2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.090
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and validation of a measure of justice perception in the frame of Fairness theory – Fuzzy approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
1
16
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…In both projects, all perceived violations of procedural justice and interactional justice led to comparisons with the counterfactual thinking of land-acquired communities. This supports Zapata-Phelan, Livingston (2009), Greenberg et al (2007), and Azar and Darvishi (2011) on suggesting that if procedures enacted by an authority violate these rules, it is much more likely for communities to suppose that events should have been different, and extends them further by classifying this type of comparison into intrapersonal comparisons. This is also the extension of the concept of intrapersonal comparisons of vanDierendonck, Schaufeli, and Buunk (1996) and Taris et al (2002) that covered only comparisons between inputs and outcomes.…”
Section: Comparisons With the Counterfactual Thinkingsupporting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In both projects, all perceived violations of procedural justice and interactional justice led to comparisons with the counterfactual thinking of land-acquired communities. This supports Zapata-Phelan, Livingston (2009), Greenberg et al (2007), and Azar and Darvishi (2011) on suggesting that if procedures enacted by an authority violate these rules, it is much more likely for communities to suppose that events should have been different, and extends them further by classifying this type of comparison into intrapersonal comparisons. This is also the extension of the concept of intrapersonal comparisons of vanDierendonck, Schaufeli, and Buunk (1996) and Taris et al (2002) that covered only comparisons between inputs and outcomes.…”
Section: Comparisons With the Counterfactual Thinkingsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…In this case, he focused on under-reward comparisons in his intrapersonal comparisons to judge equity. These findings extend Hayibor (2012), Azar and Darvishi (2011), and Mussweiler (2011) on investigating comparison process, by recognising that an individual can have different comparisons with contradictory results and under-reward comparisons are more likely to be applied to judge equity.…”
Section: Perceptions Of Equity/inequitymentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Chou et al (2009) in their study also argued that when equity is accounted for in the process of changing inputs into outputs, with a certain outcome for a customer, it will create problems with the operationalization of fairness itself. Since there are conflicting views about the dimensions of fairness, a consensus is growing that the perception of fairness is a dependent context, which is not only appropriate for the service failure situation, but it may also be applied in other situations (Azar and Darvishi 2011;Aggarwal and Larrick 2012;Blader et al 2013).…”
Section: Service Fairnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the last decade, fairness principles (distributive fairness, procedural fairness, and interactional fairness) have been applied to numerous studies such as management, psychology, and organizational attitudes (Azar and Darvishi 2011;Blader et al 2013), as well as legal and political studies (i.e. Zmerli and Castillo 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to describe the complicated construct, how to measure fairness becomes a critical question. The measurement of fairness perception is not simple as it is a subjective, complex, vague and ambiguous construct (Azar and Darvishi, 2011). Persons usually determine whether they have been treated fairly first by examining the ratio of their inputs relevant to their outcomes and then by comparing this ratio to the inputs-to-outcomes ratio of a referent other (Park et al, 2010); furthermore, their own thoughts, past experiences and personal modes of thinking will also affect the final perception of fairness.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%