Procedural fairness and self‐esteem

Koper, Gerda; Knippenberg, Daan van; Bouhuijs, Francien; Vermunt, Riël; Wilke, Henk

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230307

Cited by 146 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These authors further found that this effect is enhanced when the authority is important to them (e.g., belongs to their ingroup). Koper et al (1993) also studied the effects of fair and unfair procedures on self-esteem. Their experiments showed that people reported having lower levels of state self-esteem after an unfair procedure than after a fair procedure.…”

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their experiments showed that people reported having lower levels of state self-esteem after an unfair procedure than after a fair procedure. Koper et al (1993) explained that evaluations of fairness are influenced by self-reflective evaluations: People see or evaluate themselves in accordance with how they think others see or evaluate them (''they think IÕm great, so I must be great''). Vermunt et al (2001) found that people with low self-esteem are more influenced by variations in procedural justice than people with high self-esteem.…”

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brockner et al (1998) found that high selfesteem persons are more affected by their perceived level of voice than low self-esteem persons (we will return to these seemingly conflicting results in the General Discussion; see also Van den Bos et al, 2005b). Thus, fairness can have a profound influence on how people think and feel about themselves (see, e.g., Koper et al, 1993;Smith et al, 1998), and self-esteem can have considerable effects on how fairness judgments are formed. We argue here that these results can be interpreted as providing tentative support for what we currently propose as the underlying psychological process: fairness can be conceived of as a means of self-maintenance (cf.…”

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Self-Threats on Fairness Judgments and Affective Measures

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the question of why fairness matters to people. Extending on terror and uncertainty management theories and the literature on the self, it is proposed here that fairness can be a means of self-defense. Thinking of a situation that is threatening to the self therefore should make fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of two experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking participants to think about things that are threatening to themselves led to stronger reactions to manipulations of both procedural and distributive fairness. In the discussion it is argued that these findings suggest that fairness especially matters to people when they are trying to deal with threats to their selves.

show abstract

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Fairness Judgments Are Formed: a Closer Look At The Selfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Self-Threats on Fairness Judgments and Affective Measures

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Lind and Tyler, fair treatment implies that the recipient is a respected member of the group as well as that the group in which he/she is a member is respectable and has high status. As a consequence, the relational model argues, procedural justice may affect people's self-esteem and personal identity (Koper, Van Knippenberg, Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Ståhl

Prooijen

Vermunt

2004

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice.

show abstract

“…People use procedural fairness for self-evaluation purposes (Tyler & Lind, 1992;Sedikides et al, 2008;Van den Bos & Lind, 2010). In the first test of this idea, students' state self-esteem dropped following an unfair (relative to fair) grading procedure of a test considered indicative of their academic skills (Koper, Van Knippenberg, Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993). The authors interpreted these results as showing that people evaluate themselves based not only on self-perception (Bem, 1972), but also on how they think others judge them (i.e., the 'Looking glass self; ' Cooley, 1912).…”

Section: Self-rumination and Self-reflection In Procedural Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Focus and Procedural Fairness: The Role of Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection

Brebels¹,

Cremer

Sedikides

et al. 2013

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examined the differential role of self-rumination and self-reflection on the psychological influence of procedural fairness. Study 1 induced self-rumination and selfreflection relative to an outward-focused control. Self-rumination increased the perceived importance of procedural fairness, whereas self-reflection decreased it. Study 2, assessing individual differences in self-rumination and self-reflection, showed that a standard procedural fairness manipulation (voice vs. no voice) predicted future interaction preferences with the enactment source among those high (but not low) in self-rumination and among those low (but not high) in self-reflection. The findings validate a multiple process approach to understanding the role of the self in procedural fairness.

show abstract

Procedural fairness and self‐esteem

Abstract: We argue that people's self-esteem is afSected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover

Cited by 146 publications

References 27 publications

The Influence of Self-Threats on Fairness Judgments and Affective Measures

The Influence of Self-Threats on Fairness Judgments and Affective Measures

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Self-Focus and Procedural Fairness: The Role of Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About