Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments

Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 148, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 223-246

  Anderson, William D ^a,c   Patterson, Miles L ^b  

^a Central Methodist University

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Equity theory; Outcome fairness; Procedural fairness; Self interest theory; Social value orientations

Indexed keywords

EID: 44649142597     PISSN: 00224545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.148.2.223-246     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchanges. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
2. Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295-305.
3. Avery, D. R. (2003). Personality as a predictor of the value of voice. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 435-446.
4. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109-125.
5. Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Social motives in integrative negotiation: The mediating influence of procedural fairness. Social Justice Research, 16, 217-239.
6. Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict's consequences: Effects of social motives on postnegotiation creative and convergent group functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 358-374.
7. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational justice behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 259-271.
8. Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. K. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 235-259.
9. Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y.-R. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155-167.
10. Cameron, L. D., Baron, P. M., & Chapman, J. G. (1998). Social value orientations and decision to take proenvironmental action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 675-697.
11. Carr, S., Stuart, C., & McLoughlin, D. (1996). Effects of unreasonable pay discrepancies for under- and overpayment on double demotivation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 122, 475-494.
12. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 298-310.
13. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. S. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.
14. Conlon, D. E. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 5, 1109-1124.
15. DeBruin, E. N., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). What people look for in others: Influences of the perceiver and the perceived on information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 206-219.
16. De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness and attending procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 211-228.
17. De Cremer, D., & Ruiter, R. A. (2003). Emotional reactions toward procedural fairness as a function of negative information. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 793-795.
18. De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553-563.
19. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Boles, T. L. (1998). Share and share alike or winner take all?: The influence of social value orientations upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 253-276.
20. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1995). Impact of social values orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1178-1188.
21. Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061-2074.
22. Downie, M., Koestner, R., Horberg, E., & Haga, S. (2006). Exploring the relation of independent and interdependent self-construals to why and how people pursue personal goals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 517-531.
23. Fadil, P. A., Williams, R. J., Limpaphayom, W., & Smart, C. (2005). Equity or equality? A conceptual examination of the influence of individualism/collectivism on the crosscultural application of equity theory. Cross Cultural Management, 12, 17-35.
24. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
25. 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.
26. Gelfand, M. J., Higgins, M., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., Dominguez, A., Murakami, R, et al. (2002). Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 833-845.
27. Gilliland, S. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.
28. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.
29. Grace, S. L., & Cramer, K. L. (2003). The elusive nature of self-measurement: The Self-Construal Scale versus the Twenty Statements Test. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 649-668.
30. Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the ends justify the means? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.
31. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
32. Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In R B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). New York: Springer.
33. Hamilton, R. W. (2006). When the means justify the ends: Effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 303-320.
34. Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2003). Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research, 16, 263-283.
35. Hannover, B., Brinker, N., & Pohlmann, C. (2006). Ideal selves and self-esteem in people with independent or interdependent self-construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 119-133.
36. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity theory sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.
37. Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039-1050.
38. Joireman, J. A., & Duell, B. (2005). Mother Teresa versus Ebenezer Scrooge: Mortality salience leads proselfs to endorse self-transcendent values (unless proselfs are reassured). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 307-319.
39. Joireman, J. A., Kuhlman, M. D., Van Lange, P. A., & Shelley, G. P. (2003). Perceived rationality, morality, and power of social choice as a function of interdependence structure and social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 413-437.
40. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301-317.
41. Kuhlman, D. M., Camac, C., & Cunha, D. A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. In H. Wilke, D. Messick, & C. Rutte (Eds.), Experimental social dilemmas (pp. 151-176). New York: Peter Lang.
42. Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. (1975). Individual differences on game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategic effects in prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922-931.
43. Li, H. Z., Zhang, Z., Bhatt, G., & Okyum, Y. (2006). Rethinking culture and self-construal: China as a middle ground. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 591-610.
44. Liebrand, W. B., & Van Run, G. (1985). The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 86-102.
45. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
46. McClintock, C. G. (1972). Social motivation: A set of propositions. Behavioral Science, 17, 438-455.
47. Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational basis of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-25.
48. Ng, S. H., & Allen, M. W. (2005). Perception of economic distributive justice: Exploring leading theories. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 435-454.
49. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.
50. Parks, C. D., Sanna, L. J., & Posey, D. C. (2003). Retrospection in social dilemmas: How thinking about the past affects future cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 988-996.
51. Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389-406.
52. Perry, L. (1993). Effects of inequity on job satisfaction and self-evaluation in a national sample of African-American workers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 565-573.
53. Platow, M. J. (1994). An evaluation of the social desirability of prosocial self-other allocation choices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 61-68.
54. Poppe, M., & Valkenberg, A. H. (2003). Effects of gain versus loss and certain versus probable outcomes on social value orientations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 331-337.
55. Price, K. H., Lavelle, J. J., Faye, K. C., & Buchanan, F. B. (2006). Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 212-226.
56. Roberts, G. (1994). Maximizing performance appraisal system acceptance: Perspectives from municipal government personnel administrators. Personnel Management, 23, 525-549.
57. Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Woodell, A. J., & Bembenek, A. F. (2003). Justice within social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 374-387.
58. Shore, T. H. (2004). Equity sensitivity theory: Do we all want more than we deserve? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 722-728.
59. Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2003). Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 972-987.
60. Sweeney, P. (1990). Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory prediction. Journal of Business & Psychology, 4, 329-341.
61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
62. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333-344.
64. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (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.
65. Van den Bos, K., Maas, M., & Waldring, I. E. (2003). Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity. Social Justice Research, 16, 151-168.
66. 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.
67. 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, 1449-1468.
68. Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 697-707.
69. Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Social value orientation and impression formation: A test of two competing hypotheses about information search in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 59-77.
70. Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of a partner's honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 126-141.
71. Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353-1361.
72. Vermunt, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Blaauw, E. (2001). Selfesteem and outcome differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 621-628.