Forming Fairness Judgments: Why People Favor Unfair Information

Chapter

Abstract

People value fair conditions and show positive reactions towards fairness, whereas they oppose unfair conditions. Fairness is especially important to people in situations without immediate control. This, for example, is the case when people are dealing with authorities such as supervisors or the police. Amazingly, there is hardly any research on how people search for information in order to judge the fairness of an authority. In our research, we explored how information search differs after fair versus unfair events, and what motivates people to search for different fairness-relevant information. Overall, we found that people both in fair and unfair situations are more interested in unfairness-relevant information than fairness-relevant information. However, the search for information on the fairness of the authority is motivated by two different goals: Fairness is not taken for granted and people aim to find out whether an unknown authority is really trustworthy in order to avoid costly misjudgments (i.e., accuracy motives). In contrast, unfairness seems to be convincing and people are motivated to confirm their first impression (i.e., defense motives). These results have important practical implications: People seem to have a general bias by focusing on unfair information. Unfortunately, therefore, in conflict situations (a) it becomes more difficult to convey fair information and (b) the importance of single, less relevant unfair information is likely to be overestimated by conflict partners. Both effects make conflict resolutions more difficult. Accordingly, in particular in situations where the interaction partners do not know each other and have not established a stable and trustworthy relationship (e.g., a first encounter with an authority), it is very import to avoid any impression of unfairness.

Keywords

Information Search Cognitive Dissonance Procedural Fairness Confirmation Bias Social Identity Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1983). Mediator-advisors: A new third-party role. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 165–176). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colquitt, J., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Oxford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, B. M. (2001). Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: An integration of organizational justice and social information processing. Personnel Psychology, 54, 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, W., Albarracin, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thielen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2008, August). Siting processes for radioactive waste: Can a fair process outweigh a negative outcome? Paper presented at the 12th biennial conference of the international society for justice research (ISJR), Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Lilli, W., & Frey, D. (1993). Die Hypothesentheorie der sozialen Wahrnehmung [The theory of hypotheses of social perception]. In D. Frey & M. Irle (Eds.), Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Band 1: Kognitive Theorien (pp. 49–79). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
  15. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Lexington, MA: New Lexington.Google Scholar
  16. Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W. L., Hensler, R., Resnik, J., et al. (1990). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’ evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 24, 953–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Öttl, M., & Streicher, B. (2010). How the fairness of the selection process affects later employee’s attitudes and behavior: A longitudinal study. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  19. Sears, D. W., & Freedman, J. L. (1965). Effects of expected familiarity with arguments upon opinion change and selective exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Colquitt & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 499–522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Streicher, B. (2009, October). Information search under conditions of fairness. Paper presented at symposium ‘The potential of justice research for conflict resolution and the understanding of societal problems’, Eichstätt, Germany.Google Scholar
  22. Streicher, B. (2010). Moderatoren der Informationssuche nach fairen und unfairen Bedingungen [Moderators of information search after fair and unfair conditions]. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the German Society of Psychology (DGPs), Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Streicher, B., Jonas, E., Maier, G. W., & Frey, D. (submitted). The twofold effect of procedural fairness on innovative behavior.Google Scholar
  24. Streicher, B., & Chupin, V. (2010). How a training in organizational justice promotes the communication of aversive decisions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. Streicher, B., Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2010). Enhancing group-performance: Leadership training in organizational justice in comparison to conventional trainings. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  26. Streicher, B., & Peus, C. (in prep.). Information search and information bias under conditions of fairness. Manuscript in preparation for European Journal of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  27. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. (2003). Moral solidarity, identification with the community, and the importance of procedural justice: The police as prototypical representatives of a group’s moral values. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tabak, R. J. (1986). The death of fairness: The arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty in the 1980s. Review of Law and Social Change, 14, 797–848.Google Scholar
  29. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks & Cole.Google Scholar
  30. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & G. W. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273–300). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 49–66). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Streicher
    • 1
  • Dieter Frey
    • 1
  • Silvia Osswald
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Central Psychological Service of the Bavarian PoliceMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations