Association Between Deviation of Fairness Perceptions from Group Average and Serious Psychological Distress in Japanese Worksites: a Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background Workers with deviating fairness perceptions are likely to be excluded and become isolated at worksites, leading to psychological distress. The study aimed to examine the cross-sectional association between deviation of fairness perception from the group average and serious psychological distress in Japanese worksites. Methods Secondary data analysis of an existing Japanese occupational cohort data using a multilevel logistic regression model was conducted for 8701 workers from 12 companies in Japan who participated in the baseline survey (from April 2010 to March 2012). Individual perception of interactional and procedural fairness was measured with the Japanese version of the Organizational Justice Scale. Group averages were calculated within workers’ reference groups, categorized by company affiliation, age group, gender, and occupational class. Psychological distress was measured using the K6 scale, and serious psychological distress was defined as a total K6 score of 13 or more. Results Both low deviation and high deviation of interactional fairness perception were significantly and positively associated with serious psychological distress (odds ratio (OR) = 1.24, 95% confidence intervals (CI); 1.03–1.49 and OR = 1.57, 95% CI; 1.12–2.19), independently of individual-level fairness perception, group-level mean fairness perception, demographic characteristics, and health-related behaviors. Only high deviation of procedural fairness perception was significantly and positively related to serious psychological distress (OR = 1.51, 95% CI; 1.11–2.06). Conclusions The results indicated that divergent perceptions of fairness at worksites may deserve further exploration for equal achievement of workers’ psychological well-being.

Beyond the Psychopathological Approach to Study the Relationship between Body Dissatisfaction and Suicide: A Moderate and Mediated Analysis

“…This certainly causes disappointment and anger that may lead to psychological distress. This assumption is in line with the findings of previous empirical studies, showing that formal justice has a significant effect on psychological pressure [ 11 , 15 ]. Based on the empirical findings and assumptions that have been built, alternative hypotheses are proposed as follows:…”

“…Excessive negative emotional responses might lead to serious psychological suffering in a person [ 13 , 14 ]. As specialists have pointed out, injustice has an impact on psychological discomfort [ 15 ]. Unfortunately, little research has been done on the effects of formal and social justice on psychological discomfort, particularly in the realm of organizational justice.…”

Organizational Justice and Health: Reviewing Two Decades of Studies

“…For example, low levels of OJ have been suggested as an indicator of high job demands [43], procedural justice could be considered a measure of job control [32], and the distributive justice dimension has been seen as an analog of the ERI model [64]. However, the OJ model aims to capture the relational and administrative dimensions of the workplace environment [28], which is a relevant difference from other theoretical models and a key point to understanding the diverse impact that injustice can have among occupations or cultures.…”

“…However, Noblet et al [81] found that this association was significant only for the interpersonal justice dimension in a sample of Australian police officers. On the other hand, Yokouchi and Hashimoto [28] studied the deviation from the justice group mean as an alternative pathway by which OJ could affect health, finding that both low deviation and high deviation from the group mean in the case of interactional fairness and only high deviation in the case of procedural justice were positively associated with psychological distress.…”

“…is has prompted research into the potential buffering effects of justice (e.g., [18] or [19]), its mediation/moderation role among other factors related to work or health (e.g., [20,21] or [22]), the possible reverse effects on the relationship between the perception of justice and health (e.g., [23] or [24]), the effect of changes in levels of justice over time (e.g., [25,26] or [27]), the effects of deviation from the group mean of perceived justice in the individual [28], and how perceptions of justice are socially constructed within the other unit/group members [29].…”