Social Justice Research

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 151–167 | Cite as

Self-Focus and Procedural Fairness: The Role of Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection

  • Lieven Brebels
  • David De Cremer
  • Constantine Sedikides
  • Alain Van Hiel
Article

Abstract

This article examined the differential role of self-rumination and self-reflection on the psychological influence of procedural fairness. Study 1 induced self-rumination and self-reflection relative to an outward-focused control. Self-rumination increased the perceived importance of procedural fairness, whereas self-reflection decreased it. Study 2, assessing individual differences in self-rumination and self-reflection, showed that a standard procedural fairness manipulation (voice vs. no voice) predicted future interaction preferences with the enactment source among those high (but not low) in self-rumination and among those low (but not high) in self-reflection. The findings validate a multiple process approach to understanding the role of the self in procedural fairness.

Keywords

Procedural fairness Self Self-focus Self-rumination Self-reflection 

References

  1. Bem, D. J. (1973). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, 445–464.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1511–1526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & van Dijke, M. (2011). Using self-definition to predict the influence of procedural justice on organizational, interpersonal, and job/task oriented citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206311410605.
  5. Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., et al. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from four studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 394–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Diekmann, K. A. (2009). Towards a ‘fairer’ conception of process fairness: Why, when, and how more may not always be better than less. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooley, E. H. (1912). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribners.Google Scholar
  10. Creed, A. T., & Funder, D. C. (1998). The two faces of private self-consciousness: Self-report, peer report, and behavioral correlates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 411–431.Google Scholar
  11. De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Cremer, D., Brebels, L., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Being uncertain about what?: Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1520–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Reputational implications of procedural fairness for personal and relational self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). The whys and whens of personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 151–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desai, S. D., Sondak, H., & Diekmann, K. A. (2011). When fairness neither satisfies nor motivates: The role of risk aversion and uncertainty reduction in attenuating and reversing the fair process effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Fenigstein, A. (2009). Private and public self-consciousness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 495–511). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Cai, H. (2012a). Wanting to be great and better but not average: On the pancultural desire for self-enhancing and self-improving feedback. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 521–526.Google Scholar
  22. Gaertner, G., Sedikides, C., Luke, M., O’Mara, E. M., Iuzzini, J., Jackson, L. E., et al. (2012b). A motivational hierarchy within: Primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbons, F. X. (1983). Self-attention and self-report: The “veridicality” hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 51, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, J. D., Sedikides, C., Saltzberg, J. A., Wood, J. V., & Forzano, L.-A. (2003). Happy mood decreases self-focused attention. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 147–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmvall, C. M., & Bobocel, D. R. (2008). What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hull, J. G., & Levy, A. S. (1979). The organizational functions of the self: An alternative to the Duval and Wicklund model of self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 756–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hull, J. G., & Young, R. D. (1983). Self-consciousness, self-esteem, and success-failure as determinants of alcohol consumption in male social drinkers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1097–1109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Joireman, J. A., Parrot, L. P., & Hammersla, J. (2002). Empathy and the self-absorption paradox: Support for the distinction between self-rumination and self-reflection. Self and Identity, 1, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koper, G., van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1993). Procedural fairness and self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” doesn’t hurt: Distinguishing reflective processing of negative emotions from rumination. Psychological Science, 16, 709–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leary, M. R. (2012). Sociometer theory. In L. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange theory (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  37. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, D. M., Greenbaum, R. L., Kuenzi, M., & Shteynberg, G. (2009). When do fair procedures not matter? A test of the identity violation effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 142–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McFarland, C., Buehler, R., von Rüti, R., Nguyen, L., & Alvaro, C. (2007). The impact of negative moods on self-enhancing cognitions: The role of reflective versus ruminative mood orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 728–750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Napier, J. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Does moral conviction really override concerns about procedural justice? A reexamination of the value protection model. Social Justice Research, 21, 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nasby, W. (1985). Private self-consciousness, articulation of the self-schema, and recognition memory of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 704–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hart, C., Juhl, J., et al. (2011). The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 638–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheier, M. F., Buss, A. H., & Buss, D. M. (1978). Self-consciousness, self report of aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sedikides, C. (1992). Attentional effects on mood are moderated by chronic self-conception valence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 580–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sedikides, C. (2012). Self-protection. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 327–353). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sedikides, C., De Cremer, D., Hart, C. M., & Brebels, L. (2010). Procedural fairness responses in the context of self-uncertainty. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J. Carroll (Eds.), The uncertain self: A handbook of perspectives from social and personality psychology (pp. 142–159). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sedikides, C., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2008). The self in procedural fairness. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 2107–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sedikides, C., & Hepper, E. G. D. (2009). Self-improvement. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 899–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Segerstrom, S. C., Stantom, A. L., Alden, L. E., & Shortridge, B. E. (2003). A multidimensional structure for repetitive thought: What’s on your mind, and how, and how much. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 909–921.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sherman, D. K., & Hartson, K. A. (2011). Reconciling self-protection with self-improvement: Self-affirmation theory. In M. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), The handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 128–151). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  54. Silvia, P. J., & Duval, T. S. (2001). Objective self-awareness theory: Recent progress and enduring problems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silvia, P. J., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2001). On introspection and self-perception: Does self-focused attention enable accurate self-knowledge? Review of General Psychology, 5, 241–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skitka, L. J. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity approach to why and how people think about justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 286–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2008). Moral convictions often override concerns about procedural fairness: A reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research, 21, 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teasdale, J. D., & Green, H. A. C. (2004). Ruminative self-focus and autobiographical memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1933–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Law and Society Review, 22, 301–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  63. Tyler, T. R., DeGoey, P., & Smith, H. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van den Bos, K. (2009). Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2010). The social psychology of fairness and the regulation of personal uncertainty. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J. Carroll (Eds.), The uncertain self: A handbook of perspectives from social and personality psychology (pp. 122–141). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  69. Van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Towards understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 355–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van den Bos, K., Miedema, J., Vermunt, R., & Zwenk, F. (2011). A self-activation hypothesis of affective reactions to fair and unfair events: Evidence for supraliminal and subliminal processes. Social justice research, 24, 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Mayer, D., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2012). When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowerment leadership types in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Prooijen, J. W., De Cremer, D., Van Beest, I., Stahl, T., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reaction to decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Prooijen, J. W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Prooijen, J. W., & Zwenk, F. (2009). Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 392–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wallace, H. M., & Tice, D. M. (2012). Reflected appraisal through a 21st-century looking glass. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (Vol. 2, pp. 124–140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ward, A., Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Can’t quite commit: Rumination and uncertainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 96–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., & Martin, C. (1999). A self-affirmation analysis of survivors’ reactions to unfair organizational downsizings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lieven Brebels
    • 1
  • David De Cremer
    • 2
  • Constantine Sedikides
    • 3
  • Alain Van Hiel
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity College BrusselsBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.China Europe International Business SchoolShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations