How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness?

Handbook of Organizational Justice

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 329-354

  Blader, Steven L ^a   Tyler, Tom R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85118964678     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (64)

1. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychology Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
3. Blader, S. L. (2002). Justice is in the eye of the beholder: Motivated reasoning and procedural fairness evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: New York University.
4. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003a). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 107-126.
5. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003b). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a "fair" process. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758.
6. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
7. Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
8. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng., K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
9. Collie, T., Bradley, G., & Sparks, B. A. (2002). Fair process revisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 545-555.
10. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
11. Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (2001). Emerging justice concerns in an area of changing psychological contracts. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (Vol. II): From theory to practice (pp. 245-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
13. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
14. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano, Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1-55). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17. Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 691-701.
18. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
19. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
20. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
21. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
22. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. 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 Psyclwlogy, 59, 952-959.
24. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
25. Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251-304). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
27. Montada, L. (1996). Tradeoffs between justice and self interest. In L. Montada & M. J. Lemer (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 259-275). New York: Plenum Press.
28. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management journal, 41, 351-357.
29. O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
30. Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: An examination of organizational justice and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 72, 308-335.
31. Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148.
32. Roese, N. J. & Hur, T. (1997). Affective determinants of counterfactual thinking. Social Cognition, 15, 274-290.
33. Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1996). Counterfactuals, causal attributions, and the hindsight bias: Aconceptual integration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 197-227.
34. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1-27.
35. Rusbult, C., & Van Lange, P. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 564-596). New York: Guilford.
36. Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.
37. Schroth, H. A., & Shah, P. P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effects or procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 462-471.
38. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
39. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behaiior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
40. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Horchel & H. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
41. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 39-64.
43. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.
44. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
45. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
46. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 207-226.
47. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003a). Intrinsic motivation and cooperation in groups: A test of the group engagement model. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
48. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003b). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
49. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003c). Social identity and fairness judgments. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Social issues in management, 3, 67-96. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
50. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
51. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
52. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell-Sage Foundation.
53. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic.
54. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1997). Social justice and social movements. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595-629). New York: McGraw-Hill.
55. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group processes. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 223-264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of human uncertainty on reactions to perceived fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931-941.
57. Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair proced ures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 324-366.
58. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (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.
59. 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.
60. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano, Justice in the workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 49-66), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Van den Bos, K., & 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.
62. 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.
63. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psyclwlogy, 74, 1493-1503.
64. Van Prooijen, J. W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 66-79.