The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 573-610

  Heuer, Larry ^a   Penrod, Steven ^b   Kattan, Ayelet ^a  

^a Barnard College of Columbia University   (United States)

^b JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Authority; Distributive justice; Fairness; Legal decisions; Procedural justice

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL PROCEDURE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL ASPECT;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE;

EID: 36348992516     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9084-2     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-200). New York: Academic Press.
2. Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 266-275.
3. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429-445.
4. Bies, R. J. (1987). Beyond "voice": The influence of decision-maker justification and sincerity on procedural fairness judgments. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17(1), 3-14.
5. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
6. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 85-108). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? Greenberg, Jerald (Ed); Colquitt, Jason A (Ed).
8. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactinoal justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
9. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
10. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1), 107-126.
11. Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., et al. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75(2), 394-407.
12. 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.
13. Casper, J. D., Tyler, T., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22(3), 483-507.
14. Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it "a pleasure to do business with you?" The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1-2), 1-21.
15. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858-866.
16. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 293-299.
17. Dawes, R. M., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1990). Cooperation for the benefit of us-not me, or my conscience. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
18. De Cremer, D., & Alberts, H. J. E. M. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how positive I feel: The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness need. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 333-344.
19. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.
20. Diekmann, K. A., Samuals, S. M., Ross, L. K., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Sellf-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061-1074.
21. Field, R. H. G., & House, R. J. (1990). A test of the Vroom-Yetton model using manager and subordinate reports. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 362-366.
22. Finkel, N. J. (2000). But it's not fair! Commonsense notions of unfairness. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6(4), 898-952.
23. Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It's different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers' and receivers' reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034-1045.
24. Folger, R. (1984). The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum.
25. Folger, R. (1993). Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 6(3), 239-248.
26. Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90.
27. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
28. Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(6), 531-546.
29. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45(2), 268-273.
30. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.
31. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hilldsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Greenberg, J. (2004). Stress fairness to fare no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352-365.
33. Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 58-69.
34. Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167.
35. Harris, G., & Hogan, J. (1992). Perceptions and personality correlates of managerial effectiveness. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Psychology in the Deparment of Defense Colloquium, Colorado Springs, CO.
36. Heilman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to prescribed leader behavior as a function of role perspective: The case of the Vroom-Yetton model. Joural of Applied Social Psychology, 69, 50-60.
37. Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgment. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279-1292.
38. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). San Diegao, CA: Academic Press.
39. Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.
40. Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harourt-Brace.
41. Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 13-30.
42. Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 336-348.
43. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concens: Is spearatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7(1), 40-45.
44. Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Lance, C. E. (1988). Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 163-175.
46. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1-52.
47. Lerner, M. J. (2002). Pursuing the justice motive. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 10-37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48. Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 388-399.
49. Lerner, M. J., & Lerner, S. C. (1981). The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change. New York: Plenum.
50. 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.
51. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
52. Lissak, R. I., & Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Beyond fairness: The criterion problem in research on dispute intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 45-65.
53. Lupfer, M. B., Weeks, K. P., Doan, K. A., & Houston, D. A. (2000). Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3), 405-428.
54. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293-355). New York: Academic Press.
55. Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 172-175.
56. Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1994). Social science and law: Cases and materials (3rd ed.). Mineola, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc.
57. Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2005). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, identification, or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, In press.
58. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
59. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2006). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Unpublished Manuscript.
60. Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: The general impace of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 693-705.
61. Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. T. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285-293.
62. Sheppard, B. H., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (1988). Procedural justice from the third-party perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(4), 629-637.
63. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
64. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588-597.
65. Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 305-326.
66. Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1419-1429.
67. Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 171-200.
68. Stahl, T., Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Vermunt, R. (2004). On the psychology of procedural justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 173-189.
69. Sunshine, J., & Heuer, L. (2002). Deservingness and perceptions of procedural justice in citizen encounters with the police. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 397-415). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
71. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541-566.
72. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendents' evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law & Society Review, 18(1), 51-74.
73. Tyler, T. R. (1986). When does procedural justice matter in organizational settings? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
74. Tyler, T. R. (1989). Psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838.
75. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67(5), 850-863.
76. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850-863.
77. Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 41(4), 642-655.
78. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Community, family, and the social good: The psychological dynamics of procedural justice and social identification. In Melton, Gary B (Ed) (1995) The individual, the family, and social good: Personal fulfillment in times of change Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol 42 (pp. 53-91) xxvii, 200pp.
79. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (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(5), 913-930.
80. Tyler, T. R., & Griffin, E. (1991). The influence of decision makers' goals on their concerns about procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(20), 1629-1658.
81. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
82. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 6(4), 1138-1163.
83. Van Den Bos, K., & Lind, E. (2001). The psychology of own versus others' treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1324-1333.
84. Van Den Bos, K., & Lind, E. (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, Inc.
85. 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 & Social Psychology, 72(1), 95-104.
86. Van Yperen, N. W., Van den Bos, K., & De Graaff, D. C. (2005). Performance-based pay is fair, particularly when I perform better: Differential fairness perceptions of allocators and recipients. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 741-754.
87. Walster, E. E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 435-441.
88. Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281-307.