VOICE, CONTROL, AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE - INSTRUMENTAL AND NONINSTRUMENTAL CONCERNS IN FAIRNESS JUDGMENTS

被引：529

作者：

LIND, EA ^{[1
]}

KANFER, R ^{[1
]}

EARLEY, PC ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] UNIV MINNESOTA,DEPT STRATEG MANAGEMENT & ORG,MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55455

来源：

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY | 1990年 / 59卷 / 05期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.952

中图分类号：

B84 [心理学];

学科分类号：

04 ; 0402 ;

摘要：

One hundred seventy-nine undergraduate Ss took part in a study of the effects of instrumental and noninstrumental participation on distributive and procedural fairness judgments. In a goal-setting procedure, Ss were allowed voice before the goal was set, after the goal was set, or not at all. Ss received information relevant to the task, irrelevant information, or no information. Both pre- and postdecision voice led to higher fairness judgments than no voice, with predecision voice leading to higher fairness judgments than postdecision voice. Relevant information also increased perceived fairness. Mediation analyses showed that perceptions of control account for some, but not all, of the voice-based enhancement of procedural justice. The results show that both instrumental and noninstrumental concerns are involved in voice effects.

引用

页码：952 / 959

页数：8

共 50 条

[21] What determines people's fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty [J].

Blader, Steven L. .

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 43 (06) :986-994

[22] Voice, neutrality and respect: Use of Victim Support services, procedural fairness and confidence in the criminal justice system [J].

Bradford, Ben .

CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 2011, 11 (04) :345-366

[23] Using the group-value model to explain the role of noninstrumental justice in distinguishing the effects of distributive and procedural justice [J].

Robbins, TL ;

Summers, TP ;

Miller, JL .

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 73 :511-518

[24] Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects [J].

van Prooijen, JW ;

van den Bos, K ;

Wilke, HAM .

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 83 (06) :1353-1361

[25] Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential [J].

Hollander-Blumoff, Rebecca ;

Tyler, Tom R. .

LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION, 2008, 33 (02) :473-500

[26] Procedural Fairness and the Cost of Control [J].

Kessler, Judd B. ;

Leider, Stephen .

JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS & ORGANIZATION, 2016, 32 (04) :685-718

[27] CHILDRENS JUDGMENTS OF AUTHORITY FIGURES WITH RESPECT TO OUTCOME AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS [J].

FRY, PS ;

CORFIELD, VK .

JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY, 1983, 143 (02) :241-250

[28] NONLINEAR AND NONMONOTONIC EFFECTS OF OUTCOME ON PROCEDURAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE FAIRNESS JUDGMENTS [J].

CONLON, DE ;

LIND, EA ;

LISSAK, RI .

JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1989, 19 (13) :1085-1099

[29] Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility [J].

Brockner, Joel ;

Fishman, Ariel Y. ;

Reb, Jochen ;

Goldman, Barry ;

Spiegel, Scott ;

Garden, Charlee .

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 92 (06) :1657-1671

[30] The role of resource and relational concerns for procedural justice [J].

Heuer, L ;

Penrod, S ;

Hafer, CL ;

Cohn, I .

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2002, 28 (11) :1468-1482

← 1 2 3 4 5 →