Effects of electronic monitoring types on perceptions of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and privacy

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 658-682

  McNall, Laurel A ^a   Roch, Sylvia G ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847694241     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00179.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alder, S., & Tompkins, P. (1997). Electronic performance monitoring: An organizational justice and concertive control perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 259-288.
2. Alge, B. (2001). Effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 797-804.
3. Ambrose, M. L., & Alder, G. S. (2000). Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: Enhancing organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 187-219.
4. Ambrose, M., Alder, S., & Noel, T. (1998). Electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of rights. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and process (pp. 61-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. American Management Association. (2001). Workplace monitoring and surveillance. Retrieved May 22, 2002, from www.amanet.org/research/pdfs/ ems_short2001.pdf
6. American Management Association & The ePolicy Institute. (2005). 2005 Electronic monitoring & surveillance survey. Retrieved December 27, 2006, from www.amanet.org/research/pdfs/EMS_summary05.pdf
7. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS users' guide (Version 4.0). Chicago, IL: Small Waters.
8. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
9. Bies, R. J. (1993). Privacy and procedural justice in organizations. Social Justice Research, 6, 69-86.
10. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-119). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Shepard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12. Bylinksy, G. (1991, November 4). How companies spy on employees. Fortune, pp. 131-140.
13. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Carayon, P. (1993). Effects of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker stress: Review of the literature and conceptual model. Human Factors, 35, 385-395.
15. Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
16. Colquitt, J., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of the 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
17. Eddy, E., Stone, D., & Romero-Stone, E. (1999). The effects of information management policies on reactions to human resource information systems: An integration of privacy and procedural justice perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 52, 335-358.
18. E-mail and web monitoring are now a way of life on the job. (2003, December). HR Focus, 80, 8.
19. Fenner, D. B., Lerch, F. J., & Kulik, C. T. (1993). The impact of computerized performance monitoring and prior knowledge on performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 573-601.
20. Grant, R. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1989, Spring). Monitoring service workers via computer: The effect on employees, productivity, and service. National Productivity Review, 101-112.
21. Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
22. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
23. Griffith, T., Northcraft, G., & Fuller, M. (1998). Software and hard choices: Ethical considerations in the facilitation of a sociotechnical system. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and process (pp. 177-193). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Hawk, S. R. (1994). The effects of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 949-957.
25. Kidwell, R., & Bennett, N. (1994a). Electronic surveillance as employee control: A procedural justice interpretation. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5, 39-57.
26. Kidwell, R., & Bennett, N. (1994b). Employee reactions to electronic control systems: The role of procedural justice. Group and Organization Management, 19, 203-218.
27. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-88). New York: Plenum.
28. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
29. McLaughlin, M. (1989, October). An attempt to tether the electronic work place. New England Business, 13-16.
30. Nebeker, D. M., & Tatum, C. B. (1993). The effects of computer monitoring, standards, and rewards on work performance, job satisfaction, and stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 508-536.
31. Nussbaum, K., & duRivage, V. (1986, Winter). Computer monitoring: Mismanagement by remote control. Business and Society Review, 16-20.
32. O*NET. (2002). Retrieved August 22, 2002, from http://online. onetcenter.org/search
33. Racicot, B. M., & Williams, K. J. (1993). Perceived fairness of drug testing programs: Procedures for current employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1879-1891.
34. Smith, M., Carayon, P., Sanders, K., Lim, S-Y., & LeGrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 17-27.
35. Stanton, J. (2000). Traditional and electronic monitoring from an organizational justice perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 129- 146.
36. Stone, D. L., & Bowden, C. (1989). Effects of job applicant drug testing practices on reactions to drug testing. InIn F. Hoy (Ed.), Academy of Management best paper proceedings (pp. 290-294). Atlanta, GA: Academy of Management.
37. Stone, E., & Stone, D. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 349-411.
38. Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal of Personality, 26, 200-215.
39. Thibaut, J., &Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Tolchinsky, P., McCuddy, M., Adams, J., Ganster, D., Woodman, R., & Fromkin, H. (1981). Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 308-313.
41. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331-356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. (1987). The electronic supervisor (Pub. No. OTA-CIT-333). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. Woodman, R. W., Ganster, D. C., Adams, J., McCuddy, M. C., Tolchinsky, P. D., & Fromkin, H. (1982). A survey of employee perceptions of information privacy in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 647-663.