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

The Social Psychology of Organizations.

Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98044356.pdf

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

This survey of attitude theory and research published between 1996 and 1999 covers the conceptualization of attitude, attitude formation and activation, attitude structure and function, and the attitude-behavior relation. Research regarding the expectancy-value model of attitude is considered, as are the roles of accessible beliefs and affective versus cognitive processes in the formation of attitudes. The survey reviews research on attitude strength and its antecedents and consequences, and covers progress made on the assessment of attitudinal ambivalence and its effects. Also considered is research on automatic attitude activation, attitude functions, and the relation of attitudes to broader values. A large number of studies dealt with the relation between attitudes and behavior. Research revealing additional moderators of this relation is reviewed, as are theory and research on the link between intentions and actions. Most work in this context was devoted to issues raised by the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. The present review highlights the nature of perceived behavioral control, the relative importance of attitudes and subjective norms, the utility of adding more predictors, and the roles of prior behavior and habit.

http://psych415.class.uic.edu/Readings/Ajzen,%20Attitude%20theory,%20AnnRevPsy,%202001.pdf

Nature and Operation of Attitudes

Although aspects of social identity theory are familiar to organizational psychologists, its elaboration, through self-categorization theory, of how social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization actually produce social identity effects is less well known. We describe these processes, relate self-categorization theory to social identity theory, describe new theoretical developments in detail, and show how these developments can address a range of organizational phenomena. We discuss cohesion and deviance, leadership, subgroup and sociodemographic structure, and mergers and acquisitions.

Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts

The value of personal norms (Schwartz, 1977) for proenvironmental behavior has been demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., Vining & Ebreo, 1992), but not in addition to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). In the present study, this combination was investigated by means of a mail survey among a sample of 305 Dutch citizens who were enlisted to participate in a behavioral change intervention program on environmentally relevant behavior. Personal norms appear to increase the proportion of explained variance in 5 intentions and 4 self-reported measures of performed environmentally relevant behaviors beyond that explained by three of the theory of planned behavior constructs (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control). Issues evoked by these results are discussed.

Explaining Proenvironmental Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior1

Two experiments investigated predictions from social identity theory and relative deprivation theory regarding membership in low-status groups, using a 3 (legitimacy of low status)×2 (permeability of group boundaries)×2 (stability of group status) between-subjects design. Main dependent variables concerned in-group identification and individual and collective mobility attempts. Group members considered their low status more acceptable when it seemed legitimate. In Experiment 1 (N=184), illegitimate assignment of low status to the Ss' group increased in-group identification. In Experiment 2 (N=178), illegitimate allocation of individual Ss to a low-status group decreased group identification

Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors provide an explanation of the frequently replicated fair process effect (the finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects how people react to outcomes). The authors argue that, in many situations, people may find it difficult to assess whether their outcome is fair or unfair and satisfying or unsatisfying because they only have information about their own outcome and they do not know the outcomes of others and that, in these situations, people use the fairness of the procedure as a heuristic substitute to assess how to judge their outcome. The results of 2 experiments corroborate the authors' line of reasoning. Findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.

/pdf/how-do-i-judge-my-outcome-when-i-do-not-know-the-outcome-of-51sdxaqkz0.pdf

How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that when information about whether an authority can be trusted is not available, people will resolve the question of how they should interpret the decisions of the authority by relying on perceived procedural fairness. As a consequence, people who do not have information about authority's trustworthiness react more positively toward the outcomes of authority's decisions if the authority is using fair as opposed to unfair procedures. However, when people know that the authority either can or cannot be trusted, they are less in need of procedural fairness information, yielding less strong effects of procedural fairness on people's reactions. The findings of 2 experiments support the authors' line of reasoning. It is concluded that people especially need procedural fairness when information about an authority's trustworthiness is lacking.

/pdf/when-do-we-need-procedural-fairness-the-role-of-trust-in-5e9r6y5e3f.pdf

Henk A. M. Wilke

Papers

Explaining Proenvironmental Intention and Behavior by Personal Norms and the Theory of Planned Behavior1

Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies.

How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect

When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority

Individual adaptations and structural-change as solutions to social dilemmas