How power and trust explain procedural fairness effects on self-esteem

Abstract

When authorities enact procedures in a fair manner, they positively influence their followers' self-esteem. Building on fairness heuristic theory and sociometer theory, we predicted that this effect is mediated by trust in the authority because procedural fairness heightens trust as an indicator of a valued relationship with an authority who will protect followers' interests. Trust should, subsequently, heighten followers' self-esteem as an indicator of their value to the organisation. Further, we expected this mediated effect to emerge particularly among high power authorities because high power makes the authority more effective in influencing follower status. These predictions were tested in a scenario experiment in which authority power and procedural fairness were orthogonally manipulated. Trust indeed mediated procedural fairness effects on self-esteem and power moderated the trust-self-esteem path. These results strongly suggest that self-esteem reflects a positive relationship with an authority capable of influencing follower status. (Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65,(118)(119)(120)(121)(122)(123)(124)(125)(126).

On the psychology of justice as a social regulation tool

“…The first paper by Langendijk, van Dijke, and De Cremer (2009) sets out to show why fairly enacted procedures enhance followers' self-esteem by addressing the role of authority power in this process. They show that particularly high power authorities are effective in enhancing follower self-esteem, presumably because high power makes the authority more effective in influencing follower status (e.g., by promoting or, conversely, excluding the employee from the organisation).…”

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

“…As outlined previously, a study of majority and minority groups' relative attention to procedural justice in a new democracy (Tanzania), found support for the relational model of procedural justice, showing that less powerful minority groups cared more about relational concerns in support for the incumbent government than powerful majority groups (Epstein et al, 2013). Related research has found evidence that fairness cues are particularly salient for minority group members, who look to authorities for information about their group's social standing (Huo, Binning, & Molina, 2010b;Huo & Molina, 2006;Langendijk, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2009). This research suggests that low-power citizens are more likely to use process information in formulating support for authorities (Tyler & Lind, 1992), as attending to procedural justice cues resolves any uncertainty about a minority group's standing in the larger society.…”