When the means justify the ends: Effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 303-320

  Hamilton, Rebecca W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Distributive justice; Fairness; Group decision making; Procedural justice; Social comparison

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750151897     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.527     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337-1343.
3. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296-304.
4. Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren't fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 131-144.
5. Boiney, L. G. (1995). When efficient is insufficient: fairness in decisions affecting a group. Management Science, 41(9), 1523-1537.
6. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving: rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 269-299.
7. Brockner, J. (2002). Making sense of procedural fairness: how high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 58-76.
8. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189-208.
9. Burnham, T. C. (2003). Engineering altruism: a theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(1), 133-144.
10. Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209-219.
11. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
12. Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1986). Justice and power: an exchange analysis. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 19-43). New York: Plenum.
13. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
14. Doney, P. M., & Armstrong, G. M. (1996). Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 57-65.
15. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186.
16. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
17. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653-660.
18. Keeney, R. L., & Winkler, R. L. (1985). Evaluating decision strategies for equity of public risks. Operations Research, 33(5), 955-970.
19. Keller, L. R., & Sarin, R. K. (1988). Equity in social risk: some empirical observations. Risk Analysis, 8(1), 135-146.
20. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? 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.
21. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & de Vera Park M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
23. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
24. Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426-441.
25. Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers, & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 11-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1985). Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(4), 389-399.
27. Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(4), 418-434.
28. Ordonez, L. D., Connolly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 329-344.
29. Ordonez, L. D., & Mellers, B. A. (1993). Trade-offs in fairness and preference judgments. In B. A. Mellers, & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 138-154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Reis, H. T. (1981). Self-presentation and distributive justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 269-291). New York: Academic Press.
31. Reis, H. T., & Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: the role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(5), 487-503.
32. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 642-655.
35. Tyler, T. R., & Griffin, E. (1991). The influence of decision makers' goals on their concerns about procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 21(20), 1629-1658.
36. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (2001). Procedural justice. In J. Sanders, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 65-92). New York: Plenum.
37. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 595-629). New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997a). 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(5), 1034-1046.
39. van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997b). 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(1), 95-104.