Appropriateness of decisions as a moderator of the psychology of voice

Abstract

This paper focuses on the psychology of the voice effect (the effect that people show more positive reactions when they are allowed an opportunity to voice their opinion in the decision-making process than when they are denied such an opportunity).

Real Personal Uncertainty Induced by Means of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Reactions to Voice and No-Voice Procedures

“…This is a pattern that has been reported before in the research literature (e.g., Van den Bos & Spruijt, 2002;Van den Bos & Van Prooijen, 2001), suggesting that no-voice conditions frequently lead to more negative reactions as opposed to voice conditions lead to more positive judgments (see also Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). This implies that what typically is labeled as the ''voice effect'' (suggesting more positive judgments following voice) might actually be thought of more properly as a ''no-voice'' effect (indicating more negative judgments following no voice).…”

“…How fair and unfair events may influence people's subsequent reactions can be illustrated by research studies in which it is manipulated whether people are allowed or withheld an opportunity to voice their opinions about decisions to be made (see, e.g., Folger, 1977;Folger, Rosenfield, Grove, & Corkran, 1979;Van den Bos, 1999;Van den Bos & Spruijt, 2002;Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, & Wilke, 2004). In general, these studies show that people judge situations in which they are allowed to voice their opinions to be fairer than situations in which they are not allowed an opportunity to voice their opinions.…”

Motivation to cooperate in Organisations: The case of prototypical leadership and procedural fairness

“…A procedurally fair treatment by group authorities positively influences a range of desirable variables, such as people's positive emotions (De Cremer, 2004;van den Bos & Spruijt, 2002), self-perceptions of status and inclusion in the group, and people's selfesteem (i.e., Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). In addition, procedural fairness has also been shown to have behavioural consequences within groups and organisations, such as compliance with authorities (i.e., people react more positively to authorities enacting fair procedures when taking decisions), and organisational citizenship behaviours (see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001).…”

Untitled

“…In the studies presented here we did not distinguish between positive and negative affective reactions because we have found in our research that positive and negative affective reactions to experiences of fairness are strongly inversely correlated (e.g., Van den Bos, 2001a,b;Van den Bos and Lind, 2002;Van den Bos and Miedema, 2000;Van den Bos and Spruijt, 2002;Van den Bos and Van Prooijen, 2001). Thus, although other research areas-outside the justice domainhave found strong differences between positive and negative affect, it was more meaningful in the fairness studies presented here to study people's combined affective reactions toward experiences of fairness.…”

“…Furthermore, in these studies we assessed affective reactions by means of a 16-item scale that has been specifically constructed to measure people's affective reactions following the experience of fair and unfair events. Items of this scale have been used repeatedly and successfully in recent fairness studies (e.g., Van den Bos, 2001a,b;Van den Bos and Lind, 2002;Van den Bos and Miedema, 2000;Van den Bos and Spruijt, 2002;Van den Bos and Van Prooijen, 2001) and pilot studies showed that, relative to other scales, this scale is better suited and more susceptible for finding effects on people's reactions following the experience of fair and unfair events.…”