Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next.

Abstract

In this article, 2 experiments are presented. In both experiments, the independent variables were whether the procedure was accurate or inaccurate, whether the outcome was favorable or unfavorable, and whether participants were informed about the procedure before or after they were informed about the outcome. The independent variables were manipulated by means of scenarios in Experiment 1 and by means of the R. \fermunt, A. P. Wit, K. van den Bos, and E. A. Lind (1996) paradigm in Experiment 2. As predicted on the basis of the authors' analysis of fairness heuristic theory, the findings revealed that what people judge to be fair is more strongly affected by information that is received first than by subsequently received information. The findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

“…We therefore think that an important avenue for future research is applying social cognition methodologies to investigate social justice processes. More specifically, future research should be oriented toward integrating group dynamics with the cognitive processes that underlie people's reactions to perceived procedural fairness (Van den Bos et al, 1997;). This may deepen scientists' understanding of the psychology of procedural fairness effects.…”

“…Furthermore, manipulations of procedural accuracy affect the same range of people's reactions as do manipulations of voice, and, thus, they may produce procedural fairness effects (cf. Van den Bos et al, 1997).…”

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

“…22 Leung, Tong, and Lind 2007. 23 See for example Van den Bos, Vermunt, and Wilke 1997;Van den Bos et al 1998;Van den Bos et al 2003. implementation decisions, we should be cautious when generalizing between contexts. 24 Furthermore, it is important to note that many lab experiments on implementation decisions report outcome favorability effects that dwarf the objective procedural arrangement effect but regard them as manipulation checks that carry little substantial information.…”

Prior Experiences as Temporal Frames of Reference in Social Justice: The Influence of Previous Fairness Experiences on Reactions to New and Old Supervisors

“…For each estimation item, a figure was presented for 5 s on the computer screen, and participants had to estimate the number of black squares in the figure (cf. van den Bos et al, 1997). After participants had practiced 3 times with the estimation items, participants completed the 20 items of the estimation task.…”

“…In the first work round, participants completed a task consisting of 20 items. Following earlier justice work (e.g., Leventhal, 1980;van den Bos et al, 1997), the fairness of treatment manipulation varied whether the supervisor of the first work round graded all 20 items (accurate procedure), or only 1 of the 20 items (inaccurate procedure), or the supervisor did not explicitly grade the items accurately or inaccurately (control condition). This round was followed by a second work round in which participants either kept the same supervisor or received a new supervisor.…”