Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 199–218 | Cite as

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

  • Robert J. Bies
  • Debra L. Shapiro
Article

Abstract

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.

Key words

procedural justice organizational behavior social psychology accountability attribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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.Google Scholar
  2. Bies, R. J. (1985).Individual reactions to corporate recruiting procedures: The importance of fairness. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  5. Brett, J. M., and Shapiro, D. L. (1985).Procedural justice: A test of competing theories. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  7. Cummings, L. L., and Frost, P. J. (eds.). (1985).Publishing in the Organizational Sciences Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  9. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35: 108–119.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  12. Folger, R., and Martin, M. (in press). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. Google Scholar
  13. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., and Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45: 268–273.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, V. L. (1980). Intuitive psychologist or intuitive lawyer? Alternative models of the attribution process.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 767–772.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  20. Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition.Am. Psychol. 37: 1019–1024.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  24. Lind, E. A., and Lissak, R. (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments.J. Exp. Soc. psychol. 21: 19–29.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  29. Ross, M., and DiTecco, D. (1975). An attributional analysis of moral judgments.J. Soc. Issues 31: 91–109.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro, D. L. (1985).Feigning doubt instead of boldness: The effects of disclaimers and rumors in negotiators' communications. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  32. Schlenker, B. R. (1980).Impression Management Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975).Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Bies
    • 1
  • Debra L. Shapiro
    • 2
  1. 1.The Kellog Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanston
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationUniversity of North CarolinaChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations