Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

  • 1923 Accesses

  • 393 Citations


There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.

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


  1. Aram, J. D., and Salipante, P. F., Jr. (1981). An evaluation of organizational due process in the resolution of employee/employer conflict.Acad. Manage. Rev. 6: 197–204.

  2. Bies, R. J. (1985).Individual reactions to corporate recruiting procedures: The importance of fairness. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In Cummings, L. L., and Staw, B. M. (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT., pp. 289–319.

  4. Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. H. (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations JAI Press, Greenwich, CT., pp. 43–55.

  5. Brett, J. M., and Shapiro, D. L. (1985).Procedural justice: A test of competing theories. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  6. Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In Greenberg, J., and Cohen, R. L. (eds.),Equity and Justice in Social Behavior Academic Press, New York, pp. 119–160.

  7. Cummings, L. L., and Frost, P. J. (eds.). (1985).Publishing in the Organizational Sciences Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.

  8. Fincham, F. D., and Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man the lawyer. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, Academic Press, New York, pp. 81–138.

  9. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35: 108–119.

  10. Folger, R. (in press). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In Master, J. C., and Smith, W. P. (eds.),Social Comparison, Social Justice, and Relative Deprivation: Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

  11. Folger, R., and Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In Rowland, K., and Ferris, G. (eds.),Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 141–183.

  12. Folger, R., and Martin, M. (in press). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.

  13. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., and Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45: 268–273.

  14. Garrett, J., and Libby, W. L. (1973). Role of intentionality in mediating responses to inequity in the dyad.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 28: 21–27.

  15. Greenberg, J. (1984). On the apocyphal nature of inequity distress. In Folger, R. (ed.),The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives Plenum Press, New York, pp. 167–186.

  16. Greenberg, J. (1986). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., and Bazerman, M. H., (eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations JAI Press, Greenwich, CT., pp. 25–41.

  17. Hamilton, V. L. (1980). Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 767–772.

  18. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., and Weiner, B. (eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ., pp. 1–26.

  19. Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction in Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W., and Kidd, R. F. (eds.),New Directions in Attribution Research, Vol. 2, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 35–58.

  20. Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition.Am. Psychol. 37: 1019–1024.

  21. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.),Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27–55.

  22. Leventhal, G. S., Weiss, T., and Long, G. (1969). Equity, reciprocity, and reallocating rewards in the dyad.J. Pers. Soc Psychol. 13: 300–305.

  23. Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In Bazerman, M. H. and Lewicki, R. J. (eds.),Negotiating in Organizations Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 68–90.

  24. Lind, E. A., and Lissak, R. (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments.J. Exp. Soc. psychol. 21: 19–29.

  25. Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L. Walker, L., and Thibaut, J. W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflict of interest.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 643–653.

  26. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46: 69–81.

  27. Reis, H. T. (1981). Self presentation and distributive justice. In Tedeschi, J. T. (ed.),Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Theory Academic Press, New York, pp. 269–291.

  28. Reiss, H. T., and Mims, V. (1982).The sense of justice: The role of perceived intentions in reactions to an unambiguous injustice. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  29. Ross, M., and DiTecco, D. (1975). An attributional analysis of moral judgments.J. Soc. Issues 31: 91–109.

  30. Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design.Admin. Sci. Quart. 23: 224–253.

  31. Shapiro, D. L. (1985).Feigning doubt instead of boldness: The effects of disclaimers and rumors in negotiators' communications. Unpublished manuscript.

  32. Schlenker, B. R. (1980).Impression Management Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.

  33. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

  34. Tyler, T. R., and Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 41: 642–655.

  35. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., and Spodick, N. (1985). Influences of voice on satisfaction with leaders: exploring the meaning of process control.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 72–81.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bies, R.J., Shapiro, D.L. Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Soc Just Res 1, 199–218 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016

Download citation

Key words

  • procedural justice
  • organizational behavior
  • social psychology
  • accountability
  • attribution