-..-.> ..v

G

\un

'aj- gran”?

any“ 1-.— w”

 

. 219:3, a;

lin- ”4-3,.

 

i‘.
«
.“3

4 .
aim.
5 |

l‘.
in”:

h“ a

V

2
5m.
9 ~ .‘

0;
.
I!

l
u

3r

3.1%“
33"? .

‘.-9
:32?

,1 .33

:1.
i«..
.—

 

THESlS

meme/w 31'

I Hi lzl lilllllll/llllill/“Ills

3 1 93 01559 2466

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Affect and Organizational Justice:
an Empirical Assessment of the
Influence of Mood on Fairness Perceptions

presented by

David Michael Waldschmidt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M .A. Psychology

degree in

 

 

0v V427?

Major professor

Date September 20 , 1996

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto remove thle checkomnorn your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore dete due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE Due

MAR 1 T [ I

__ If] I
‘ f l l

LLJ
—T—_T—_l

MSU le An Affirmeflve ActlorVEqueJ Opportunity Im

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFFECT AND ORGANIZATIONAL IUSTICE:
AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
INFLUENCE OF MOOD ON FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS
By

David Michael Waldschmidt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1996

ABSTRACT
AFFECT AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE:
AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
INFLUENCE OF MOOD ON FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS
By

David Michael Waldschmidt

The present article explores the impact of individuals' positive/negative
affective states on perceptions of fairness. It was hypothesized that perceptions of
fairness and the weighting of information would be congruent with the individual's
currently experienced affective state. It was also hypothesized that individuals
experiencing negative affective states would use more information when making
fairness judgments. To test these hypotheses, a study was conducted in which
subjects' moods were manipulated through the visualization of afi‘ectively charged
life experiences. These subjects were then asked to judge the fairness of events in
several written scenarios. Results did not support the stated hypotheses. Results
provided limited support for the statement that individuals -- regardless of
affective state -- weighted positive information more heavily when making an
overall judgment of procedural fairness. Implications of these findings are

discussed, and recommendations for future research are made.

My favorite dedication was written by clinical psychologist George A. Kelly, who
dedicated his book A Theory of Personality with the following:
To a lot of people I know, and some I don’t, most of whom I like, and some
I don’t, but acquaintances or strangers, friends or scoundrels, I must confess
I am indebted to them all.
The acquaintances, strangers, fiiends, and scoundrels in my life have been as
important to me as they were to Dr. Kelly. However my thesis is dedicated not to
them, but to the One who created them. This thesis -- like its author -- is

dedicated to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, through the

intercession of Mary, the Mother of God.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It seems to me that there are many different ways that one can approach the
writing of an acknowledgments section. Since this is the one area of a thesis that
is left solely to the discretion of the author, this section provides the reader with a
nice little glimpse into the life of the person responsible for the document about to
be read. Some have used this opportunity to write commentaries on life and brief
political discourses, while others have chosen the more simple (and boring)
approach of presenting a laundry list of names of individuals affiliated with the
project. I have chosen an approach that lies somewhere in between these two,
minus the political rhetoric.

The faculty members who served on my thesis committee were extremely
helpful, and their assistance throughout this process has been greatly appreciated.
Neal Schmitt -- who chaired my thesis committee -- deserves first mention. His
patience, his supportiveness, his accessibility, the level of his expertise, and his
style of mentorship were outstanding. If it weren’t for Neal, I would be coding
data until the next millennia. Thanks for everything Neal. Dan ngn’s insight

into the research design led to a number of changes. In addition Dan’s generosity

iv

and patience were commendable. Galen Bodenhausen’s recommendations
concerning mood manipulations were also valuable. It was from Galen’s class on
emotions that I derived the basic idea which became this thesis. In addition to the
above three faculty members, I also owe a great deal to the remaining faculty
members in Michigan State’s Industrial/Organizational psychology program;
Kevin Ford, Steve Kozlowski, and Rich DeShon all taught classes and answered
questions which informed and sharpened this study. John Hollenbeck from the
Organizational Behavior program also served in this capacity. I am also indebted
to my fellow graduate students in the I/O program. It was always nice to run a
question or two by them prior to presenting it to a faculty member. Faculty
members at Marquette University (where I did my undergraduate work) --
especially Ed Indenieden and Tony Kuchan -- should also be mentioned, for they
played the critical role of nurturing in me a desire to pursue graduate studies in
Industrial psychology.

The individuals who helped me collect my data also need to be thanked.
Dennis Devine, Holly Makimaa, and Lisa Copeland all gave their time and energy
to this study, and their willingness to help made this a much more pleasant
experience. The secretarial staff at Michigan State -- especially Suzy Pavick --
were also very helpful and made everything much easier.

My family has been extremely supportive throughout this process, and this

acknowledgments section would be remiss if it did not recognize the social (and

V

sometimes financial) support that they provided. I have been blessed with a
fantastic family. I thank my mom and dad for their unconditional love, their
generosity, their advice, and their tolerance of loud music when I was growing up.
I thank my brothers Geoff and Steve and my sister Hilde Ann for their friendship
and for their willingness to do stuff with their youngest brother. I could not hope
for a better family. Thank you, and I love you all very much.

At this point I would also like to thank the members of my extended family
-- my friends. During this thesis journey I became close to several people at St.
John’s Student Parish: Brad Ferrari, Luis Cardenas, Holly Makimaa, Stephanie
Crandall, Scott Fisher, and many others who participated in fellowship groups and
retreats. These individuals provided me with spiritual camaraderie and friendship,
and I consider myself a better person for having met them. Similarly I would like
to thank those who were a part of Circle A Ranch -- Skip and Susan Ross, my
fellow counselors, and all the campers who went there. It was at this positive-
thinking, motivational camp that I recognized the importance of faith, and I
realized that I could accomplish whatever I put my heart to. I would also like to
thank a number of other friends -- especially Huong Nguyen, John and Amy F aubl,
Linda Juang, and Bill Rogers -- who each helped to keep me sane as I plodded
through what felt like a never ending project. Thanks also go to Lorilee
Sandmann - for her fiiendship and for the assistantship which kept me going

financially.

I would very much like to thank someone who came along late in the
process, but whose companionship has meant so much to me -- Marge Schultz. I
must confess that I don’t know quite how to put into words how exactly to thank
her. All I can say is that the world looks like a very different place since I met
her. Thanks Marge.

Finally and most importantly I thank my Creator. I thank God the Father,
God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit for giving me the skills and abilities
necessary to do this kind of work. I also thank Mary, the Mother of God, for her

intercession in my life and for always pointing me back to God.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Why is this Topic Important? ................................................................ 3
The Nature and Structure of Affect ....................................................... 6
The Role of Affect in Cognition ............................................................ 14
Network Theory .................................................................................... 15
Positive and Negative Affect and Decision Making ............................... l9
Affective Experience in Organizations .................................................. 20
Organizational Justice Research and Issues ........................................... 22
Procedural Justice Rules ....................................................................... 24
Fairness Perceptions and Affect ............................................................ 26
Research Hypotheses ............................................................................ 31
METHOD ........................................................................................................ 37
Subjects ................................................................................................ 37
Procedures ............................................................................................ 38
Measures ............................................................................................... 47
RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 5O
Manipulation Check .............................................................................. 50
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................. 52
Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 59
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 68
Limitations ............................................................................................ 70
Future Research Directions ............................................... . ................... 73

viii

APPENDIX A: Experiment Stage One ........................................................... 78

Overview and Informed Consent Form .................................................. 78
Instructions for Policies and Procedures Manual ................................... 79
Policies and Procedures Manual ............................................................ 81
Policies and Procedures Manual Test .................................................... 87
APPENDIX B: Experiment Stage Two .......................................................... 89
Background Information ....................................................................... 89
Instructions for Negative Mood Induction ............................................. 91
Instructions for Neutral Mood Induction ............................................... 94
Instructions for Positive Mood Induction .............................................. 97
Larsen & Diener Affect Circumplex Scale ............................................ 101
APPENDIX C: Experiment Stage Three ........................................................ 103
Instructions for the Scenarios ................................................................ 103
Scenarios, Fairness Ratings, and Fairness Essays .................................. 106
Instructions for Overall Ratings ............................................................ 123
Overall Ratings for Scenarios ................................................................ 124
APPENDIX D: Experiment Stage Four .......................................................... 129
Probe for Suspicion ............................................................................... 129
APPENDD( E: Experiment Stage Five ........................................................... 130
Debriefing Form ................................................................................... 130
APPENDIX F: Scoring Keys and Procedural Justice Rule Scale Information . 133
Answering Key for Policies and Procedures Manual Test ..................... 133
Larsen & Diener Affect Circumplex Scale Scoring Key ........................ 134
Procedural Justice Rule Violation Scales and Items .............................. 135
APPENDIX G: Tables (see LIST OF TABLES) ............................................ 137
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................. 166

ix

Table 1:
Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES

Means, Standard Deviations, and Coefficient Alphas ................. 137
Correlations among Study Variables .......................................... 141

AN COVAs Examining the Influence of Affective State on
Justice Rule Ratings across Scenarios ......................................... 153

AN COVAs Examining the Influence of Affective State on
Perceptions of Overall Procedures across Scenarios ................... 158

AN COVAs Examining the Influence of Affective State on
Perceptions of Overall Outcomes across Scenarios ..................... 159

Within Scenario Regressions of Perceived Fairness of Overall
Procedures on Violation and Nonviolation Measures ................. 160

Within Scenario Stepwise Regressions of Perceived Fairness of
Overall Procedures on Procedural Justice Rules ......................... 164

Correlations between Justice Rules and Overall Scenario
Procedural Fairness Measure within Experimental Condition ..... 165

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Two Factor Structure of Affect (Watson &
Tellegen, 1985) ........................................................................ 9

Figure 2: The Self-Report Affect Circumplex (Larsen & Diener, 1992) ..... 11

Figure 3: Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories with
Corresponding Predominant Exemplars (Greenberg, 1987) ........ 24

INTRODUCTION

"Love is stronger than justice."

Gordon Matthew Sumner

There is something very basic and very primal about an individual's sense

of justice. As far back as memory permits, many of us can picture a time in which
our sense of justice was violated. Whether this violation was the result of an
intentional act of someone older and more powerful than ourselves, or whether the
violation was simply due to another's oversight, many can remember that peculiar
gnawing sensation, and that feeling of raw discontent produced by the incident.‘
The emotions which accompanied the transgression are likely to have left an
indelible imprint in the mind. What may not have been clear at the time was the
influence those emotions had upon the judgment of the violation. The present
article explores the impact of affective states on individual perceptions of fairness.

To that end, relevant literature in affect and organizational justice is presented, and

 

1 The present author can recall heated arguments arising from the amount of
dessert put on the plate by a caregiver, as compared to the amount put upon the
plate of a sibling.

a series of hypotheses is offered.

This paper is not intended to serve as a review of the literatures on affect
and justice perceptions, nor are the hypotheses offered intended to address all of
the issues surrounding the relationship between affect and justice. It is intended to
increase our understanding of the unique influence that individuals' emotional
states have on perceptions of fairness. The paper is organized in the following
manner: First, material will be presented regarding why this topic is an important
one, and why researchers and practitioners should be interested in the issues
discussed. Next, definitions for the relevant affective constructs will be presented,
after which the role of affective states in memory, cognitive organization, and
information processing will be examined. The discussion will then move to issues
surrounding the role of affective states in individual cognitive style and decision
making, and to recent research relevant to affective experience in organizations.
Having explored the ways in which affective states color generic informational and
interpretive processes, we next examine the literature dealing with a specific
interpretive process -- the cognitive appraisal of the fairness of environmental
events. To this end, organizational justice constructs will be defined and relevant
research findings and issues will be discussed. Having discussed the relevant
literatures, a number of hypotheses are presented and an empirical study designed
to investigate the phenomenon of interest is described. Results of this study are

presented, and the implications of these findings are discussed. Concluding the

3

paper are recommendations for future research.

Why is this Topic Important?

The stakes involved in employee fairness perceptions can be quite high for
organizations. Organizational justice issues are involved in virtually every phase
of the employee-employer relationship (cf. Moorman, 1991). Likewise, the eflects
of justice perceptions can be felt at every phase as well, and those effects can
permeate the organization and penetrate its very core. Schmitt & Gilliland (1992),
for example, note that perceptions of fairness can have an impact on organizational
recruitment, organizational reputation, and organizational turnover. Fairness
perceptions have even been linked to employee thef’t (Greenberg, 1990, 1993). In
addition, and perhaps most importantly, organizations should be sensitive to
fairness perceptions of employees for moral and ethical reasons related to
employee health and well being (Robertson & Smith, 1989; Herriot, 1989).

Due to the incredible complexity present in organizational systems and in
their participants, it is undoubtedly the case that elements of that system will never
be universally perceived as being fair; since individuals use different interpretive
frameworks when observing and analyzing situations (e. g. see Leventhal, 1980), a
lack of consensus on fairness perceptions is virtually guaranteed. Exacerbating the
problem for organizations is the fact that individuals typically employ an

egocentric bias in their interpretations of what is fair and unfair (Greenberg, 1983;

Thompson & Lowenstein, 1992).

Given this situation, it is important for organizations to be able to identify
factors (i.e. personal characteristics, environmental conditions, etc.) that contribute
to judgments of fairness. Gilliland (1993) agrees and points out that this is an area
in which we need to advance. With such knowledge, organizations would have a
better sense of how and when to respond to disgruntled employees, and they
would be in a much better position to attempt some form of "damage control." If it
were known when justice violations were becoming apparent to individuals, then
organizations could do something to help manage the situation. Gilliland (1993)
and Organ and Konovsky (1989) suggest that organizations could try to make a
particular unviolated standard of justice more visible to individuals, and thereby
decrease the effect that a violated standard had on individuals' overall perceptions
of fairness.2 Organizations would also have a better sense of when to solicit the
opinions of their constituents in an attempt to give them a greater voice in valued
decision making processes. This might help to offset the effects of violations on
overall fairness perceptions. The present study attempts to identify one possible
causal antecedent to an individual's perception of a justice violation -- the affective
state of the individual.

In 1981, Tomkins predicted that "the next decade or so belongs to affect"

 

2 Gilliland does note, however, that this could potentially backfire and make
the violation even more visible.

5
(p.314). In 1985, Watson and Tellegen affirmed Tomkins' prediction and noted

that "psychology has rediscovered affect" (p.219). Recent findings concerning the
role of aflect in information processing, cognitive style, and decision making may
contribute to our understanding of how fairness perceptions arise. From the
standpoint of the organization, much could be done if affect plays a substantial
part in determining fairness perceptions (and if fairness perceptions are viewed as
being important to organizational operations (e.g. in union environments)).
Organizations could hire individuals who have a predisposition to experience a
particular affective state (this could potentially lower the total number of
grievances), they could train individuals to be aware of their current affective state
and recognize its influence on thought processes (thereby helping the individual to
make more accurate attributions and realize that a negative mood (perhaps due to a
problem at home) can make them oversensitive to minor aspects of working
conditions), and they could train individuals to recognize environmental factors
that trigger particular affective states (thus inoculating them and preparing them to
deal with the effects of the mood on thought processes). Organizations could also
structure the task environment to maximize the probability that desirable states
will be experienced.

We have discussed a number of reasons why this topic is an important one,
and we have noted that organizations have within their ability the means to address

some of these potential concerns. As of yet, no empirical evidence has been

6

presented regarding why aficcfive states may be a critical factor in fairness
perceptions, nor have theoretical arguments been made concerning this matter.
Empirical and theoretical support will be provided shortly. Before we can
intelligently discuss the literature on affect, however, we must first outline and
define the relevant affective constructs and provide some indication of the

structure of affect. We now turn to a discussion of this research.

The Nature and Structure of Affect

There is a lack of consensus among researchers as to the proper definition
of the terms affect, mood, and emotion, with the result being significant
differences in how they are used in the literature (F orgas, 1991; Batson, Shaw, &
Oleson, 1992). For example, some use the word "afi‘ect" to connote a global
description of the full range of emotional experiences which avail themselves to
human beings (e. g. Petty, Gleicher, & Baker, 1991). Others sharply restrict the
term, using it only to describe an individual's momentary positive or negative
reaction to a perceived stimulus event (e. g. Niedenthal & Showers, 1991). The
global definition of affect as presented by Batson, et a1. (1992) holds promise for
organizing and discriminating among these constructs. Batson et al. treat affect as
a general, superordinate construct which possesses a valence (positive or negative)
and an intensity level. Mood and emotion are identified as specific forms of

affect. Moods are conceptualized as being diffuse and transient valenced states

7

which fluctuate around an equilibrium point which is set by the individual's
affective predisposition. These states occur as the individual fine tunes his or her
general expectations about the future based on current conditions. Emotions, on
the other hand, are viewed as being highly charged valenced states of much shorter
duration which take place in reference to how circumstances influence a specific
goal in the present. Batson et al.'s presentation of these constructs will serve as a
reference point for the use of these constructs in the current paper. Reflecting
their use in much of the literature, the terms affect and emotion are used
interchangeably in this paper and refer to the general definition of affect as
presented by Batson et al.. Where the literature distinguishes between these two
constructs, this paper will attempt to do so as well. The definitions of affective
state and mood as used in this paper are consistent with the definition of mood
presented above. This definition is used because it is consistent with how
researchers have measured and discussed affective state and mood in the literature
to be discussed.

Watson and Tellegen (1985) examined the underlying structure of affect
across numerous research instruments and studies and concluded that the structure
of affect could be adequately described in reference to a circumplex containing

two robust, independent, unipolar factors - positive and negative affect.3 The

 

3Larsen and Diener (1992) define circumplex in the following manner: "A
circumplex is a two-dimensional, circular structure in which single attributes
(continued. . .)

8

upper end of each of these scales signifies emotional arousal, while the lower end
signifies a lack of arousal. Individuals experiencing high positive affect are
characterized as being active, enthusiastic, excited, and strong, while individuals
experiencing low positive affect are characterized as being drowsy, dull, sluggish,
and sleepy. Individuals experiencing high negative affect are characterized as
being distressed, nervous, and hostile, while individuals experiencing low negative
affect are characterized as being calm, placid, and relaxed. Figure 1 provides a
visual aid of this circumplex. Watson and Tellegen suggest that "mood assessment
and mood research should reflect the structure of emotional experience" (p.233).
Because positive and negative affect define that structure, researchers need to
measure these factors in order to adequately capture an individual's mood.
Although Watson and Tellegen's model of the structure of affect has been
quite influential, researchers have not yet reached a consensus regarding the
factors to be derived from this circumplex. Recently Burke, Brief, George,
Roberson, and Webster (1989) have challenged Watson and Tellegen's claim that
mood is best represented by a two factor model. They present data from three
samples which supports a four factor model consisting of the following: Positive

Arousal, Negative Activation, Low Arousal, and Low Activation. More severe

 

3(...continued)
correlate highly with those attributes nearby on the circumference of the circle,
correlate near zero with those attributes one-quarter way (90°) around the circle,
and correlate inversely with those attributes directly opposite on the circle" (pp.
25-26).

rr
“‘6“ 9051' vs 4pm.,

 

 

active 5‘
96’" elo ted r004,
‘\ enthusiastic G
57.\ GOING!“ CRCElOd (’4’
6‘ ‘hoppy peppy I G
V “M"? ”'OW aroused '70
Q “.0305 astonished ‘o
satisfied 3079141“! 1‘,“
K WOfmhe°f[.d\ // 72
8 \\ /
I
m / z
u. \ I . m
< or rest \\ ’/ distressed Q
g g __ colm _ \\ 1’ “at!“ a x
.r {3 placid ’41—— l‘.°""° _ _<_ 5
< relaxed I \\ jittery m:
0 l’ \ nervow
u-I \ b
2 , I \\ scorniul z:
I’ \\ 8'
/ \ bl... w
/’ groochy
0/ Quiescent local, to
"‘3 other so A 0:,
16‘ I Hill sorry \\ ’3
‘70 drowsy unhappy re
6.4, dull Y‘s
64, sloopy ng
’ sluggish 9‘3

z ' t
0‘” POSITIVE A"EC

Figure l: The Two Factor Structure of Affect (Watson & Tellegen, 1985)

criticisms of the Watson and Tellegen model have been levelled by Larsen and

Diener (1992). Larsen and Diener argue convincingly that the positive and

negative affect factors are bipolar (not unipolar as indicated by Watson and

Tellegen), and that these two factors are rnisnamed. They point out that many of

the descriptors on the low end of the positive affect dimension (e. g. dull, sluggish)

are typically viewed as being "negative," while descriptors on the low end of the

negative affect dimension (e.g. relaxed, calm) are typically viewed as being

"positive." In short, the positive affect and negative affect dimensions each

10

contain both negative and positive elements (indicating bipolarity). In addition,
descriptors which are typically associated with positive mood states are notably
absent from the high end of the positive affect dimension (e. g. happy, pleased,
content) and descriptors which are typically associated with negative mood states
are absent from the high end of the negative affect dimension (e. g. unhappy, sad).
Further complicating matters is the fact that Watson and Tellegen's portrayal of
positive and negative affect contains an activation component within each positive
or negative component. Thus the factor labels "positive affect" and "negative
affect" do not adequately represent the content which has been measured.

Larsen and Diener take note of the circumplex structure of mood, and
propose a very simple solution to this problem. By employing a different rotation
of the axes on the circumplex, they obtain a pleasant-unpleasant dimension, and a
high-low activation dimension which are conceptually much purer and
representative of their content than were the positive and negative affect
dimensions put forth by Watson and Tellegen. They defend their rotation by
noting that "any rotation is mathematically defensible because no rotation can
offer superior accountability for variance in a truly circumplex attribute set. " They
supplement their argument with evidence from Ketelaar (cited in Larsen & Diener,
1992) which provides additional support for the circumplex structure of affect.
Larsen and Diener's affect circumplex is presented in Figure 2, and this figure

indicates the descriptors for the above dimensions.

ll

Noused
Astonished
Stimulated
Surprised
Distressed Active Enthusiastic
intense Elated

 
   
       
 
   
  
  

       
      
  

  

 

  
 
  

    
     
 

 

  

Fearlul Excited
Nervous High Activation Euphoric
Jittery Lively
Anxious Activated Activated Peppy
Unpleasant Pleasant
Allect .. .° Aliect
Unhappy Happy
“IS.“bl. Delighted
Sad Unpleasant .2: Pleasant Ghd
Grouchy ' ' Cheerlul

Gloomy Warnihearted
Blue Pleased
Unactivated Unactlvated
Unpleasant Pleasant
Altect Allect
Dul Relaxed
Tired Content
Drowsy AtRest
Slugqlsh Low Activation Cairn
Bored Serene
Droopy Quiet NEase
Tranquil
Still
lnacfive
idle
Passive

Figure 2: The Self-Report Affect Circumplex (Larsen & Diener, 1992)

Larsen and Diener note the bipolarity of dimensions in their discussion of

the circumplex."s Because positive and negative affect represent opposite poles on

 

. .‘ On a side note, Cudeck (1986) and Mayer, Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman, and
Blainey (1991) point out that LISREL and other covariance modeling techniques
have problems fitting negative covariances in bipolar models. Application of these

techniques to bipolar dimensions results in solutions Wl'UCh spht each bipolar
dimension in half. Mayer et a1. and Larsen and Diener argue that this rs the reason
why Burke et a1. obtained four factors from a scale based on Watson and
Tellegen's two factors. Burke et a1. did not include measures of the pleasant-
unpleasant or high-low activation dimensions in then analysrs.

’ Larsen and Diener seem to have made a slight oversight here. The high-low
- (conhnued )

12

a single dimension, it is impossible for an individual to experience high positive
and high negative affect at the same time (this is possible within the Watson and
Tellegen framework).

These two perspectives on the structure of affect have been presented in
order to note a potential source of confusion. While a number of researchers have
applied Watson and Tellegen's formulation of positive and negative affect and
derived a number of scales based upon this formulation (e. g. The Positive Affect
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Job Affect Scale (JAS)), a number of
other researchers have defined and operationalized positive and negative affect in a
manner that is more consistent with the Larsen and Diener pleasant-unpleasant
dimension. Some researchers have operationalized their measures in accordance
with the Watson and Tellegen formulation of affect, but discussed positive and
negative afl‘ect in a manner that is more consistent with the pleasant-unpleasant
dimension of Larsen and Diener and glosses over or does not address the
activation component in this measure (e. g. Brief & Roberson, 1989; Burke, Brief,
George, Roberson, & Webster, 1989; George, 1989, 1990, 1991; Organ &
Konovsky, 1989).

The majority of the research to be discussed in this paper has examined

positive and negative affect fi'om a perspective that is consistent with Larsen and

 

’(...continued)
activation dimension would appear to be unipolar.

13

Diener's bipolar pleasant-unpleasant dimension. The labels positive and negative
affect will continue to be used in this document (as opposed to using the terms 4
"pleasant" or "unpleasant affect"), however, because the literature to be discussed
has specifically used these terms and because these terms reflect the way that
individuals commonly refer to these affective states. Unless it is explicitly stated
otherwise, the reader should assume that the term "positive affect" refers to the
experience of happiness and cheerfulness, while the term "negative affect" refers
to the experience of unhappiness and sadness.

At this point it is necessary to make a distinction between the affective state
currently experienced by the individual (state affect), and the individual's
predisposition to experience that particular state (trait affect). Trait affect is
viewed as a relatively stable individual difference variable, while state affect is
much more variable and changes over time. While recognizing this distinction
between trait and state affect, it is also necessary to recognize that the current
affective state often reflects the aflecfive levels typically experienced by the
individual (Costa & McCrae, 1980). Trait affect influences state affect, although
state affect is also influenced by situational factors and the interaction between the
person and the situation (George, 1991). State affect typically accounts for a much
larger proportion of variance than does trait affect, when researchers have
examined how an individual reacts in a particular situation (George, 1991). This

distinction has been made to clarify our discussion of this research. The

l4

individual's currently experienced affective state is the focus of this paper.

Having discussed the nature and structure of affect, we are now in a
position to examine research dealing with the role of affect in information
processing, cognitive style, and decision making. As will be discussed in greater
detail later, fairness perceptions involve a cognitive appraisal of perceived events
in reference to applied standards of justice. Fairness perceptions are thus
influenced by factors which bias this cognitive appraisal, influence the selection of
standards, and warp the perception of events. To the extent that affective states
are capable of influencing cognitive appraisals, the selection of standards, and the
perception of stimulus events, they should also influence individual perceptions of

fairness.

The Role of Affect in Cognition

Affective states have been found to influence the encoding, retrieval, and
interpretation of information in memory (see Blaney, 1986 for a review).
Although the mechanisms through which affect has its influence have not been
clearly identified by empirical work (Blaney, 1986), its influence cannot be
denied. Blaney points out that the majority of research dealing with the influence

of affect on memory has taken place under the umbrella of network theory.

15
Network Theory

Proponents of network theory argue that emotions have complex linkages in
memory structures (Bower, 1981, 1991). According to this view, each emotion is
represented by a node within the memory structure, and these nodes are linked to
each other, to particular events relevant to the emotion, and to particular
interpretive rules which are used to understand the social environment. When an
emotion is experienced, both the node associated with it and its linkages become
activated. Conversely, nodes associated with dissimilar emotions and their
linkages become inhibited. Information located in activated areas of the network
becomes much more accessible to conscious
thought, while information located in inhibited areas becomes difficult to uncover.
Fundamentally, this means that information which surfaces in working memory
will be largely congruent with the individual's affective state.

Not only is the information in working memory biased towards the affective
state, but afiective states also can influence the search for additional information
from the environment. Bower (1983) suggests the following:

We can thus expect the emotional person to use top-down or expectation-

driven processing of his social environment. That is, his emotional state

will bring into readiness certain perceptual categories, certain themes,
certain ways of interpreting the world that are congruent with his emotional

state; these mental sets then act as interpretive filters of reality and as
biases in his judgments. (p. 395)

The information which passes this filter and becomes available to conscious

16

though -- the information which subsequently will be used in decision makin --
is inherently biased in content by the direction of the affective state.

Thus, in making a judgment or decision, network theory suggests that the
"emotional" individual relies upon two sources of information -- past experiences
and perceptions of the current situation -- both of which have been subject to an
affective filtering process.6 This information is then further affectively censored
by mood congruent interpretive processes which attempt to synthesize the
available data into a form that is closely aligned with the affective state. The net
result of all this is a tunnel vision brand of decision making. The propositions of
network theory have been generally supported by research (Bower, 1991; Forgas
& Bower, 1988; Clore & Parrott, 1992). Empirical evidence for selective
exposure to mood congruent information, biased attention towards and perception
of mood congruent information, and learning and recall of mood congruent
information has been demonstrated (Bower, 1991), although some have noted that
the effects are not as clear for negative moods (Isen & Daubman, 1984).

The influence of mood on memory and information processing is not

restricted to a drive for mood congruency. Evidence also exists that individuals

 

6This not meant to imply that these are the only sources of information
available to the individual. Other sources are also available (e. g. other
individuals), and are probably influential as well. However, these additional
sources will likely be subject to the same scrutiny by the affective filters Bower
(1983) mentions.

17

attempt to regulate their affective states (Morris & Reilly, 1987), and under such
circumstances, they may engage in mood incongruent recall (Parrott & Sabini,
1990). Mood incongruent recall can occur when individuals attempt to regulate
their afl‘ective states by inhibiting their current mood. For example, individuals
who are experiencing negative affective states may attempt to recall mood
incongruent information in order to repair their mood and move to a more pleasant
affective state (Blaney, 1986). The reasons for inhibiting a bad mood or
maintaining a good mood are intuitively obvious. Less obvious are reasons why
an individual might be motivated to inhibit a good mood, or to maintain a bad
mood. Parrott (1993) has presented numerous reasons why individuals may forego
the hedonistic value of an affective state in order to achieve a particular goal. For
instance, an individual could inhibit a good mood in order to protect him or herself
against future disappointment, or to behave appropriately in a social setting (e. g. a
funeral). An individual could maintain a bad mood in order to motivate him or
herself to work harder, or to aid him or her in influencing the mood of another.
Certainly the mood incongruency perspective must be taken into account. While
the vast majority of research on mood and memory has focused on mood
congruency, researchers are becoming more and more mindful of factors that may

produce the opposite result.

18

In addition to the previously discussed sources of information, research also
suggests that the affective state itself serves as an informational cue to the
individual (Schwarz & Clore, 1983; Clore & Parrott, 1992; Niedenthal & Showers,
1992; Schwarz & Bless, 1992) The influence of the affective state, however, is
limited by the state's apparent relevance to the judgment to be made (Schwarz &
Bless, 1992). Schwarz and Clore (1988) argue that individuals often interpret their
current affective state in an effort to assist them in forming complex, evaluative
judgments. Employing a functionalist approach to emotion, Schwarz and Bless
(1992) propose that emotions provide individuals with valuable information about
their situation. Positive emotions inform one that the current situation is a safe
one, while negative emotions inform one that the current situation is laced with
danger. Schwarz and Bless are not alone in their opinions (cf. Clore & Parrott,
1992). Some even go a step further and claim that "emotions exist for the sake of
signalling states of the world that have to be responded to, or that no longer need
response and action" (Frijda, 1988, p. 354). Research on the role of affect in
decision processes has been used to lend credence to this perspective. Schwarz
and Bless (1992) argue that a psychological "fine tuning" takes place, in which
thought and decision processes are brought into alignment with the demands of the
situation. Research on positive and negative affect would seem to corroborate this

view.

19

Positive and Negative Affect and Decision Making

Isen (1993) suggests that individuals' cognitive processing styles are
influenced by the valence of their current affective state. Positive affective states
were found to promote cognitive flexibility and increase breadth of stimulus
categorization (Isen & Daubman, 1984; Isen, Niedenthal, & Cantor, 1992), to
stimulate innovation and creativity in problem solving (Isen, Daubman, &
Nowicki, 1987), to increase the integration and elaboration of positive or neutral
material (Isen, 1987), to cause individuals to exert less cognitive effort and rely on
heuristics in making social judgments (Bodenhausen, Kramer, and Stisser, 1994),
and they have been found to promote more heuristic processing (as opposed to
systematic processing) of persuasive messages (Mackie & Worth, 1991). In
addition, positive affect appears to increase intrinsic motivation (Isen, Shalker,
Clark, & Karp, 1978; Estrada, Young, & Isen, 1992) and the efficiency of decision
making in certain situations (F orgas, 1991). Individuals who are experiencing
positive affect are also motivated to maintain their positive state (Isen &
Simmonds, 1978; Bowers, 1991). Isen (1993) notes that positive affect appears to
influence the very context in which individuals are situated. All of the above has
impact on individual performance and decision making in a variety of ways,
depending upon the task and its importance, situational characteristics, and the
way in which the situation has been fi'amed (Isen, 1993).

Negative afiect has a substantially difl‘erent impact. Individuals

20

experiencing negative affect were found to generate more causal explanations for
poor performance, and to employ greater intensity in their causal reasoning
(Bohner, Bless, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988). Negative mood inductions caused
individuals to exert greater effort (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990), to use
more information in decision making (Sinclair, 1988), and to make fewer
associations and perceive fewer similarities when clustering items in a memory
test (Schwarz & Bless, 1991). In addition, negative affect caused individuals to be
more analytical and detail oriented in their thinking (Schwarz, 1990), more task
oriented and focused (Schwarz & Bless, 1991), and more realistic and accurate in

their judgments (W egner & Vallacher, 1986).

Affective Experience in Organizations

Recently Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) have articulated a theory of affect
in the workplace. Affective Events Theory (AET) targets the "structure, causes
and consequences of affective experiences at work." According to this view,
environmental features set the stage for work events, which are the proximal
determinants of affective reactions in the workplace. These affective reactions
then influence work attitudes and "affect driven" behaviors (e. g. helping behaviors,
coping strategies, etc.). Affective dispositions are posited to directly influence
affective reactions, and they also moderate the relationship between work events

and affective reactions. Certainly AET holds promise for organizing the way we

21

think about affect in the workplace. As yet, however, a number of its propositions
have not been tested.

Bodenhausen (1993) has distinguished between two different types of affect
which have relevance to the work environment. Integral affect refers to affective
states which are elicited by the immediate context that the individual finds him or
herself in. In a work environment this would include affective reactions to factors
such as physical working conditions, coworker relations, organizational climate,
culture, etc.. On the other hand, incidental affect refers to affective states which
have been elicited by factors and situations which are external or unrelated to the
present context. The individual who is experiencing affective reactions which
have their genesis in a situational context that is different from the current one is
experiencing incidental aflect. This distinction between integral and incidental
affect is an important one, and the form of the affect experienced has strong
implications for how organizations respond to issues that may arise. The
employee who has difficulty concentrating on work due to negative affective states
produced by family problems (incidental affect) must be handled differently from
an employee who finds it difficult to concentrate due to negative affective

reactions produced by working with an abrasive coworker (integral affect).

To summarize some of the main points so far, affective states have been

found to have an influence on cognitive organization, information retrieval, and

22

information processing and interpretation -- all of which can then have an impact
on judgment and decision making. In the workplace, organizational events are
likely to be a proximal cause of affective reactions. As was mentioned earlier,
fairness perceptions are viewed as being the result of a cognitive appraisal of these
perceived events in reference to a standard. The literature just presented has
indicated that aflecfive states have profound effects on cognition and perception.
To the extent that affective states are capable of influencing cognitive appraisals,
the selection of standards, and the perception of stimulus events, they should also
influence individual perceptions of fairness. We are now ready to consider issues

in the organizational justice literature.

Organizational Justice Research and Issues
Moorrnan (1991) defines organizational justice as the following:
Organizational justice is the term used to describe the role of fairness as it
directly relates to the workplace. Specifically, organizational justice is
concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they have been
treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations
influence other work-related variables. (p. 845)

As is evident from this definition, organizational justice issues are ubiquitous in an

employee's relationship with his or her employer. Organizational justice

researchers have examined issues related to selection (see Gilliland, 1993 for a

review), job satisfaction (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992), performance appraisals

(Greenberg, 1986), and job termination (Rousseau & Aquino, 1993).

23

In an effort to bring order and parsimony to a diverse research base,
Greenberg (1987) developed a taxonomy for organizational justice theories.
Greenberg suggested that theories of justice could be categorized as being either
reactive or proactive, and that they could be further classified according to their
focus upon issues of process or content. This categorization scheme is depicted in
Figure 3. Reactive organizational justice theories examined individual responses
to perceptions of injustice, while proactive theories examined individuals' attempts
to generate fair and just conditions. Process organizational justice theories
concerned themselves with the fairness of the procedures and mechanisms used to
allocate valued resources (i.e. procedural justice), while content theories focused
on the fairness of resultant outcome distributions (i.e. distributive justice).
Greenberg provided examples of theories for each of the four classes presented in
his taxonomy. However, an in depth examination of each of these classes of
justice is beyond the scope of this paper. The primary focus of this paper concerns
issues that have arisen from Gerald Leventhal's work in the proactive-process
(procedural justice) areas.

Leventhal (1976, 1980) proposed that individuals assessed the fairness of
situations through a justice judgment model. The justice judgment model
stipulates that individual perceptions of fairness are based upon results from the

application of distribution justice rules and procedural justice rules. This paper

24

 

 

Reactiveo Content-Process Dimension
Proactive
Dimension Content Process
Reactive Content Reactive Process
Reactive Equity theory Procedural justice
(Adams. 1965) theory (Thibaut
8: Walker. 1975)
, Proactive Content Proactive Process
Proactive Justice judgment Allocation preference
theory (Leventhal theory (Leventhal,
(1976a. 1980) aruza. 8‘ Fry. 1980)

Figure 3: Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories
with Corresponding Predominant Exemplars (Greenberg, 1987)

and the study described will focus on matters concerning procedural justice and .

procedural justice rules.

Procedural Justice Rules

Procedural justice rules concern the fairness of procedures involved in the
allocation of valued outcomes. Leventhal identified six such rules: the consistency
rule, the bias-suppression rule, the accuracy rule, the correctability rule, the

representativeness rule, and the ethicalin rule. These rules are described here

25

briefly. The consistency rule states that allocative procedures should be
consistently applied both over time and across persons. The bias-suppression rule
states that allocative procedures should be completely free from the influence of
personal interest and "doctrinaire views" (p. 41). The accuracy rule states that
allocative procedures should rely on information that is as accurate and
appropriate as possible. The correctability rule states that decisions made during
allocation procedures should be open to appeals, and amenable to change in the
event of an error. The representativeness rule states that the interests, concerns,
and values of the parties involved should be taken into account by the allocation
procedures. Finally, the ethicality rule states that allocative procedures should be
consistent with the "ftmdamental moral and ethical values accepted by that
individ " (p. 45).

Other researchers have identified additional rules by which individuals
evaluate the fairness of procedures. Thibaut and Walker (1975) noted that
procedures are judged as being more fair if the individuals involved are given a
"voice" -- an opportunity to express one's self before a decision is reached. Tyler
and Bies (1990) point out that the provision and nature of feedback (i.e. its
timeliness, informativeness, etc.) influence perceptions of fairness. Bies and Moag
(1986) argue that interpersonal treatment is also important (i.e. treating the
individual with respect and compassion). While researchers have invested

considerable time identifying and investigating these rules, we currently know very

26

little about when a particular justice rule will be used by an individual, and we
know even less about how these rules will be weighted as an individual forms his

or her overall perception of fairness (Gilliland, 1993).

Fairness Perceptions and Affect

Very little empirical research has directly assessed the relationship between
an individual's emotional state and his or her perceptions of the fairness of an
event, despite a recent call for research addressing this relationship (Sinclair &
Mark, 1991). In contrast to the research on positive and negative affect cited
earlier, research relevant to this topic is largely based on Watson and Tellegen's
(1985) conceptualization of positive and negative affect (recall our earlier
discussion, which indicated that these labels appear inappropriate in light of how
these variables are operationalized). Thus positive and negative affect are
measured as two separate factors (as opposed to being measured by a single scale,
with positive and negative afi‘ect representing opposite poles). The information
that has been presented on this topic often occurs as a side note in articles, and is
often somewhat tangential to the main thrust of the research presented. For
example, Organ and Konovsky (1989) recently sought to determine whether the
performance of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB'S) was dominated by a
cognitive or an affective component. Based on their analyses, Organ and

Konovsky concluded that OCB's were primarily driven by cogrritions. While the

27

direct relationship between affect (positive and negative) and fairness perceptions
was not discussed, relevant variables were measured in this study. Digging
through the correlation matrix presented, we find that positive affect was
correlated .23 with pay cognitions, and .44 with job cognitions. Negative affect
was correlated -.21 with pay cognitions, and -.33 with job cognitions. These
variables were coded so that a positive correlation indicated perceived fairness,
while a negative correlation indicated perceived unfairness. All four correlations
were significant. Organ and Konovsky's cognition measures focused on
comparing personal job and pay outcomes with those of various referent
individuals, so it would seem reasonable to consider these measures as indices of
distributive justice based on equity theory.

George (1991) criticized Organ and Konovsky's findings and argued that
they had used a measure of trait affect when it would have been more appropriate
to use a measure of state affect. George conducted a follow up study and -- using
a measure of state positive affect -- obtained very different results; she concluded
that both state positive affect and cognitions contributed to prosocial behaviors.
Again, while the direct relationship between affect (positive only) and fairness
perceptions was not discussed, relevant variables were measured. Digging
through George's correlation matrix, we find that positive mood was correlated .33
(Sig) with a measure of distributive justice, .13 (Sig) with a measure of supervisor

fairness, and .34 (Sig) with a measure of store management fairness. The trait

28

affect measure -- positive affectivity -- was correlated -.06 (ns) with the measure
of distributive justice, -. 12 (Sig) with supervisor fairness, and .01 (ns) with store
management fairness. For the distributive justice measure, these variables were
coded so that a positive correlation indicated perceived unfairness, while a
negative correlation indicated perceived fairness. For the supervisor and store
management fairness measures, the reverse was true.

Together these two studies paint a confusing picture about the relationship
between fairness perceptions and affect; the correlations presented by Organ and
Konovsky indicate a positive association between fairness and positive affect, and
a negative association between fairness and negative affect. The correlations
presented by George indicate a negative association between perceived distributive
fairness and positive state affect, but positive associations between the other
measures of fairness and positive state affect. The trait measure of positive affect
had negative or null associations with measures of fairness. George did not assess
negative affect, and neither study was able to address causal issues between these
variables. Both studies had used measures of positive and negative affect derived
from Watson and Tellegen's model of the affect circumplex. Given the activation
component embedded in these measures of positive and negative affect, an

additional level of complexity is added to our interpretational problem.7

 

7The interpretational problem due to the pleasant mood-activity level confound
extends into the major variables examined in these studies. Would a positive
(continued. . .)

29

Sinclair and Mark (1991) and O'Malley and Davies (cited in Sinclair &
Mark, 1991) have more directly investigated the relationship between affective
states and fairness perceptions than have Organ and Konovsky and George.
Sinclair and Mark (1991) examined the influence of afl‘ective states on preferences
for particular outcome distributions. They found that individuals in positive
moods were more likely to endorse an equal distribution of outcomes (equality
rule) across recipients than were individuals in negative moods. Unfortunately,
Sinclair and Mark's measure of mood does not appear to have been guided by the
mood circumplex, and consequently their results are questionable. They used a
single index of mood which was the mean of several items addressing positive
affect and negative affect (using Watson and Tellegen's framework), pleasant-
unpleasant affective states (Larsen and Diener's framework), and other items of
uncertain background. Given this state of affairs, it is difficult to accept the
conclusions drawn from this study.

O'Malley and Davies found that subjects in negative moods were more

likely to perceive outcomes distributed according to individual contributions

 

7(...continued)
correlation between positive affect and organizational citizenship behaviors
indicate that 1) people who are in a pleasant state perform more organizational
citizenship behaviors, or would this indicate that 2) people who are more active
perform more of these behaviors? As operationalized, the measure of positive
affect seems more heavily tied to activity level, and thus it would seem to address
the second issue to a greater degree than it does the first (although the authors
appear more interested in testing the first).

30

(equity rule) as being fair, and they were more likely to distribute outcomes in this
manner. Information regarding the nature of their negative mood measure was not
available. Results from the Sinclair and Mark and O'Malley and Davies studies
were interpreted in light of the research presented earlier on the impact of mood on
categorization breadth, information search strategies, and on the tendency for
individuals in positive moods to prefer decision making strategies which require
less cognitive effort. Neither study examined fairness perceptions dealing with the
procedures by which resources were allocated.

Clearly research in this area is in its beginning phases, and it is much too
early to begin to draw conclusions. Additional research guided by strong theory is

required, and it is hoped that the present study can help to fill in this gap.

Consistent with the treatment of this topic by others (cf. Adams, 1965 and
Leventhal, 1980), fairness perceptions have been conceptualized in this paper as
the result of a cognitive appraisal of perceived events. In day to day activity,
individuals collect pieces of information and observe events in their environment.
This information is then evaluated in light of Specific justice standards or rules
(Leventhal, 1980). The perceived congruency of perceived stimulus events with
adopted rules constitutes the fairness perception. Stimulus events that are not
perceived cannot contribute to an evaluation. Similarly, perceptions of stimulus

events that are biased by apperceptive filters should yield skewed perceptions of

ll

31

fairness. The literature presented earlier indicated that aflective states have
profound effects on cognition. A substantial body of literature has demonstrated
that affective states influence cognitive organization, information retrieval,
information processing and interpretation, and cognitive style -- all of which are
critical to making cognitive appraisals. Given this impressive literature base to
rely upon, the present study did not directly assess the linkages between affective
states and the cognitive processes mentioned in the previous sentence. As stated
previously, to the extent that affective states influence cognitive appraisals and the
perception of stimulus events, they should also influence individual perceptions of

fairness.

Research Hypotheses

The literature presented earlier indicated that aflective states have profound
impact on information processing, such that individuals exhibit selective exposure
to mood congruent information, biased attention towards and perception of mood
congruent information, and better leaming and recall of mood congruent
information (Bower, 1991). Thus, positive sources of information should be more
visible to individuals experiencing positive affective states, while negative sources
of information should be more visible to individuals experiencing negative
affective states. Furthermore, this mood congruency perspective argued that

interpretation of this information should also be consistent with the currently

32

experienced affective state. It seems reasonable to extend these arguments to the

organizational justice literature. Thus, individuals who are evaluating the fairness

of a particular event are likely to be more cognizant of situational features which
are consistent with their current affective state, and they are more likely to
interpret this information in a manner harmonious with this state. It is therefore

likely that individuals will tend to perceive specific justice rule violations in a

manner that is congruent with their current affective state (positive or negative).

Similarly, when reaching overall conclusions regarding fairness these same

processes should operate and result in overall fairness perceptions that are also

congruent with the individual's current affective state. Given the theoretical and
empirical support mentioned, a number of hypotheses can be offered. Again,
positive affect within these hypotheses refers to the experience of happiness and
cheerfulness, while negative affect refers to the experience of unhappiness and
sadness. The reader is also reminded that positive and negative affect as
conceptualized here represent opposite poles on a single dimension.

H1: Perceptions of fairness will tend to be congruent with the individual's
currently experienced affective state.

Hla: Individuals experiencing a positive afi‘ective state will perceive justice rule
violations/nonviolations as being less unfair than will individuals who are
in a negative affective state.

H 1b: Individuals experiencing a positive affective state will perceive procedures
as being more fair overall than will individuals who are in a negative
affective state.

H lc: Individuals experiencing a positive affective state will perceive outcomes as

being more fair overall than will individuals who are in a negative affective
state.

33

Hypotheses 1 through 1c are based on network theory and examine the influence
of affective states on fairness perception outcomes. Hypothesis 1a focuses on
perceptions of the violation/nonviolation of specific justice rules (e. g. consistency,
accuracy, correctability, etc.), while Hypotheses 1b and 1c focus on individuals'
overall perceptions of fairness. Additional support for these hypotheses is also
obtained from studies which indicate that people who typically experience
negative affect tend to complain more (cf. Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, &
Webster, 1988 and Watson & Pennebaker, 1989).8

Network theory is also informative with regard to issues surrounding the
influence of affective states on the processes by which individuals' overall fairness
perceptions are formed. More specifically, from network theory we can derive
several hypotheses which indicate how individuals weight violation information
when arriving at overall fairness perceptions. These hypotheses follow:

H2: When reaching overall conclusions regarding the fairness of
procedures, individuals will weight rule violation information that is
congruent with their affective state more heavily than rule violation
information that is not congruent with their affective state.

H2a: Individuals experiencing positive affective states will weight rule
nonviolations more heavily in their overall evaluations of procedural
fairness than they will weight rule violations.

H2b: Individuals experiencing negative affective states will weight rule violations

more heavily in their overall evaluations of procedural fairness than they
will weight rule nonviolations.

 

8 This second source of support is attenuated due to the fact that the research
cited has adopted the Watson and Tellegen (1985) definition of positive and
negative affect (and therefore affect is confounded with activation level), and due
to the fact that trait affect and not state affect was examined.

34

Hypotheses 2, 2a, and 2b are supported by the same research base as Hypotheses
1, la, 1b, and 1c. There exists a separate stream of research that makes a different
prediction, however.

Gilliland (1993) points out that impression formation and decision making
research indicate that negative information may be more conspicuous and have
higher visibility than neutral or positive information (Fiske & Taylor, 1984).
Gilliland argues (Proposition # 6 in his article) that individuals who are making a
fairness evaluation may employ a noncompensatory decision strategy in which rule
violations receive a greater weight than rule nonviolations (which would be less
apparent to the individual). His proposition (in slightly modified form) appears
below.

H3: Rule violations will be more highly correlated with overall evaluations of
procedural fairness than will rule nonviolations.

Gilliland's proposition makes no note of the influence of the individual's current
affective state.

The research presented earlier on the influence of positive and negative
affect on cognitive styles and decision making is also relevant to understanding the
process by which individuals form fairness perceptions. Recall that this research
indicated that individuals experiencing negative affect were more analytical, more
task oriented, displayed more cognitive effort, were more accurate, and used more
information when making decisions (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990;

Bohner, Bless, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988; Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz & Bless, 1991;

35

Sinclair, 1988; Wegner & Vallacher, 1986). In light of this information, the

following hypothesis can be offered.

H4: Individuals in negative affective states will consider more justice rule
violation information when reaching an overall evaluation of procedural
fairness than will individuals experiencing a positive affective state.

Additional support for this hypothesis is obtained from literature indicating that

affective states influence breadth of categorization (Isen and Daubman, 1984; Isen,

Niedenthal, & Cantor, 1992; Sinclair, 1988). Sinclair (1988) found that

individuals experiencing positive afl‘ective states showed greater halo effects when

making a performance appraisal than individuals who were experiencing negative
affective states.9 This implies that there was less differentiation of performance
across rated dimensions for positive individuals; a few pieces of information were
dominating judgments of performance across a number of dimensions. Support for
this hypothesis would indicate that individuals experiencing negative affective
states would be more likely to have accurate perceptions of the fairness of

conditions (since they are using more information to make an evaluation and are

diflerentiating among pieces of information).

 

9 The concerns stated earlier regarding the particular operationalization of
positive and negative affect used in the Sinclair & Mark (1991) study are present
in this study as well. These concerns are slightly mitigated with Sinclair (1988)
due to the fact that two scales derived fi'om a factor analysis were used to
represent the variables "affect" and "activity" (in comparison, Sinclair & Mark
(1991) had used several multidimensional items to form a single "affect" scale).
The labels used for these factors appear questionable in light of the items which
they are based upon, however.

36

In summary, several different hypotheses have been offered. Research on
network theory was used to support hypotheses indicating that perceptions of
fairness will tend to be congruent with the individual's currently experienced
affective state (H1, Hla, Hlb, ch). Network theory also provides support for
hypotheses which indicated that individuals will weight rule violation information
that is congruent with their affective state more heavily than rule violation
information that is not congruent with their affective state when arriving at an
overall procedural fairness perception (H2, H2a, H2b). On the other hand,
research on impression formation and decision making suggests that rule violations
may be the critical factor; regardless of the individual's affective state, overall
evaluations of procedural fairness may be more highly correlated with rule
violations than with rule nonviolations (H3). Finally, research on the role of
positive and negative affect in decision making was used to support the hypothesis
that individuals in negative affective states will consider more justice rule violation
information when reaching an overall evaluation of procedural fairness than will
individuals experiencing a positive affective state (H4).

We now consider research designed to investigate the phenomena of

interest.

METHOD
Subjects
Research participants were male and female introductory psychology

students at a large Midwestern university. A power analysis was conducted based
on expected medium effect sizes (r=.30, d=.5, q=.30, R2=. 13) (Cohen, 1977, p80,
p26, pl 15, p413)), a significance level of .05 (one tailed), and statistical power set
to .80.10 This analysis indicated that approximately 170 usable subjects would be
necessary for this study. A total of 256 subjects actually participated in the study,
and 178 of these provided usable data points. The 78 subjects who had provided
unusable data were removed for the following reasons: F orty-tlrree were removed
due to the fact that a probe for suspicion revealed that the use of deception within

the study had failed (i.e. the subject believed that the two experiments might be

 

1° Support for this estimate is Obtained by examining the average correlation
obtained by George (1991) between affective state and fairness perceptions (mean
r =.27). In comparison, Organ and Konovsky (1989) had obtained an average
correlation (absolute value) of .30, although their measure of affective state may
have actually measured trait affect (see George, 1991). As noted earlier, the
measure of positive affect used by George (positive affect in the Watson &
Tellegen framework) differs fi'om the one used in the present study
(pleasant/unpleasant affective state in the Larsen & Diener framework). However,
given the close proximity of these moods on the mood circumplex, these measures
should be positively correlated. Taking note of the scarcity of research on this
topic, the correlations obtained by George would seem to represent the best
available data upon which to base a power analysis. George collected her data in
a field setting and did not manipulate mood. Thus .30 is likely to be a
conservative estimate of what will be found in a lab setting in which an affective
state will be induced.

37

38

related in some way; this point is discussed in greater detail later in this paper).
An additional fifteen subjects were removed due to the fact that their response to
the probe was somewhat ambiguous, but could potentially have indicated that the
deception had failed.‘1 Twenty subjects were removed because they had either
failed to complete a large number of items in the fairness survey, or because their
pattern of responses indicated that they were not taking the task seriously. Of the
178 subjects that were included in analyses, 130 were female and 48 were male.
Eighty three percent of these subjects were White, 8% were African American,
and 9% were members of various other minority groups (e. g. Asian, Hispanic,

Middle Eastern).

Procedures
Upon entering the research laboratory, subjects were informed that they
would be participating in two separate studies. Two separate experimenters were

present, each of whom briefly introduced himself or herself to the subjects.

 

‘1 An argument could be made that the fifty-eight individuals who were
removed from the present study because of the probe could be different in same
way from the individuals who were retained. These differences could then have
an effect on the dependent variables of interest. To determine if this was the case,
all analyses were conducted twice -- once using data obtained from the "usable"
subjects, and a second time using data from "usable" subjects plus the fifty eight
who had been dropped. Across these two sets of analyses, results did not differ
appreciably. Thus, the results which are reported are based on the trimmed sample
which -- for the reasons indicated in the main document -- is likely to provide a
more accurate test of the stated hypotheses.

39

Subjects were told that the first study examined perceptions of important events
within organizations, and perceptions of the match between a company's
established policies and the day to day realities that individuals experienced within
those organizations. They were told that they would be playing the part of an
objective observer whose job involved evaluating events which had occurred in an
organization. Subjects were told that the second study was being conducted in
order to collect data on the circumstances surrounding major life events. Subjects
were also told that during the session they would be switching back and forth
between the two experiments. The reason provided for this was that pilot testing
had shown that participants appreciated the variety when portions of the two
studies were mixed together, instead of each study being presented in a single time
block. Subjects received two separate folders, one of which was labelled
"Experiment 1," the other of which was labelled "Experiment 2." A maximum of
thirty subjects were run in each experimental session. The overview and informed
consent form appears in Appendix A.

The experiment occurred in five separate stages. Within each stage,
subjects performed tasks associated with only one of the two studies purportedly
being run. The experimenter who was responsible for that study provided all
instructions to the subject during that stage. After each stage was completed, the
experimenter formally handed control over to the other experimenter, who asked

the subjects to set aside the current experimental folder and take out the folder for

40

the other experiment.

During the first stage subjects focused on the organizational events study,
and they were trained on matters concerning the policies and procedures of the
organizations which they would be evaluating. Each subject was given ten
minutes to read and examine a three page policies and procedures manual which
was created by using excerpts from policies and procedures manuals of existing
organizations. After this training period was over, the manual was removed and
subjects were given a policies and procedures manual test to measure their
knowledge of this information. Materials administered to subjects in stage one are
contained in Appendix A.

The second stage focused upon the life events study, and involved the
collection of subject demographic information, a mood manipulation, and a state
affect measure. Three experimental conditions existed: a negative mood
condition, a positive mood condition, and a neutral mood condition. After
subjects had provided information regarding their demographic characteristics,
they underwent either a negative, a positive, or a neutral mood induction
procedure. Given the nature of the induction procedure used (which will be
discussed momentarily), all three mood conditions could be run simultaneously
within the same experimental session. Once this procedure was completed, the
experimenter administered a state afiect scale as a manipulation check (to insure

that the mood induction was successful - research has shown that subjects may

41

attempt to resist a negative mood induction). All materials administered to
subjects in stage two are contained in Appendix B.

A number of mood induction procedures have been successfully used to
alter individual's affective states. Researchers have presented subjects with
assorted musical passages and films, given subjects gifts, given subjects
experiences of success or failure, hypnotized subjects, and asked subjects to
visualize affectively charged life events in order to bring them into a particular
mood state (Gerrards-Hesse, Spies, & Hesse, 1994). Baker and Guttfreund (1993)
have presented evidence that the visualization of affectively charged
autobiographical life events can be very effective in inducing mood states. Their
autobiographical mood induction procedure generated significant differences (pre
and post tests) for subjects who underwent either a positive or negative mood
induction. Their procedure for positive and negative mood inductions was used in
the present study (with minor modifications to ensure that subjects entered a mood
state consistent with Larsen & Diener's pleasant/unpleasant affect dimension).
This induction procedure involved asking subjects to take ten minutes to reflect on
two significant events that occurred in their lives. Positive mood subjects were
asked to reflect on the two happiest experiences of their lives, while negative
mood subjects were asked to reflect on their two saddest experiences. Baker and
Guttfreund indicated that their neutral mood induction involved having subjects

read a brief geographical essay on a particular region in the United States. While

42

this particular task may be effective in inducing neutral moods, it is qualitatively
different from the task engaged in by subjects in the positive and negative
conditions. To avoid potential problems due to task differences, the present study
adapted the neutral mood induction technique of Bodenhausen, Kramer, and
Siisser (1994) to the present study. Bodenhausen, Kramer, and Stisser had asked
neutral condition subjects to recall and write about small and common events from
the previous day. The present study simply asked neutral condition subjects to
visualize these mundane events. Directly following the mood manipulation task,
all subjects were asked several basic questions about the events that they had
visualized. These questions helped increase involvement in the mood induction
exercise (Baker & Guttfreund, 1993), and they also served to disguise the purposes
of the mood induction procedure thus making it less likely that subjects would see
a connection between the two studies.

Experiments involving mood induction procedures can generate strong
demand characteristics. In order to effectively elicit a particular mood, the
induction must be fairly strong; the fact that mood states are being manipulated is
sometimes recognized by research participants. The second experimenter who was
responsible for conducting the life events study in this experiment was used in
order to help offset the effects of these characteristics. By presenting the whole
experiment as if it were two independent and unrelated studies, the demand

characteristics of the experimental setting should have been reduced. This

43

presentation technique has been successfully used by others (Bodenhausen,
Kramer, and Stisser, 1994).

The third stage of the experiment shifted the focus back to the
organizational events study. Subjects were presented with further instructions and
four separate scenarios which were counterbalanced in two blocks which each
contained two scenarios.12 Each scenario depicted individuals in work
environments with various justice violations occurring, the degree of which varied
by scenario. After subjects had read a given scenario they were presented with a
series of statements assessing the fairness of the scenario in regard to the nine
procedural justice rules discussed earlier. They were also asked questions
concerning their overall perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness, and
they were asked to indicate (in essay format) which factors in the scenario were

most important in making an overall evaluation regarding procedural fairness. An

 

‘2 The counterbalance blocks were as follows:

Counterbalance A

Mos
Block 1 Ross Power Co./Kenico Engineering
Block 2 ACME Vacuum/Chapman Automotive

 

Counterbalance B

Order__S_cenarics
Block 1 ACME Vacuum/Chapman Automotive
Block 2 Ross Power Co./Kenico Engineering

 

44

example scenario follows:
ACME Vacuum

Joe Gilbert had been working for ACME Vacuum for ten years. Joe
liked working for ACME -- ACME was a small organization with a union-
free work environment, and it was a top company in the vacuum and rug
shampooer industry. Joe was always considered to be a good employee,
and in his last three annual performance reviews be had received the highest
possible rating. In the most recent of these reviews Joe's supervisor wrote
the following:

Joe consistently does excellent work. He is knowledgeable about his
job, highly productive, quality conscious, and he is well liked by
customers and coworkers. Joe is a tremendous asset to our
department.

Two weeks ago, Joe's name was entered on a list of employees under
consideration for a promotion. In the past, promotions were always
awarded to employees on the basis of length of employment with the
company and quality of service. By both standards, Joe was the top
employee on the list. Joe's name remained on the list until three days ago.
At that time, an employee named Mark Sarell informed management that
Joe was a union supporter. Joe was removed from the list, and a day later
the promotion was given to an employee with 7 years of experience and a
mediocre work record. When Joe learned of the situation from a coworker
he was furious, and he immediately went to his supervisor to see what
could be done. Unfortunately the promotion decision could not be changed.
Ironically, Joe had always voted against unionizing ACME Vacuum, and he
had never been a union supporter. Management had made no attempt to
verify the information provided by Mark Sarell.

In this situation, several possible procedural violations are present. For example,
the promotion procedures used inaccurate information (accuracy rule), were
inconsistent in their application of standards (consistency rule), and the decision
itself could not be changed despite the fact that an error had been made

(correctability rule).

45

After subjects had read and evaluated all four scenarios, they were given
further instructions which asked them to briefly review the short essays they had
written. These instructions then asked subjects to make a summary rating
indicating how important each procedural justice rule was to their overall
evaluation of the fairness of the procedures within each scenario. Once subjects
had completed these items, stage three ended. All materials administered to
subjects in stage three are contained in Appendix C.

The fourth stage of the experiment brought subjects back to the life events
study. An argument could be made that the scenarios that subjects were given in
stage three could have altered their moods, since subjects were asked to read about
negative events in the form of justice violations. This would have the effect of
causing subjects in each condition to report more negative moods after they had
completed stage three. To evaluate whether this had occurred, in stage four the
state affect scale was readministered. After subjects had completed this scale, all
subjects (regardless of experimental condition) were given the positive mood
induction task in order to bring them into a positive mood at the conclusion of the
experiment. Following this induction procedure, subjects were asked questions
about the events that they had just visualized, and they were also probed for

suspicious about the purpose of the life events study. Administered materials

46

which are unique to this stage are contained in Appendix D.'3

Stage five dealt with the organizational events study, and involved a single
task: the debriefing of the subject with regard to this study. Due to the existence
of other studies running concurrently which also involved mood manipulations,
subjects were not debriefed about the mood induction nor the use of deception in
the present study. Thus the debriefing discussed issues regarding procedural
justice, but did not mention anything regarding the hypothesized influence of
affective states on procedural justice perceptions. After subjects had finished
reading the debriefing form (contained in Appendix E) they were awarded their
experimental credit and the experiment was concluded. The entire session lasted a
total of two hours, with approximately twenty minutes spent in stage one, twenty
nrinutes in stage two, fifty nrinutes in stage three, twenty minutes in stage four,

and ten minutes spent in stage five.

 

13The state affect scale administered to subjects in stage two was virtually
identical to the one presented in stage four (the only difference being the
numbering of the items, which were presented in the same sequence but were
numbered 49 through 96). For negative and neutral mood subjects, the positive
mood induction procedure was identical to the one presented to positive mood
subjects in stage two. For positive mood subjects, the positive mood induction
procedure was virtually identical to the one administered in stage two. The only
difference was that these subjects were asked to recall "two more of the happiest
events" in their lives. To avoid needless duplication of materials, the reader is
referred back to Appendix B for these items.

47

Measures

State Positive/Negative Affect. The state positive/negative affect scale was created
using the adjective descriptors from the pleasant-unpleasant dimension of Larsen
& Diener's (1992) affect circumplex. Subjects indicate on a five point response
scale the extent to which they were currently experiencing a particular positive or
negative affective state (e. g. happy, sad, delighted miserable, etc.). Subject
responses were summed (adjectives representing the Unpleasant pole were reverse
scored) to form a single state positive/negative affect score. The scoring key for
this scale is contained in Appendix F. (This measure was used in testing
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 4).

Perceptions of Procedural Justice Rule Violations. Perceptions of procedural
justice rule violations were assessed through subject responses to statements which
covered the justice rules discussed earlier. Subjects indicated on a 7 point Likert
scale (with scale anchors ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree
(7)) whether a procedural justice violation occurred in terms of the procedures
being Consistent (3), Accurate (2), Bias-Free (2), Correctable (2), Representative
(1), Ethical (1), and whether individuals involved were given Voice (1), Feedback
(2), and Fair Treatment (1). The number which appears in parentheses denotes the
number of scale items used to assess each of these types of rule violations within
each scenario. The goal of the researcher was to create scales containing items

which adequately tapped the domain of the justice rule while Simultaneously

48

minimizing the amount of work subjects had to do (in order to minimize subject
fatigue). Where possible a single item was used to represent the domain. Since
there were four separate scenarios, four sets of nine scales were obtained. The
items used to represent each scale are presented in Appendix F. (Used in testing
Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 2b, 3, 4).

Perceived Overall Fairness (Procedures and Outcomes). The perceived overall
fairness of events was assessed through responses to two global questions (using
the same seven point Likert scale mentioned above) concerning the overall fairness
of procedures used in the scenario, and the overall fairness of the final outcome in
the scenario. Since there were four separate scenarios, four sets of two items were
obtained. (Used in testing Hypotheses lb, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3, 4).

Perceived Procedural Justice Rule Importance. Perceptions of procedural justice
rule irnportances were assessed through subject responses to nine items which
addressed each of the justice rules discussed earlier. These nine ratings were made
for each scenario, using the same seven point Likert scale discussed earlier.
Subjects made a summary rating indicating how important each of the procedural
justice rules was to them as they made their overall evaluation of the fairness of
the procedures in a given scenario. In order to minimize subject fatigue, a single ‘
item was used to represent each justice rule within each scenario. Four sets of

nine ratings were obtained. (Used in testing Hypothesis 4).

49

Justice Rule Violations/Nonviolations. The justice rule violation/nonviolation
measure was created by examining the perceptions of procedural justice rule
violations (see above) of neutral condition subjects. Within each scenario, the
nine justice rules were ranked according to the degree to which subjects perceived
that the scenario satisfied the justice rule. Within each scenario, the three justice
rules which were perceived as being the least violated were used to create the
justice rule nonviolation variable for that scenario. The mean of these three least
violated justice rules was used to represent this nonviolation measure. Similarly,
the three justice rules which were perceived as being the most violated were used
to create the justice rule violation variable for that scenario. The mean of the three
most violated justice rules was used to represent this violation measure. Thus,

four sets of two variables were obtained.“ (Used in testing Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3).

 

'4 Thus, the violation/nonviolation measures were operationally defined by the
following procedural justice rules:

Procedural Rules:
Ross Power Co.
Violation: Voice, Treatment, Representative.
No Violation: Bias-Free, Consistent, Information.
Kenico Engineering
Violation: Voice, Ethical, Representative.
No Violation: Correctable, Information, Consistent.
ACME Vacuum
Violation: Information, Voice, Bias-Free.
No Violation: Representative, Feedback, Consistent.
Chapman Automotive
Violation: Treatment, Correctable, Voice.
No Violation: Bias-free, Consistent, Information.

50

Difi'krential Knowledge. If subjects possessed differential knowledge concerning
the basic material for evaluation, this could have influenced the quality of their
subsequent decision making. This differential knowledge could have been due to
differences in how thoroughly subjects examined the material upon which
decisions were based (motivational explanation), and it could also have been
influenced by the level of cognitive ability the subject possessed (ability
explanation). In either case, the influence of differential knowledge would have
Operated as an extraneous source of variance in the present study. To avoid
possible alternative interpretation of results, subjects' motivation and ability levels
were controlled statistically. Prior to the mood induction procedure, subjects were
given a knowledge test of the policies and procedures manual to determine the
thoroughness with which they had approached the experimental task. Scores on
this test (which consisted of 14 true/false items) served as a covariate in analyses.
Scores on the knowledge test were considered to be a function of individual
motivation and ability. The scoring key for the policies and procedures manual

test is contained in Appendix F. (Used in testing all hypotheses).

RESULTS
Manipulation Check
Three t-tests for independent samples were performed and paired

comparisons made to verify that the mood induction procedure was successful, and

51

that significant differences existed in the positive/negative affect scores for the
three mood conditions. Subjects in the positive (N=58, M=3.25, S_D=0.78), neutral
(N=61, M=2.95, 512:0.69), and negative (N=59, M=2.68, SD=0.76) mood
conditions did indeed differ significantly on this scale. Subjects in the positive
mood condition Significantly diflered from neutral subjects (t(117)= -2.16, p<.05,
two-tailed), and from negative subjects (t(118)= -3.99, p<.05, two-tailed).

Subjects in the negative mood condition also significantly difl‘ered from neutral
subjects (t(118)=-2.07, p<.05, two-tailed). To assess the possibility that the
scenarios themselves had negatively influenced subjects' moods a t-test for paired
samples was performed between subject positive/negative affective state before
and after the scenarios were administered. According to this test, subjects'
positive/negative affect scores after viewing the scenarios were not significantly
different from their scores prior to viewing the scenarios (t(176)= .74, ns, two-
tailed). To assess the possibility that subjects' in the negative mood condition
were engaging in mood repair behaviors, a t-test for paired samples was performed
on subjects in the negative mood condition. This test revealed that negative mood
subjects had indeed repaired their affective states (t(58)=-2. 13, p<.05, two-tailed).
There were no significant differences in positive/negative affect scores among any
of the experimental groups in the post-scenario positive/negative affect scale.
Subjects in the positive (N=57, M=2.92, 812:0.74), neutral (N=61, M=2.92,

SD=O.73), and negative (N =59, M=2.90, 512:0.73) mood conditions did not difl‘er

52
significantly on this scale (Negative vs Neutral t(118)=-.15, ns, two-tailed;
Negative vs Positive t(114)=-.15, ns, two-tailed; Neutral vs Positive t(116)=-.01,
ns, two-tailed). By the end of the experiment, all subjects appeared to be in a

relatively neutral afiecfive state.

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for study variables are
presented in Table 1. Correlations among study variables are presented in Table 2.
Table 1 and Table 2 -- and all other tables presented in this document -- can be
found in Appendix G.

Examination of the Table 1 group means (adjusted for the covariates) for
the nine justice rules is informative. In two of the four scenarios (i.e. the Ross
Power Co. and ACME Vacuum scenarios), individuals who were in negative
affective states viewed scenario events as being more fair for eight of the nine
justice rules, than did individuals who were in positive affective states. In one
scenario (i.e. the Kenico Engineering scenario) this trend was reversed, as
individuals who were experiencing positive affective states viewed scenario events
as being more fair for eight of the nine justice rules. However, in all cases the
differences among experimental conditions were fairly small and generally
represented less than a third of a standard deviation of difference. The trends for

the violation and nonviolation measures mirror the trends mentioned above for the

53

justice rules (since these two scales are based on the justice rule scales, it is logical
that we would find this also). In terms of both procedures and outcomes (using
both the perceived overall fairness of procedures and outcomes measures, and
based on the mean fairness rating across all procedural justice rules within a
scenario), the Chapman Automotive scenario was viewed by all experimental
conditions as being the most fair, while the ACME Vacuum scenario was viewed
as being least fair. Across the four scenarios, subjects rated scenario events to be
the most fair with regard to the Consistency justice rule, while scenario events
associated with the Voice justice rule were rated as being the least fair.
Examination of the means also indicates that the experimental groups were
roughly equivalent at the outset with regard to sex composition, age, and policies
manual score (this information is contained on the last page of Table 1). With
regard to internal consistency reliability the coefficient alphas for the procedural
justice rule scales were generally good; they ranged between .46 and .94, with a
mean of .75. Similarly, the violation scale coefficient alphas ranged between .60
and .77 with a mean of .71, and the nonviolation scale alphas ranged between .49
and .75 with a mean of .68. The weakest internal consistency reliabilities were
found in the ACME Vacuum scenario; subject ratings Showed the least variance
for this scenario.

Table 1 also provides descriptive information regarding the subject's self-

ratings of the importance of each of the specific justice rules for their ratings of the

54

overall fairness of procedures. Generally speaking, subjects believed that all of the
justice rules were "Important" or "Very Important" in making this overall
procedural fairness decision. Across the four scenarios, subjects -- regardless of
experimental condition - felt that it was most important that procedures were
based on accurate information, implemented in a bias-free manner, and
implemented in a consistent manner. Subjects -- regardless of experimental
condition -- also felt that it was least important (relatively Speaking) that
procedures match the subject's own values and ethical standards, and that the
individuals involved receive feedback which was timely and informative. Again
however, the differences among justice rule importance ratings were small (the
difference between ratings for the most important and least important justice rule
represented roughly half a standard deviation of difference).

Examination of the correlations contained in Table 2 is also informative.
This table is driven by the variables which appear in the columns, and it is
organized as follows: four basic sections exist in the table, each of which
corresponds to one of the four scenarios. Within each scenario section, two
separate blocks exist. The first block contains correlations between the nine
scenario procedural justice rule scales (appearing in the columns) and all study
variables. The first block begins with the within scenario correlations among
procedural justice rules, followed by correlations between the nine rules and the

(within scenario) rule importance variables, we next move through the

55

intercorrelations among the focal scenario justice rules and all of the variables
from the other three scenarios, and we end this block with the correlations among
the nine justice rules and the experimental condition, subject demographic
information, counterbalance order, and policies and procedure manual variables.
The second block contains the correlations associated with the violation and
nonviolation measures, and the rule importance variables (these variables all
appear in the columns). The correlations are presented in the same order as they
were in the first block, but no correlations are duplicated between blocks (thus the
within scenario correlations between the nine justice rules and the importance
scales are not included, Since they were already presented in the first block).
After this second block is completed, we move to the next scenario and the cycle
repeats. A given correlation will not appear if it was presented in a previous
block, and thus each scenario section is shorter than the one preceding it due to the
fact that fewer and fewer correlations remain to be presented.

Several things are noteworthy in Table 2. It is perhaps helpful to think of
the correlations among justice rules as representing a pseudo multitrait
multimethod matrix, in which the justice rules correspond with "traits," and the
scenarios correspond with "methods." Examination of the within scenario justice
rule intercorrelations (the first correlations appearing on the first page of each
scenario section) reveal that there are substantial correlations among the different

justice rule scales within a given scenario. The average correlation between two

56

different justice rules that were based on the same scenario (e. g. the correlation
between the fair treatment and the voice justice rules, within the Ross Power Co.
scenario) was .39, and correlations ranged between .14 and .58 (this corresponds
to a heterotrait monomethod triangle). The average correlation between the same
justice rule across two different scenarios (e. g. the correlation between the fair
treatment justice rule in the Ross Power Co. and Kenico Engineering scenarios)
was approximately .14, and ranged between -.10 and .47 (monotrait heteromethod
-- i.e. the validity diagonals). The average correlation between two different
justice rules from two different scenarios (e. g. the correlation between the fair
treatment rule in the Ross Power Co. scenario, with the voice justice rule in the
Kenico Engineering scenario) was approximately .08, and ranged between -.15
and .39 (heterotrait heteromethod). Evaluating the matrices according to Campbell
and Fiske's criteria, we note the following: 1) while most of the correlations found
in the validity diagonals are greater than zero, a few (approximately 13%) are
actually less than zero, and about a third are less than .10. In particular, evidence
for convergent validity for the information accuracy justice rule across scenarios is
poor (50% of the validities associated with this rule were less than zero). 2)
Values in the heterotrait heteromethod triangles often exceed values in the validity
diagonals. 3) Values in the heterotrait monomethod triangles generally exceed the
values in the validity diagonals. This suggests the existence of method bias, which

is probably due to halo in justice rule ratings. 4) Different patterns of

57

correlations appear in comparable triangles. Our evaluation according to criteria
2, 3, and 4 indicate that we have poor evidence of discriminant validity. In
summary, the results from our evaluation of the justice rule matrix as a multitrait
multimethod matrix indicate that we have poor evidence of construct validity.
Clearly the scenarios themselves are driving the variance in the matrices. This
suggests that we Should be viewing justice rule results from each scenario
independently, since there is little correspondence across scenarios. The
information we have obtained from our multitrait multimethod evaluation indicates
that we have much to learn regarding the subtleties of how justice rules operate.
To summarize some of the information in Table 2, the following is
provided: 1) within a given scenario, the overall mean correlation between
perceptions of the fairness of procedures overall and justice mle ratings ranged
(across scenarios) between .04 and .74, with an average mean correlation of .45.
2) Within a given scenario, the overall mean correlation between perceptions of
the fairness of outcomes overall and justice rule ratings ranged (across scenarios)
between .07 and .73, with an average mean correlation of .43. 3) Within a given
scenario, the correlation between perceptions of overall procedures and overall
outcomes ranged between .76 and .91, with an overall mean correlation (across
scenarios) of .83. 4) Within a given scenario, the correlation between the
violation measure and the overall procedural fairness measure ranged between .30

and .62, while the correlation between the violation measure and the overall

58

outcome fairness measure ranged between .32 and .60. In both cases the average
correlation across scenarios was .51. 5) Within a given scenario, the correlation
between the nonviolation measure and the overall procedural fairness measure
ranged between .31 and .69, while the correlation between the nonviolation
measure and the overall outcome fairness measure ranged between .22 and .72.
The average correlation across scenarios was .59 for the overall procedural
fairness measure, and .56 for the overall outcome measure.

6) Within a given scenario, the correlation between subject experimental
condition, subject age, subject policies and procedures manual score, and subject
sex was extremely small (the average correlation for these variables across
scenarios was less than .10, and was generally closer to .02. 7) Within a given
scenario, the correlation between the subject's counterbalance condition and the
nine justice rules ranged between -.40 and .03, with an average correlation across
scenarios of -. 16 (please note that correlations with absolute values greater than or
equal to .15 were significant at p<.05). This indicates that subjects who
experienced the scenario sequence "Ross-Kenico-ACME-Chapman" typically
viewed justice rule information as being less fair than did subjects who viewed the
scenario sequence "ACME-Chapman—Ross-Kenico" (please note that there were
only two counterbalance orders presented to subjects). Recall that the ACME
Vacuum scenario was viewed by subjects as being the least fair overall. It is

possible that subjects who viewed the ACME scenario first were explicitly or

59
implicitly comparing subsequent scenarios with this scenario, and then providing
more favorable evaluations of the later scenarios as a result.

As was stated above, examination of the correlations among perceived
justice rule violations within and across scenarios revealed that the scenarios
themselves accounted for the majority of the variance. Based on this information,
separate data analyses for each hypothesis were conducted for each scenario. In
addition, regressions were run to follow up on the finding that scenario
counterbalance order had an impact on dependent measures. AS mentioned
previously, two counterbalance conditions existed, and thus the counterbalance
order variable was a dichotomous variable that indicated which of the two
counterbalance conditions the subject had been exposed to. Several of these
regressions were significant, indicating that order effects did exist. In order to
provide a more accurate and powerful test of the stated hypotheses, the impact of
scenario counterbalance order was partialled out by entering this variable into the

first step of all hierarchical regressions.

Hypotheses

The original intention of the author was to test Hypothesis 1a using nine
separate repeated measures AN COVAs. The dependent variable in each
AN COVA was to be the perceived fairness of one of the nine justice rules, and the

repeated measures factor was to reflect the order of scenario presentation. Thus,

60

each AN COVA would have examined the perceived fairness of a particular justice
rule across four scenario time blocks. A similar analysis was planned for
Hypotheses 1b and 1c. However, given the low intercorrelations among identical
justice rules across scenarios, this plan was abandoned. The following analyses
are presented as a better means of maintaining the integrity of the data.

Hypothesis 1a was tested by using nine separate AN COVAS within each
scenario. The dependent variable in each AN COVA was the perceived fairness of
one of the nine justice rules. Subject policy and procedure manual test score and
counterbalance order served as covariates for the AN COVAS. The independent
variable of interest was the categorical variable reflecting subject affective state
(positive, negative, or neutral). Prior to investigating the results of these analyses,
a word of caution should be given. Examination of the intercorrelations among the
justice rules within scenarios revealed that many of the justice rules had
substantial correlations with each other, and thus results from each of these
AN COVAS within a given scenario were not truly independent of each other.
Results from the AN COVAs are presented in Table 3.

Across the nine procedural justice rules and across the four scenarios, the
main effect for affective state failed to achieve significance. Thus, Hypothesis 1a
was not supported. It does not appear that individuals experiencing a positive
affective state perceive justice rule violations/nonviolations as being less unfair

than do individuals who are in a negative affective state (Hypothesis 1a). The

61

main efl‘ect for counterbalance condition which achieved significance for some of
the justice rules and some of the scenarios indicated that subjects who experienced
the scenario sequence "Ross-Kenico—ACME—Chapman" viewed justice rule
information as being less fair than did subjects who viewed the scenario sequence
"ACME-Chapman-Ross-Kenico." As was mentioned previously, it is possible that
subjects who viewed the ACME scenario (the "least fair" scenario) first were
explicitly or implicitly comparing subsequent scenarios with this scenario, and
then providing more favorable evaluations of the later scenarios as a result.
Consistent with this suggestion is the finding that this effect was especially
prevalent on the Ross Power Co. scenario -- ratings for eight of the nine Ross
Power Co. justice rules were significantly affected by this covariate. The main
effect for policy manual score which was significant for some of the justice rules
and some of the scenarios appeared to be primarily driven by the scenario. When
this effect was significant for the ACME Vacuum, Ross Power Co., and the
Kenico Engineering scenarios, it indicated that people with higher policy manual
scores rated the scenario procedures as being less fair according to this justice rule.
When this effect was significant for the Chapman Automotive scenario, it
indicated that people with higher scores perceived the scenario as being more fair.
When this effect was significant, it was typically significant for either the ACME
Vacuum or the Chapman Automotive scenarios (this was true 85% of the time).

As was mentioned previously, the majority of subjects had rated the ACME

62

Vacuum scenario as being the least fair. It can thus be argued that the negative
features of this scenario were more salient, and less cognitive processing was
probably necessary in order to make fairness evaluations. Since the policy manual
score was intended to measure motivation and ability, the ACME scenario seems
to have been a relatively easy scenario to evaluate. Thus subjects who were less
cognitively complex and less motivated reacted to the blatancy of the violations.
The Chapman Automotive scenario dealt with complex issues and required more
cognitive processing; subjects with the motivation and ability may have noted the
complexity present, and thus gave the organization the benefit of the doubt when
rating this scenario.

Hypothesis lb and 1c were tested in a manner similar to that used in testing
Hypothesis 1a. Each of these two hypotheses was tested with four ANCOVAS.
The dependent variable in each AN COVA was the perceived fairness of overall
procedures for one of the four scenarios (Hypothesis lb), or the perceived fairness
of overall outcomes for one of the four scenarios (Hypothesis 1c). Subject policy
and procedure manual test score and counterbalance order served as covariates for
the AN COVAS. The independent variable of interest was the categorical variable
reflecting subject affective state (positive, negative, or neutral). Tables 4 and 5
provide the results of these analyses.

As was the case for Hypothesis 1a, the main effect for affective state failed

to achieve significance in any of these ANCOVAS. Thus, Hypotheses lb and 1c

63

were not supported; individuals experiencing a positive affective state did not
perceive procedures as being more fair overall than did individuals who were in a
negative afl‘ective state (Hypothesis lb). Individuals experiencing a positive
affective state also did not perceive outcomes as being more fair overall than did
individuals who were in a negative affective state (Hypothesis 1c). The covariates
which achieved significance in these analyses followed the same patterns as was
found in Hypothesis 1a. The author's explanations for their Significance remains
the same as well.

Hypotheses 2, 2a, 2b, and 3 were tested by four separate hierarchical
regressions (one for each scenario) using the within scenario perceived overall
procedural fairness measure as the dependent variable for each regression. In
each of these regressions, subject counterbalance order, subject policy and
procedure manual test score, and subject experimental condition15 (positive,

negative, or neutral) were entered in the first step. The first two variables served

 

1’For all regression analyses, subject experimental condition was represented in
the data by two dummy coded independent variables. The first independent
variable contrasted the positive mood condition with the neutral and negative
mood conditions, while the second independent variable contrasted the negative
mood condition with the neutral and positive mood conditions. These variables
were coded in the data as follows:

Positive/Other Negative/Other
Positive mood subjects: 1 0
Negative mood subjects: 0 1
Neutral mood subjects: 0 0

64

as covariates in the analysis; the third and fourth variables (experimental
condition, represented by two dummy coded variables) were entered in this step in
order to later examine interactions involving these variables. Subject overall mean
justice rule violation score and overall mean justice rule nonviolation score were
entered in the second step of each regression. The interactions between
experimental condition and rule violation score, and the interactions between
experimental condition and rule nonviolation score were entered in the third step
of each regression. Examination of the interactions in the third step of these
regressions yields information regarding Hypotheses 2a and 2b; the interactions
containing the rule violation measure yields information concerning the
differential weighting of rule violation information based on subject experimental
condition, while the interactions containing the rule nonviolation measure yields
information concerning the differential weighting of rule nonviolation information
based on experimental condition. Table 6 provides the results of these analyses.
With regard to Hypotheses 2a and 2b, Table 6 indicates that there is little
support. Across the four scenarios the interactions between experimental
condition and the violation and nonviolation measures were either nonsignificant,
or only marginally significant (e. g. the Ross Power Co. scenario yielded three beta
weights that were significant at p<. 10). In only one case (i.e. Kenico Engineering
scenario) was an interaction term significant at p<.05. When these results were

plotted, it was found that three out of four of these interactions were in the

65

hypothesized direction (results obtained for the three marginally significant Ross
Power Co. interactions were consistent with the hypotheses). However, in all
cases adding the interaction term between experimental condition and the
violation/nonviolation measures only made an incremental contribution of roughly
1% to the R2. Thus, it does not appear that subjects were weighting justice rule
violation information in a manner that was congruent with their current affective
state (Hypotheses 2a and 2b).

Table 6 also presents information which is relevant to Hypothesis 3. The
within scenario partial regression coefficients for the rule violation and
nonviolation measures that were obtained in step two of these regressions were
used to test Hypothesis 3. These coeficients indicated the degree to which
subjects weighted rule violation and rule nonviolation information. After
obtaining these coefficients, a t-test was conducted to determine the significance of
the difference between the partial regression coefi'rcients of the violation and
nonviolation measures (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p479). The formulas used are

as follows:

S.E.‘,H,j=Square Root ( My,1,.,k)i(([iifljj12[ij) )
n- -

ell-r.-

S.E.pi_pj

where R2 is the multiple R from the regression, r-- r-- and rij are obtained from the

I], 1’,

66

inverse of the correlation matrix of the independent variables in the regression, n
refers to the sample size, and k refers to the number of independent variables in
the regression." Values that were placed in this equation were based on the
second step of the four regressions. In other words, the value of the multiple R
that was placed in this equation was obtained from the multiple R in the second
step of each of the regressions. Likewise k reflected the number of independent
variables in the second step (i.e. six independent variables), [3,, and [3]. were
obtained from this step, and the inverse of the correlation matrix was calculated
based on the correlation matrix for the six independent variables which were
present in the regression during the second step. Results from the regressions and
the significance of the differences among violation and nonviolation beta weights
appear at the bottom of each within scenario regression in Table 6. Across the
four scenarios the differences in partial regression coefficients were significant in
two of the four scenarios, and in both cases the beta weights for the nonviolation
measure were larger than the beta weights for the violation measure. This result is
in the opposite direction from that predicted in Hypothesis 3 -- Hypothesis 3 had
predicted that subjects would weight rule violations more heavily in their overall
evaluations of procedural fairness than they would weight rule nonviolations. In
two of the four scenarios, subjects weighted rule nonviolations more heavily in

their overall evaluations of procedural fairness than they weighted rule violations.

 

1"The inverse correlation matrices are available from the author upon request.

67

Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Hypothesis 4 was tested by using two separate stepwise regressions (one
regression for the positive mood condition, and one for the negative mood
condition) for each scenario. The dependent variable in this regression was the
perceived overall fairness of procedures measure, and the independent variables
were the nine perceptions of procedural justice rule violation scales. The number
of justice rule violation variables which were added to the regression (indicating
the statistical significance of each of these predictors) served as an index of the
number of pieces of justice rule violation information that subjects were actually
using when assessing the overall fairness of procedures. Table 7 provides the
results of this analysis.

In two of the four scenarios, the same number of variables entered the
regression for both mood conditions. In the remaining two regressions, a tradeoff
occurred; in one scenario the positive mood condition had an additional variable
achieve significance, while in the other scenario the negative mood condition had
an additional variable achieve significance. Thus, no strong pattern of results
emerged and Hypothesis 4 was not supported. It does not appear that individuals
experiencing negative affective states use more justice violation information in
making overall judgments of procedural fairness than do individuals who are
experiencing positive affective states. It should be noted, however that there are

two competing explanations as to why a variable may have entered these

68

regressions. The first explanation recognizes that the zero order correlations of
the rule violation measures could be differentially correlated with overall
procedural fairness. The second explanation recognizes that the intercorrelations
among rule violations differs. Examination of the correlation matrix within
positive and negative mood conditions revealed tha -- for three out of the four
scenarios, and for both mood conditions -- the order in which justice rules entered
into the regression was virtually identical to the rank order of the validity
coefficients between the within scenario justice rules and the overall procedural
fairness measure. In other words, the justice rules which entered the regressions
did so in an order which reflected the justice rule's correlation with the overall
procedural fairness measure. The relevant sections from the within mood

condition correlation matrices are presented in Table 8.

DISCUSSION
Several different hypotheses were tested, and the results presented. In
general, results did not support the tenets of network theory, which states that
individuals process information in a manner that is congruent with their current
affective state. Perceptions of fairness did not tend to be congruent with the
individual's currently experienced affective state (Hl, Hla, Hlb, ch). Likewise,
individuals did not appear to weight rule violation information in a manner that

was congruent with their current affective state when arriving at an overall

69

procedural fairness perception (H2, H2a, H2b). Subjects in the present study also
defied the literature base on impression formation and decision making; overall
evaluations of procedural fairness were not more highly correlated with rule
violations than they were with rule nonviolations (H3). In fact, it appears that
subjects in the present study were more likely to weight rule nonviolation
information more heavily than rule violation information.

Finally, the data did not suggest that individuals in negative affective states
were considering more justice rule violation information when reaching an overall
evaluation of procedural fairness than were individuals who were experiencing a
positive affective state (H4).

Of course, findings from the present study should not be overemphasized;
null results were obtained, and certainly if recent developments such as meta-
analysis have taught us anything, they have taught us that it is inappropriate to
place too much weight on null results. Since a power analysis was conducted prior
to running the experiment, it is not likely that the culprit was a lack of
experimental power (although one could argue that perhaps this analysis should
have been based on a small effect size, rather than a medium efiect size. With
statistical power set to .80, a significance level of .05, and with d=.30 (reflecting
the 1/3 of a standard deviation of difference that was noted between the group
means discussed earlier), we would require 420 (one-tail test) or 540 (two-tail test)

subjects to detect these differences). There are a number of possible reasons why

70

nonsignificant results were obtained. We now turn to a general discussion of the
limitations in this study. After this discussion, the paper will conclude with

suggestions for future research in this area.

Limitations

The current research design has a few limitations. Most notably, method
variance is a problem. The majority of the data that were collected were self
report (with the exception of subject experimental condition), and thus this study
has the problems typically associated with this type of research. In addition, it
could be argued that -- by the nature of the experimental design -- the study
created conditions in which fairness issues and violations were made salient to
subjects. Subjects were asked questions that specifically asked them to consider
issues of fairness, and thus they were forced to examine and discuss fairness
information. In an organizational context, an individual might never even consider
the question of whether procedures or outcomes were fair, and thus he or she
might never begin a search for this information, much less examine or discuss it.
This is a valid point. The forced saliency of fairness issues does not, however,
seriously impair the study's ability to address the research question. While the
questions asked of subjects do generate a global awareness of fairness issues, they
did not identify specific violations for the subject. The subject was also free to

specify for him or herself what constitutes relevant information for a particular

71

evaluative decision. The literature presented earlier in this paper indicated that
affective states have strong influences on information processing and cognitive
style. This influence occurs at both a macro and a micro level. While the present
study is hindered in its examination of the macro level, it is certainly still capable
of addressing issues at the micro level. In short, while the forced macro-level
saliency might act to reduce the size of the overall relationship observed, it should
not prevent the relationship from being observed in the first place. Results from
this study may simply be an underestimate of what would be found in an actual
organizational context.

Another criticism of this study deals with the choice of students as subjects,
and the fact that these subjects are assessing scenarios involving "paper people." It
could be argued that actual workers observing real people in real organizations
might view justice violations differently. This is also a valid criticism. However,
the theoretical constructs which have been discussed are common to human
experience. There is no reason to expect that the cognitive and affective processes
discussed would operate differently between a student and a worker population.
Recognized difl‘erences between the two populations does not imply that a
treatment by subject interaction exists. There were many advantages to the current
experimental design, not the least of which was the fact that observing behavior in
a controlled setting permitted much greater confidence in the inferences made.

Given the emphasis on theory, it seems reasonable that external validity played

72

second fiddle to the demands of internal validity in this study (cf. Berkowitz &
Donnersteirr, 1982; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Mock, 1983). With regard to the
"paper people" issue, although this study used fictional individuals as stimuli, it is
unclear how this would afi‘ect the results. Similarly, subjects who are evaluating
the fairness of events that are occurring to third parties are likely to perceive those
events differently when those same events are occurring to themselves. The
present study was capable of addressing issues related to the former case, but it
cannot address issues related to the latter case. Along this line of reasoning,
potential inquiries could be made into the possibility of a betrayal effect; people
who are in a good mood who have severe justice violations revealed to them may
respond to these violations in a more severe manner than their negative mood
counterparts. This could be termed the "I trusted you, and you stabbed me in the
back! " phenomenon.

An additional criticism could be made regarding the scope of the primary
independent variables. It is perhaps the case that the positive/negative affect scale
that was used was too global. Perhaps focusing on specific positive and negative
emotions would have generated better results. For example, perhaps anger and
fear would influence fairness perceptions, whereas sadness might not be as

relevant. '7

 

l7Reexamining the affect circumplex, it is noted that these emotions are located
in the activated unpleasant octan -- what Watson and Tellegen referred to as
(continued. . .)

73

Future Research Directions

An important area of future research concerns the structure of procedural
justice perceptions. The present study examined procedural justice from the
perspective that there were nine rules influencing overall fairness perceptions.
However, it is perhaps the case that individuals typically consider only three or
four global dimensions when arriving at an overall perception of fairness.
Alternatively, individuals may have nine rules in their fairness perception
repertoire, but might only use three or four of these when making decisions. The
situation itself might drive which of these justice rules the individual attended to,
or intraindividual factors might take precedence. Results from the present study
can inform future research which examines these issues. Results from Hypothesis
4 are consistent with the hypothesis that affective states influence which justice
rules are attended to. Subjects in positive moods differed from subjects
experiencing negative moods in terms of the actual justice rules which they
appeared to be using when reaching an overall perception of procedural fairness.

Looking within each scenario, an average of only 41% of the justice rules which

 

l“’(. . .continued)
negative affectivity. This relationship could thus be observed by examining the
interaction of positive/negative affect with activation level. My comments here
should not be construed as taking away from my earlier criticisms of the affectivity
constructs. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with Larsen and Diener's conclusion
that these constructs are flawed.

74

reached significance managed to do so for subjects in both positive and negative
afl‘ective conditions (i.e. there was a 41% overlap). Looking across the four
scenarios, there was a match between six of the thirteen rules which entered the
regressions (46%). Across all four scenarios, subjects in the positive mood
condition significantly weighted a total of six of the nine justice rules, while
subjects in the negative mood condition significantly weighted a total of seven of
the nine rules. Subjects who were experiencing positive moods significantly
weighted the Fair Treatment, Consistency, Representativeness, and Feedback
justice rules in more scenarios than did subjects who were experiencing negative
moods. On the other hand, subjects who were experiencing negative moods
significantly weighted the Bias-Free, Ethical, Information Accuracy,
Correctability, and Voice justice rules in more scenarios than did subjects who
were experiencing positive moods.

Perhaps certain affective states or emotions influence perceptions of certain
procedural justice rule violations, and not others. Researchers have identified
several external correlates for the different octants in the affect circumplex (Larsen
& Diener, 1992). For example, the activated pleasant octant is highly correlated
with sociability and extraversion. Given this situation, it seems plausible to
suggest that individuals who are experiencing positive mood states may have a
propensity to attend to social information cues, and they might thus be more likely

to apply justice rules that consider this type of information (e. g. the fair treatment

75

rule, etc.). The above stated results are fairly consistent with this interpretation.
Similarly, since these individuals demonstrate greater reliability on heuristics,
perhaps they will apply justice rules which require less cognitive processing.

Future research should also begin to examine the influence of integral and
incidental affect on fairness perceptions. As mentioned earlier, integral affect
refers to afi‘ective states which are elicited by the immediate context that the
individual finds him or herself in. Incidental affect refers to affective states which
have been elicited by factors and situations which are external or unrelated to the
present context (Bodenhausen, 1993). If affect does influence fairness perceptions
in some way, people may perceive their mood as providing information about their
work setting and would thus be likely to make misattributions and perceive
incidental affect as being work related. Thus, both integral and incidental affect
would influence fairness perceptions.

Future research should also conduct in depth examinations of the influence
of affective states on perceptions of distributive justice. Earlier in this discussion
it was argued that affective states may influence the application of procedural
justice rules. This argument can be extended to the realm of distributive justice.
For example, in situations in which an individual has a negative affective state, he
or she may be subconsciously motivated to shifi his or her distributive justice
standard in order to obtain mood congruent information (of. Bower, 1991). A

simple shift in the distributive justice rule applied can force a categorical

76

reorganization of fairness perceptions. An individual using a contributions justice
rule, for example, could shift to an equality or needs distributive justice rule in
order to find justice violations and thus obtain mood congruent information.18
Again, the motivation to make this shift would probably not result from a
conscious process per se, but it might stem from the subconscious drive for mood
congruity.

Another area for future research deals with the determination of when
fairness perceptions have behavioral consequences, and when they lack this causal
power. It seems reasonable to suggest that the influence of justice perceptions on
behavior may depend upon the individual's current emotional state. It may be the
case that when emotions die down, justice perceptions are capable of accounting
for much less variance in behavior than when the emotions are present. This
would suggest to researchers that the time of measurement may greatly influence
results. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) also point out the criticality of timing when
examining affective reactions and their implications.

Another avenue for future research deals with mood and the egocentric bias

in fairness perceptions. Fairness perceptions appear to contain two separate

 

18The contributions distribution rule dictates that fair outcome distributions
result from the allocation of resources according to individual contributions (cf.
equity theory, Adams, 1965). The equality distribution rule states that fair
outcome distributions result from the allocation of resources in equal shares to all
involved parties. The needs distribution rule states that fair outcome distributions
result from the allocation of resources in proportion to the needs of individuals.

77

components; on the one hand, we have an individual's (or group's) behaviors and
attitudes which are directed at the organization. On the other hand, we have the
organization's actions which affect the individual (or group). Fairness perceptions
take both into account, but given the egocentric bias of individuals' fairness
perceptions (Thompson & Lowenstein, 1992)) perhaps the weighting becomes
even more disproportionate (in favor of the individual) when the individual is

experiencing a particular mood. Future research should explore this issue.

Given the findings presented in this paper, there does not appear to be much

support for the statement that "love is stronger than justice."

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Experiment Stage One

Overview and Informed Consent Form

Thank you for coming! This sheet of paper is intended to give you an
overview of what you will be doing today. In the next two hours you will be
participating in two separate studies. In the first study, we will be collecting data
about the circumstances surrounding major life events. In order to obtain this
information, we will be asking you to recall certain major events in your life and
answer questions about them. The second study is quite different from the first.
In the second study we are interested in learning more about perceptions of
important events within organizations. Specifically, we are interested in your
perceptions concerning the day to day realities that individuals experience within
those organizations. In this experiment you will play the part of an objective
observer whose job involves evaluating events which have occurred in an
organization. For this study you will be given a copy of an employee policies and
procedures manual to read. After you have read this manual, you will be
presented with a number of different scenarios, each of which discusses an event
that has occurred within a particular organization. You will need to remember the
information in the manual in order to properly evaluate these events.

Your participation in these experiments is voluntary. While little
discomfort or risk to you is foreseen, you may choose not to participate or you
may stop participating at any time and without penalty or loss of benefits to which
you are otherwise entitled. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate
by signing and returning this informed consent form. By signing this form you
indicate that you are freely consenting to participate. By signing this form you
indicate that this experiment has been explained to you, that you understand it, and
that you understand the risks. All information collected will be kept strictly
anonymous, such that neither your name nor any identification will be associated
with the data. If you have any questions or concerns regarding either of these
studies, please feel free to contact Dave Waldschmidt (room 20 in Baker Hall,
phone # 353-9166).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Name (printed) ID # Signature

 

78

79

Instructions for Policies and Procedures Manual

The following pamphlet outlines the policies and procedures used by all of
the organizations that we will be considering. Each of the employees that you will
read about has read these policies and procedures, and agreed to all of the terms
before accepting a job. In essence, the policies and procedures of the company
represent a contract between the organization and its employees. This means that
the employee has certain responsibilities towards the organization, and that the
organization has certain responsibilities towards the employee. Both parties
should observe the terms of their agreement. If one party fails to observe part of
the agreement, then that party should be held accountable for breaking that section
of the contract.

You will have 10 minutes to examine this manual; AFTER 10 MINUTES,
THIS MANUAL WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. It is important that you read this
manual thoroughly and commit as much of this information as possible to memory.
IN 10 MINUTES YOU WILL BE TESTED ON THE INFORMATION IN
THIS MANUAL. In about half an hour you will be presented with a number of
different scenarios, each of which discusses an event that has occurred within a
particular organization. You will need to remember the information in the manual
in order to properly evaluate these events.

80

STOP! Please wait for the

experimenter before continuing.

81

Policies and Procedures Manual

Get Acquainted Period

At this organization, we set high expectations that motivate us to perform at our
top potential. We want you to set high performance expectations for yourself. To
be successful and to continue employment, your performance must meet the
company's needs and the requirements of the job. To give you and the company a
chance to determine whether we meet each other' 5 employment expectations, the
first 90 days is a "Get Acquainted Period." During this time, your supervisor will
closely monitor and evaluate your performance. Ifyou have any questions, please
don't hesitate to ask your supervisor.

Equal Opportunity Employer

Every job is open to the most qualified person without regard to race, religion,
color, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, citizenship, marital status, sexual
orientation, personal beliefs, group membership, or any other reason prohibited by
law. Ifyou believe that you have a disability requiring an accommodation in order
to do your job, you should make this known to your supervisor or your human
resources representative.

Safety

Your health and safety are important to us. Creation and maintenance of a safe
and healthy working environment is critical to accomplishing our goals of
productivity, quality, and profitability. Your organization provides the tools,
facilities, training, and supervision necessary to achieve these goals in a safe and
healthy manner, and your participation in these efi‘orts is equally important.

Identification and communication of unsafe or hazardous conditions in your work
environment are essential. If you feel such conditions exist, notify your supervisor
immediately. Additionally, if you believe you have been injured or suffered any
illness as a result of your job, report this to your supervisor immediately.

We have developed safety and health rules for your protection. We do not want
you to risk your health or safety by performing an unsafe act, no matter how
urgent the need may seem at the time. You are expected to follow these rules,
obey warning signs and perform your job in a safe manner at all times. Failure to
do so may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. By following
all safety procedures, we make your organization a safer place to work.

82

Conduct and Behavior

Your organization has high quality standards. It is expected that employees will
conduct themselves with the appropriate behavior required to meet these standards.
Activities inappropriate in our business environment include, but are not limited
to, possession of weapons, gambling, fighting, horseplay, harassment of other
employees, vandalism, falsification of time cards or company documents, and
other activities that common sense tells us are improper. While we will help
employees learn our procedures, failure to follow them may result in termination.
We need employees who have the self respect and maturity to be responsible to
themselves, their jobs, their coworkers and our customers.

Drugs

It is the policy of your organization to maintain a work environment free of the
unlawful use of controlled drugs. Employees may not work with unlawful
controlled drugs in their system while on company premises or while engaged in
the conduct of company business. This includes improper use or abuse of a valid
prescription.

Employees may continue to work while properly using a valid prescription, subject
to approval of their personal physician and the Employee Health department.

Some drugs have side effects that make certain jobs more dangerous for the user to
perform.

Employees with substance abuse problems are encouraged to seek help by
contacting their supervisor, Human Resources, Employee Health, or the Employee
Assistance Program. Counseling and referral for treatment if indicated will be
provided on a confidential basis.

Management may require drug testing of an employee in the event of job
accidents, reports of use, erratic behavior, deteriorating performance, return from
leave, etc. Employees found to have unlawful drugs present in their system by
such testing will be subject to discipline or discharge.

Diversion, theft, or trafficking in controlled drugs on or off company premises will
be grounds for discharge. Possession or use on company premises will be grounds
for discharge.

Our policy concerning drugs may be changed or amended at any time.

83

Employee Theft

Employees who steal any company assets including, but not limited to, money,
tools, equipment, products, etc. are subject to criminal prosecution and civil court
action as well as dismissal.

Any employee who obtains information about illegal involvement with controlled
substances, the disclosure of confidential information, or the misappropriation of
company assets is urged to contact his or her supervisor or the local police.

Confidential Information

While working for this organization, some employees have access to confidential
information about the company. Confidential information includes all information
about company plans and operations that are not disclosed to the general public.

It is each employee's personal responsibility to see that this information is not
disclosed to anyone outside the company. Information including, but not limited
to, procedures, formulas or recipes, data, plans, lists, employee information, etc.
should never be discussed with anyone who you are not certain is entitled to know.
This is because any leak of confidential information could benefit one of the
company's competitors, and that would damage this organization and affect all of
its jobs.

Any employee or former employee who discloses confidential information about
this organization violates the company's confidential information policy and
employment agreement. Violations may be grounds for dismissal and/or legal
action.

Ifyou are unsure as to whether certain information is confidential, contact your
supervisor, your human resources representative, or the company legal department.

At-Will Employment Status

Nothing contained in this policy manual is intended or should be construed to
create any legal obligation between your organization and its employees, or to
limit the right of your organization or its employees from terminating the at-will
employment relationship, at any time without restriction. This means that your
organization is free to terminate its relationship with you at will, and you are free
to terminate your relationship with your organization at will also.

This policy manual reflects your organization's practices and policies at the time of

84

publication. Your organization reserves the right to amend or modify its corporate
and human resources policies and practices at any time without notice. It should
be noted that mere company policies or practices including, but not limited to, the
presence of a disciplinary procedure (such as warnings or probation) do not waive
or alter the at-will status of your employment with your organization.

This At-Will section is intended as the complete statement on your At-Will
employment status. No other agreements, side-deals, company policies or
practices, or other portions of this manual can vary your basic At-Will
employment status.

85

STOP! Please wait for the

experimenter before continuing.

86

Using the scale below, indicate the extent to which you agree with the
following statement. Record your answer on the bubble sheet provided.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION
IS #119, AND #119 SHOULD BE FILLED IN ON YOUR
BUBBLE SHEET. We will return to question #1 afier this
item has been completed.

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

 

 

 

119. The policies and procedures of these organizations are fair.

87

Policies and Procedures Manual Test

Please indicate your response on the answer sheet provided (1 = True, 2 =

False). If any part of a statement is incorrect, the entire statement should be
considered as being "False."

l.

10.

11.

The "Get Acquainted Period" (during which the organization evaluates its
new employees to detemrine their fit with the organization) lasts for 60
days.

The organization is an equal opportunity employer.
If an employee commits an unsafe act, he or she may be fired for doing so.

The organization has the right to modify or change its policy on drugs
without providing any notice to its employees.

Employees are forbidden from using any type of drug while working,
including valid prescriptions.

The organization may fire the employee at any time, without providing a
reason.

Employees who discover illegal activities at work are urged to contact the
local police.

If an employee feels ill because of work performed on his or her job, he or
she should report this to a supervisor immediately.

Employees who quit working for this organization are still required to keep
organizational operations confidential, or they risk legal action against
them.

Information which is supposed to remain confidential includes data,
formulas and recipes, public announcements, and company procedures.

If an employee is placed in a position in which work urgently needs to be
done, but working conditions are somewhat unsafe, then that employee
should perform the work and immediately afterwards inform the supervisor
about the problem.

12.

13.

14.

88

In hiring individuals or promoting them, preference is given to individuals
belonging to minority groups.

If an employee has a substance abuse problem and requires counseling, his
or her supervisor will be notified of the problem.

The policy manual did not address employee attendance.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Experiment Stage Two

Background Information

The items below ask some basic questions about yourself. Please complete
all items as indicated. All information that you provide will be kept strictly
confidential. You may write on this sheet.

1. Age (in years): _
2. Gender (check one): _ Male _ Female
3. Ethnic background (check one):

__ Afiican American

_ Asian

_ Hispanic

_ Native American

_ White (Caucasian)
__ Other (please specify)

 

89

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

91

Instructions for Negative Mood Induction
IN

I would now like to ask you to take a few minutes to look into your past and
think about what have been the two saddest events in your life. When you finish
reading these instructions, take 10 minutes to think of these events. I will tell you
when the time is over. I would like you to try and think of all the details of what
was happening at the time, to the point that you could imagine this happening to
you right now. Think about how old you were, who were the people or events
involved, and what your feelings were.

When the time is over, I will ask you to answer a few questions related to
the images you thought of. It is very important that you take this reflection
exercise seriously. Think of those events that made you feel sad, unhappy,
gloomy, or miserable. Please sit back, close your eyes, put your head down or get
into a position that will best allow you to get in touch with your feelings. Take
your time and think about these sad events. Start now.

 

92

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

93

Please answer the following questions.

Event One

Approximately how old
were you at the time of
this event?

In what city did
this happen?

What season was it?
(winter, spring, summer, fall)

What was the weather
like at the time?

How long did the event last?

Which event was the
saddest of the two?
(Please make a check
under the event.)

 

Event Two

94

Instructions for Neutral Mood Induction

1U

I would now like to ask you to take a few minutes to think about the small,
everyday events in your life. Specifically, I would like you to recall two of these
events that happened to you yesterday. When you finish reading these
instructions, take 10 minutes to think of these events. I will tell you when the time
is over. I would like you to try and think of all the details of what was happening
at the time, to the point that you could imagine these events happening right now.
Think about the circumstances surrounding the situation, the people involved, and
what your feelings were.

When the time is over, I will ask you to answer a few questions related to
the images you thought of. It is very important that you take this reflection
exercise seriously. Think of those small, everyday events that are so common in
life. Please sit back, close your eyes, put your head down or get into a position
that will best allow you to get in touch with your feelings. Take your time and
think about these common events. Start now.

 

95

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

Please answer the following questions.

How often does this
event usually occur?

In what city did
this happen?

What was the weather
like at the time?

How long did the event last?

Do you think that other
people experience this
event, or is this experience
unique to you?

 

96

Event One

Event Two

97

Instructions for Positive Mood Induction

IP

I would now like to ask you to take a few minutes to look into your past and
think about what have been the two happiest events in your life. When you finish
reading these instructions, take 10 minutes to think of these events. I will tell you
when the time is over. I would like you to try and think of all the details of what
was happening at the time, to the point that you could imagine this happening to
you right now. Think about how old you were, who were the people or events
involved, and what your feelings were.

When the time is over, I will ask you to answer a few questions related to
the images you thought of. It is very important that you take this reflection
exercise seriously. Think of those events that made you feel happy, delighted,
glad, or cheerful. Please sit back, close your eyes, put your head down or get into
a position that will best allow you to get in touch with your feelings. Take your
time and think about these happy events. Start now.

 

98

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

99

Please answer the following questions.

Event One

Approximately how old
were you at the time of
this event?

In what city did
this happen?

What season was it?
(winter, spring,summer,fall)

What was the weather
like at the time?

How long did the event last?

Which event was the
happiest of the two?
(Please make a check
under the event.)

 

Event Two

100

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

101

Larsen & Diener Affect Circumplex Scale

Please answer the following questions. Each item that appears below fills
in the blank in the statement provided. For example, the first statement would be
"At the present moment I feel distressed." Use the scale below to indicate your
response to this statement. Ifyou currently felt not at all distressed, you would fill
in the oval marked "1" on your answer sheet. If you currently felt distressed to a
great extent, then you would fill in the oval marked "4" on your answer sheet.

 

Not To A Slight To Some To A Great To A Very
At All Extent Extent Extent Great Extent
1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

At the present moment I feel

1. Distressed 25. Nervous
2. Enthusiastic 26. Euphoric
3. Relaxed 27. Calm

4. Dull 28. Sluggish
5. Aroused 29. Surprised
6. Happy 30. Cheerful
7. Quiet 3 l. Inactive
8. Unhappy 32. Grouchy
9. Annoyed 33. Jittery
10. Elated 34. Lively

1 1. Content 35. Serene
12. Tired 36. Bored
13. Astonished 37. Active
14. Delighted 38. Warmhearted
15. Tranqu 39. Idle

l6. Miserable 40. Gloomy
l7. Fearful 41. Anxious
18. Excited 42. Peppy
19. At Rest 43. At Ease
20. Drowsy 44. Droopy
21. Stimulated 45. Intense
22. Glad 46. Pleased
23. Still 47. Passive
24. Sad 48. Blue

102

Please wait for instructions from the

experimenter before going on to the next page

APPENDIX C

v
n

d n

n

v

91'

CC

In;

W

M

ear

COI.

the

den

APPENDD( C

Experiment Stage Three

Instructions for the Scenarios

In this experiment you are to play the part of an objective observer whose
job involves evaluating events which have occurred in an organization. You will
now be presented with several different scenarios, each of which provides a
description of a company and a recent decision that was made regarding a certain
member or members of its workforce. As you look at these scenarios and answer
questions about them, there are a number of distinctions that should be kept in
mind. Some of the questions will ask you to evaluate the procedures and inputs
which were used to generate the decisions, while other questions will ask you to
evaluate the decision itself or outcomes associated with that decision.

A brief example scenario follows:

Bryan Erickson and Roger Beyson had both worked at Sterles Realty
for five years. Bryan consistently lead the office in total sales, while
Roger consistently placed 4th out of 7 employees. Over the course
of those five years, both individuals had freely taken office supplies
fi'om the company and used them at home for personal use. When
this fact was discovered, management at Sterles Realty promptly
fired Roger. Because of his exemplary record, management decided
not to fire Bryan and instead opted to place him on probation.

Outcome(s): Roger was fired. Bryan was placed on probation.

In this example, the firing of Roger and the disciplining of Bryan are
considered outcomes. In terms of the procedures which led to these outcomes,
you might note that Roger's exemplary work record was taken into account when
management made its decision about him. Similarly, you might note that company
procedures were applied inconsistently -- one individual was fired, and another
was put on probation for performing the same action (stealing office supplies). In
each scenario, the outcome(s) will be clearly identified. For purposes of this
study, it may be helpful to simply think of inputs and procedures as factors that
contribute to the occurrence of the outcome(s). In evaluating each scenario, use
the information you obtained in the Policies and Procedures manual to help
determine the fairness of what has occurred.

103

104

After you have read each scenario you will be presented with a series of
questions which ask you to consider whether the inputs and procedures in the
scenario met certain standards. Next you will be asked three questions which
assess your major overall impression of the fairness of the events depicted in the
scenario. You will be asked to rate both the overall fairness of the procedures,
and the overall fairness of the outcome(s) in the scenario.

Please answer all questions on the answer sheet which is provided.

105

STOP! Please wait for the

experimenter before continuing.

106

Scenarios, Fairness Ratings, and Fairness Essays
Ross Power Co.

Ross Power Co. had supplied power to Macan County for nearly half a
century. During that time period, Ross heavily relied on technology which used
coal. As more and more people moved into the county, it became clear that
current equipment could no longer keep pace with the demand. In order to meet
increasing demands, company ofiicials made the decision to move from coal to
nuclear power. As a result of this decision, many changes were required: a new
power plant had to be built, current workers needed to be trained to use the new
technology, and additional workers needed to be hired to smooth the transition.
Several policy changes were also necessary. In order to ensure the safety of
workers and local townspeople, employees who oversaw operations or worked
with hazardous materials were selected at random to undergo drug testing.
Individuals who were selected for testing were to be escorted by an armed security
guard to a bathroom monitored by security cameras. Urine samples were to be
taken, and they were to be analyzed in the company laboratory. No advance
warning of this policy change was provided to employees.

Jack Stuart was among the first to be tested. Jack was responsible for
monitoring plant operations during the late shift ( l :OOam to 9:OOam). He had been
an occasional drug user for several years, but had never come to work under the
influence. Jack and his wife were experiencing marital difficulties at home, and
for the last several weeks Jack had been using drugs after work to help himself
deal with the stress. When the results of the testing came back from the company
laboratory, Jack was informed that he had tested positive for drug use. He was
fired on the spot.

Peter Gibbens was also responsible for monitoring plant operations. He
worked during the evening shift (5:00 pm to 1:00 am). Peter was a recreational
drug user, but (like Jack) he had never come to work under the influence. When
Peter heard that Jack had been fired, he became extremely nervous. Carefully
considering all his options, Peter decided that the safest thing that he could do was
to immediately check into the company drug rehabilitation program. Two days
after he had checked into the program, Peter was informed that he had been
randomly selected to undergo drug testing. Soon after the tests had been run, he
received word from the lab that he had tested positive for drug use. However,
since he had previously enrolled in the rehabilitation program, his job was secure.
Peter was not penalized in any way for his drug use.

OUTCOME(S) TO BE EVALUATED:

Jack Stuart was fired, Peter Gibbens was allowed to continue working.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

107

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Ross Power Co.
The procedures which are being used are consistently applied over time.

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied across
different people.

The procedures which are being used are consistent with company policy as
stated in the policy manual.

The information upon which decisions are based is accurate.

The information that is used when making decisions is appropriate and
complete (factors that are relevant to the decision are considered).

The individuals who are making decisions are objective and not biased.

The individuals who are making decisions are open minded and do not
possess narrow views.

Individuals who are affected by the decisions being made have the
opportunity to appeal these decisions.

The decisions that are being made are able to be changed in the event that
an error has been made.

The procedures that are being used take into account the interests, concerns,
and values of the individuals who are being affected.

The procedures which are being used to make decisions are consistent with
my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved have an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision is reached.

The individuals affected by decisions are informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner.

28.

29.

30.

31.

108

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

The feedback individuals receive is informative.

The individuals involved are treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

In general, the procedures and inputs used to make decisions in this
scenario were fair.

The final outcome in the scenario was fair.

 

109

Ross Power Co.

A question on the preceding page asked you to make an OVERALL
EVALUATION of the fairness of the procedures and inputs that were used to
make decisions in this scenario. What factors in the scenario were most important
to you in arriving at this overall evaluation? Please write your answer neatly.

1 10
Kenico Engineering

Over the past several years, Kenico Engineering had been experiencing severe
financial problems. In an attempt to save the company from financial ruin, Senior Vice-
President Bob Walker made the decision to lay off 35% of their workforce. The layoffs
were primarily targeted at individuals who had just started working for the company or
who were below average performers, and Vice-President Walker personally identified
which individuals to let go. Three months after the workforce had been reduced, it
became apparent that more needed to be done to restore the company, and so Vice-
President Walker decided to let another 5% of the workforce go. Sheila Tate, who had
just returned from maternity leave, was among those who were scheduled to be dismissed.
In reviewing the files of those who were to be fired, Vice-President Walker provided the
following reasons for his decision regarding Sheila:

"While Sheila has been a good employee for Kenico, it is my opinion that she has

not demonstrated the level of commitment and loyalty to our company that is

needed in these rough financial times. I wish her success in her next job. "
Three days later Sheila was told that she had lost her job, and that her position was being
eliminated. Kenico Engineering gave her two weeks to find a new job.

To say the least, Sheila was shocked at this news. Her gut feeling told her that she
had been fired because of the time she had spent away from work while on maternity
leave. With nothing to lose, Sheila stormed past a receptionist and into Vice-President
Walker's office and demanded to know the truth about her situation. Vice-President
Walker, somewhat flustered by the
whole event, quickly rummaged through his file cabinet and found Sheila's file. After
glancing through her previous performance reviews and refamiliarizing himself with her
case, he was able to piece together what had happened and provide an explanation. Vice-
President Walker denied that her dismissal had anything to do with the maternity leave.
He pointed to a number of incidents on company record where Sheila had arrived at work
late. He also pointed out that the company was reorganizing, and that there would no
longer be any need for someone to perform the job duties that she had performed. Vice-
President Walker assured Sheila that she would find a new job in no time. Sheila remained
visibly upset.

After spending an hour trying to convince her that there had been no wrongdoing,
Vice-President Walker changed his strategy; he called in a member of the Human
Resources Department to see if they could provide her with some assistance in finding a
new job with a different organization. Sheila accepted the help, but deep down inside she
still felt that she had been wrongfuny dismissed from Kenico.

OUTCOME(S) TO BE EVALUATED:

Sheila Tate was fired.

4t
41

43

43.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

111

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Kenico Engineering
The procedures which are being used are consistently applied over time.

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied across
different people.

The procedures which are being used are consistent with company policy as
stated in the policy manual.

The information upon which decisions are based is accurate.

The information that is used when making decisions is appropriate and
complete (factors that are relevant to the decision are considered).

The individuals who are making decisions are objective and not biased.

The individuals who are making decisions are open minded and do not
possess narrow views.

Individuals who are afiected by the decisions being made have the
opportunity to appeal these decisions.

The decisions that are being made are able to be changed in the event that
an error has been made.

The procedures that are being used take into account the interests, concerns,
and values of the individuals who are being affected.

The procedures which are being used to make decisions are consistent with
my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved have an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision is reached.

The individuals affected by decisions are informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner.

45.

46.

47.

48.

112

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

The feedback individuals receive is informative.

The individuals involved are treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

In general, the procedures and inputs used to make decisions in this
scenario were fair.

The final outcome in the scenario was fair.

 

113

Kenico Engineering

A question on the preceding page asked you to make an OVERALL
EVALUATION of the fairness of the procedures and inputs that were used to
make decisions in this scenario. What factors in the scenario were most important
to you in arriving at this overall evaluation? Please write your answer neatly.

1 14
ACME Vacuum

Joe Gilbert had been working for ACME Vacuum for ten years. Joe liked
working for ACME - ACME was a small organization with a union-free work
environment, and it was a top company in the vacuum and rug shampooer
industry. Joe was always considered to be a good employee, and in his last three
annual performance reviews he had received the highest possible rating. In the
most recent of these reviews Joe's supervisor wrote the following:

Joe consistently does excellent work. He is knowledgeable about his
job, highly productive, quality conscious, and he is well liked by
customers and coworkers. Joe is a tremendous asset to our
department.

Two weeks ago, Joe's name was entered on a list of employees under consideration
for a promotion. In the past, promotions were always awarded to employees on
the basis of length of employment with the company and quality of service. By
both standards, Joe was the top employee on the list. Joe's name remained on the
list until three days ago. At that time, an employee named Mark Sarell informed
management that Joe was a union supporter. Joe was removed from the list, and a
day later the promotion was given to an employee with 7 years of experience and a
mediocre work record. When Joe learned of the situation from a coworker he was
furious, and he immediately went to his supervisor to see what could be done.
Unfortunately the promotion decision could not be changed. Ironically, Joe had
always voted against unionizing ACME Vacuum, and he had never been a union
supporter. Management had made no attempt to verify the information provided
by Mark Sarell.

OUTCOME(S) TO BE EVALUATED:

Joe Gilbert was not promoted.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

115

 

 

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ACME Vacuum

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied over time.

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied across
different pe0ple.

The procedures which are being used are consistent with company policy as
stated in the policy manual.

The information upon which decisions are based is accurate.

The information that is used when making decisions is appropriate and
complete (factors that are relevant to the decision are considered).

The individuals who are making decisions are objective and not biased.

The individuals who are making decisions are open minded and do not
possess narrow views.

Individuals who are affected by the decisions being made have the
opportunity to appeal these decisions.

The decisions that are being made are able to be changed in the event that
an error has been made.

The procedures that are being used take into account the interests, concerns,
and values of the individuals who are being affected.

The procedures which are being used to make decisions are consistent with
my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved have an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision is reached.

The individuals affected by decisions are informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner.

62.

63.

64.

65.

116

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

The feedback individuals receive is informative.

The individuals involved are treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

In general, the procedures and inputs used to make decisions in this
scenario were fair.

The final outcome in the scenario was fair.

 

117
ACME Vacuum

A question on the preceding page asked you to make an OVERALL
EVALUATION of the fairness of the procedures and inputs that were used to
make decisions in this scenario. What factors in the scenario were most important
to you in arriving at this overall evaluation? Please write your answer neatly.

118

Chapman Automotive

Chapman Automotive was an automobile repair shop located in Tammake, Texas
that specialized in small to mid-size foreign cars. Chapman Automotive was owned and
operated by Lucas Chapman. The shop had been in business for 20 years, and had
established a local reputation for being an honest place of business. Customers knew that
they were being charged reasonable prices for services, and they knew that the mechanics
at Chapman were excellent at diagnosing problems with automobiles. While customers
received good quality work from Chapman, the working climate for Chapman employees
was somewhat oppressive. Employees were overworked, they received little guidance
from their supervisors, and the pay was mediocre.

Roger Endison had been working for Chapman Automotive for over 15 years. For
the past 3 of these years, Roger had been supplementing his weekly salary by stealing
spark plug wires and brake pads and selling them to a local competitor. Martin Sembic
also worked at Chapman Automotive, and worked side by side with Roger. Martin knew
that Roger was stealing from the company, and he knew that what Roger was doing was
dishonest and wrong. However, Martin's personal dislike of his supervisor and his dislike
of Lucas Chapman prevented him from telling them about the stolen equipment.

One night after work, Roger and three of his fiiends went to a local tavern to drink
and shoot pool. After buying numerous rounds of drinks, and after having consumed a
large amount of alcohol, Roger started to brag to his fiiends about how he was "robbing
Chapman blind." An off duty police officer overheard the comments, and discussed the
matter the following day with Lucas Chapman. After taking inventory of various parts, it
was discovered that a large quantity of brake pads and spark plug wires could not be
accounted for. In order to obtain additional information, the police scheduled interviews
with every employee at Chapman. Eventually they met and talked with Martin Sembic.
Martin verified that Roger had been stealing fi’om Chapman for sometime, and he was
able to tell them exactly how Roger had done it.

When Lucas heard about this ongoing theft, he was furious. He fired Roger
Endison for stealing, and he fired Martin Sembic for not informing his supervisor about
the situation. Charges were pressed against Roger Endison, and he was found guilty in a
court of law. Martin had been a key witness in the trial. After the hearing, Martin
approached Lucas to discuss the possibility of getting his job back. Lucas informed
Martin that he had broken company policy by not telling his supervisor about the theft,
and that such behavior was unacceptable for a Chapman employee. He refirsed to hire
Martin back. In light of the help Martin had provided with the court case, however, Lucas
offered to help Martin locate a new job. After making some inquiries with a few fiiends in
the business, Lucas was able to get Martin a job at a local auto body shop.

OUTCOME(S) TO BE EVALUATED:
Roger Endison and Martin Sembic were fired.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

119

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Chapman Automotive
The procedures which are being used are consistently applied over time.

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied across
different people.

The procedures which are being used are consistent with company policy as
stated in the policy manual.

The information upon which decisions are based is accurate.

The information that is used when making decisions is appropriate and
complete (factors that are relevant to the decision are considered).

The individuals who are making decisions are objective and not biased.

The individuals who are making decisions are open minded and do not
possess narrow views.

Individuals who are affected by the decisions being made have the
opportunity to appeal these decisions.

The decisions that are being made are able to be changed in the event that
an error has been made.

The procedures that are being used take into account the interests, concerns,
and values of the individuals who are being affected.

The procedures which are being used to make decisions are consistent with
my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved have an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision is reached.

The individuals affected by decisions are informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner.

79.

80.

81.

82.

120

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

The feedback individuals receive is informative.

The individuals involved are treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

In general, the procedures and inputs used to make decisions in this
scenario were fair.

The final outcome in the scenario was fair.

 

121

Chapman Automotive

A question on the preceding page asked you to make an OVERALL
EVALUATION of the fairness of the procedures and inputs that were used to
make decisions in this scenario. What factors in the scenario were most important
to you in arriving at this overall evaluation? Please write your answer neatly.

122

STOP! Please wait for the

experimenter before continuing.

123

Instructions for Overall Ratings

Earlier you were asked to make an OVERALL EVALUATION of the
fairness of the procedures and inputs that were used to make decisions in each of
the scenarios. You were next asked to write down in essay form which factors
were most important to you in arriving at this overall evaluation. At this point I
would like to ask you to again think about how you made these overall
evaluations. For each of the four scenarios, you are asked to rate a number of
factors in terms of their importance to you in arriving at your overall evaluation of
the procedures. This set of questions differs from the previous set in an important
way. Whereas before you were asked whether a particular problem existed, you
are now asked to indicate how much that problem (or lack thereof) affected your
overall judgment of the fairness of procedures. As you make your ratings, you
may find it helpfirl to briefly look over the scenario again. It may also be helpful
for you to look at the short essay you wrote. Use the scale provided to answer
each question.

124

Overall Ratings for Scenarios

Ross Power Co.

 

 

Not Somewhat Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Please rate the following factors in terms of their importance to you in arriving at
your overall evaluation of the procedures.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

The consistency with which the procedures were implemented, and the
consistency of company policy with the behavior of company officials.

The accuracy and appropriateness of information that was used.
The individuals who were making decisions were objective and not biased.
The decision was able to be changed if an error was made.

The procedures that were being used took into account the interests,
concerns, and values of the individuals who were being affected.

The procedures which were being used to make decisions were consistent
with my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved had an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision was reached.

The individuals affected by decisions were informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner, and the feedback was informative.

The individuals involved were treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

125

Kenico Engineering

 

 

Not Somewhat Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important Important
1 2 3 4 S 6 7

 

 

Please rate the following factors in terms of their importance to you in arriving at
your overall evaluation of the procedures.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

The consistency with which the procedures were implemented, and the
consistency of company policy with the behavior of company oficials.

The accuracy and appropriateness of information that was used.
The individuals who were making decisions were objective and not biased.
The decision was able to be changed if an error was made.

The procedures that were being used took into account the interests,
concerns, and values of the individuals who were being affected.

The procedures which were being used to make decisions were consistent
with my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved had an opportrmity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision was reached.

The individuals affected by decisions were informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner, and the feedback was informative.

The individuals involved were treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

126

 

 

ACME Vacuum
Not Somewhat Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Please rate the following factors in terms of their importance to you in arriving at
your overall evaluation of the procedures.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

The consistency with which the procedures were implemented, and the
consistency of company policy with the behavior of company officials.

The accuracy and appropriateness of information that was used.
The individuals who were making decisions were objective and not biased.
The decision was able to be changed if an error was made.

The procedures that were being used took into account the interests,
concerns, and values of the individuals who were being affected.

The procedures which were being used to make decisions were consistent
with my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved had an opportrmity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision was reached.

The individuals afi‘ected by decisions were informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner, and the feedback was informative.

The individuals involved were treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

127

Chapman Automotive

 

 

Not Somewhat Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

Please rate the following factors in terms of their importance to you in arriving at
your overall evaluation of the procedures.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

The consistency with which the procedures were implemented, and the
consistency of company policy with the behavior of company officials.

The accuracy and appropriateness of information that was used.
The individuals who were making decisions were objective and not biased.
The decision was able to be changed if an error was made.

The procedures that were being used took into account the interests,
concerns, and values of the individuals who were being affected.

The procedures which were being used to make decisions were consistent
with my values and the code of ethics I follow.

The individuals involved had an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision was reached.

The individuals affected by decisions were informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner, and the feedback was informative.

The individuals involved were treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

128

STOP! Please wait for the

experimenter before continuing.

APPENDD( D

APPENDIX D

Experiment Stage Four

Probe for Suspicion

What do you think was the purpose of this experiment? Why do you think this?

129

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

Experiment Stage Five

Debriefing Form

Thank you very much for your help with this study, your participation has
been greatly appreciated. Now that you are done with this experiment, you may
be wondering what information we hoped to obtain. The experiment you have just
completed dealt with issues surrounding individual perceptions of fairness. In our
day to day interactions with the people around us, we are constantly making
judgments and evaluating the way in which we are treated. In particular
researchers have found that individuals are often concerned with the procedures
which are used to allocate valued resources among people, and individuals are
concerned with the resulting distribution of these resources. Research which
focuses on perceptions of resource allocation procedures has been labelled
"procedural justice," while research which focuses on perceptions of resource
distributions has been labelled "distributive justice." Within each of these two
topic areas, Leventhal (1980) has proposed that individuals use particular
standards (which he calls "justice rules") to evaluate and make sense of events
around them.

Distribution justice rules concern the standard of fairness that is applied
when valued resources are handed out. While Leventhal identified eight such
rules, he believed that three of them were particularly important for individuals:
the contributions rule, the equality rule, and the needs rule. The contributions
distribution rule dictates that fair outcome distributions result from the allocation
of resources according to individual contributions. In other words, people will
perceive resource distributions as being fair if outcomes are distributed in
proportion to individual inputs (of. equity theory, Adams, 1965). The equality
distribution rule states that fair outcome distributions result from the allocation of
resources in equal shares to all involved parties. The needs distribution rule
asserts that fair outcome distributions result from the allocation of resources in
proportion to the needs of individuals. Leventhal notes that these rules can
become visible to difierent people at different times, and that this has considerable
implications for fairness perceptions. An outcome distribution that matches the
needs of the individual will be viewed as fair by those individuals for whom the
needs rule is visible, but the same outcome distribution will be perceived as unfair
by those for whom a contributions or equality rule is visible.

Procedural justice rules concern the fairness of procedures involved in the

130

131

allocation of valued outcomes. Leventhal identified six such rules: the consistency
rule, the bias-suppression rule, the accuracy nrle, the correctability rule, the
representativeness rule, and the ethicality rule. The consistency rule states that
allocative procedures should be consistently applied both over time and across
persons. The bias-suppression rule states that allocative procedures should be
completely free from the influence of personal interest and "doctrinaire views;" in
other words, key decision makers should remain impartial and objective. The
accuracy rule states that allocative procedures should rely on information that is as
accurate and appropriate as possible. The correctability rule states that decisions
made during allocation procedures should be open to appeals, and should be able
to be changed in the event of an error. The representativeness rule states that the
interests, concerns, and values of the parties involved should be taken into account
by the allocation procedures. Finally, the ethicality rule states that allocative
procedures should be consistent with the "fundamental moral and ethical values
accepted by that individ " (p. 45).

Other researchers have identified additional rules by which individuals
evaluate the fairness of procedures. Thibaut and Walker (1975) noted that
procedures are judged as being more fair if the individuals involved are given a
"voice" -- an opportunity to express one's self before a decision is reached. Tyler
and Bies (1990) point out that the provision and nature of feedback (i.e. its
timeliness, informativeness, etc.) influence perceptions of fairness. Bies and Moag
(1986) argue that interpersonal treatment is also important (i.e. treating the
individual with respect and compassion). While researchers have invested
considerable time identifying and investigating these rules, we currently know very
little about when a particular justice rule will be used by an individual, and we
know even less about how these rules will be weighted as an individual forms his
or her overall perception of fairness (Gilliland, 1993).

This is where the study in which you have just participated comes in. In
this experiment, we are particularly interested in issues of procedural justice and
the procedural justice rules which people use. We are interested in learning which
justice rules are most important to individuals, and we are interested in
determining factors which might influence how people perceive and interpret
fairness related information. The scenarios you were provided with were carefully
constructed so as to provide information about particular justice rule violations.
The questions which you answered were likewise linked to each of the procedural
justice rules discussed earlier.

If you are interested in reading more about this subject area, the articles
listed on the following page would prove to be very informative. In addition, if
you would like to discuss this area further or have any questions about this study,
feel free to contact me (Dave Waldschmidt) in Room 20 of Baker Hall. I can also
be reached at 353-9166.

Thank you very much for participating in this experiment. I ask that you

132

please do not talk to others about this experiment, as what you say might influenCe
how those individuals approach the experimental task (if the individual you spoke
with were to participate in this study at a later time). Talking about this
experiment with a future participant might invalidate some of the data obtained.

Again, thank you and good luck in your studies here at MSU!

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.,)
AdxancesinexnerimentaLchiaanhology(VoL 2,p pp 267-299). New York:

Academic Press.

Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
critena of fairness Researchnnlflegmiationinflrganizanions, l, 43- 55

Gilliland, SW. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An

organizational justice perspective. W, 18, 694-
734.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S.

Greenberg. & R. H. Willis (Eds) SocialmhangezAdxanccsinrheand
Lem (pp. 27- 55). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Thibaut, 1.. & Walker. L. (1975)- Procedmljusticempsxclmlogical
analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The
interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed) AppliegLsgcial

psycholouandmgamzancnalsemngs (pp. 77- 98. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

APPENDIX F

MbWNr—n

v—v—\OOO\)O\

Ho

13
14

”Il'Tlr-l—l—ir-i '11—1—1—1'1'1

'11

APPENDIX F

Scoring Keys and Procedural Justice Rule Scale Information

Answering Key for Policies and Procedures Manual Test

90 days.

Employees may use valid prescriptions, provided they have received
approval from their personal physician and Employee Health.

Public announcements are not classified as confidential information.
Employees should never engage in unsafe behavior, regardless of
how urgent the work may seem.

Positions are open to the most qualified person, regardless of group
membership.

Counseling for substance abuse problems is completely confidential.

133

134

Larsen & Diener Affect Circumplex Scale Scoring Key

Qciants BinnlaLSflle
AU = Activated Unpleasant
AP = Activated Pleasant

UU = Unactivated Unpleasant
UP = Unactivated Pleasant
HA = High Activation

P = Pleasant

U = Unpleasant

LA = Low Activation

Activation Scale

Pleasant Scale

Pleasant Scale (Reverse scored)
Activation Scale (Reverse scored)

 

1. (AU) Distressed 25. (AU) Nervous
2. (AP) Enthusiastic 26. (AP) Euphoric
3. (UP) Relaxed 27. (UP) Calm

4. (UU) Dull 28. (UU) Sluggish
5. (HA) Aroused 29. (HA) Surprised
6. (P) Happy 30. (P) Cheerful
7. (LA) Quiet 31. (LA) Inactive
8. (U) Unhappy 32. (U) Grouchy
9. (AU) Annoyed 33. (AU) Jittery
10. (AP) Elated 34. (AP) Lively

1 1. (UP) Content 35. (UP) Serene
12. (UU) Tired 36. (UU) Bored
13. (HA) Astonished 37. (HA) Active
14. (P) Delighted 38. (P) Warmhearted
15. (LA) Tranquil 39. (LA) Idle

16. (U) Miserable 40. (U) Gloomy
17. (AU) Fearful 41. (AU) Anxious
18. (AP) Excited 42. (AP) Peppy
19. (UP) At Rest 43. (UP) At Base
20. (UU) Drowsy 44. (UU) Droopy
21. (HA) Stimulated 45. (HA) Intense
22. (P) Glad 46. (P) Pleased
23. (LA) Still 47. (LA) Passive
24. (U) Sad 48. (U) Blue

134

Larsen & Diener Affect Circumplex Scale Scoring Key

Qctanrs BipnIaLScale
AU = Activated Unpleasant
AP = Activated Pleasant

UU = Unactivated Unpleasant
UP = Unactivated Pleasant
HA = High Activation

P = Pleasant

U = Unpleasant

LA = Low Activation

Activation Scale

Pleasant Scale

Pleasant Scale (Reverse scored)
Activation Scale (Reverse scored)

 

1. (AU) Distressed 25. (AU) Nervous
2. (AP) Enthusiastic 26. (AP) Euphoric
3. (UP) Relaxed 27. (UP) Calm
4. (UU) Dull 28. (UU) Sluggish
5. (HA) Aroused 29. (HA) Surprised
6. (P) Happy 30. (P) Cheerful
7. (LA) Quiet 31. (LA) Inactive
8. (U) Unhappy 32. (U) Grouchy
9. (AU) Annoyed 33. (AU) Jittery
10. (AP) Elated 34. (AP) Lively
11. (UP) Content 35. (UP) Serene
12. (UU) Tired 36. (UU) Bored
13. (HA) Astonished 37. (HA) Active
14. (P) Delighted 38. (P) Warmhearted
15. (LA) Tranquil 39. (LA) Idle
16. (U) Miserable 40. (U) Gloomy
17. (AU) Fearful 41. (AU) Anxious
18. (AP) Excited 42. (AP) Peppy
19. (UP) At Rest 43. (UP) At Base
20. (UU) Drowsy 44. (UU) Droopy
21. (HA) Stimulated 45. (HA) Intense
22. (P) Glad 46. (P) Pleased
23. (LA) Still 47. (LA) Passive
24. (U) Sad 48. (U) Blue

135

Procedural Justice Rule Violation Scales and Items

 

 

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Consistent

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied over time.

The procedures which are being used are consistently applied across
different people.

The procedures which are being used are consistent with company policy as
stated in the policy manual.

Accurate
The information upon which decisions are based is accurate.

The information that is used when making decisions is appropriate and
complete (factors that are relevant to the decision are considered).

Bias-Free
The individuals who are making decisions are objective and not biased.

The individuals who are making decisions are open minded and do not
possess narrow views.

Correctable

Individuals who are affected by the decisions being made have the
opportunity to appeal these decisions.

The decisions that are being made are able to be changed in the event that
an error has been made.

136

 

 

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Neither Agree Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Representative

The procedures that are being used take into account the interests, concerns,
and values of the individuals who are being affected.

Ethical

The procedures which are being used to make decisions are consistent with
my values and the code of ethics I follow.

Voice

The individuals involved have an opportunity to express themselves and
provide relevant information before a decision is reached.

Feedback

The individuals affected by decisions are informed about the results of
these decisions in a timely manner.

The feedback individuals receive is informative.
Fair Treatment

The individuals involved are treated with respect and compassion
throughout the process.

APPENDIX G

Table 1:

Fairness Scales

ac

APPENDIX G

Tables
Means, Standard Deviations,
We
NEGATIVE” NEUTRALc

POSITIVEd

and Coefficient Alphas.

 

CONSISTENT .67 4.39 1.51 4.38 4.25 1.63 4.25 4.24 1.58 4.25
INFO ACCURACY .76 4.58 1.86 4.58 4.27 1.66 4.26 4.25 1.80 4.26
BIAS-FREE 85 4.19 1.89 4.20 4.11 1.69 4.11 3.62 1.76 3.62
CORRECTABLE 67 3.77 1.52 3.78 3.48 1.67 3.48 3.43 1.66 3.43
FEEDBACK 51 4.18 1.48 4.18 3.74 1.55 3.73 3.94 1.59 3.94
REPRESENTATIVE -- 3.15 1.72 3.16 2.85 1.61 2.84 3.09 1.97 3.09
ETHICAL —- 3.88 1.97 3.88 3.62 1.90 3.61 3.74 1.89 3.75
VOICE -- 3.08 1.94 3.10 2.70 1.83 2.70 2.67 1.96 2.66
TREATMENT -- 2.86 1.65 2.88 2.79 1.43 2.78 2.83 1.63 2.83
PROCEDURES -- 3.63 2.16 3.63 3.72 1.90 3.71 3.53 2.05 3.54
OUTCOMES -- 3.42 2.24 3.43 2.97 1.91 2.96 3.12 2.08 3.13
VIOLATION .73 3.03 1.38 3.04 2.78 1.31 2.77 2.86 1.54 2.86
NO VIOLATION .73 4.38 1.42 4.39 4.21 1.29 4.20 4.04 1.43 4.04
Importance of justice rule to overall evaluation of procedures

CONSISTENT -- 4.83 1.68 4.83 5.07 1.41 5.06 5.21 1.58 5.21
INFO ACCURACY -- 5.14 1.47 5.14 5.08 1.49 5.08 5.30 1.48 5.30
BIAS-FREE -- 5.24 1.52 5.24 4.77 1.43 4.77 4.86 1.65 4.86
CORRECTABLE -- 4.88 1.75 4.89 4.34 1.73 4.34 4.53 1.85 4.53
REPRESENTATIVE -- 4.85 1.63 4.85 4.51 1.61 4.51 4.64 1.77 4.63
ETHICAL -- 4.58 1.84 4.58 4.43 1.96 4.43 4.10 1.89 4.10
VOICE -- 4.93 1.61 4.94 4.62 1.59 4.62 4.74 1.78 4.73
FEEDBACK -- 4.49 1.61 4.50 4.43 1.70 4.43 4.31 1.71 4.30
TREATMENT -- 4476 1.64, 4.77 4.54 1.67 4.54 4.55 1.84 4.55

 

“N size ranges between
”N size ranges between

6N size ranges between

admn a mean adjusted for covariates (policy manual score & scenario order).

177 and 178.

58 and 59.
cN size ranges between 59 and 61.
57 and 58.

137

 

Table 1 (cont'd).

138

3.2..3.

NEGATIVEb

POSITIVEd

 

Fairness Scales

CONSISTENT .78 3.85 1.45 3.85 4.09 1.58 4.09 4.30 1.35 4.31
INFO ACCURACY .80 3.64 1.63 3.63 3.86 1.68 3.86 3.91 1.61 3.91
BIAS-FREE .90 3.23 1.57 3.23 3.42 1.61 3.41 3.52 1.68 3.52
CORRECTABLE .80 3.58 1.74 3.59 3.81 1.70 3.81 4.03 1.59 4.03
FEEDBACK .74 3.60 1.55 3.61 3.80 1.77 3.80 3.89 1.82 3.88
REPRESENTATIVE -- 2.68 1.75 2.69 3.31 2.05 3.30 3.17 1.78 3.17
ETHICAL -- 3.03 1.80 3.03 3.19 1.57 3.17 3.21 1.51 3.21
VOICE -- 3.08 1.97 3.10 2.61 1.54 2.61 2.93 1.99 2.92
TREATMENT -- 3.51 1.96 3.52 3.77 1.85 3.78 3.76 1.84 3.75
PROCEDURES -- 3.54 1.99 3.54 3.35 1.82 3.35 3.88 1.86 3.89
OUTCOMES -- 3.52 2.10 3.52 3.40 1.86 3.40 3.90 1.95 3.90
VIOLATION .77 2.93 1.57 2.94 3.04 1.48 3.03 3.10 1.42 3.10
NO VIOLATION .73 3.69 1.26 3.69 3.92 1.42 3.92 4.08 1.15 4.08
Importance of justice rule to overall evaluation of procedures

CONSISTENT -- 5.05 1.76 5.05 5.05 1.65 5.05 5.00 1.52 5.00
INFO ACCURACY -- 5.19 1.50 5.18 5.21 1.45 5.21 5.24 1.42 5.25
BIAS-FREE -- 5.31 1.45 5.30 5.13 1.53 5.13 5.57 1.71 5.57
CORRECTABLE -- 4.97 1.65 4.98 4.72 1.65 4.72 4.97 1.66 4.95
REPRESENTATIVE -- 4.73 1.77 4.73 4.98 1.71 4.98 5.09 1.85 5.09
ETHICAL -— 4.47 1.73 4.47 4.52 1.68 4.52 4.14 1.97 4.14
VOICE -- 5.12 1.60 5.12 5.15 1.47 5.15 4.97 1.76 4.96
FEEDBACK -- 4.73 1.73 4.74 4.82 1.67 4.82 4.67 1.77 4.67
IREAIMENT -- 5.17 1472 5.17 5.26 1.37 5.26 4.95 1.81 4.95
'N size ranges between 177 and 178.

“N size ranges between 58 and 59.

cN size ranges between 59 and 61.

ON size ranges between 57 and 58.

admn - mean adjusted for covariates (policy manual score & scenario order).

Table 1 (cont'd).

139

W

NEGATIVEb

 

POSITIVEd

 

01' Winn
Fairness Scales
CONSISTENT .46 2.71 1.22 2.72 2.68 1.11 2.68 2.80 1.23 2.80
INFO ACCURACY .83 1.78 1.15 1.79 1.51 1.06 1.51 1.52 0.96 1.50
BIAS-FREE .79 1.62 0.94 1.62 1.64 0.97 1.64 1.45 0.78 1.44
CORRECTABLE .77 2.10 1.58 2.12 2.06 1.55 2.06 1.99 1.58 1.97
FEEDBACK .64 2.64 1.43 2.64 2.56 1.40 2.56 2.21 1.28 2.20
REPRESENTATIVE -- 2.02 1.58 2.03 2.18 1.80 2.18 1.66 1.25 1.64
ETHICAL -- 1.64 1.26 1.65 1.80 1.34 1.80 1.55 1.13 1.55
VOICE -- 1.92 1.62 1.93 1.52 1.25 1.52 1.50 1.35 1.48
TREATMENT —- 1.97 1.40 1.98 1.79 1.20 1.78 1.67 1.15 1.67
PROCEDURES -- 1.25 0.54 1.26 1.18 0.47 1.18 1.33 1.02 1.32
OUTCOMES -- 1.19 0.47 1.19 1.13 0.39 1.13 1.21 0.91 1.20
VIOLATION .60 1.77 1.00 1.78 1.56 0.74 1.56 1.49 0.80 1.48
NO VIOLATION .49 2.45 0.95 2.46 2.47 1.03 2.47 2.22 0.95 2.21
Importance of justice rule to overall evaluation of procedures
CONSISTENT -- 5.03 1.71 5.03 4.95 1.44 4.95 5.04 1.74 5.04
INFO ACCURACY -- 5.29 1.82 5.28 5.69 1.35 5.69 5.59 1.77 5.60
BIAS-FREE -- 5.19 1.76 5.18 5.25 1.41 5.25 5.36 1.74 5.37
CORRECTABLE -- 5.08 1.88 5.08 5.26 1.66 5.26 5.17 1.78 5.18
REPRESENTATIVE -- 5.03 1.61 5.03 4.93 1.46 4.94 5.02 1.83 5.02
ETHICAL -- 4.32 1.97 4.32 4.57 1.86 4.58 3.96 2.00 3.97
VOICE -- 4.98 1.82 4.98 5.33 1.66 5.33 5.26 1.66 5.26
FEEDBACK —- 4.53 1.70 4.53 4.44 1.49 4.44 4.61 1.83 4.61
TREATMENT -- 4.97 1.70 4.97 4.82 1.54 4.82 4.90 1486 4.89
‘N size ranges between 177 and 178.
'N’size ranges between 58 and 59.
cN size ranges between 59 and 61.
GN size ranges between 57 and 58.

admn . mean adjusted for covariates (policy manual score & scenario order).

 

140

Table 1 (cont'd).

:1 E . 5 .

NEGATIVEb

POSITIVEd

 

 

Fairness Scales

CONSISTENT .79 5.36 1.24 5.36 5.57 1.34 5.56 5.39 1.19 5.40
INFO ACCURACY .94 5.99 1.19 5.99 6.00 1.29 5.99 5.91 1.33 5.92
BIAS-FREE .88 5.24 1.66 5.24 5.09 1.53 5.08 5.10 1.47 5.11
CORRECTABLE .72 4.53 1.40 4.53 4.33 1.52 4.32 4.22 1.65 4.23
FEEDBACK .78 4.83 1.46 4.83 4.89 1.35 4.89 5.07 1.33 5.08
REPRESENTATIVE -- 4.47 1.66 4.47 4.57 1.72 4.57 4.86 1.69 4.88
ETHICAL -- 5.24 1.62 5.23 5.28 1.54 5.27 5.21 1.46 5.22
VOICE -- 4.76 1.74 4.76 4.48 2.01 4.47 4.59 1.78 4.59
TREATMENT -- 4.49 1.71 4.49 4.23 1.66 4.23 4.64 1.52 4.64
PROCEDURES -- 5.58 1.57 5.57 5.64 1.59 5.63 5.57 1.62 5.58
OUTCOMES -- 5.54 1.60 5.54 5.82 1.55 5.81 5.66 1.58 5.66
VIOLATION 75 4.60 1.30 4.59 4.34 1.49 4.34 4.48 1.28 4.49
NO VIOLATION .75 5.53 1.11 5.53 5.55 1.18 5.55 5.47 1.06 5.48
Importance of justice rule to overall evaluation of procedures

CONSISTENT -- 5.24 1.49 5.23 5.47 1.38 5.46 5.43 1.53 5.45
INFO ACCURACY -- 5.44 1.25 5.43 5.45 1.41 5.44 5.51 1.54 5.53
BIAS-FREE -- 5.22 1.50 5.22 4.95 1.49 4.95 5.59 1.40 5.59
CORRECTABLE -- 4.73 1.68 4.73 4.67 1.50 4.67 4.64 1.95 4.63
REPRESENTATIVE -- 4.85 1.49 4.85 4.66 1.41 4.66 5.10 1.54 5.10
ETHICAL -- 4.71 1.79 4.71 4.56 1.71 4.56 4.57 1.97 4.57
VOICE -- 5.05 1.56 5.06 4.64 1.57 4.64 4.88 1.75 4.88
FEEDBACK -- 4.73 1.56 4.74 4.28 1.46 4.28 4.55 1.78 4.54
TREATMENT -- 4.92 1.69 4.91 4.38 1155 4.38 4.84 1.92 4.85
AFFECT PRE .89 2.68 0.76 ---- 2.95 0.69 -—-- 3.25 0.78 -—--
AFFECT POST .87 2.90 0.73 —--- 2.92 0.73 ---- 2.92 0.74 ----
SEX -— 1.71 0.46 —--- 1.70 0.46 ---- 1.78 0.42 ----
AGE -- 19.39 3.01 --—- 19.75 2.71 ---- 19.76 4.88 -—-—
COUNTERBAL -- 2.53 1.51 ---- 2.48 1.51 -—-- 2.50 1.51 ----
RQLTQX_MANUAL .79 11.39 1.78 -——- 11.36 1.78 ---- 11.26 1.53 ----
'N size ranges between 177 and 178.

bN size ranges between 58 and 59.

cN size ranges between 59 and 61.

GN size ranges between 57 and 58.

admn = mean adjusted for covariates (policy manual score & scenario order).

141

Table 2: Correlations among Study Variables.

 

 

W
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Fonsistww - ck Ethical flaw:

O

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 1.00 0.47 0.38 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.32 0 35 0 54 0.48
Information 0.47 1.00 0.57 0.19 0.41 0.38 0.51 0.35 0.40 0 53 0.56
Bias-Free 0.38 0.57 1.00 0 32 0.44 0.30 0.52 0.42 0.58 0 60 0.58
Correctable 0.14 0.19 0.32 1 00 0.29 0.45 0.30 0.38 0 37 0.27 0.26
Feedback 0.35 0.41 0.44 0 29 1.00 0.30 0.44 0.44 0 47 0.45 0.41
Representative 0.35 0.38 0.30 0 45 0.30 1.00 0.40 0.48 0 44 0 37 0.38
Ethical 0.39 0 51 0.52 0 30 0.44 0.40 1.00 0.39 0 43 0 56 0.60
Voice 0.32 0.35 0.42 0 38 0.44 0.48 0.39 1.00 0.49 0 40 0.39
Treatment 0.35 0.40 0.58 0 37 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.49 1 00 0.50 0.58
Procedures 0.54 0.53 0.60 0 27 0.45 0.37 0.56 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.79
Outcomes 0.48 0.56 0.58 0 26 0.41 0.38 0.60 0.39 0.58 0.79 1.00
Violation 0.42 0.46 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.84 0 78 0 52 0.54
No Violation 0.74 0 85 0.82 0 27 0.50 0.42 0.59 0.45 0 56 0 69 0.67

Rule Importance Scales
Consistent 0.11 0.21 0 12 0 06 0.15 0 05 0.10 0 00 0.05 0.13 0.09
Information 0.17 0.21 0 23 0 03 0.16 0 06 0.13 0 09 0.09 0.18 0 18
Bias-Free 0.11 0.04 0 02 0 07 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.10
Correctable -0.07 0.04 0 09 0 01 0 15 -0.01 0 06 0.02 0.02 0.06 0 09
Representative-0.03 -0.06 -0 04 -0 03 0 04 0 01 0.06 —0.06 -0.02 -0.06 0.01
Ethical 0.05 0.09 0 09 0 00 0 19 0 07 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.13
Voice -0.09 —0.06 0 12 -0.01 0.00 0 05 0.08 0 09 -0.06 -0.07 0.00
Feedback -0.01 -0.03 0 10 0.13 0 05 0 21 0.14 0 18 -0.01 0.01 0.03
Treatment 0.02 0.01 0 09 0 05 0 09 0 15 0.10 0 18 0.04 0.02 0 05

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.12 0.00 -0 07 0.03 0.02 0 04 0 10 -0 01 0.01 0.06 0.03
Information -0.03 0.12 0 06 0.02 0.08 0.04 -0.01 0 06 0.08 0 07 0 07
Bias-Free -0.04 0 05 0 06 0 09 0.08 0.08 0.00 0 02 0 14 0 01 0 01
Correctable -0.02 0.02 -0 01 0 11 0 10 0.05 -0.02 0.08 0 02 0.02 -0.01
Feedback 0.03 0.13 0.22 0.20 0.39 0 15 0.10 0.33 0 18 0.13 0 15
Representative 0.05 0.12 0.16 0 09 0.29 0 10 0.03 0 19 0 16 0.13 0 06
Ethical -0.01 0.09 0 02 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.02 0 15 0 04 0 09 0 06
Voice 0.06 0.06 0 07 0.13 0.26 0.22 0.08 0 39 0 14 0.07 0 08
Treatment 0.07 0.14 0 19 0 17 0.23 0.17 0.18 0 24 0.21 0.21 0.18
Procedures 0.07 0.13 0 02 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.07 0 06 0 07 0.13 0.13
Outcomes 0.07 0 12 0 06 -0.01 0.12 0.10 0.02 0 10 0 07 0.14 0.13
Violation 0.04 0.11 0 11 0.09 0 31 0 15 0.06 0 30 0 14 0.12 0 08
No Violation 0.02 0.06 0 00 0 07 0 09 0 05 0.03 0 06 0 04 0 06 0 04

Rule Importance Scales
Consistent 0.04 0.18 0.12 0.01 0 20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.12 0 16
Information 0.09 0.13 0.09 -0.09 0.07 0.04 0.12 -0.02 -0.04 0 07 0.09
Bias-Free 0.11 0.08 0.05 -0.10 0.19 -0.03 0.14 -0.01 0.00 0 07 0.05
Correctable -0.02 0.13 0.09 —0.01 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03
Representative 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.20 0.11 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0 01 -0 03
Ethical 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.16 0 16 0 17
Voice 0.02 -0.01 0.05 -0.11 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.15 -0.04 -0.07
Feedback 0.00 0.07 0.14 -0.01 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.07 -0.03 0.08 0.02
Treatment 0.04 0.08 0.13 —0.01 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.05 0 05 0.09

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

 

141

 

Table 2: Correlations among Study Variables.
W
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Co ' - '

Fairness Scales
Consistent 1.00 0.47 0.38 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.32 0.35 0.54 0.48
Information 0.47 1.00 0.57 0.19 0.41 0.38 0.51 0.35 0.40 0.53 0.56
Bias-Free 0.38 0.57 1.00 0.32 0.44 0.30 0.52 0.42 0.58 0.60 0.58
Correctable 0.14 0.19 0.32 1.00 0.29 0.45 0.30 0.38 0.37 0.27 0.26
Feedback 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.29 1.00 0.30 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.45 0.41
Representative 0.35 0.38 0 30 0.45 0.30 1.00 0.40 0.48 0.44 0.37 0.38
Ethical 0.39 0.51 0.52 0.30 0.44 0.40 1.00 0.39 0.43 0.56 0.60
Voice 0.32 0.35 0.42 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.39 1.00 0.49 0.40 0.39
Treatment 0.35 0.40 0.58 0.37 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.49 1.00 0.50 0.58
Procedures 0.54 0.53 0.60 0.27 0.45 0.37 0.56 0.40 0.50 1.00 0.79
Outcomes 0.48 0.56 0.58 0.26 0.41 0.38 0.60 0.39 0.58 0.79 1.00
Violation 0.42 0.46 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.84 0.78 0.52 0.54
No Violation 0.74 0.85 0 82 0.27 0.50 0.42 0.59 0.45 0.56 0.69 0.67

Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.09
Information 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.18
Bias-Free 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.10
Correctable -0.07 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.15 -0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.09
Representative-0.03 -0.06 -0.04 -0.03 0.04 0.01 0.06 -0.06 -0.02 -0.06 0.01
Ethical 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.07 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.13
Voice -0.09 -0.06 0.12 -0.01 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.09 -0.06 -0.07 0.00
Feedback -0.01 -0.03 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.21 0.14 0.18 -0.01 0.01 0.03
Treatment 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.05

Fairness Scales
Consistent 0.12 0.00 -0 07 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.06 0.03
Information -0.03 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.04 -0.01 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07
Bias-Free -0.04 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.01
Correctable -0.02 0.02 -0 01 0.11 0.10 0.05 -0.02 0.08 0.02 0.02 -0.01
Feedback 0.03 0.13 0.22 0.20 0.39 0.15 0.10 0.33 0.18 0.13 0.15
Representative 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.29 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.06
Ethical -0.01 0.09 0 02 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.06
Voice 0.06 0.06 0 07 0.13 0.26 0.22 0.08 0.39 0.14 0.07 0.08
Treatment 0.07 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.18
Procedures 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.13
Outcomes 0.07 0.12 0 06 -0.01 0.12 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.13
Violation 0.04 0.11 0 11 0.09 0.31 0.15 0.06 0.30 0.14 0.12 0.08
No Violation 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04

Rule Importance Scales ..
Consistent 0.04 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.16
Information 0.09 0.13 0.09 -0.09 0.07 0.04 0.12 -0.02 -0 04 0.07 0.09
Bias-Free 0.11 0.08 0.05 -0.10 0.19 -0.03 0.14 -0.01 0 00 0.07 0.05
Correctable -0.02 0.13 0.09 —0.01 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03
Representative 0.06 0.06 0.03 0 05 0.20 0.11 0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03
Ethical 0.14 0.10 0.06 0 12 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.12 0 16 0.16 0.17
Voice 0.02 -0.01 0.05 -0.11 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.04 —0.15 —0.04 -0.07
Feedback 0.00 0.07 0.14 -0.01 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.07 -0.03 0.08 0.02
Treatment 0.04 0.08 0.13 -0.01 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.08 0 05 0.05 0.09
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174

and 178

142

Table 2 (cont’d).

 

BQSS.£9HER.§Q+
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Co ' ' - '

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.22 0.09 0.01 0.01 0 12 0.07 0.06 0.04 0 02 -0.04 -0
Information 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.10 0 05 0.06 -0.06 0.19 0 16 0.02 -0
Bias-Free 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.16 0 07 0.06 0.05 0.22 0 09 0.09 0
Correctable -0.07 -0.08 —0.04 0.33 -0 05 0.10 0.01 0.15 0 08 —0.06 -0
Feedback 0.16 0.24 0.18 0.13 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.25 0 14 0.09 0
Representative 0.13 0.11 0.23 0.15 0.20 0.08 0.07 0.16 0 24 0.13 0
Ethical 0.12 0.08 0.17 0.23 0 19 0.09 0.07 0.27 0.20 0.09 0
Voice 0.00 -0.03 0.07 0.26 0 03 0.16 0.09 0.26 0.20 0.02 0
Treatment 0.05 0.03 0.14 0.27 0 09 0.16 0.05 0.28 0.27 0.11 0
Procedures 0.10 -0.01 -0.02 -0.06 -0 01 -0.03 -0.01 0.05 0.09 0.07 0
Outcomes 0.02 -0.04 —0.08 0.05 0 04 -0.02 -0.02 0.11 0 11 0.01 0
Violation 0.01 -0.01 0.08 0.24 0 06 0.14 0.04 0.30 0 21 0.05 0
No Violation 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.15 0 30 0.13 0.14 0.21 0 21 0.10 0

Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent -0.02 0.04 0.09 -0.09 -0.06 0 02 0.03 -0.01 -0.03 -0.10 -0.
Information -0.01 0.01 0.04 -0.13 -0.02 -0 07 0.03 -0.14 0.01 -0.04 -0.
Bias-Free 0.05 0.01 0.00 -0.06 -0.01 0 02 -0.04 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.
Correctable -0.12 0.02 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04 0 01 0.02 -0.14 -0.15 -0.02 -0.
Representative-0.10 0.01 -0.06 -0.08 ~0.05 —0.02 0.05 -0.12 -0.19 -0.05 -0.
Ethical 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.07 0 03 0.07 -0.07 0.00 -0.04 -0.
Voice -0.10 -0.04 -0.05 -0.07 -0.11 0 00 —0.05 -0.15 -0.17 -0.10 -0.
Feedback -0.19 -0.11 -0.11 -0.06 -0.11 -0 08 -0.04 -0.13 -0.21 -0.08 -0.
Treatment -0.07 0.00 -0.05 0.03 -0.08 0 14 0.09 0.07 —0.02 -0.04 -0.

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.19 0 15 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.11 0 16 -0.08 0 03 0.15
Information 0.19 0 26 0.23 0.16 0.12 0.14 0 22 0.01 0 11 0.21
Bias-Free 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.16 0 17 0.22 0 24 0.24
Correctable 0.16 0.12 0.22 0.25 0.39 0.10 0 11 0.19 0.20 0.25
Feedback 0.19 0 09 0.17 0.24 0.47 0.13 0 17 0.17 0.19 0.20
Representative 0.13 0 10 0.07 0.23 0.21 0.10 0 15 0.13 0.20 0.22
Ethical 0.19 0 15 0.17 0.27 0.29 0.09 0 28 0.15 0 26 0.24
Voice 0.16 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.14 0 14 0.20 0 30 0.21
Treatment 0.29 0.13 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.10 0 19 0.15 0 34 0.25
Procedures 0.19 0 21 0.15 0.24 0.23 0.09 0 22 0.14 0.19 0.28
Outcomes 0.18 0.24 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.12 0 25 0.14 0.23 0.27
Violation 0.25 0.13 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.14 0 18 0.22 0 35 0.29
No Violation 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.22 0.08 0 17 0.25

Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.13 -0.09 0.05 0.06
Information 0.15 0.22 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.03 0.21 -0.06 0.14 0.11
Bias-Free 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.03 -0.02 -0.02
Correctable 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.13 0.09
Representative 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.02
Ethical 0.11 0.09 0.04 -0.01 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.10
Voice 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.10 0 11 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00
Feedback -0.05 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.14 0 07 0.15 -0.01 0.01 0.02
Treatment 0.07 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.10 0 16 0.25 0.13 0.09 0.02
Pos/Othr (dmy)-0.03 -0.05 -0.14 -0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.05 0.00 -0.03 -
Neg/0thr (dmy) 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.00
Affect (pre) -0.01 -0.01 -0.07 0.02 0.07 0.04 -0.02 0.06 0.11 -0.04
Affect (post) 0.00 -0.01 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.08 0 03 0.15 0.01
Sex -0.12 -0.04 0.03 0.04 -0.07 0.02 -0.04 -0.07 -0.04 0.00 —0.
Age 0.15 -0.15 -0.14 -0.09 -0.13 -0.04 -0.02 -0.12 -0.07 -0.07 -0.
Counterbalance-0.07 -0.20 -0.32 -0.14 -0.23 -0.28 -0 19 -0.22 -0.40 -0.19
Policy score 0.14 0.12 0.02 -0.02 0.06 0.01 0.10 -0.13 0.02 0.08

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

000000000

000

-0.

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

143

Table 2 (cont'd).

W

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

 
     
    

Feedback

 

Correctable

  

    

No Violation Information Ethical

Fairness Scales ...

Violation 1.00 0.58 0.04 0.10 0.02 0.01 -0.03 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.16
No Violation 0.58 1.00 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.03 -0.05 0.09 -0.01 0.03 0.05
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.04 0.18 1.00 0.56 0.30 0.17 0.27 0.06 0.19 0.18 0.19
Information 0.10 0.25 0.56 1.00 0.37 0.38 0.27 0.22 0.37 0.30 0 34
Bias-Free 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.37 1.00 0.48 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.27 0 35
Correctable 0.01 0.03 0.17 0.38 0.48 1.00 0.42 0.42 0.53 0 26 0 39
Representative—0.03 -0.05 0.27 0.27 0.43 0.42 1.00 0.43 0.44 0.35 0 37
Ethical 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.22 0.35 0.42 0.43 1.00 0.36 0.21 0.36
Voice 0.04 -0.01 0.19 0.37 0.31 0.53 0.44 0.36 1.00 0.49 0.50
Feedback 0.17 0.03 0.18 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.35 0.21 0.49 1.00 0 56
Treatment 0.16 0.05 0.19 0.34 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.50 0.56 1.00
Fairness Scales .
Consistent 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.03 —0.07 -0.01 —0.03
Information 0.07 0.06 0.17 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.05 -0.11 -0.12 -0.10 -0.12
Bias-Free 0.09 0.03 0.20 -0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 -0.13 -0.07
Correctable 0.06 0.00 0.18 0.10 -0.09 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.01
Feedback 0.28 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.10 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.03 0.06
Representative 0.19 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10
Ethical 0.10 0.04 0.10 -0.02 0.11 0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04
Voice 0.32 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 -0.04 0.05 0.06
Treatment 0.26 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.07 -0.05 -0.02 0.01 -0.02
Procedures 0.10 0.09 0.16 -0.05 0.13 0.00 0.06 -0.06 -0.14 -0.14 -0.15
Outcomes 0.11 0.11 0.09 -0.04 0.08 0.02 —0.03 -0.06 -0.10 -0.13 -0.11
Violation 0.25 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.05
No Violation 0.06 0.03 0.24 0.06 -0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.06
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.14 0.14 0.48 0.40 0.32 0.18 0.39 0.25 0 27 0.32 0 24
Information -0.01 0.13 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.25 0 38 0.24 0 35
Bias-Free -0.02 0.10 0 39 0.34 0.40 0.29 0.33 0.21 0 28 0.15 0 31
Correctable 0.06 0.08 0 37 0.38 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.20 0 39 0.24 0 34
Representative 0.02 0.06 0 46 0.34 0.24 0.23 0.45 0.26 0 36 0.34 0 45
Ethical 0.20 0.12 0 13 0.18 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.67 0 14 0.14 0.31
Voice -0.07 0.02 0 32 0.38 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.16 0 47 0.40 0.43
Feedback 0.05 0.09 0 34 0.28 0.30 0.40 0.43 0.30 0 43 0.54 0.45
Treatment 0.09 0.10 0 21 0.29 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.37 0 40 0.37 0.64
Fairness Scales
Consistent 0.05 0.13 -0.04 0.01 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.15
Information 0.17 0.03 -0.14 -0.01 0.03 0.12 -0.16 -0.08 -0.03 -0.02 0.08
Bias-Free 0.16 0.05 -0.16 -0.02 0.05 0.11 -0.15 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.10
Correctable 0.14 -0.08 0.01 -0.15 -0.04 -0.18 0.01 —0.08 -0.02 0.06 -0.01
FeedbaCk 0.22 0.24 0 04 0 03 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 0.02 -0.07 —0.11 -0.03
Representative 0.20 0.20 -0.06 —0.08 0.01 —0.13 -0.10 -0.17 -0.18 -0.14 -0.03
Ethical 0.23 0.15 -0.09 -0.09 -0.05 -0.09 -0.06 -0.15 -0.18 0.03 —0.04
Voice 0.26 0.02 -0.20 -0.18 -0.16 -0.09 -0.02 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03
Treatment 0.30 0.09 -0.10 -0.11 -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 -0.05 -0.09 -0.14 -0.03
Procedures 0.04 0.02 -0 10 -0 14 -0.08 -0 09 -0.01 -0.04 -0 04 -0.05 -0 09
Outcomes 0.08 -0.04 -0.15 -0.19 -0.06 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 0.01 -0.01 -0.10

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

144

Table 2 (cont'd).

