Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances people’s sense of process control, which people were assumed to value because it impacts their perceived likelihood of receiving desired outcomes (the instrumental perspective of procedural justice). Subsequent research questioned this perspective, arguing that outcome expectations do not account for the effects of voice. However, this subsequent research failed to directly examine the interplay of voice, outcome expectations, and reactions. The current studies revisit and extend research on this topic by asking whether manipulations of voice act as shared circumstance effects. Confirming an untested implication of the instrumental perspective, we show that giving everyone voice increases their belief, ex-ante, that they are likely to win an upcoming competition. However, this instrumental belief accounts for only part of the effects of voice on perceived procedural fairness and on general reactions to outcomes. Results suggest that voice does indeed have instrumental significance, an implication not adequately recognized in current justice theorizing. However, this instrumentality does not, by itself, explain why people value having a voice in processes that affect them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 803–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Harland, L. K., & Kulik, C. T. (1991). Influence of social comparisons on perceptions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). When will grievants desire voice?: A test of situational, motivational, and attributional explanations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 106–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the impact of fairness? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 329–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlon, D. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1109–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 493–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J. (1959). Confidence intervals for the means of dependent, normally distributed variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 613–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56(293), 52–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.

  • Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.

  • Hunton, J. E., Hall, T. W., & Price, K. H. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17(1), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegone be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Tong, K.-K., & Lind, E. A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 476–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637.

  • Moore, D. A., & Kim, T. G. (2003). Myopic social prediction and the solo comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1121–1135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. A., & Small, D. A. (2007). Error and bias in comparative social judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 972–989.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platow, M. J., Filardo, F., Troselj, L., Grace, D. M., & Ryan, M. K. (2006). Non-instrumental voice and extra-role behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price, K. H., Hall, T. W., van den Bos, K., Hunton, J. E., Lovett, S., & Tippett, M. J. (2001). Features of the value function for voice and their consistency across participants from four countries: Great Britain, Mexico, The Netherlands, and the United States. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 95–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. P., & Windschitl, P. D. (2008). How egocentrism and optimism change in response to feedback in repeated competitions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925–946. doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00036-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyers, J. K., Morgan, J. D., I. I. I., Fu, V. R., & Milgram, R. M. (1983). Familiar versus unfamiliar stimulus items in measurement of original thinking in young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57(1), 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 455.

  • Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (1993). Comparing three processes underlying judgments of procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1167–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). What is the role of control in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 155–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1968). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K. (2002). Assimilation and contrast in organizational justice: The role of primed mindsets in the psychology of the fair process effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 866–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, P. D., Kruger, J., & Simms, E. (2003). The influence of egocentrism and focalism on people’s optimism in competitions: When what affects us equally affects me more. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 389–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, P. D., Rose, J. P., Stalkfleet, M. T., & Smith, A. R. (2008). Are people excessive or judicious in their egocentrism? A modeling approach to understanding bias and accuracy in people’s optimism within competitive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 253–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, 2220 Piedmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1900, USA

    John Angus D. Hildreth & Don A. Moore

  2. Stern School of Business, New York University, Tisch Hall, 40 West Fourth Street, 718, New York, NY, 10012, USA

    Steven L. Blader

Authors
  1. John Angus D. Hildreth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Don A. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven L. Blader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Angus D. Hildreth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hildreth, J.A.D., Moore, D.A. & Blader, S.L. Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want. Soc Just Res 27, 209–230 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0211-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0211-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation