The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

Prooijen, Jan‐Willem van; Cremer, David De; Beest, Ilja van; Ståhl, Tomas; Dijke, Marius van; Lange, Paul A. M. Van

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.006

Cited by 40 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present line of research fits with recent developments in the justice literature that try to explain why fair and unfair events may impact on people's reactions (e.g., Brebels et al, 2008;Brockner, 2002;De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005;De Cremer & Tyler, 2005;Koper et al, 1993;Miedema, 2004;Sedikides et al, 2009;Van den Bos & Lind, 2002;Van Prooijen, De Cremer, Van Beest, Stahl, & Van Lange, 2008;Van Prooijen, Karremans, & Van Beest, 2006;Van Prooijen & Zwenk, 2009). These notions differ, but all suggest that fairness communicates important information about people's selves, and some recent papers have suggested that fairness may play an important role in affective self-regulatory processes, as a result of which people's affective reactions to fair and unfair events may be intimately associated with processes of self-regulation (Van den Bos, 2007; Van den Bos & Lind, 2009;Van Prooijen & Zwenk, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building and extending on justice theories and work on self-regulation, the current paper proposes a self-activation hypothesis of affective reactions to fair and unfair events, stating that in circumstances in which people's selves are activated, stronger affective reactions to fair and unfair events are more likely, compared to circumstances in which people's selves are not or less strongly activated. Findings of two experiments indeed show that simply activating the self (supraliminally or even subliminally) amplifies affective reactions to fair and unfair procedures (Experiment 1) and fair and unfair outcomes (Experiment 2). These findings thus reveal the important role of activation of the self for understanding fairness reactions. In the discussion, we note the relevance of our self-activation hypothesis for insights into different accounts formulated in the justice domain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They suggest that self-reflection entails focusing on the self by including others' perspective into the self, whereas self-rumination entails the lack of resources to do that. Such a view is congruent with arguments that responsiveness toward procedural fairness depends on egocentric rather than prosocial motives (Van Prooijen et al, 2008). Moreover, the view is congruent with the selfbased model of procedural fairness (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005): Fair procedures transform an individual's motives from the personal level to more inclusive levels of self-construal.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

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

Brebels¹,

Cremer

Sedikides

et al. 2013

Soc Just Res

Self Cite

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

“…Recipients are likely to value the rewards that are associated with procedural justice (e.g., respect, admiration) because of the positive implications for their own feelings of selfworth Van Prooijen et al, 2008). Of particular importance to the present purposes, it stands to reason that people want to receive the rewards of justice for who they are, because of their own qualities, and because of their unique contributions to their community.…”

Section: Self-construal Level and Procedural Fairness Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voice procedures raise outcome expectancies (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), and more importantly, voice procedures inform recipients that they are respected, have high status, and are regarded as fully-fledged members of their community (Tyler & Blader, 2003;Tyler & Lind, 1992). Empirical research indeed confirms relations between procedural justice and feelings of status or belongingness (De Cremer, 2002;Tyler, 1994;Tyler, DeGoey, & Smith, 1996;Van Prooijen et al, 2002, 2004.Recipients are likely to value the rewards that are associated with procedural justice (e.g., respect, admiration) because of the positive implications for their own feelings of selfworth Van Prooijen et al, 2008). Of particular importance to the present purposes, it stands to reason that people want to receive the rewards of justice for who they are, because of their own qualities, and because of their unique contributions to their community.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This enabled us to establish in what priming condition procedural fairness effects are most strongly affected, while simultaneously allowing for comparison with related procedural justice research. Following the self-construal manipulation, we induced a manipulation of voice versus no-voice procedures within an experimental setup that has been validated in previous research (e.g., Van den Bos, 2003;Van den Bos & Lind, 2001;Van Prooijen et al, 2008). Given that our line of reasoning focuses on the implications of procedural justice for how people perceive the self in relation to others, the main dependent variables in the experiments were relational treatment evaluations, that is, evaluations of one's relation with decision makers (e.g., Huo et al, 1996;Tyler & Lind, 1992; ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Self-Construal Level and Voice Procedures 7 Smith et al, 1998;Van Prooijen et al, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects

Prooijen

Zwenk

2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current article, we investigate the influence of self-construal level on procedural fairness effects, that is, the finding that fair versus unfair procedures influence people's evaluations of their relation with decision-making authorities. In two experiments, we manipulated self-construal level by activating the individual self ("I") or the social self ("We"), and we induced a control condition. Furthermore, we manipulated procedural fairness by granting versus denying participants an opportunity to voice their opinion in a decisionmaking process. Results consistently revealed stronger procedural fairness effects if the individual self is activated than if the social self is activated. It is concluded that sometimes the individual self, rather than the social self, constitutes the psychological basis for procedural fairness effects. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Self-Construal Level and Voice Procedures 3Self-Construal Level and Procedural Justice:The Individual Self as Psychological Basis for Procedural Fairness EffectsPeople care deeply about the extent to which they are treated fairly by others. Indeed, it has been suggested that fairness is among the most important norms and values in human society (Folger, 1984). One of the most frequently studied conceptualizations of fairness is procedural justice, which is the extent to which people regard decision-making procedures as fair or unfair (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Accumulating research indicated that perceived procedural justice has positive effects on numerous perceptions, emotions, and behaviors in virtually all domains of social life, including organizations, education, politics, the legal arena, and close relationships (e.g., Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001;Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler & Blader, 2003;Tyler & Lind, 1992;Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). One noteworthy finding is that perceived procedural justice influences social evaluations, such as people's evaluations of their relation with decision-makers. In the current article, we refer to these effects of procedural justice on relational treatment evaluations as procedural fairness effects (Van Prooijen, Van den Bos, & Wilke, 2002).An illustration of procedural fairness effects can be found in people's reactions to voice as opposed to no-voice procedures: People generally rate procedures that allow them an opportunity to voice their opinions to be more fair than procedures that deny them such an opportunity (Folger, 1977; see also Brockner, Heuer, Siegel, Wiesenfeld, Martin, Grover, Reed, & Bjorgvinsson, 1998;Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990). In addition, voice procedures positively influence people's evaluations of their relation with decision-making authorities.Notably, when people are granted (as opposed to denied) voice procedures, they perceive the decision-maker as more polite and respectful, and believe the decision-maker to be more objective. Such procedural fairness effects are very robust and easily generalize across methods and samples (e.g., Folger, 1977;Lind et al., 1990;Tyler, 1994;...

show abstract

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

Cited by 40 publications

References 68 publications

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

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

Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About