W

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

No Violation Information Correctable Ethical Feedback
Violation 1C0 ' ' - .

     

Fairness Scales

Violation 0.27 0.04 -0.22 -0.11 -0.06 0.04 -0.13 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.05
No Violation 0.23 0.27 -0.03 -0.03 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.13 -0 11 0 03
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent -0.01 0.05 0.37 0.32 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.02 0.21 0.26 0.19
Information -0.09 0.02 0.39 0.35 0.22 0.13 0.23 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.13
Bias-Free —0.07 0.02 0.25 0.35 0.33 0.19 0.28 0.21 0.23 0.17 0.24
Correctable -0.11 -0.05 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.33 0.29 0.16 0.28 0.17 0.21
Representative-0.13 -0.06 0.22 0.21 0.28 0.27 0.39 0.23 0.29 0.23 0.30
Ethical -0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.10 0.19 0.30 0.29 0.60 0.23 0.24 0.26
Voice -0.13 -0.07 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.28 0.10 0.34 0.26 0.23
Feedback -0.17 -0.16 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.31 0.36 0.32
Treatment 0.08 -0.05 0.09 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.54
Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.12 -0.03
Information 0.10 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.18 0.10 0.16 0.07
Bias-Free 0.25 0.26 0.14 0.13 0.02 -0.01 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.05
Correctable 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.00
Feedback 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.20 -0.03 0.03 0 08 0.03 0.02 0.14 0.05
Representative 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.15 0.02 0.04 0 15 0.07 -0.01 0.06 0.00
Ethical 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.10 -0.01 0.03 0 11 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.04
Voice 0.26 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.09 0 11 0.05 -0.01 0.10 0.09
Treatment 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.14 0.08 -0.06 0 07 0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.00
Procedures 0.17 0.23 0.16 0.11 -0.05 -0.02 0 04 0.04 -0.04 0.01 -0.05
Outcomes 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.08 -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.08
Violation 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.04
No Violation 0.16 0.31 0.22 0.17 0.04 0.00 0 11 0.10 0.09 0.18 0.04
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.03 0.06 0.44 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.09 0.14 -0.03
Information 0.04 0.20 0.46 0.37 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.17 0.09 0.11 0.07
Bias-Free 0.03 0.05 0.27 0.34 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.23
Correctable 0.09 0.10 0.28 0.36 0.42 0.59 0.37 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.31
Representative 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.32 0.14 0.24 0.27 0.20 0.31 0.23 0 27
Ethical 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.27 0.23 0.32 0.70 0.11 0.18 0.34
Voice 0.05 0.11 0.14 0.33 0.24 0.49 0.27 0.27 0.45 0.39 0.40
Feedback 0.03 -0.01 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.31 0.20 0.27 0.24 0.40 0.23
Treatment 0.16 0.13 0.06 0.26 0.07 0.26 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.39
Pos/Othr (dmy)-0.01 -0.09 0.08 0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.10 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03
Neg/Othr (dmy) 0.07 0.09 -0.09 -0.02 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.06
Affect (pre) 0.08 -0.04 0.11 0.04 -0.03 0.00 -0.06 0.01 0.04 -0.11 -0.04
Affect (post) 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 -0.03 -0.06 0.04 -0.03 0.02 0.00
Sex -0.04 -0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.17 -0.02 0.17 0.10 0.11
Age -0.10 -0.07 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.15
Counterbalance-0.36 -0.25 —0.12 —0.10 0.11 -0.07 -0.07 0.02 -0.03 —0.11 -0.12
Policy score -0.05 0.11 0.05 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 -0.06 -0.02 «0.13 -0.14 -0.07

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

 

145

Table 2 (cont'd).

 

W
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Congi ' - '

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 1.00 0.49 0.50 0.45 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.21 0.43 0.54 0.40
Information 0.49 1.00 0.75 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.68 0.48 0.60 0.73 0.73
Bias-Free 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.45 0.47 0.51 0.63 0.43 0.63 0.73 0.66
Correctable 0.45 0.48 0.45 1.00 0.42 0.54 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.37
Feedback 0.32 0.51 0.47 0.42 1.00 0.60 0.53 0.58 0.62 0.47 0.52
Representative 0.39 0.55 0.51 0.54 0.60 1.00 0.66 0.48 0.55 0.46 0.43
Ethical 0.43 0.68 0.63 0.46 0.53 0.66 1.00 0.46 0.63 0.74 0.67
Voice 0.21 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.58 0.48 0.46 1.00 0.50 0.39 0.43
Treatment 0.43 0.60 0.63 0.40 0.62 0.55 0.63 0.50 1.00 0.65 0.58
Procedures 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.38 0.47 0.46 0.74 0.39 0.65 1.00 0.86
Outcomes 0.40 0.73 0.66 0.37 0.52 0.43 0.67 0.43 0.58 0.86 1.00
Violation 0.42 0.68 0.62 0.58 0.69 0.87 0.84 0.79 0.67 0.62 0.60
No Violation 0.79 0.82 0.70 0.81 0.52 0.62 0.66 0.47 0.59 0.68 0.62

Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent -0.03 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.08
Information -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 -0.08 -0.05
Bias-Free 0.00 -0.11 -0.02 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.06 -0.03 -0.04
Correctable 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.03 0 03
Representative 0.10 -0.10 -0.03 0.13 -0.03 0.12 -0.12 -0.02 -0.03 -0.16 -0.23
Ethical -0.01 -0.10 0.02 0.02 -0.05 -0.01 -0.10 0.09 -0.06 -0.09 -0.04
Voice 0.10 -0.06 -0.04 0.09 -0.04 0.01 -0.07 0.09 -0.02 -0.10 -0.11
Feedback 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.17 0.07 0 00
Treatment 0.02 -0.04 0.01 0.09 0.15 0.14 —0.04 0.12 0.11 -0.02 0 00

Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.18 0.00 -0.04 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.04 -0.05 -0.02 -0.05
Information 0.00 -0.05 -0.06 0.07 0.02 0.06 -0.07 0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.02
Bias-Free 0.04 -0.02 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.10 -0.01 0.10 0.14 -0.02 0.01
Correctable -0.01 -0.03 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.09 -0.02 0.22 0.08 -0.01 -0 04
Feedback 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 0.09 0.29 0.10 -0.02 0.19 0.09 -0.03 -0.02
Representative 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.09
Ethical 0.00 -0.02 -0.12 -0.02 0.17 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.08 -0.06 -0.07
Voice -0.03 -0.03 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.25 0.07 -0.01 -0.03
Treatment -0.05 -0.01 0.07 0.05 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.21 0.01 -0.03
Procedures 0.10 -0.01 0.01 -0.07 -0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02
Outcomes 0.04 —0.03 0.00 -0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.03
Violation -0.01 -0.04 0.01 0.10 0.13 0.11 -0.01 0.22 0.08 -0.01 0.00
No Violation 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.08 0.18 0.10 0.02 0.02

Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.06 0.06 0.03 -0.09 -0.06 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 -0.06 -0.09
Information 0.12 -0.07 -0.01 -0.03 -0.10 0.03 0.00 -0.29 0.02 -0.06 -0.16
Bias-Free 0.06 -0.14 -0.10 0.04 -0.07 0.02 -0.10 -0.13 -0.03 -0.17 -0.22
Correctable 0.03 -0.04 -0.02 0.06 -0.08 0.09 0.01 -0.11 0.00 -0.08 -0.10
Representative 0.07 -0.07 -0.09 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 -0.09 -0.16 -0.03 -0.10 -0.16
Ethical -0.04 -0.22 -0.08 -0.05 -0.17 -0.07 -0.11 -0.10 -0.16 -0.18 -0.23
Voice 0.01 -0.20 -0.13 -0.05 -0.11 -0.08 -0.18 -0.17 -0.04 -0.23 -0.25
Feedback -0.08 -0.26 -0.20 -0.07 -0.14 -0.10 -0.15 -0.13 -0.17 -0.22 -0.29
Treatment 0.00 -0.16 -0.08 -0.04 -0.07 -0.04 -0.14 0.00 0.02 -0.09 -0.15
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174

and 178

146

Table 2 (cont'd).

 

 

W
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Comm—Emma}: Rthi cal TrmL—Mmee
Fairness Scales ...
Consistent 0.13 0.03 -0.03 0.06 0.01 -0.01 —0.04 —0.13 0.00 ~0.02 -0.04
Information 0.05 -0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.05 0.02 ~0.15 -0.08 0.01 -0.05 -0.09
Bias-Free -0.04 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.07
Correctable -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.01 -0.04
Feedback 0.00 -0.02 -0.01 0.12 0.24 0.15 -0.03 0.15 0.05 -0.05 -0.01
Representative-0.04 -0.07 -0.05 0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.09 0.00 —0.01 -0.06 -0.09
Ethical 0.01 -0.08 -0.03 0.01 0.12 -0.03 -0.07 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 0.00
Voice -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 0.11 0.20 0.14 -0.04 0.16 0.08 -0.04 -0.02
Treatment 0.03 —0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 -0.08 0.00 0.03 -0.08 -0.10
Procedures 0.08 -0.03 -0.01 0.09 0.11 0.03 -0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01 —0.01
Outcomes 0.08 -0.03 -0.01 0.11 0.14 0.06 -0.06 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
Violation 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 0.17 0.17 0.14 -0.04 0.11 0.08 -0.05 —0.06
No Violation 0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.05 —0.08 -0.05 0.03 -0.03 -0.02

Rule Importance Scales ...

Consistent 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.04 -0.03 -0.06 -0.10 -0.07 0.02 -0.01 ~0.07
Information 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.02 -0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.10 0.04 -0.02
Bias-Free -0.06 -0.08 -0.04 0.01 0.01 -0.03 -0.13 -0.01 0.01 -0.06 0.04
Correctable 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09 -0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 -0.01
Representative-0.20 -0.08 -0.09 0.00 -0.07 -0.03 -0.12 0.04 -0.06 -0.13 -0.13
Ethical 0.02 -0.14 -0.05 -0.07 -0.04 -0.06 -0.11 0.05 -0.07 -0.08 -0.10
Voice -0.10 -0.05 -0.04 -0.09 -0.01 0.03 -0.10 -0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.03
Feedback -0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 0.04 -0.03 0.07 -0.04 -0.08 -0.13
Treatment -0.07 -0.07 -0.09 0.02 -0.03 0.06 -0.13 0.07 -0.08 —0.11 -0.05

Pos/Othr (dmy) 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.10
Neg/Othr (dmy)-0.11 -0.07 -0.07 -0.09 -0.07 -0.14 -0.05 0.08 -0.06 -0.02 -0.03
Affect (pre) 0.08 0.06 0.15 -0.04 0.10 0.07 0.05 -0.02 0.13 0.07 0.08
Affect (post) 0.10 -0.02 0.04 -0.05 0.02 0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.11 0.00 -0.06
Sex -0.03 -0.13 -0.08 0.00 -0.09 -0.02 -0.11 -0.15 0.00 -0.10 -0.08
Age 0.20 -0.14 -0.10 -0.16 -0.17 -0.03 -0.11 —0.13 -0.16 —0.11 -0.12
Counterbalance 0.03 -0.12 -0.12 -0.09 -0.12 —0.24 -0.11 -0.16 -0.13 -0.06 -0.08
Policy score 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 0.07 -0.13 -0.04 0.10 0.01

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

147

Table 2 (cont'd).

EEN1§Q_EH§1NEEBIH§

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

    
  

No Violation Information Correctable Ethical Feedback

     

Fairness Scales ...

Violation 1.00 0.70 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.16 0.10
No Violation 0.70 1.00 0.05 0.00 -0 03 0.10 0.05 -0.04 0.05 0.11 0.03
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.14 0.05 1.00 0.62 0.39 0.36 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.38 0 37
Information 0.06 0.00 0.62 1.00 0.58 0.56 0.45 0.35 0.54 0.44 0 46
Bias-Free 0.00 -0.03 0.39 0.58 1.00 0.42 0.51 0.22 0.40 0.41 0 37
Correctable 0.09 0.10 0.36 0.56 0.42 1 00 0.49 0.23 0.56 0.48 0 36
Representative 0.01 0.05 0.30 0.45 0.51 0.49 1 00 0.34 0.55 0.43 0.41
Ethical -0.01 -0.04 0.34 0.35 0.22 0.23 0.34 1.00 0.28 0.23 0.35
Voice 0.02 0.05 0.34 0.54 0 40 0.56 0.55 0.28 1.00 0.55 0.49
Feedback 0.16 0.11 0.38 0.44 0 41 0.48 0.43 0.23 0.55 1.00 0.58
Treatment 0.10 0.03 0.37 0.46 0 37 0 36 0.41 0.35 0.49 0.58 1 00

Fairness Scales ...

Consistent 0.08 0.08 -0.09 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.02 0 08 0 05 0 06
Information 0.04 0.01 -0.23 -0.15 -0.03 0.07 -0.08 0.01 -0.02 0.02 -0.04
Bias-Free 0.08 0.02 -0.11 -0.08 -0.11 -0.06 -0.08 0.16 0 00 -0.04 -0 04
Correctable 0.13 0.07 0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0.04 -0.09 -0.03 -0.15 0.10 0.01
Feedback 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.07 -0.04 0.04 0.07 -0.03 -0.15 -0.02
Representative 0.17 0.14 -0.14 -0.19 -0.09 -0.08 -0.12 -0.12 -0.07 -0.11 -0.10
Ethical 0.14 -0.02 -0.13 -0.15 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 -0.10 -0.02 -0.10
Voice 0.16 0.03 -0.11 -0.14 -0.18 -0.03 -0.14 0.03 —0.09 0.03 0.00
Treatment 0.15 0.00 -0.13 -0.11 -0.11 -0.05 -0.20 -0.03 -0.19 -0.04 -0.13
Procedures 0.01 0.00 -0.15 -0.18 -0.08 -0.11 -0.15 -0.13 -0.09 -0.10 -0.19
Outcomes -0.03 -0.05 -0.11 -0.17 -0.09 —0.08 -0.14 -0.13 —0.10 -0.10 -0.14
Violation 0.13 0.03 -0.19 -0.17 -0.15 -0.01 -0.14 0.08 -0.06 0.01 -0.03

No Violation 0.18 0.11 -0.09 -0.10 0.02 -0.03 0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.11 -0.04

Rule Importance Scales ...

Consistent 0.00 0.01 0 34 0.33 0.20 0.23 0.27 0 03 0.31 0 23 0.18
Information -0.11 0.01 0 24 0.34 0.31 0.15 0.31 0 03 0.16 0 17 0.15
Bias-Free -0.08 -0.02 0 14 0.31 0.38 0.20 0.45 0 14 0 28 0 18 0 14
Correctable 0.00 0.02 0 26 0.35 0.33 0.37 0.44 0 15 0 28 0 28 0 26
Representative-0.10 0.00 0 22 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.52 0 22 0.31 0 33 0.23
Ethical -0.11 -0.13 0 16 0.18 0.14 0.10 0.22 0 54 0.21 0 21 0.31
Voice -0.16 -0.10 0 23 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.50 0 11 0.42 0 22 0.23
Feedback -0.15 -0.17 0 02 0.16 0.24 0.22 0.37 0 09 0.26 0.39 0 29
Treatment —0.06 -0.09 0 19 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.42 0 34 0 30 0.26 0 47
Fairness Scales ...
Consistent -0.06 0.09 0.16 0.18 0.03 0 12 0.18 0 09 0.23 0.21 0.15
Information -0.07 -0.02 0.18 0.19 0.09 0.08 0.17 0 17 0.10 0.23 0.23
Bias-Free 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.16 0.09 0 03 0.13 0.09 0.07 0 11 0.15
Correctable 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.19 0 04 0.08 0 12 0.12
Feedback 0.12 0.05 0.22 0.21 0.15 -0.01 0.23 0 10 0.12 0 09 0 20
Representative-0.02 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.16 -0 02 0 16 0.08 -0.02 0.17 0.09
Ethical -0.04 -0.02 0.13 0.12 0.12 0 00 0 14 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.17
Voice 0.12 0.02 0.11 0.17 0.16 0 07 0 15 0.13 0.03 0 11 0 23
Treatment 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.13 0.18 -0.03 0.23 0.13 0.03 0 04 0 07
Procedures 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.12 0 08 0.07 0 07 0.11
Outcomes 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.12 0 07 0.03 0 05 0.10

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

148

Table 2 (cont'd).

KENI§Q_EN§IHEERLH§

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

   
 
  

No Violation Information Correctable Ethical Feedback
Violation 1C0 ' ' ' '

     

Fairness Scales ...

Violation 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.18 0.21 0 03 0.23 0 12 0.05 0 11 0.17
No Violation -0.02 0.04 0.19 0.21 0.09 0 09 0.19 0 14 0.16 0 22 0.21
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent -0.08 0.07 0.36 0.25 0.24 0.17 0.29 0.25 0 26 0.25 0 16
Information -0.02 0.06 0.33 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.19 0 27 0.32 0.19
Bias-Free -0.06 -0.05 0.32 0.41 0.43 0.29 0.29 0.24 O 33 0.25 0.28
Correctable 0.04 0.05 0.24 0.38 0.36 0.47 0.30 0.34 0 34 0.37 0 35
Representative-0.04 -0.11 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.33 0.37 0.28 0.32 0.27 0 28
Ethical -0.04 -0.08 0.19 0.14 0.16 0.05 0.22 0.66 0.18 0.26 0 31
Voice -0.02 -0.10 0.29 0.39 0.23 0.41 0.32 0.25 0.43 0.41 0.46
Feedback 0.04 -0.06 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.47 0.26
Treatment 0.01 —0.05 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.15 0.24 0.30 0.29 0.31 0 47
Pos/Othr (dmy) 0.04 0.10 -0.01 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.06 -0.09 -0.05 -0.03 -0.08
Neg/Othr (dmy)-0.04 -0.11 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.04 ~0.08 0.03 0.02 -0.01 0.02
Affect (pre) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 -0.01 0.05 0.05 -0.11 —0.12 —0.06
Affect (post) 0.03 0.01 -0.02 0.05 -0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Sex -0.11 -0.07 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.23 0.17 0.04 0.22 0.17 0.20
Age -0.11 -0.05 -0.04 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.10
Counterbalance-0.21 -0.08 -0.09 -0.05 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 -0.01 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08
Policy score -0.03 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.01 -0.14 0.03 -0.02 -0.08 -0.08 -0.01

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

149

Table 2 (cont’d).

W

Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Co ' ' - '

Fairness Scales ...

Consistent 1.00 0.29 0.23 0.01 0.23 0 15 0.11 0.04 0.12 0 25 0.25
Information 0.29 1.00 0.52 0.14 0.23 0 29 0 33 0.32 0 33 0 32 0.30
Bias-Free 0.23 0.52 1.00 0.09 0.33 0 32 0.29 0.27 0 44 0 24 0.29
Correctable 0.01 0.14 0.09 1.00 0.23 0 16 0.27 0.60 0 44 0 04 0 07
Feedback 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.23 1.00 0 35 0.40 0.35 0 51 0 15 0.11
Representative 0 15 0.29 0.32 0.16 0 35 1 00 0.41 0.24 0 45 0 25 0.12
Ethical 0 11 0.33 0.29 0.27 0 40 0 41 1.00 0.36 0 46 0 26 0 15
Voice 0.04 0.32 0.27 0.60 0 35 0 24 0.36 1.00 0 55 0 15 0 17
Treatment 0.12 0.33 0.44 0.44 0 51 0 45 0.46 0.55 1 00 0 24 0.20
Procedures 0.25 0.32 0.24 0.04 0.15 0.25 0.26 0.15 0 24 1.00 0.76
Outcomes 0.25 0.30 0.29 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.17 0 20 0.76 1.00
Violation 0.22 0.77 0.72 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.43 0.78 0 60 0.30 0.32
No Violation 0.59 0.38 0.42 0.20 0.75 0.76 0 45 0.31 0.53 0.31 0.22
Rule Importance Scales .
Consistent -0.04 -0.12 -0.09 -O.17 -0.12 -0.17 0.01 -0.19 -0.20 -0.08 -0.04
Information -0.03 -0.24 -0.17 -0.14 -0.10 -0.12 -0.14 -0.21 -0.23 -0.16 -0.16
Bias-Free -0.03 -0.15 -0.11 -0.15 0.01 -0.18 -0.06 -0.20 -0.21 -0.14 -0.18
Correctable -0.05 -0.17 -0.14 -0.17 -0.11 -0.10 -0.14 -0.15 -0.23 -0.19 —0.17
Representative-0.01 -0.13 -0.12 -0.08 -0.05 -0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0.17 -0.15 -0.13
Ethical 0.03 -0.03 0.04 -0.10 -0.03 -0.26 -0.08 -0.03 -0.17 -0.02 -0.01
Voice 0.00 -0.14 -0.01 -0.15 -0.05 -0.12 -0.19 -0.16 -0.24 -0.15 -0.15
Feedback 0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 —0.18 -0.20 -0.11 -0.04 -0.18 -0.10 -0.10
Treatment 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.00 -0.06 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.12 -0.12 -0.14
Fairness Scales ...
Consistent -0.02 -0.09 -0.07 -0.05 -0.08 0.03 0.03 —0.13 -0.13 -0.04 -0.08
Information -0.02 -0.10 -0.01 0.10 0.06 -0.02 0.07 -0.01 0.02 -0.09 —0.16
Bias—Free -0.10 -0.07 —0.01 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.01 0.03 -0.09 -0.09
Correctable -0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.09 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02
Feedback 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.06 -0.01 0.03 -0.02
Representative-0.05 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.01 -0.03 0 21 0.07 0.10 0.03 0 01
Ethical -0.05 -0.07 -0.06 0.11 0.13 0.02 0 06 0.11 0.09 -0.05 -0.05
Voice 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.13 0.11 0.09 0 17 0.08 0.15 0.02 0.01
Treatment 0.14 0.04 -0.02 0.05 -0.02 0.09 0.02 -0.05 0.03 0.02 -0.02
Procedures 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.04 -0 04 ~0.10
Outcomes 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.09 0.17 0.07 0.07 -0.04 -0.05
Violation 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.07 0.01 -0.01
No Violation -0.06 -0.10 -0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0 10 -0.05 -0.03 -0.09 -0.14
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent -0.10 -0.19 -0.17 -0.07 -0.01 -0.22 -0.05 —0.13 -0.21 —0.14 -0.18
Information -0.05 —0.22 -0.18 -0.08 0.05 -0.06 0.02 -0.11 -0.14 -0.18 -0.26
Bias—Free -0.07 -0.20 -0.15 ~0.04 0.00 -0.25 -0.11 —0.13 -0.17 -0.16 -0.14
Correctable 0.07 -0.05 -0.03 0.00 -0.02 -0.17 -0.16 0.01 -0.12 -0.23 -0.18
Representative-0.07 -0.11 -0.07 0.07 -0.03 -0.21 -0.14 0.01 -0.09 -0.24 —0.18
Ethical 0.09 -0.02 0.07 -0.03 0.10 -0.09 0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 -0.04
Voice 0.10 -0.07 0.07 -0.03 0.01 -0.20 -0.14 0.06 -0.09 -0.12 -0.10
Feedback 0.04 -0.06 0.13 0.15 -0.03 -0.15 -0.02 0.10 -0.02 -0.06 —0.05
Treatment 0.06 -0.12 0.02 0.04 0.03 -0.19 -0.11 0.05 -0.10 -0.18 -0.13
Pos/Othr (dmy) 0.04 -0.06 -0.09 -0.03 -0.13 -0.13 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 0 07 0.04
Neg/Othr (dmy)-0.01 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.01 0.13 0.09 0.00 0.01
Affect (pre) 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.16 -0.03 0.15 0.07 0.14
Affect (post) 0.07 0.08 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.11 0.19 0.08 0.08
Sex -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 0.02 -0.17 -0.11 -0.12 -0.04 -0.14 «0 10 -0.13
Age 0.24 -0.06 -0.09 -0.12 -0.11 -0.07 -0.09 -0.10 -0.08 0.05 0.11
Counterbalance-0.05 -0.10 0.01 -0.09 -0.18 —0.24 -0.19 -0.23 —0.24 -0.21 -0.10
Policy score -0.09 -0.30 -0.19 -0.24 -0.09 -0.14 -0.08 -0.24 -0.11 -0.18 -0.23

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

No Violation

150

Table 2 (cont'd).

AW

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

Information Correctable Ethical Feedback

 

Fairness Scales

 

Violation 1.00 0.48 -0.19 -0.27 -0.21 -0.20 -0.14 -0.01 -0.15 -0.05 0.01
No Violation 0.48 1.00 -0.17 -0.12 -0.10 -0.13 -0.05 -0.14 -0.08 -0.17 -0.05
Rule Importance Scales . .
Consistent -0.19 -0.17 1.00 0.46 0.43 0.33 0.26 0.21 0.34 0 21 0.28
Information -0.27 -0.12 0.46 1.00 0.68 0 57 0.47 0.35 0.55 0.30 0.38
Bias-Free -0.21 -0.10 0.43 0.68 1.00 0.57 0.53 0.36 0.61 0.43 0.48
Correctable -0.20 -0.13 0.33 0.57 0.57 1.00 0.64 0.36 0.64 0 46 0.52
Representative-0.14 -0.05 0.26 0.47 0.53 0 64 1.00 0.30 0.51 0 39 0.56
Ethical -0.01 -0.14 0.21 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.30 1.00 0.34 0.41 0.42
Voice -0.15 -0.08 0.34 0.55 0.61 0.64 0.51 0.34 1.00 0.55 0.51
Feedback -0.05 -0.17 0.21 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.39 0.41 0.55 1.00 0.51
Treatment 0.01 -0.05 0.28 0.38 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.42 0.51 0.51 1.00
Fairness Scales . .
Consistent -0.13 -0.03 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.05 -0.01
Information -0.05 0.01 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.13
Bias-Free -0.03 0.00 -0.04 —0.01 0.08 0.03 -0.04 -0.07 0.04 -0.03 0.03
Correctable 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.09 0 04 0.02 0.09 0.02 ~0.03
Feedback 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.04 -0.04 -0.06 0.13 0.06 -0.02
Representative 0.06 -0.03 -0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.05 -0.02 0.01 0.12 0.02
Ethical 0.01 0.05 -0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.03
Voice 0.10 0.11 0.05 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.03 -0.05 0.03 0.00 0.04
Treatment -0.02 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.05 -0.12 0.00 -0.05 0.06
Procedures 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 —0.01 -0 04 -0.08 0.04 0.01 0.07
Outcomes 0.09 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.03 -0.03 -0.05 0.08 0.03 0.07
Violation 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.02 -0.06 0.05 -0.01 0.03
No Violation -0.08 -0.01 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.06
Rule Importance Scales .
Consistent -0.21 -0.17 0.39 0.25 0.28 0 17 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.10 0.03
Information -0.21 -0.03 0.22 0.39 0.34 0 31 0.25 0.13 0.23 0.18 0.12
Bias-Free -0.20 -0.16 0.26 0.18 0.33 0 26 0.22 0.04 0.21 0.16 0.22
Correctable -0.02 -0.07 0 19 0.21 0.28 0 34 0 31 0.27 0.22 0.32 0.32
Representative-0.06 -0.15 0 15 0.09 0.21 0.24 0 33 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.34
Ethical 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.61 0.05 0.22 0.27
Voice 0.03 -0.06 0.20 0.13 0.18 0 31 0.26 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.26
Feedback 0.08 -0.08 0 08 0.00 0.07 0 14 0.20 0.22 0.07 0.38 0.19
Treatment -0.01 -0.07 0 09 0.01 0.08 0 13 0 17 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.34
Pos/Othr (dmy)—0.10 -0.12 0 01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 -0.12 0.03 0.04 0.00
Neg/Othr (dmy) 0.14 0.05 0 01 -0.10 -0.03 -0.04 0.02 0.01 -0.09 0.00 0.03
Affect (pre) 0.03 0.10 0 08 0.04 0.00 -0.13 -0.08 -0.13 -0.11 -0 13 0.03
Affect (post) 0.16 0.20 0 11 0.09 0.00 -0.10 -0.01 -0.09 -0.06 -0.05 0.04
Sex -0.06 -0.14 0 08 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.18 —0.06 0.20 0.11 0.15
Age -0.11 0.01 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.08
Counterbalance-0.16 -0.23 -0.03 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.08
Policy score -0.32 -0.16 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.05 -0.01 0.02 —0.09 -0.06
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174

and 178

 

151

Table 2 (cont’d).

