Abstract
The effects of process control and decision control on procedural fairness judgements are examined with regard to the procedure used by commercial banks in granting business credits to entrepreneurs. Male and female entrepreneurs with experience in requests for business credits were interviewed about several aspects of the procedure for granting business credit. Respondents had either a positive or a negative experience with credit granting (i.e., the request was or was not rewarded). The outcome-oriented and the procedure-oriented explanations for the effects of process control on procedural fairness judgments are discussed. The results show that, contrary to expectation, process control had no effect on the procedural fairness judgments. On the contrary, perceived seriousness of treatment, as well as the predicted effects of decision control, did influence procedural justice judgments. Moreover, some support was found for the contention that seriousness of treatment functions as precondition for process control effects (Tyler, 1987). Neither the outcome-oriented, nor the procedure-oriented explanation could fully account for the findings. It is assumed that the specific aspects of the situation are responsible for the results, indicating how important the situational context is in research concerning procedural justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bies, R. J., and Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts.Soc. Justice Res. 1: 199–218.
Brett, J. M. (1986). Commentary on procedural justice papers. In Lewicki, R., Bazerman, M., and Sheppard, B. (eds.),Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 81–90.
Brett, J. M., and Goldberg, S. B. (1983). Mediator-advisors: A new third party role. In Bazerman, M. and Lewicki, R. (eds.),Negotiations in Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 165–176.
Cohen, R. L. (1988). Fabrications of justice. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Justice and Societal Problems, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
Early, P. C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of control in mediating justice judgements.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 1148–1160.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of ‘voice’ and improvement on experienced inequity.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35: 108–119.
Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Bierhoff, H. W. Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.),Justice in Social Relations Plenum press, New York, pp. 145–164.
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., and Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of ‘voice’ and peer opinions on responses to inequity.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37: 2253–2261.
Houldon, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., and Thibaut, J. (1978). Preferences for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14: 13–30.
Koopman, A. C., and Walvis, C. (1986).Vrouwen zelfstandig, perspectiven op het onderemerschap [Female entrepreneurs, perspectives on entrepreneurship]. Emancipatieraad, Den Haag.
Koper, G., and Vermunt, R. (1988).Vrouwen en Bedrijfskredietverlening [Women and the granting of business credits]. University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gerge, K., Greenberg, M., and Willis, R. (eds.),Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 27–55.
Lind, E. A., Lissak, R. I., and Conlon, A. E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgements.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 13: 338–350.
Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., and Thibaut, J. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 643–653.
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988).The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York.
Musante, L., Gilbert, M. A., and Thibaut, J. (1983). The effects of control on the perceived fairness of procedures and outcomes.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19: 223–238.
Sheppard, B. H., and Lewicki, R. J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness.Soc. Justice Res. 1: 161–176.
Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.Calif. Law Rev. 66: 54–566.
Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgements of procedural justice: A test of four models.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 333–344.
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures.Law Soc. Rev. 22: 103–135.
Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (in press). Procedural processes and legal institutions. In Vermunt, R. and Steensma, H. (eds.)Social Justice in Human Relations, Plenum Press, New York.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: exploring the meaning of process control.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 72–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koper, G., Vermunt, R. The effects of procedural aspects and outcome salience on procedural fairness judgments. Soc Just Res 2, 289–301 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048516
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048516