, and Lind, EA. 2002. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgements. 34: 1–60
45. Bos, K Van den, Lind, EA, Vermunt, R., and Wilke, HAM. 1997. 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: 1034–1046
46. Bos, K Van den, Lind, EA, and Wilke, HAM. 2001. The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory 49–66
47. Bos, K Van den, and Miedema, J., 2000. Towards understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 355–366
48. Bos, K Van den, and Van Prooijen, J-W. 2001. Referent cognitions theory: The psychology of voice depends on closeness of reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 616–626
49. Bos, K Van den, Vermunt, R., and Wilke, HAM. 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
50. Bos, K Van den, Wilke, HAM, and Lind, EA. 1998. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 1449–1458
51. Bos, K Van den, Wilke, HAM, Lind, EA, and Vermunt, R., 1998. Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1493–1503
52. Van Prooijen, J-W, Bos, K Van den, and Wilke, HAM. 2002. Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1353–1361
53. Van Prooijen, J-W, Bos, K Van den, and Wilke, HAM. 2003. Knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice: On the psychology of procedural justice and intragroup status
54. Van Prooijen, J-W, Bos, K Van den, and Wilke, HAM. Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.