Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 275–292 | Cite as

Personal Value Orientation as a Moderator in the Relationships Between Perceived Organizational Justice and Its Hypothesized Consequences

  • Jukka Lipponen
  • Maria-Elena Olkkonen
  • Liisa Myyry
Article

Abstract

This study examined whether personal value orientation moderated the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its three hypothesized consequences: group pride, respect within the group, and turnover intentions. On the basis of conceptual correspondences between self-enhancement and self-transcendence values of Schwartz's value typology and previous conceptualizations of distributive and procedural justice two hypotheses were developed and tested with a sample of 160 employees of a research organization. It was predicted and found that relationships between distributive justice and outcome variables were stronger among people who were high in self-enhancement values (power, achievement). The relationships between procedural justice and outcome variables, by contrast, were predicted to be stronger among those high in self-transcendence values (universalism, benevolence). Our results provided no support for the latter hypothesis.

value orientation procedural justice distributive justice group value model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnor. Pers. Psychol. 67: 422–436.Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle, J. L., and Wothke, W. (1999). Amos users' quite Version 4.0., SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., and Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. J. Manager. Psychol. 17: 692–711.Google Scholar
  4. Bilsky, W., and Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality. Eur. J. Pers. 8: 161–181.Google Scholar
  5. Bozeman, D. P., and Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on organiza-tional commitment questionnaire—Turnover cognition relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 86: 161–173.Google Scholar
  6. Brockner, J., and Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychol. Bull. 120: 189–208.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen-Charash, Y., and Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86: 278–324.Google Scholar
  8. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.O. L. H., and Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 86: 425–445.Google Scholar
  9. Cropanzano, R., and Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In Cooper, C. L., and Robertson, I. T. (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, pp. 317–372.Google Scholar
  10. De Cremer, D. (2002). The self-relevant implications of distribution rules: When self-esteem and acceptance are influenced by violations of the equity rule. Soc. Jus. Res. 15: 327–339.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice, University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  12. Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M., and Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2003). Personality as a moderator in the relations between perceptions of organizational justice and sickness absence. J. Voc. Behav. 63: 379–395.Google Scholar
  13. Feather, N. T. (1987). Gender differences in values: Implications of the expectancy-value model. In Halisch, F., and Kuhl, J. (eds.), Motivation, Intention and Volition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar
  14. Feather, N. T. (1994). Human values and their relation to justice. J. Soc. Issues 50: 129–151.Google Scholar
  15. Feather, N. T. (2002). Values and value dilemmas in relation to judgments concerning outcomes of an industrial conflict. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28: 446–459.Google Scholar
  16. Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Gärling, T. (1999). Value priorities, social value orientations and cooperation in social dilemmas. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38: 397–408.Google Scholar
  18. Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation. In Abrams, D., and Hogg, M. A. (eds.), Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, Harvester/Wheatsheaf, New York, pp. 48–70.Google Scholar
  19. Koivula, N., and Verkasalo, M. (manuscript submitted for publication). Value structures among students and steelworkers.Google Scholar
  20. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gerger, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.), Social Exchanges: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, pp. 27–55.Google Scholar
  21. Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  22. McClintock, C. G. (1972). Social motivation—A test of propositions. Behav. Sci. 17: 438–454.Google Scholar
  23. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizensip behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J. Appl. Psychol. 76: 845–855.Google Scholar
  24. Roccas, S. (2003). Identification and status revisited: The moderating role of self-enhancement and self-transcendence values. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29: 726–736.Google Scholar
  25. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Sager, J. K., Griffeth, R. W., and Hom, P. W. (1998). A comparison of structural models representing turnover cognitions. J. Vocat. Behav. 53: 254–273.Google Scholar
  27. Schmitt, M., and D ürfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29: 443–453.Google Scholar
  28. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, Vol. 25, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
  29. Schwartz, S. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In Seligman, C., Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (eds.), The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology: Values, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, Vol. 8, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, S., Lehmann, A., and Roccas, S. (1999). Multimethod probes of basic human values. In Adamopoulos, J., and Kashima, Y. (eds.), Social Psychology and Cultural Context, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
  31. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., and Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Acad. Manage. J. 42: 100–108.Google Scholar
  32. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28: 588–597.Google Scholar
  33. Skitka, L. J., and Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments in a real-world political context: A test of a value protection model of justice reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28: 1419–1429.Google Scholar
  34. Sousa, F. H., and Vala, J. (2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value model and support for change. Soc. Just. Res. 15: 99–121.Google Scholar
  35. Stone-Romero, E. F., and Anderson, L. E. (1994). Relative power of moderated multiple-regression and the comparison of subgroup correlation-coefficients for detecting moderating effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 79: 354–359.Google Scholar
  36. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G., and Worschel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33–47Google Scholar
  37. Tyler, T. R., and Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioural Engagement, Psychology Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  38. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, O., and Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70: 913–930.Google Scholar
  39. Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, Vol. 25, pp. 115–191.Google Scholar
  40. Verkasalo, M., Daun, Å., and Niit, T. (1994). Universal values in Estonia, Finland and Sweden. Ethnol. Eur. 2: 101–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jukka Lipponen
    • 1
  • Maria-Elena Olkkonen
    • 1
  • Liisa Myyry
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations