 

'UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

JUL 1 ° .20“?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DataDue.p$5-p.15

THE INFLUENCE OF EXPECTATIONS ON PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
PERCEPTIONS AND OUTCOMES

By

Darin Wiechmann

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Industrial/Organizational Psychology

2003

ABSTRACT

THE INFLUENCE OF EXPECTATIONS ON PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
PERCEPTIONS AND OUTCOMES

By
Darin Wiechmann
Recent justice research has suggested that expectations inﬂuence procedural
justice perceptions and outcomes. Within the justice literature, justice expectations are
hypothesized to play three different roles in inﬂuencing justice perceptions and outcomes.
Shapiro and Kirkman’s (2001) model of expectations suggests that expectations directly
inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions, which, in turn, inﬂuence outcomes (e. g.,
commitment, satisfaction). Brockner, Ackerman, and Farichild (2001a) suggest that
expectations play a moderating role in the relationship between procedural justice
perceptions and outcomes. The third perspective suggests that procedural elements
expectations moderate the relationship between procedural elements perceptions and
process fairness (Van den Bos, Vermunt, and Wilke, 1996; Greenberg, Eskew, & Miles,
cited in Brockner et al, 2001a). The ﬁrst goal of the current paper was to clarify the role
that procedural justice expectations play in inﬂuencing justice perceptions and outcomes.
In Study 1 (N=225), I manipulated participants’ procedural justice expectations of a
resume screening process. In Study 2 (N =626), I examined students’ expectations and
justice perceptions in a classroom setting. A second goal was to clarify the antecedents
of procedural justice expectations. Study 1 and 2 examined the relationships of positive
and negative affectivity and power distance and procedural justice expectations, and
Study 2 also examined the relationships between direct and indirect experiences and

procedural justice expectations.

The results of both studies provided weak support for Shapiro and Kirkman’s
(2001) model in which procedural justice expectations directly inﬂuence procedural
justice perceptions, which, in turn, inﬂuence outcomes. Partial support was found for the
third model in which procedural elements expectations moderate the relationship between
procedural elements perceptions and process fairness. Both studies also shed light on the
potential antecedents of procedural justice expectations and values. Positive affectivity,
power distance, and past experiences were all related to procedural justice expectations.
The results of Study 2 also indicated that past experiences had more or less of inﬂuence
on procedural justice expectations depending on their source. The results are discussed in
relation to existing justice theory and research. In addition, I also discuss future

directions, limitations of the current studies, and practical implications.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Shapiro and Kirkman Model .......................................................................... 7
Brockner et a1. Model .................................... . ................................................ 11
Expectations in Psychology ........................................................................... 22
Additional Factors Inﬂuencing Expectations ................................................. 29
Studies Overview ........................................................................................... 32
STUDY 1 METHODS ............................................................................................... 33
Participants ..................................................................................................... 33
Design ............................................................................................................ 33
Procedure ....................................................................................................... 33
Expectation Manipulation .............................................................................. 34
Resumes ......................................................................................................... 35
Pilot Experiments ........................................................................................... 37
Measures ........................................................................................................ 39
STUDY 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................. 41
Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................... 41
Manipulation Check ....................................................................................... 44
Hypothesis 1: Mediation ................................................................................ 45
Hypothesis 2a: Moderation ............................................................................ 49

iv

Hypothesis 2b: Moderation ............................................................................ 49

Predictors of Procedural Justice Expectations ............................................... 53
STUDY 1 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 54
STUDY 2 METHODS ............................................................................................... 56

Participants ..................................................................................................... 56

Procedure ....................................................................................................... 57

Measures ........................................................................................................ 58
STUDY 2 RESULTS ................................................................................................. 61

Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................... 61

Analysis Overview ......................................................................................... 73

Hypothesis 1: Mediation ................................................................................ 74

Hypothesis 2a: Moderation ............................................................................ 89

Hypothesis 2b: Moderation ............................................................................ 102

Predictors of Procedural Justice Expectations and Values ............................ 103

Direct vs. Indirect Experiences ...................................................................... 1 13

Additional Analysis ....................................................................................... 114
STUDY 2 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 116
GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 117

Mediation ....................................................................................................... 120

Moderation ..................................................................................................... 123

Predictors of Expectations and Values .......................................................... 126

Direct vs. Indirect Experiences ...................................................................... 130

Limitations ..................................................................................................... 132

Future Directions ........................................................................................... 138

Practical Implications ..................................................................................... 143
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 144
APPENDD( A: STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT ............................................... 157

APPENDIX B: STUDY 1: EXPERIMENTER INSTRUCTIONS (FAIR CONDITION)

.................................................................................................................................... 159
APPENDIX C: STUDY 1: EXPERIMENTER INSTRUCTIONS (UNFAIR

CONDITION) ............................................................................................................ 164
APPENDIX D: STUDY 1: MANIPULATION CHECKS ........................................ 169
APPENDIX E: STUDY 1: RESUMES ..................................................................... 171
APPENDIX F: STUDY 1: OUTCOME MEASURES .............................................. 185

