The field of organizationa l justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizationa l justice.

/pdf/justice-at-the-millennium-a-meta-analytic-review-of-25-years-b9qfmr75n2.pdf

Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research

People like to help those who are helping them and to hurt those who are hurting them. Outcomes rejecting such motivations are called fairness equilibria. Outcomes are mutual-max when each person maximizes the other's material payoffs, and mutual-min when each person minimizes the other's payoffs. It is shown that every mutual-max or mutual-min Nash equilibrium is a fairness equilibrium. If payoffs are small, fairness equilibria are roughly the set of mutual-max and mutual-min outcomes; if payoffs are large, fairness equilibria are roughly the set of Nash equilibria. Several economic examples are considered and possible welfare implications of fairness are explored. Copyright 1993 by American Economic Association.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2117561.pdf

Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics

This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.

/pdf/on-the-dimensionality-of-organizational-justice-a-construct-2f8fguv875.pdf

On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure.

Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this research investigated gender differences in the overlooked context of individual adoption and sustained usage of technology in the workplace. User reactions and technology usage behavior were studied over a five-month period among 342 workers being introduced to a new software system. At all three points of measurement, compared to women, men's technology usage deci

/pdf/why-don-t-men-ever-stop-to-ask-for-directions-gender-social-2bpgow4k57.pdf

Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior

This paper presents a general strain theory of crime and delinquency that is capable of overcoming the criticisms of previous strain theories. In the first section, strain theory is distinguished from social control and differential association/social learning theory. In the second section, the three major types of strain are described: (1) strain as the actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, (2) strain as the actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and (3) strain as the actual or anticipated presentation of negatively valued stimuli. In the third section, guidelines for the measurement of strain are presented. And in the fourth section, the major adaptations to strain are described, and thcwe factors influencing the choice of delinquent versus nondelinquent adaptations are discussed. After dominating deviance research in the 196Os, strain theory came under heavy attack in the 1970s (Bernard, 1984; Cole, 1975), with several prominent researchers suggesting that the theory be abandoned (Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978). Strain theory has survived those attacks, but its influence is much diminished (see Agnew, 1985a; Bernard, 1984; Farnworth and Leiber, 1989). In particular, variables derived from strain theory now play a very limited role in explanations of crime/delinquency. Several recent causal models of delinquency, in fact, either entirely exchde strain variables or assign them a small role (e.g., Elliott et al., 1985; Johnson, 1979; Massey and Krohn, 1986; Thornberry, 1987; Tonry et al., 1991). Causal models of crime/delinquency are dominated, instead, by variables derived from differential association/social learning theory and social control theory. This paper argues that strain theory has a central role to play in explanations of crime/delinquency, but that the theory has to be substantially revised to play this role. Most empirical studies of strain theory continue to rely on the strain models developed by Merton (1938), A. Cohen (1955), and Cloward and Ohlin (1960). In recent years, however, a wealth of research in several fields has questioned certain of the assumptions underlying those theories and pointed to new directions for the development of strain theory. Most notable in this area is the research on stress in medical sociology and psychology, on equity/justice in social psychology, and on aggression in psychology-particularly recent versions of frustration-aggression and social

Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency

The distribution of rewards and resources is a universal phenomenon that occurs in social systems of all sizes, from small groups to whole societies (Parsons, 1951; Parsons, Shils, & Olds, 1951). All groups, organizations, and societies deal with the question of allocating rewards, punishments, and resources. The manner in which a social system deals with these issues has great impact on its effectiveness and on the satisfaction of its members. For these reasons, it is not surprising that social scientists from many disciplines—political scientists, economists, sociologists, and psychologists—have been concerned with the problem of allocation (e.g., Jones & Kaufman, 1974; Leventhal, 1976a; Pondy, 1970).

What Should Be Done with Equity Theory

Publisher Summary This chapter presents a framework for predicting the behavior of persons who occupy the allocator's role. The framework takes account of other persons insofar as they influence the allocator's decisions about rewards and resources. Persons of higher rank, who are the allocator's superiors, may strongly influence his or her decisions, and so may the recipients who are subordinate to him or her. In addition, other parties who observe the allocator may influence his or her decisions. Allocation decisions are instrumental acts through which the allocator tries to achieve various goals. The chapter takes account of a wide range of goals and motives that affect his or her decisions. In any allocation situation there is considerable potential for conflict between the allocator and recipients, or between the recipients themselves.

Gerald S. Leventhal

Papers

What Should Be Done with Equity Theory

The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations

Self-interest and the maintenance of equity.

Sex, age, and equity behavior.

Inequity and interpersonal conflict: reward allocation and secrecy about reward as methods of preventing conflict.