 

WE
Information Correctable Representative Voice Procedures
Co ' - '
Fairness Scales ..
Consistent 1.00 0.55 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.45 0.29 0.33 0.50 0.50
Information 0.55 1.00 0.62 0.31 0.38 0.45 0.58 0.36 0.37 0.66 0.69
Bias-Free 0.36 0.62 1.00 0.50 0.58 0.51 0.59 0.48 0.49 0.55 0.57
Correctable 0.36 0.31 0.50 1.00 0.58 0.57 0.43 0.59 0.46 0.47 0.46
Feedback 0.34 0.38 0.58 0.58 1.00 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.55 0.56 0.53
Representative 0.35 0.45 0.51 0.57 0.59 1.00 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.59 0.58
Ethical 0.45 0.58 0.59 0.43 0.61 0.56 1.00 0.52 0.46 0.72 0.72
Voice 0.29 0.36 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.53 0.52 1.00 0.45 0.46 0.44
Treatment 0.33 0.37 0.49 0.46 0.55 0.49 0.46 0.45 1.00 0.50 0.47
Procedures 0.50 0.66 0.55 0.47 0.56 0.59 0.72 0.46 0.50 1.00 0.91
Outcomes 0.50 0.69 0.57 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.72 0.44 0.47 0.91 1.00
Violation 0.40 0.43 0.60 0.82 0.72 0.65 0.58 0.85 0.77 0.58 0.56
No Violation 0.75 0.87 0.83 0.49 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.47 0.49 0.69 0.72
Rule Importance Scales ...

Consistent 0.34 0.27 0.19 0.17 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.25 0.23
Information 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.21
Bias-Free 0.12 0.23 0.25 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16
Correctable 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.12
Representative 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.00
Ethical 0.02 0.15 0.06 -0.02 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Voice 0.05 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.05 0.08 0.07
Feedback 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.05
Treatment 0.00 0.17 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.06
Pos/Othr (dmy)-0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.07 0.07 0.09 -0.02 -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.01
Neg/Othr (dmy)-0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 -0.05 —0.07 0.00 0.06 0.02 -0.01 -0.06
Affect (pre) -0.06 0.02 0.05 -0.10 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.05
Affect (post) 0.00 0.05 -0.02 0.02 0.08 -0.05 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.02
Sex 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.02
Age 0.05 0.01 -0.22 -0.14 -0.20 -0.18 -0 02 -0.08 -0.12 -0.05 -0.05
Counterbalance-0.13 -0.16 -0.15 -0.10 -0.21 -0.12 -0.16 -0.17 -0.08 —0.15 -0 16
Policy score 0.22 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.19 0 18 0.08 0.09 0.17 0.08
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174

and 178

152

Table 2 (cont’d).

QHAEMAN_AHIQMQIIYE

Importance of procedural rule to
overall evaluation of fairness of procedures

      
     

No Violation Information Correctable Ethical Feedback

   

Fairness Scales ...

Violation 1.00 0.59 0.21 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.08 0 02 0.18 0.17 0 09
No Violation 0.59 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.15 0.05 0 09 0.14 08 12
Rule Importance Scales ...
Consistent 0.21 0.32 1.00 0.64 0.49 0.42 0.19 0.26 0 21 0.20 0.11
Information 0.23 0.32 0.64 1 00 0.51 0.47 0.15 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.16
Bias-Free 0.18 0.25 0.49 0.51 1.00 0.53 0.33 0.18 0.40 0.24 0.38
Correctable 0.22 0.15 0.42 0 47 0.53 1 00 0.41 0.28 0 57 0.50 0.38
Representative 0.08 0.05 0.19 0 15 0.33 0 41 1.00 0.18 0 46 0.47 0.53
Ethical 0.02 0.09 0.26 0.27 0.18 0.28 0.18 1.00 0.24 0.33 0.34
Voice 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.40 0.57 0.46 0.24 1 00 0.60 0.58
Feedback 0.17 0.08 0.20 0.25 0.24 0 50 0.47 0.33 0.60 1.00 0.55
Treatment 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.34 0.58 0.55 1.00
Pos/Othr (dmy) 0.00 -0.03 0.03 0.02 0.16 -0.02 0 11 -0.02 0 01 0.02 0.05
Neg/Othr (dmy) 0.06 0.01 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.08
Affect (pro) 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.13 -0.07 0.00 -0.04 -0 08 -0 10 -0 06
Affect (post) 0.07 0.01 -0.04 0.05 -0.10 -0.08 -0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Sex 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.20 -0.21 0.15 0.07 0.06
Age -0.14 -0.07 0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.13 -0.04 0.14 0.12 0.02 0 04
Counterbalance-0.15 -0.18 0.02 -0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.02 -0 01
Policy score 0.13 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.07 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0 04 -0.13 0.05

 

Affect
Pos/Neg Scale

Dummy coded
Exper. condit.

    
  

    

 

Counterbalance

 
 

 

P
Pos/Othr (de) 1.00 -0.49 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.00 -0.03
Neg/Othr (dmy)-0.49 1.00 -0.25 —0.01 -0.03 -0.05 0.01 0.02
Affect (pre) 0.26 -0.25 1.00 0.57 0.13 0.11 0.00 -0.03
Affect (post) 0.01 -0.01 0.57 1.00 -0.02 0.07 -0.01 0.01
Sex 0.07 -0.03 0.13 -0.02 1.00 -0.03 0.00 0 00
Age 0.02 -0.05 0.11 0.07 -0.03 1.00 -0.02 -0.03
Counterbalance 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.02 1.00 -0.03
Policy score -0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 1.00

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .13 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .15 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .19 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .25 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 174 and 178

Table 3:

153

ANCOVAS Examining the Influence of

Affective State on Justice Rule Ratings across Scenarios.

Justice Rule: Consistent

 

Scenario F Values

 

Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 0.84 0.22 0.50 2.896
Policy Score 1 3.45a 0.26 1.45 8.44C
Affective State 2 0.16 1.41 0.16 0.46

Scenario residual mean square

 

 

 

Residual 173 2.44 2.17 1.40 1.51
Justice Rule: Accuracy of Information
Scenario F Values
Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 7.27c 2.52 2.40 4.32b
Policy Score 1 2.42 1.48 18.59C 6.56c
Affective State 2 0.65 0.48 1.58 0.06

Scenario residual mean square

 

Residual 173 3.00 2.67 1.01 1.53
N=178.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.
a= p<.10

b: p<.05

°= p<.01

154

Table 3 (cont'd).

Justice Rule: Bias Free

 

Source

Scenario F Values

df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN

 

Counterbalance
Policy Score
Affective State

Residual

1 20.82c 2.55 0.00 3.96b
0.01 0.52 6.58b 2.27
2 1.95 0.49 0.92 0.16

l-'

Scenario residual mean square

173 2.86 2.60 0.79 2.37

 

Justice Rule: Correctability

 

Source

Scenario F Values

df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN

 

Counterbalance
Policy Score
Affective State

Residual

1 3.548 1.53 1.75 1.55
1 0.12 0.00 11.49C 4.33b
2 0.80 1.04 0.13 0.62

Scenario residual mean square

173 2.60 2.83 2.32 2.27

 

N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.

°= p<.10
b= p<.05
°= p<.01

155

Table 3 (cont'd).

Justice Rule: Feedback

 

Scenario F Values

 

Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 9.55° 2.50 6.03b 7.65C
Policy Score 1 0.60 0.40 1.99 5.32b
Affective State 2 1.34 0.40 1.77 0.57

Scenario residual mean square

 

 

 

Residual 173 2.26 2.94 1.82 1.79
Justice Rule: Representative
Scenario F Values
Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 15.39c 10.69c 11.03c 2.28
Policy Score 1 0.00 0.05 4.38b 6.47c
Affective State 2 0.57 1.89 1.96 0.97

Residual

Scenario residual mean square

173 2.91 3.32 2.28 2.75

 

N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.

‘= p<.10
b p<.05
c- p<.01

156

Table 3 (cont'd).

Justice Rule: Ethical

 

Scenario F Values

Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN

 

H

Counterbalance 6.56c 2.23 7.03c 4.29b

 

 

 

Policy Score 1 1.50 0.81 1.24 5.32b
Affective State 2 0.30 0.19 0.65 0.02
Scenario residual mean square
Residual 173 3.55 2.64 1.50 2.28
Justice Rule: Voice
Scenario F Values
Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 9.34c 4.74b 10.92c 5.23b
Policy Score 1 3.57a 3.17a 12.06c 1.13
Affective State 2 1.01 1.14 2.02 0.40
Scenario residual mean square
Residual 173 3.44 3.28 1.79 3.32

 

N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.
a= p<.10

It’= p<.05

C= p<.01

157

Table 3 (cont'd).

Justice Rule: Fair Treatment

 

Source

Scenario F Values

df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN

 

Counterbalance
Policy Score
Affective State

1 33.22c 2.97a 11.52c 1.18
l 0.01 0.35 2.85a 1.51
2 0.08 0.34 0.98 1.02

Scenario residual mean square

 

Residual 173 2.09 3.52 1.47 2.65
N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.
a= p<.10

b: p<.05

C= p<.01

158

Table 4: ANCOVAS Examining the Influence of Affective
State on Perceptions of Overall Procedures across Scenarios.

 

Scenario F Values

 

Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 6.670 0.60 9.13c 3.81b
Policy Score 1 1.11 1.90 6.670 5.21b
Affective State 2 0.11 1.24 0.64 0.03
Scenario residual mean square
Residual 173 4.03 3.58' 0.47 2.44

 

N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.
' The Residual df was 172 for this analysis

a= p<.10

b: p<.05

c= p<.01

159

Table 5: ANCOVAS Examining the Influence of Affective
State on Perceptions of Overall Outcomes across Scenarios.

 

Scenario F Values

 

Source df ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
Counterbalance 1 8.19c 1.05 2.05 4.69b
Policy Score 1 0.60 0.01 9.59c 1.08
Affective State 2 0.81 1.00 0.22 0.45

Scenario residual mean square

Residual 173 4.16 3.92' 0.38 2.44

 

N=l78.

F Values from Type III Sums of Squares are reported.
‘ The Residual df was 171 for this analysis

a= p<.10

b: p<.05

C= p<.01

160

Table 6: Within Scenario Regressions of Perceived Fairness
of Overall Procedures on Violation and Nonviolation Measures.

 

EQEB_£QEEI_CQ.
Beta weights at each step
Variable 1, 2 3
Step 1
Counterbalance —.19 .03 .04
Policy Manual .08 .03 .02
Positive/Other —.04 - 01 - 17
Negative/Other -.02 - 07 - 28
Step 1 R?=.045a
Step 2
Violation .20C .41C
NonViolation .58c .36c
Step 2 R2=.504C
Step 3
Pos/Other x Violation -.34a
Neg/Other x Violation -.26
Pos/Other x NonViolation .46a
Neg/Other x NonViolation .478

Step 3 R2=.516°

 

Differences between Violation and NonViolation Beta Weights at Step 2

mine—41f.

3.19922c 171

 

n=178 for Ross Power Co., ACME Vacuum, and Chapman Automotive scenarios.
n=177 for Kenico Engineering scenario.

Note: Results reported here are from four separate, within scenario

hierarchical regressions.

a= p<.10
b: p<.05
c= p<.01

161

 

Table 6 (cont'd).
h . fl . .
Beta weights at each step
Variable 1 2 3
Step 1
Counterbalance .06 .04 .06
Policy Manual .10 .09a .08
Positive/Other .13 .09 - 15
Negative/Other .05 .09 -.20
Step 1 R2: . 028
Step 2
Violation .31c .41C
NonViolation .46c .29”
Step 2 R?=.521C
Step 3
Pos/Other x Violation -.04
Neg/Other x Violation -.27
Pos/Other x NonViolation .30
Neg/Other x NonViolation .55”
Step 3 R’=.534c

 

Differences between Violation and NonViolation Beta Weights at Step 2

W

1.03677

170

 

n=178 for Ross Power Co.,

ACME Vacuum,

n=177 for Kenico Engineering scenario.

Note: Results reported here are from four separate, within scenario
hierarchical regressions.

a= p<.10
b= p<.05
c= p<.01

and Chapman Automotive scenarios.

162

Table 6 (cont'd).

 

ACME_¥a£unm
Beta weights at each step
Variable 1 2 .3
Step 1
Counterbalance -.22C -.15” - 14”
Policy Manual -.19c -.10 -.10
Positive/Other .09 .12 -.06
Negative/Other .05 .04 -.32
Step 1 R?=.088c
Step 2
Violation .15a .20
NonViolation .19” .23a
Step 2 R2=.165c
Step 3
Pos/Other x Violation -.01
Neg/Other x Violation -.06
Pos/Other x NonViolation .09
Neg/Other x NonViolation —.27

Step 3 R?=.180c

 

Differences between Violation and NonViolation Beta Weights at Step 2

W
0.290188 171

 

n=178 for Ross Power Co., ACME Vacuum, and Chapman Automotive scenarios.

n=177 for Kenico Engineering scenario.

Note: Results reported here are from four separate, within scenario

hierarchical regressions.

3: p<.10
b= p<.05
c= p<.01

163

Table 6 (cont'd).

 

W
Beta weights at each step
Variable 1 2 3
Step 1
Counterbalance —.14a -.01 -.01
Policy Manual .17” .03 .03
Positive/Other —.01 -.01 -.05
Negative/Other -.02 -.04 -.03

Step 1 R?=.051a

Step 2
Violation .27C .31c
NonViolation .53c .49”

Step 2 R?=.528C

Step 3
Pos/Other x Violation -.15
Neg/Other x Violation -.03
Pos/Other x NonViolation .18
Neg/Other x NonViolation .02

Step 3 R2=.530c

 

Differences between Violation and NonViolation Beta Weights at Step 2

Liane—41f
2.19951b 171

 

n=178 for Ross Power Co., ACME Vacuum, and Chapman Automotive scenarios.
n=177 for Kenico Engineering scenario.

Note: Results reported here are from four separate, within scenario
hierarchical regressions.

a= p<.10
b: p<.05
°= p<.01

164

Table 7: Within Scenario Stepwise Regressions of

Perceived Fairness of Overall Procedures on Procedural Justice Rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W
Negative Mood Positive Mood
yam; able Beta 132 AR2 1 Variable Beta R2 AR:
Bias-Free .47” .49” .49” Consistent .39” .42” .42”
Ethical .37” .57” .08” Information .38” .58C .15”
Ethical .19a .60” .02a
K . E . .
Negative Mood Positive Mood
2 A 2 ' ta R2 AR2
Information .36” .62” .62” Fair Treatment .38” .58” .58”
Fair Treatment .15a .71” .09” Ethical .55” .71” .13”
Consistent .13a .74” .03” Representative -.32” .75” .04”
Ethical .35C .76” .02a Feedback .27” .79” .04”
Voice -.23” .78” .03” Consistent .20” .82” .03”
Bias-Free .24” .81” .03”
ACME_¥aQnum
Negative Mood Positive Mood
yariable________Beta____R2 AR? 4; Variable Beta_ R3 AR2
Information .34” .22” .22” Fair Treatment .26” .10” .10”
Ethical .24a .26” .04a Consistent .22a .15” .04a
W
Negative Mood Positive Mood
Variable Beta R2 AR? .1 Variable Beta R2 AR”
Ethical .33” .50” .50” Ethical .46” .53” .53”
Information .36” .62” .12” Information .30” .59” .06”
Correctable .29” .67” .05” Fair Treatment .21” .63” .04”
n=59 for the negative mood condition.
n=58 for the positive mood condition.
Note: Results reported here are from four separate, within scenario
stepwise regressions. Variables are listed in order of entry in the

regression. Variable entry and exit tolerance was set at .10.

Beta weights reported were obtained from the final step of the
regression.

”- p<.10
b p<.05
p<.01

C

165

Table 8: Correlations between Justice Rules and Overall
Scenario Procedural Fairness Measure within Experimental Condition.

NEGATIVE POSITIVE

Overall Scenario Procedural Fairness Measure

ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN ROSS KENICO ACME CHAPMAN
BQSS.EQHER_CQi
Consistent 0.45 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.65 0.15 0.05 0.19
Information 0.54 0.03 -0.19 0.29 0.64 0.27 -0.02 0.13
Bias-Free 0.69 -0.05 -0.07 0.14 0.57 0.17 -0.06 0.11
Correctable 0.17 -0.09 —0 02 0.23 0.24 0.22 -0.14 0.11
Feedback 0.43 0.07 -0.23 0.22 O 54 0.33 -0.05 0.24
Representative 0.35 0.00 -0.15 0.04 0.32 0.19 -0.08 0.10
Ethical 0.66 0.07 -0 23 0.07 0.56 0.19 0.11 0.42
Voice 0.32 0.17 -0.20 0.13 0.34 0.04 0.15 0.05
Treatment 0.49 -0.06 0.06 0.23 0.54 0.27 0.05 0.16
KENI£Q_ENGINEERING
Consistent -0.02 0 60 0.10 -0.01 0.16 0 49 0.08 0 19
Information -0.01 O 79 -0.07 0.10 0.13 0 65 -0.08 -0 08
Bias-Free -0.07 0 70 —0.01 0.09 0.17 0 70 ~0.03 0 07
Correctable 0 08 O 40 0.04 0.23 0.02 O 31 -0.21 -0 09
Feedback 0.12 O 39 -0 12 0.18 0.22 0 56 -0.10 0 11
Representative 0.05 0 52 -0.15 0.25 0.14 O 42 0.00 -0 16
Ethical 0.06 0 72 —O.13 0.07 0.18 0 75 0.07 -0 05
Voice —0.05 0 37 -0.17 0.01 0.14 0 33 -0.01 0 08
Treatment 0.24 0 66 -0.09 0 18 0.22 O 76 0 03 -0 02
ACME_¥ACUUM
Consistent -0.25 0.02 0 14 0.06 0.13 -0.12 0 29 0.05
Information -0.18 0.07 0.46 0.06 0.09 -0.20 0 24 0.08
Bias—Free —0.17 —0.03 0.26 0.08 0.08 -0.11 O 21 -0.02
Correctable —0.13 0 08 0.12 0.00 0.03 -0.10 —O 01 0.08
Feedback —0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.28 0.33 0.00 0 16 -0 08
Representative ~0.01 0.21 0.28 0.03 0.18 -0.01 0 21 -0.13
Ethical —0.16 -0.07 0.41 0.10 0 27 0.03 0 24 0.05
Voice -0.09 0.02 0 12 0.08 0.10 -0.05 0 20 0.03
Treatment -0.01 0.21 O 19 0.16 0.20 -0.10 0 32 -0.17
CHAEMAN_AUIQMQIIEE
Consistent 0.18 -0.16 0 16 0.45 O 02 0.25 -0.24 0.35
Information 0.28 -0.03 -0 08 0.69 0.16 0.02 -0.16 0.63
Bias-Free 0.13 -0.17 -0 22 0.62 0.34 0.25 -0.11 0.48
Correctable 0.22 -0.13 0 10 0.66 0 19 0.27 -O.11 0.18
Feedback 0.09 -0.24 0.06 0.65 0.35 0 17 -0.06 0.54
Representative 0.16 -0.12 0.05 0.60 0.34 0.13 0.02 0.43
Ethical 0.26 0.08 —0.01 0.70 0.24 0.14 -0.11 0.73
Voice 0.12 -0.22 0.01 0.46 0 17 0.06 -0.06 0.33
Treatment -0.04 -0.12 0.03 0.49 0 40 0.06 -0.12 0.48

 

Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .22 are significant at p<.10
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .26 are significant at p<.05
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .33 are significant at p<.01
Correlations with absolute values greater than or equal to .41 are significant at p<.001

N sizes ranged between 58 and 59

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity 1n social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.,)
. a (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York:

 

Academic Press.

Baker, R.C., & Guttfreund, D.G. (1993). The effects of written
autobiographical recollection induction procedures on mood. W31

Esycthng, .42, 563-568.

Batson, D.C., Shaw, L.L., & Oleson, KC. (1992). Differentiating affect,
mood, and emotion. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.

Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than
skin deep. Watchman, 31, 245-257.

Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological
Bullelin. 9.2, 229-246-

Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and

persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Wm
1111mm, 1.,6331-345

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments:
A heuristic model of affect and stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton

(Eds.,) W. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P. ,& Siisser, K. (1994). Happiness and

Stereotypic Thinking 1n Social Judgment. WW
12mm, 533, 621-632.

Bohner, G. Bless, H. ,Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1988). What triggers
causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. m

lmunalnflSmiallsxcthch, 13, 335- 345

166

167

Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. Amen'canfisyghologist, .16, 129-
148.

Bower, G. H. (1991). Mood congruity of social judgments. In J. P. Forgas
(Ed.,) Handhecknfemnfionanimemory Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Bower, G..H (1983). Affect and cognition. Ehflgsgphicallramacfionmf
WM 392, 387-402.

Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An
exploratory study. Watchdog, 12, 717-727

Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P. ”George J. M. ,Roberson, L., & Webster, J. (1989).
Measuring affect at work: Confirmatory analyses of competing mood structures

with conceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. WW
Socialism, i7, 1091- 1102

Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., Webster, J. (1988).
Should negative aifectivity remain an unmeasured variable 1n the study of job

stress? Immalannplieifisxchology IL,193-198

Cook, TD &Camvb611 D..T (1979) Quasizexnerimenmionillcsigumd
analysisj55ue5forfiel¢5etfing5 Boston: Houghton Mifllin.

Clore, G. L., & Parrott, G. (1991). Moods and their vicissitudes: Thoughts
and feelings as information. In J. P. Forgas (Ed) Emofignanigm’aljndgments.

New York: Pergamon Press.

Cohen. J- (1977). WWW

New York: Academic Press.

Cohen. J &C0hen. P (1933) Anpliedmultipleregtessiontmnelation
Wanna. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cudeck, R. (1986). A note on structural models for the circumplex.
Embomenika, 5.1, 143-147.

Estrada, C.A., Young, M.J., & Isen, AM. (1992). Positive affect
influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Clinical

Rim Ml), 768A. (Abstract).

168

Fiske, S.T., & Taylor SE. (1984). Wan. New York: Random
House.

Forgas, J. P. ( 1991) Affect and social judgments: An introductory review.
In J. P. Forgas (Ed.,) WW5. New York: Pergamon Press.

Forgas, J. P. (1991). Affective influences on partner choice: Role of mood

in social decisions WM, .1, 708- 720.

Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1988). Affect 1n social and personal

judgments. In K. F 1edler and J. P. Forgas (Eds.,) WW
hehayior, pp. 183-208. Toronto: Hogrefe.

Fn'jda, NH. (1988). The laws of emotion. Americmlisychologist, fl,
349-358.

George, J .M. (1989). Mood and absence. JmnnalhiApplieiEsychQLng,
11, 317-324.

George, J. M. (1991). Personality, affect, and behavior 1n groups. Burma!
smug-mam. 22, 107-116.

George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial

behaviors at work. MW, 16, 299-307.

Gerrards-Hesse, A., Spies, K., & Hesse, F.W. (1994). Experimental
induction of emotional states and their effectiveness: A review. Brifimlqumalof

Bsxchologx. 35, 55-73.

Gilliland, S.W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An

organizational justice perspective. AcademufiManagemenLReflm, L8, 694-
734.

Greenberg, J. (1983). Overcoming egocentric bias 1n perceived fairness

through self-awareness. W, 46, 152-156.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance

evaluations. Watchdog, 11, 340-342

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.

AsademxomeageanMew, 12. 9-22-

169

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment

inequity. The hidden cost of pay cuts.1mnna16£Apphe_d__Bth16gy,Z_5_, 561-
568.

Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice Informational and

interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.
- - ,,_5_4 81-103.

 

Herriot, P. (1989). Selection as a social process. In M. Smith & I. T.

Robertson (Eds.,) Adxanccainselectionaniassessment (pp 89-112) Chichostef
England: Wiley.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive afi‘ect, cognitive processes, and social

behavior In L Berkowitz (Ed.,) Admccainexpenmentalsacialpmhology
(Vol. 20, pp. 203-253). New York: Academic Press.

Isen, AM. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis &
J .M. Haviland (Eds), WW5. New York: Guilford Press.

Isen, A. M, & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on
categorization Watchdog fl. 1206-1217

Isen, A. M. ,Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect

facilitates creative problem solving. Wow,
5_2,1 122-1 131.

Isen, A. M. ,Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of
positive affect on social categofization. Mgfiyafignmifimgfign, 16, 65- 78.

Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E. ,Clark, M. S., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect,

accessibility of material and behavior: A cognitive loop? mm
mm, 3.6, 1- 12

Isen, A. M., & Simmonds, S. F. (1978). The effect of feeling good on a

helping task that IS incompatible with good mood. SmaLEsycthggLQnanLly,
41, 345- 349.

Ketelaar, T. (1989).

WW5. Unpublished master 5 thesis, Purdue Uversity,
IN.

 

170

Larsen, RJ., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the
circumplex model of emotion. In M.S. Clark (Ed), Emen'qn. Newbury Park, Ca:
Sage.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness 1n social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S.

Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds ) WWW
research (pp. 27- 55). New York: Splinger-Verlag.

Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1991). Feeling good but not thinking
straight: The impact of positive mood on persuasion. In J. P. Forgas (Ed)

W. New York: Pergamon Press.

Mayer, J. D. ,Salovey, P. ,Gomberg-Kaufman, S., Blainey, K. (1991). A

broader conception of mood experience. W
Psychelegy, 69, 100-111.

McFarlin, D. B. ,& Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural
justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.
- - H35 626-637.

 

McFatter, R. M. (1994). Interactions m predicting mood from extraversion

and neuroticism. WWW, 6.6, 570- 578

Mook, D.G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. Ameriean
Embelegist, 38, 379-387.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee

citizenship? MAME—(LBW: 26, 845- 855.

Monis, W. N., & Reilly, N. P. (1987). Toward the self-regulation of mood:
Theory and research. Mefiyahendemefien, 11, 215-249.

Nemanick, R. C., & Munz, D. C. (1994). Measuring the poles of negative
and positive mood using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule and
Activation Deactivation Adjective Check List. W, 14, 195-
199.

Niedenthal, P. M., & Showers, C. (1991). The perception and processing of
affective information and its influences on social judgment. In J. P. F orgas (Ed)

Emetienandsoejaljndgmems. New York: Pergamon Press.

171

O'Malley, M. N., & Davies, D. K. (1984). Equity and affect: The effects of
relative performance and moods on resource allocation. B_a5ie_and_Apphed_S_oeia1

Embology, 5, 273-282.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Wed

Esyehelegy,14,157-l64.

Parrott, W.G. (1993). Beyond hedonism: Motives for inhibiting good
moods and for maintaining bad moods.

Parrott, W. G., & Sabini, J. (1990). Mood and memory under natural

conditions: Evidence for mood incongruent recall. loumalefl’ersenahtmd
Socialfisychelogx, 5_9, 321-336.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.

Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds) Meaflueufpezmalnmd
socialmxchelegiealettimdes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.

Petty, RE, Gleicher, F., & Baker S. M. (1991). Multiple roles for affect 1n
persuasion. In J. P. Forgas (Ed), Emetienjndseeialjhdgmems. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Robertson, I..T ,& Smith, M. (1989). Personnel selection methods. In M.

Smith & I. T. Robertson (Eds. ), Wm (pp. 89-112).
Chichester, England: Wiley.

Rousseau, D.M., & Aquino, K. (1993). Fairness and implied contract
obligations in job terminations: The role of remedies, social accounts, and

procedural justice. Hummfierfgnnanee, 6, 135-149.

Schmitt, N., & Gilliland, S. W. (1992). Beyond differential prediction.
Fairness 1n selection. In D. M. Saunders (Ed) W

W (Vol. 1, pp. 21-46) Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information. Informational and
motivational functions of affective states. In R. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins

(Eds.,) Hmdhookcflmotixationandmgnitien, (Vol. 2, pp. 527- 561). New York.
Guilford Press.

172

Schwarz, N. & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart?
Impact of afi‘ective states on analytical reasoning. In J. P. F orgas (Ed) Emeh'qn

animaljhdgmems. New York: Pergamon Press.

Schwarz, N, & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments
of well being; Informative and directive functions of affective states. loumal6f

Bensonalitstandfieeiallimhologx, 45, 513 -.523

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative
frmctions of affective states. In K. Fiedler and J. P. Forgas (Eds) Afleet,

cognitiQnendseeiaLbehaxim Toronto: Hogrefe

Sinclair, RC. (1988). Mood, categorization breadth, and performance
appraisal: The effect of order of information acquisition and affective state on

halo, accuracy, information retrieval, and evaluations. OrganizahenaLBehayier
andHumanlleeisionheccsses 42, 22-46.

Sinclair, R. C., & Mark, M. M. (1991). Mood and the endorsement of
egalitarian macrojustice versus equity-based microjustice principles. Rexsenflny

Wang-.1111, 11, 369- 375.

Thompson, L. & Lowenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of
fairness and interpersonal conflict. 01 ° .1 . . . -

Preeesses 51,176-197.

 

Watson, D. ,Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative afiect: The PANAS scales.

MW, 54, 1063- 1070.

Watson, D, & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and
distress: Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. BMW
9_6, 234- 254.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. W 28, 219-235.

Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1986). Action identification. In R.

Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (Eds) Handhookefmotixatimmdeegnition:
Emmdahenseflmeialhehayier. New York: Guilford Press.

173

Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective
experiences at work. In B.M. Staw and LL. Cummings (Eds), Re5earehjn

WW. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
ll Will ”i ll "Willi" ll” Will Willi NW ”WI
31293015592466