APPENDIX G: STUDY 1: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND DEMOGRAPHICS
.................................................................................................................................... 1 88
APPENDIX H: STUDY 1: DEBRIEFIN G FORM ................................................... 191
APPENDIX I: STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT (STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY
PILOT EXPERIMENT) ............................................................................................. 193
APPENDIX J: STUDY 1: STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY PILOT EXPERIMENT
(POSITIVE EXPECTATION CONDITION) ........................................................... 195
APPENDIX K: STUDY 1: STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY PILOT EXPERIMENT
(NEGATIVE EXPECTATION CONDITION) ........................................................ .199
APPENDIX L: STUDY 1: DEBRIEFING FORM (STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY

PILOT EXPERIMENT) ............................................................................................. 203

 

APPENDIX M: STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT (CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT

EXPERIMENT) ......................................................................................................... 205
APPENDIX N: STUDY 1: CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT EXPERIMENT ........ 207

APPENDIX 0: STUDY 1: DEBRIEFING FORM (CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT

EXPERIMENT) ......................................................................................................... 226
APPENDIX P: STUDY 2: INITIAL MEASURES ................................................... 228
APPENDIX Q: STUDY 2: INFORMED CONSENT ............................................... 233
APPENDIX R: STUDY 2: DEBRIEFING FORM ................................................... 235
APPENDIX S: STUDY 2: FINAL MEASURES ...................................................... 238

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Study 1 Resume Characteristics ............................................................................. 36
Table 2. Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ................................... 42

Table 3. Mediated Regression Results: Regressing Justice Perceptions on Expectation
Condition ................................................................................................................................ 46

Table 4. Mediated Regression Results: Regressing Justice Perceptions and Intentions on
Procedural Justice Expectations ............................................................................................. 47

Table 5. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Intentions on Interaction of
Expectation Condition and Justice Perceptions and Interaction of Procedural Expectations
and Justice Perceptions .......................................................................................................... 50

Table 6. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Process Fairness Perceptions on
Interaction of Expectation Condition and Procedural Elements Perceptions and

Interaction of Procedural Elements Expectations and Procedural Elements Perceptions
Measures ................................................................................................................................ 52

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression Results: Regressing Procedural Justice Expectations on
Individual Differences and Demographics ............................................................................ 53

Table 8. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ................................... 62

Table 9. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice
Perceptions on Procedural Justice Expectations .................................................................... 75

Table 10. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 2: Regressing Class Outcomes on
Procedural Justice Perceptions ............................................................................................... 76

Table 11. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regressing Affective Reactions and
Continuance Commitment On Procedural Justice Expectations ........................................... 80

Table 12. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice
Perceptions on Procedural Justice Values .............................................................................. 82

Table 13. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regressing Aﬁective Reactions and
Continuance Commitment On Procedural Justice Values ..................................................... 83

Table 14. Mediated Regression Results —- STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice
Perceptions on Voice Expectations/Values ........................................................................... 85

viii

Table 15. Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regressing Affective Reactions and
Continuance Commitment on Voice ExpectationsNalues .................................................... 86

Table 16. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction
of Procedural Justice Expectations and Perceptions .............................................................. 90

Table 17. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction
of Procedural Justice Values and Perceptions ....................................................................... 94

Table 18. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction
of Voice ExpectationsNalues and Procedural Justice Perceptions ....................................... 98

Table 19. Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Process Fairness on Procedural
Elements and Perceptions ...................................................................................................... 104

Table 20. Hierarchical Regression Results: Regressing Procedural Justice Expectations,
Values, and Voice ExpectationsNalues on Demographics and Individual Differences ....... 107

Table 21. Logistic Regression of Study Completion on Individual Differences, Test
Grade, Procedural Justice Expectations, Values, and Voice Expectations\Values ................ 115

Table 22. Study 1 and 2 Results Summary ........................................................................... 118

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) Model ....................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Brockner, Ackerman, and Fairchild (2001 a) Model ............................................. 6
Figure 3. Model Tested by Brockner et al. (2001a) and Brockner et al. (2001b) ................. 16
Figure 4. Model Tested by Lam et al. (2002) ....................................................................... 17

Figure 5. Models Tested by Van den Bos, Vermunt, and Wilke (1996) and Greenberg,
Eskew, and Miles (cited in Brockner et al, 2001a) ................................................................ 20

INTRODUCTION

The area of social justice has received a great deal of attention within the ﬁeld of
psychology. Justice is the study of fairness of allocation decisions as well as the
processes by which the decisions are made. Within the justice literature, researchers have
examined the factors that inﬂuence how people react to events such as courtroom trials
(Tyler, 1984a, 1988), water shortages (Tyler & Degoey, 1995), organizational
downsizing (Brockner, Konovsky, Cooper-Schneider, Folger, Martin, & Bies, 1994), and
performance appraisal (Dulebohn & Ferris, 1999). Recent research suggests that justice
perceptions are most appropriately conceptualized along four dimensions - distributive,
procedural, interpersonal, and informational - and that these four dimensions play an
important role in inﬂuencing a variety of outcomes (e. g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt,
Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng, 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

