When does procedural justice influence perceived legitimacy? The role of standing uncertainty and group identification

Abstract

Many empirical studies have shown that procedural justice is the key determinant of whether an individual perceives an authority figure as legitimate. However, based on relational models of procedural justice and the uncertainty management model, there is reason to believe that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy may be stronger for individuals who are uncertain about their standing as group members (moderation); this interaction might predict group identification and, in turn, perceived legitimacy (mediation). We tested this mediated moderation model in two experiments (Studies 1a and 1b) and a field study (Study 2) using different operationalizations of standing uncertainty across studies. The results of Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the association between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy was stronger for participants with high (vs. low) standing uncertainty. Study 2 showed that group identification mediated the association between this interaction effect and perceived legitimacy. Together, the results of the mediated moderation analysis showed that procedural justice was positively associated with perceived legitimacy through high group identification when standing uncertainty was high. The theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Identity leadership, procedural justice, and group identification in uncertain organizational contexts

“…Moreover, cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to variations in procedural justice (i.e., fairness judgements, positive and negative affect, and cooperation intention) are more intense among uncertain individuals than among certain ones (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; for similar results see also Liang et al, 2019).…”

“…And indeed, uncertain people are likely to pay more attention to justice information (Van den Bos & Miedema, 2000; Van den Bos, 2001) and to process justice‐related information more systematically than certain people (Greifeneder et al, 2011; Janssen et al, 2011). Moreover, cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to variations in procedural justice (i.e., fairness judgements, positive and negative affect, and cooperation intention) are more intense among uncertain individuals than among certain ones (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; De Cremer et al, 2008; for similar results see also Liang et al, 2019). However, uncertainty may involve procedural justice information itself, for example when people experience a high variability of procedural justice from day to day.…”

“Thriving at work” or not? Research on the effects of performance pressure based on achievement motivation theory and two-factor theory

“…Cooperative goal interdependence indicates that leaders and employees are stakeholders, who will promote the achievement of common goals in the form of mutual cooperation (Deutsch, 1949). However, this interaction process should consider not only the degree of the goal consistency between leaders and employees, but also employees' evaluation of the effectiveness of leaders' task management (Liang et al, 2019). This occurs because, even though there is cooperative goal interdependence between leaders and employees, their objectives do not entirely align.…”

The role of procedural justice and risk preference‐based mechanisms in acceptance of public policy

“…Researchers and policymakers, therefore, need to know under what conditions public policy can be better accepted, thus providing practical enlightenment for the public management service of government and social organizations. In addition, most existing studies on procedural justice are conducted in the Western cultural context, and relatively little research has been conducted in Chinese contexts (except, e.g., Hou et al, 2019; Liang et al, 2018). This study focuses on the critical role of risk preference on public policy acceptance in the context of Chinese culture, and thus provides more empirical support for justice research and uncertainty management theory.…”