What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

Blader, Steven L.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.022

Cited by 55 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When members are granted (rather than denied) voice, they will judge procedures as fairer and identify more strongly with the organization. This pattern, though, has not been reliably obtained (Blader, 2007;Colquitt et al, 2001). To address this inconsistency, we explored the role of uncertainty in procedural fairness effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…At the same time, though, another body of research suggests that procedural rules (a) do not always impact on fairness judgments or strength of group identification, (b) produce sometimes strong, sometimes weak effects, and (c) this inconsistency may depend on the use of divergent assessments of fairness and identification across studies, settings, and people (Blader, 2007;Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;Sedikides, Hart, & De Cremer, in press). To resolve this paradox and increase our understanding of when procedural rules will influence fairness judgments versus group identification, we propose to look at the motive of uncertainty reduction (Hogg, 2001;McGregor, 2003;Sedikides & Strube, 1997).…”

Section: Being Uncertain About What? Procedural Fairness Effects As Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Cremer

Brebels

Sedikides

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership." [authors abstract

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Being Uncertain About What? Procedural Fairness Effects As Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Cremer

Brebels

Sedikides

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Debates regarding whether current policy tips the balance in favor of the alleged victims of sexual violence raise the question of whether parties' perspectives within the process influence their opinions about the policies and procedures used to resolve disputes. This notion is supported by those aspects of procedural justice theory that suggest that identify influences procedural justice judgments (Blader, 2007;Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).…”

Section: Study 1 Overviewmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…However, procedural justice exerted even more of an influence on whether victims of physical assault and domestic abuse were willing to report. Similarly, several studies of procedural justice suggest that the relationship between procedural justice and behavior may depend on outcome (Blader, 2007;Brockner, 2002;Doherty & Wolak, 2012). For instance, a positive procedural justice judgment may buffer an assessment of a negative outcome and vice versa (Laxminarayan & Pemberton, 2014;Lind & Tyler, 1988).…”

Section: Procedural Justice As a Framework For Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PJ_VOICE refers to the extent to which participants felt that they had a voice and were heard by the decision-makers (Blader, 2007;Blader & Tyler, 2003a). PJ_NEUTRAL refers the extent to which participants felt that the decision-makers were consistent and interested in obtaining accurate information (Blader, 2007;Blader & Tyler, 2003a).…”

Section: Mediating Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Balancing Victims' Rights with the Rights of the Accused: Encouraging Participation in University Discipline by Improving Procedures Used to Adjudicate Sexual Misconduct Claims

Walker

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutions of higher education are scrambling to be seen as responsive to the problem of sexual violence on campus. Evidence-based guidance is needed to effectively reform the disciplinary process. The three studies in this dissertation test a model based upon procedural justice theory, which suggests that students' willingness to cooperate with university authorities and students' attitudes toward authorities may be influenced by the student's perspective in the disciplinary process and whether students' perceive the decision-making process to be fair. Each of the three studies used a between-subjects experimental design. Participants were current students or recent graduates of colleges or universities. Study 1 examined students' perceptions of real-world policies and procedures and found that students clearly view some disciplinary procedures as more fair than others.Study 2 examined whether exposure to fair or unfair disciplinary procedures and the student's perspective in the disciplinary process had and effect on students' judgments about the process and students' willingness to cooperate with university authorities. Study 2 found that willingness to cooperate with investigations into sexual misconduct was greater when students were exposed to fair policies and procedures. Study 3 examined outcome satisfaction and procedural justice judgments. Study 3 found that justice judgments had a greater effect on willingness to cooperate, but the strength of this effect varied according to outcome favorability and whether the student was the accused or the accuser of sexual misconduct. This dissertation provides support for the use of procedural justice theory a guide for the reform of university disciplinary systems.

show abstract

Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective

Skitka

Wisneski

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

Cited by 55 publications

References 24 publications

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Balancing Victims' Rights with the Rights of the Accused: Encouraging Participation in University Discipline by Improving Procedures Used to Adjudicate Sexual Misconduct Claims

Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About