Justice researchers have recently begun to examine factors that may moderate the
relationship between justice perceptions and outcomes. Factors such as culture (Brockner
et al., 2001a; Brockner et al., 2001b; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002), gender
(Brockner & Adsit, 1986; Greenberg & McCarty, 1990), and organizational commitment
(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992) have been shown to moderate justice
relationships. In addition to these moderators, Brockner et al. (2001a) suggest that
legitimacy beliefs may play a moderating role in the relationship between procedural
justice elements and outcomes. They suggest that prior to an event, people develop
beliefs about the legitimacy of procedural elements in the current event. Brockner et al.
suggest that legitimacy is a combination of what people think will happen (i.e.,

expectations) and what people believe should happen (values). Brockner et al.’s view is

that legitimacy beliefs make justice elements more or less important to individuals during
an event. For example, the more a person comes to expect and value fair procedures, the
more likely they will react negatively to an event where the procedures are not fair.
Although some research (e. g., Brockner et al., 2001a; Brockner et al., 2001b; Lam et al.,
2002) suggests that legitimacy beliefs may act as a justice moderator, more research is
needed to better understand their role in inﬂuencing justice-related perceptions and
outcomes.

In addition to the work by Brockner et al. (2001a), Shapiro and Kirkman (2001)
have also begun to assess the inﬂuence of expectations on justice perceptions. They
suggest that expectations may directly inﬂuence justice perceptions and consequently
outcomes. This idea, coined “anticipatory injustice,” is the notion that people may have
expectations about being treated unfairly. Anticipatory injustice is based on the idea that
in times of uncertainty, employees are likely to anticipate the treatment that they will
receive. Despite the intuitive appeal of Shapiro and Kirkrnan’s (2001) work, almost no
research exists which directly tests the inﬂuence of expectations on justice perceptions
(see Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999; Van den Bos et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., cited in
Brockner et al, 2001a; Gilliland, 1994, for exceptions).

Research ﬁ'om a wide variety of social phenomena such as self-fulﬁlling
prophecies (e.g., Miller & Tumbull, 1986), placebo effects (e.g., Ross & Olson, 1981,
1982), and self-efﬁcacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1982) suggests that expectations play a
role in how people perceive events. In addition to the research in social psychology,
research in 1/0 psychology suggests that expectations may have important inﬂuences on

work-related situations. For example, expectations are central to the idea of

psychological contracts. Research has found that when one party in a contract feels that
their expectations are not being met, that party will react negatively in terms of
satisfaction, commitment, productivity, etc. (see Robinson & Rousseau, 1994 for a
review). Expectations are also central to the role that realistic job previews (RJPS) play
in forming newcomers’ attitudes in an organization (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis,
1992; Wanous, 1977). Interview researchers have also shown that the interviewer’s
expectations of a candidate can inﬂuence their subsequent behavior towards the candidate
(Dougherty, Turban, & Callender, 1994).

Although research suggests that expectations may inﬂuence a variety of attitudes,
behaviors, and outcomes, little is known about their inﬂuence on justice perceptions. An
exception to this statement is Lind and colleagues’ Fairness Heuristic Theory (see Lind,
2001 for a review), which does mention expectations as an inﬂuence on justice
perceptions. Fairness Heuristic Theory suggests people constantly face the dilemma of
choosing between the needs of social groups in which one belongs and self-interested
needs. In choosing between these needs, people use fairness as a heuristic for deciding
how much they can trust others (i.e., the value of supporting group needs). Lind argues
that people maintain this fairness heuristic until an event signiﬁcantly deviates ﬁ‘om their
expectations. Thus, this theory suggests that individuals’ early impressions of fairness
shape their expectations, which, in turn, are used to evaluate whether actual experiences
are consistent with the fairness judgment or heuristic. A

The work by Brockner et al. (2001a) and Shapiro and Kirkman (2001a) also
incorporate expectations in into their models of justice perceptions. Brockner et al.

(20013) suggest that legitimacy beliefs (i.e., a combination of expectations and values)

have a moderating effect on the procedural justice elements to outcomes relationship,
whereas Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) discuss expectations as having an indirect inﬂuence
on outcomes via a direct inﬂuence on justice perceptions. Both viewpoints incorporate
the role of expectations into models of justice perceptions and their inﬂuence on
outcomes, but they suggest different avenues of inﬂuence. As both views have limited
empirical support, more research is needed to understand if either or both viewpoints are
correct.

If expectations play a signiﬁcant role in justice relationships, it is important for
researchers to understand the mechanisms through which they have an inﬂuence. Do
expectations belong in models of justice perceptions? If so, do expectations have either
an indirect or moderating role in inﬂuencing justice perceptions and outcomes or both
roles? As Brockner et al.’s (2001a) focus is on procedural justice and Shapiro and
Kirkman’s (2001) anticipatory injustice beliefs are conceptually applicable to any type of
justice perception (i.e., procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational), I chose
to focus on the procedural justice dimension in the current study. Procedural justice
examines the fairness of the processes by which decisions are made (Greenberg, 1990).
Thus, the primary goal of the current paper is to assess the inﬂuence of expectations on
perceptions of procedural justice. In order to accomplish this goal, I will examine the
models of justice expectations by Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) and Brockner et al.
(2001a) (Figures 1 and 2, respectively).

The current paper will begin by examining Shapiro and Kirkman’s (2001) model
of anticipatory injustice. Next, I will examine Brockner et al.’s (2001a) model of

legitimacy beliefs and discuss how their ideas regarding legitimacy beliefs are related to

332 28s 55:0. e5 eaﬁm ._ 2%;

 

 

 

$8338“ch wcsmemoﬂﬁom

9835:: BEEP—1

Eoﬁzﬁaoo Ecowmﬂcmwco

Bogﬁom

QEEONEU Ecowmﬂgwco
380830

 

 

3:2:me
ESEOAEOHE
3:23.88:—
Ens—Ocean

 

 

mcotmoeom
853

 

 

 

£23m
8:335 boummmosca.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.252 9:58 2223 Be .5532 .5885 .N 2%:

 

8288885 8838.5
8535 $35
oocotoaxm 8cm

 

 

 

 

 

.L

35805 888805
mo >88:qu

 

 

 

 

 

 

80838800 8828888ch
80533800 85805
Ecorénom 88“ 888882 852. 8880.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the idea of anticipatory injustice described by Shapiro and Kirkman (2001). I will also
discuss the psychological research on expectancies in order to better understand their role
in inﬂuencing procedural justice perceptions. Finally, I will proceed to hypothesize a
number of factors that likely inﬂuence an individual’s procedural justice expectations.
Shapiro and Kirkman Model

Shapiro and Kirkman’s (2001) model of expectations suggests that expectations
may directly inﬂuence justice perceptions. Anticipatory injustice is based on the idea that
individuals attempt to anticipate how unfairly they will be treated as a consequence of
uncertainty in the organization. Shapiro and Kirkman suggest that this type of negative
expectation can have a number of negative consequences both to the individual and the
organization. One of the potential consequences of negative expectations may be the
greater likelihood of perceiving unfair treatment. Employees who expect to be treated
unfairly may view their treatment during an event (e.g., a performance appraisal) as
unfair, regardless of the treatment by the organization. Thus, expectations may be
expected to directly inﬂuence employees’ fairness perceptions, which, in turn, may
inﬂuence their organizational commitment, job satisfaction, etc.

Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) also suggest that expectations of one type of justice
(e.g., distributive) may inﬂuence perceptions of other types of justice (e. g., procedural).
This potential consequence suggests that expectations may inﬂuence general perceptions
beyond those relevant to the type of injustice a person has experienced. Thus, a person
who expects that the selection procedures may be unfair may be more likely to perceive

that the process was unfair as well as the interpersonal treatment they received.

Shapiro and Kirkman (2001) posit that the end consequence of negative
expectations may be self-defeating organizational behavior and, consequently, self-
defeating organizations. In a study examining anticipatory injustice, Shapiro and
Kirkman (1999) suggested that anticipation of distributive injustice is related to employee
resistance, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. Thus, Shapiro and
Kirkman concluded that employees who expect to be treated unfairly may create an
unproductive environment. The result of an employee’s withdrawal from the
organization (either physically or mentally) may create a group norm in which other
employees also withdraw from the organization. This idea is not new to the [/0 literature
as researchers have found that ernployees’ absences can be inﬂuenced by the perception
that absence is part of the group norm (Harrison & Shaffer, 1994; Markham & McKee,
1995)

To test the notion of anticipatory injustice, Shapiro and Kirkman (1999) surveyed
employees who were recently part of a move to self-managing work teams. Of central
interest to the current paper, Shapiro and Kirkman include measures of anticipation of
distributive injustice, perceptions of procedural justice, resistance to change,
organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Although, as noted above, they suggest that their results support the relationship between
anticipatory injustice and work-related outcomes, two issues make it erroneous to
conclude support for the model presented in Figure l. The ﬁrst issue with their study is
that the measure of anticipation of distributive injustice used is not a clean measure of
anticipatory injustice. Shapiro and Kirkman note that their measure of anticipation of

distributive injustice asked employees “how concerned they are about the fairness of their

pay, promotions, and job assignments in the new team environment” (p. 55). From my
perspective, the measure they used is a “concern about new team environment” versus a
measure about anticipatory injustice. A conceptually clean measure of anticipation of
distributive injustice would include items such as “I expept that my pay will not be fair in
the new team environment” or “I anticipate that promotions will not be fair in the new
team environment.” It seems plausible that an employee can be concerned about the new
team environment and have either high or low expectations concerning how they will be
treated.

Another problem with Shapiro and Kirkman’s (1999) study is that they did not
test the model in Figure 1; instead, they tested the direct inﬂuence of their anticipation of
distributive justice measure on their individual level outcomes (i.e., resistance to change,
organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and organizational citizenship
behaviors). Thus, a more correct test of their model would have been a test of the
mediating role of fairness perceptions in the anticipatory injustice to outcomes
relationship. They did include a measure of fairness perceptions, but it was focused on
procedural fairness, not distributive fairness. They used their procedural fairness
measure as a potential moderator between anticipation of distributive injustice and
outcomes as suggested by previous research (see Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996, for a
review). In order to provide direct support for the model in Figure 1, research needs to be
conducted in which measures of fairness expectations, fairness perceptions, and outcomes
are measured. Research with these measures will be able to test the mediating role of

fairness perceptions in the expectations to outcomes relationship.

Gilliland (1994) examined expectations in the context of selecting participants for
a paid employment opportunity. After the experimenter explained the selection test and
procedures, participants rated their expectations of being hired for the job. Gilliland
found that hiring expectations were positively related to distributive and procedural
fairness perceptions for selected participants and were negatively related to distributive
and procedural fairness perceptions for rejected participants. In addition, hiring
expectations were more positively related to recommendation intentions for selected
participants compared to rejected participants. Gilliland also found that hiring
expectations had a main effect on recommendation intentions such that higher
expectations were associated with more positive recommendation intentions. Although
Gilliland’s measure concerned hiring expectations rather than justice expectations, the
results suggest that expectations may play a direct role in inﬂuencing justice perceptions.
Although little research has been conducted on justice expectations and
perceptions, a great deal of research has shown that expectations inﬂuence perceptions as
well as behaviors (see Miller & Tumbull, 1986; Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Olson, Rose, &
Zanna, 1996 for reviews). In addition, research strongly supports the inﬂuence of
procedural justice perceptions on a variety of outcomes (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et
al. 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Given the evidence from social psychology
Which indicates expectations inﬂuence perceptions and the evidence from 1/0 psychology
indicating procedural justice perceptions inﬂuence a variety of outcomes, I predict that

Procedural justice expectations will inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions, which will,

1n turn inﬂuence outcomes.

10

Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice expectations will directly inﬂuence procedural
justice perceptions, which will, in turn, inﬂuence outcomes (satisfaction,
commitment, withdrawal intentions, recommendation intentions).

Brockner etpl. Model

Brockner et al. (2001a) argue that legitimacy beliefs are formed prior to events.
Legitimacy is a perception of “how things are done around here” and “tacit endorsement
of that perception.” (p. 185). Thus, legitimacy is a combination of what people think will
happen‘ (expectations) and what they believe should happen (values). Brockner et al.
suggest that factors such as experience and culture may inﬂuence the degree to which
individuals consider procedural justice elements to be legitimate.

Despite the fact that Brockner et al.’s (2001 a) notion of legitimacy includes both
values and expectations, I chose to focus on the expectations component of legitimacy for
a number of reasons. One reason for this choice is the competing inﬂuences of
expectations presented by Brockner et al. (20013) and Shapiro and Kirkman (2001).
Another reason is that Brockner et al. (2001 a) discuss the role of both values and
expectations and how they may interact, but end up providing only general questions for
future researchers to examine. Brockner et al. ask 1) Are expectations and values equal
components of legitimacy beliefs or is one more inﬂuential?, and 2) In what manner do
expectations and values combine (additive or multiplicative) to inﬂuence legitimacy?
Brockner et al.’s paper does not provide evidence on which to base any ﬁrm predictions
as to how values and expectations will combine/interact to inﬂuence justice relationships.
Finally, Mueller and Wynn (2000) examined distributive justice values across US,

South Korean, and Kenyan individuals and found that distributive justice is highly valued

ll

across cultures and shows little variance. Although Mueller and Wynn found this pattern
of results for distributive justice values, it is unclear what pattern may exist for
procedural justice values. Because of these issues, I will include a measure of procedural
justice values that parallels the measures of procedural justice elements and process
fairness expectations, but leave the issue of the inﬂuence of values on procedural justice
perceptions and outcomes as a general research question.

Brockner et al.’s (2001a) discussion of the expectation construct is conceptually
indistinct from Shapiro and Kirkrnan’s (2001) idea of anticipatory injustice. Shapiro and
Kirkman deﬁne anticipatory (in)justice as people’s expectations concern perceiving
justice or injustice in an event. Brockner et al. (2001a) similarly suggest that their
expectations component is a measure of what a person anticipates regarding (un)fair
treatment. Thus, in both models, people anticipate how (un)fairly they will be treated.
As the models suggest different avenues by which expectations may inﬂuence justice
perceptions, the question becomes what role do expectations play in inﬂuencing justice
perceptions? The current paper attempts to address provide evidence to answer this
question.

Brockner et al. (2001a) examined prior experience with procedural elements as a
factor that may moderate justice relationships. Brockner et al. examined employees who
were in the midst of an organizational layoff. To examine the moderating inﬂuence of
legitimacy beliefs, they measured the presence of notiﬁcation of layoffs and how
adequate and clear the explanations were. In addition, they measured the past history of
these elements (i.e., notiﬁcation of layoffs and the adequacy and clarity of the

errplanations) within the organization. Their results showed that the more present these

12

procedural elements were in the past, the more likely layoff survivors had lower
organizational commitment in response to the perception that these elements were not
present in the current downsizing. Thus, the more past experience legitimized procedural
elements, the more negative reactions employees had to them not being present in the
current situation.

Brockner and colleagues (2001b) conducted a series of studies to examine the
inﬂuence of power distance on the relationship between the procedural element of voice
and a number of outcomes. Brockner and colleagues’ ﬁrst two studies were scenario-
based and manipulated the amount of voice participants had in the situation. In both
studies, they found that the voice manipulation had a greater inﬂuence on organizational
commitment for participants in a lower power distance culture (i.e., the United States)
versus higher power distance cultures (i.e., China and Mexico). In their third study,
Brockner and colleagues asked participants to recall a recent dispute with another person.
The results indicated that the relationship between amount of voice and satisfaction with
the resolution of the dispute was more positive for a lower power distance culture (i.e.,
Germany) than a higher power distance culture (i.e., Hong Kong). In all three studies,
Brockner and colleagues measured individuals’ power distance levels and compared
interactions based on the culture—level indicators with those based on individuals’ power
distance standings. They found that the interactions of individuals’ power distance and
voice were signiﬁcant and washed out the interactions based on culture-level indicators.
Thus, it is power distance differences that account for the interactions rather than the
broad notion of culture. In their fourth study, Brockner and colleagues asked a group of

Chinese employees to rate the amount of voice they have in the workplace as well as their

13

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and intention to remain with the
organization. Consistent with their other results, Brockner and colleagues found that
perceived voice was more strongly related to organizational comrrritrnent, job
satisfaction, and intention to remain with the organization for those employees low in
power distance. The results of all four studies strongly suggest that factors that inﬂuence
the legitimacy of voice (i.e., power distance beliefs) interact with procedural elements
(i.e., voice) to inﬂuence a variety of outcomes.

Lam et al. (2002) examined the moderating role of power distance and
individualism in the relationship between justice perceptions and outcomes. Lam et al.
surveyed employees of a large multinational organization located in the United States and
China. Employees were asked to complete surveys that measured their perceptions of
distributive and procedural justice within the organization as well as their job satisfaction,
individualism, and power distance. In addition, supervisors provided information as to
each employee’s job performance and absenteeism. Lam et al.’s results showed that
power distance, but not individualism, moderated the relationship between distributive
and procedural justice and job satisfaction, performance, and absenteeism. The
moderated relationship was such that the relationship between justice perceptions and the
outcomes were stronger for those low on power distance. These results suggest that those
low in power distance expect to be treated fairly regardless of the characteristics of the
situation, whereas those high in power distance expect that they may be treated unfairly
by their supervisor(s).

While examining the results of the Brockner et al. (2001a, 2001b) and Lam et al.

(2002) studies, I found two key issues that need to be addressed. The ﬁrst is that

14

although the studies by Brockner and colleagues (2001a, 2001b) and Lam et al. (2002)
allegedly test the model presented in Brockner et al. (2001a) (see Figure 2), more
accurate depictions of the model underlying their empirical studies are presented in
Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The studies provide support for the moderating role of
power distance, past presence of procedural elements and individualism, but they do not
directly test the moderating role that legitimacy beliefs play in the procedural justice
elements to outcomes relationship. I could ﬁnd no research which directly tests the
moderating role of legitimacy beliefs in the procedural justice elements to outcomes
relationship. In order to test the moderating role of legitimacy beliefs, research needs to
test a model linking factors such as power distance, experience, and individualism to
legitimacy beliefs, which, in turn, moderate the relationship between procedural justice
elements and outcomes.

The second issue I noted while reviewing the measures used in these studies is the
distinction between measures of procedural elements used in both studies and measures
of procedural fairness perceptions. Research suggests that people use the presence or
absence of procedural elements to form procedural fairness perceptions (Van den BOS et
al., 1996; Greenberg et al., cited in Brockner et al., 20013). Van den Bos et al. ( 1996)
conducted research to examine the role of expectations in the formation of justice
perceptions. Van den 305 et al. manipulated expectations in two experiments by telling
participants that they should expect voice in the task, they should not expect voice, or
nothing about providing voice. Half of all participants were then given an opportunity to

provide voice related to the task. In both experiments, Van den Bos et al. found that

15

388 a a 5885 2a 383 a a 5585 B 8.5 382 .m as»;

 

 

 

 

mcozacw—mxm “mam
8835 $35 .8 .9820 a. .8833.
3:53 .a a 85.85 88882 can
8:58 B we coco—08m

 

 

 

 

 

 

new 8 :88Om 8 82885
cowoﬂmtmm n2.

 

sous—80m
83¢me 53, cocommmsmm AIL
808x885 88888.8ch

 

 

$5805
853 Eczeooem

 

 

 

 

 

8080:3800
_8o_>m:om 83 8:83:54

 

 

 

l6

£83 .3 3 ES 3 BE .08: .v 2%:

 

 

Emzmsﬂzwﬁ
8555 Each

 

 

 

 

EGooEoB<
oocmscotom 33
858333 n2.
$053850
Eggnom can EEUBE<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35:55
85mg @3585
30:30an

853. 252:me

 

17

 

providing voice lead to more positive fairness perceptions when participants either
expected voice or expected nothing. Of importance is the ﬁnding that for those
participants who expected no voice, those who subsequently received it rated the
procedures as less fair than those who did not receive it. In their second experiment, Van
den Bos et al. also found that for those participants who expected no voice, those who
subsequently received it performed worse on the task than those who did not receive
voice. The ﬁndings from both experiments suggest that expectations of procedural
justice elements inﬂuence the formation of procedural justice perceptions. As Van den
Bos et al. note, “we may conclude that what is considered fair depends in part on what is
expected” (p. 423).

The second study, Greenberg et a1. (cited in Brockner et al., 2001a), presented
participants with a scenario describing students who either should and would have some
control over the grading process for a class or students who should not and would not
have control over the grading process (high and low legitimacy conditions, respectively).
Participants were then told that the professors either did (high process control) or did not
(low process control) give students some control over the grading process. Greenberg et
al. found that process control had more of an inﬂuence on perceptions of the professor’s
fairness in the high than the low legitimacy condition.

The implications of these results are that researchers may be incorrect in assuming
that a person views a process as “unfair” when the person does not perceive the presence
of certain procedural elements in a situation. For example, if a person expects certain
elements (e.g., consistency, lack of bias) to be present in a promotion system and does

not perceive them to be present when he/she is in the process, he/ she may form very

18

different procedural justice perceptions than someone who does not expect that these
same elements will be present in the promotion system.

Instead of providing support for the model presented in Figure 2 (as suggested by
Brockner et al., 2001 a), these results suggest that the moderating relationship presented in
Figure 5 is a more accurate assessment of Van den Bos et al’s (1996) and Greenberg et
al.’s (cited in Brockner et al., 2001a) ﬁndings. The model presented in Figure 5 suggests
that expectations play a moderating role between the link of procedural elements and
procedural justice perceptions; procedural elements will have a stronger inﬂuence on
procedural justice perceptions for those people who hold higher expectations for the
procedural elements. As Brockner et al. (2001a, 2001b) and Lam et al. (2002) only
include measures that tap whether procedural elements are present or not, we can not
know if expectations have their inﬂuence on the relationship between procedural
elements and procedural fairness perceptions (Figure 5) or if they inﬂuence the
procedural fairness perceptions to outcomes relationship (Figure 2). Both studies assume
that overall measures of process fairness perceptions and presence of procedural elements
are the same and may be ignoring a potentially useﬁrl distinction that would help clarify
how procedural justice perceptions are formed and the role of procedural justice
expectations in this process. Additionally, in order for practitioners to effectively manage
justice perceptions in their organization, they need to know where to focus their efforts.
Should organizations focus their efforts solely on providing people with as fair a process
as possible or should some efforts also be made to create a set of expectations of the

procedural elements people will and will not encounter?

l9

85cm .3 .0 558cm 5 3:8
3:2 28 gov—mm @3520 can 83: 853 98 J§§o> .mom cow §> 3 38,—. 2082 .m oSwE

 

35:55 5.6805
no homEEwoA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£53383 3:255
852. 35680.5 853 3:68on

{L

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

Given the number of issues surrounding Brockner et al.’s (2001a) model, it is
unclear exactly what to expect concerning procedural justice expectations. As a result of
this confusion, I plan to measure the presence of procedural elements, perceptions of
process fairness, expectations of procedural elements, expectations of process fairness,
and outcomes. By including all of these measures, I will be able to address the myriad of
issues raised by Brockner et al.’s model and determine where expectations have an
inﬂuence on justice perceptions and outcomes. Based on issues noted above, I will
hypothesize competing hypotheses as to where expectations serve as a moderator.

Hypothesis 2a: Procedural justice expectations will moderate the relationship

between procedural justice perceptions and outcomes (satisfaction, commitment,

withdrawal intentions, recommendation intentions). The relationship between
procedural justice perceptions and outcomes will be stronger when people expect
procedural justice to be present in the situation.

Hypothesis 2b: Procedural elements expectations will moderate the relationship

between procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions. The

relationship between procedural elements perceptions and process fairness
perceptions will be stronger when people expect those elements to be present in
the situation.

Although both Brockner et al’s (2001a) and Shapiro and Kirkman’s (2001)
research incorporate expectations into the relationship between justice elements and
outcomes, neither model incorporates much of what has been learned from the research in
social psychology. The next section provides a more in-depth discussion of the factors

that may inﬂuence how expectations are formed and the situations in which expectations

21

may have an inﬂuence on perceptions and outcomes. The next section should provide
justice researchers with a better understand of the role of expectations in justice models.
Exmtions in Psychology

Expectations have played a consistent role within social psychology for many
years (see Miller & Tumbull, 1986; Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Olson et al., 1996 for
reviews). Within the expectations literature, a number of researchers have attempted to
clarify the types of expectancies people may have as well as the factors that may affect
when they will inﬂuence perceptions and/or behavior (Jones, Schwartz, & Gilbert, 1984;
Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Olson et al., 1996; Swarm & Ely, 1984; Rothbart & Park, 1986;
Higgins & King, 1981). Olson et al. (1996) provide a review of expectancies within the
ﬁeld of social psychology. Olson et al. deﬁne expectancies as beliefs about future events
and suggest that investigators interested in determining the source of expectancies are
really asking about the sources of beliefs.

Olson et a1. (1996) suggest that expectancies may vary on four key characteristics
(certainty, accessibility, explicitness, and importance). The ﬁrst is the certainty with
which the expectancy is held. They suggest that an expectancy’s certainty may be
increased via direct experience, consensus information from other people, its
accessibility, and past experiences of its conﬁrmation. The second dimension is an
expectancy’s accessibility or the “likelihood that an expectancy will be activated and
used in relevant situations” (p. 215). Accessibility is thought to be inﬂuenced by its
frequency of activation, recency of activation, the importance of the expectancy, and past
disconﬁrmations of the expectancy. The third dimension is the explicitness of an

expectancy (i.e., implicit vs. explicit). Olson et al. suggest explicit expectancies are

22

“common in interpersonal settings, where interactants may form hypotheses about the
traits of others“ (p. 216). In addition to interpersonal settings, Olson et al. suggest that a
number of other factors may make an expectancy explicit. They suggest that
expectancies become explicit when, for example, we are required to prepare for an event
(e.g., a performance appraisal meeting). In addition, directly asking people about their
expectancies, the importance of an expectancy, and past experiences of discontinuation
may also make an expectancy explicit. Implicit expectancies are most factual pieces of
information that people assume about the world and likely make up most of the
expectancies we have. Implicit expectancies are such things as the sun rising in the
morning, touching a hot stove leads to burns, etc. The ﬁnal dimension on which
expectancies may vary are their importance. Olson et al. hypothesize that an
expectancy’s importance may be inﬂuenced by its relevance to important needs of the
person and/or its implications for other expectancies (e.g., an expectancy of a group has
implications for expectancies of its members).

These properties are suggested to account for possible differences in the degree to
which people allow their expectancies to inﬂuence their attitudes, perceptions, and

behaviors. For example, if someone is certain of their expectancy that his parents will

 

treat him poorly, he may be more likely to perceive that his parents treated him poorly,
despite their actual behaviors. If that same person is only slightly certain that his parents
will treat him poorly, he may actually see that they their behaviors towards him are
positive. Thus, the stronger people’s expectancies are via their certainty, accessibility,
explicitness, and/or importance, the stronger the expectancies’ inﬂuence on people’s

attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

23

The importance of understanding the types of properties on which expectancies
may vary stems from research that shows when expectancies have more or less of an
inﬂuence on perceptions and behavior (Jones et al., 1984; Swann & Ely, 1984; Fiske,
Beattie, & Milberg, cited in Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Irving & Meyer, 1994). As noted
above, Jones et al.’s (1984) ﬁndings suggest that the source of expectancy, and thus the
strength of expectancy, affects the inﬂuence of expectancies on perceptions.

Swann and Ely (1984) provide evidence that people take the strength of
expectancies into account when judging social information. Similar to Olson et al.
(1996), Swann and Ely (1984) suggest that certainty helps people to determine which
expectations should relied upon more than others. In their study, Swann and Ely
manipulated the certainty of each interviewer’s expectancies by telling her that
information about the candidate she would be interviewing was either highly consistent
or inconsistent across raters who had previously interviewed the candidate. The results
conﬁrmed their hypothesis by showing that although those interviewers with more certain
expectancies probed candidates for more conﬁrming evidence to support their
expectancy, interviewers with less certain expectancies probed candidates equally for
conﬁrming and disconﬁrming evidence. Thus, the certainty of the expectancy appears to
inﬂuence people’s desire to either maintain consistency with the expectancy or abandon it
in favor of new, behavioral evidence.

Irving and Meyer (1994) conducted a meta-analysis to determine support for the
met expectations hypothesis. They were interested in determining whether new
employees’ organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions were

inﬂuenced by a) the degree to which expectations existing before a new job were met by

24

the job after a period of time (i.e., the met expectations hypothesis), b) individual’s
expectations before the new job, and/or c) the experiences individuals had during their
time on the job. Irving and Meyer’s study was another way of addressing the issue of
expectancy strength. In other words, would we expect job experiences to inﬂuence
outcomes more than expectations or the difference between the two variables? Their
results provided the most support for a main effect of experiences on the three outcomes
(organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions). Expectations had
a consistent non-signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the outcomes measures. Irving and Meyer’s
results point to the importance of experience in helping to shape their work-related
attitudes versus the expectations that employees hold about the organization.

Olson et al.’s (1996) review also suggests that expectancies may arise from three
major sources: from direct personal experience with objects, from indirect experience via
communicating with others, and from other beliefs (causal attributions). Expectancies
based on direct experience are those that we learn over time through interacting with our
environment. For example, a person may learn that ice is cold by touching ice cubes;
thus, he/she would have ﬁrst hand knowledge on which to base his/her expectancies of
future encounters with ice. Expectancies based on indirect experience are those that we
learn via social means. These sources of knowledge are important in forming
expectancies, so we can learn much more information than that for which we are able to
directly interact with the stimulus. It is probably better that we learn that stoves are hot,
rather than having to touch one in order to learn an expectancy about touching hot stoves.

Within the justice literature, a number of researchers have also suggested that

expectations may be inﬂuenced by past experiences (e. g., Brockner et al., 1994; Brockner

25

et al., 2001a; Shapiro & Kirkman, 2001; Mitrano, 1997; Davidson & Friedman, 1998
Gilliland & Steiner, 2001; Olson et al., 1996). As noted earlier, Brockner et al.’s (2001a)
results suggested that the past presence of procedural elements inﬂuenced the legitimacy
that layoff survivors assigned to fair treatment during a current layoff. Mitrano (1997)
found that employees formed justice expectations based partly on past experiences they
had within the organization and their careers more generally. Davidson and Friedman
(1998) found that Black employees had more negative past experiences with justice in the
workplace compared to Whites and consequently had more negative expectations of
being treated fairly in the future. Based on the above ﬁndings, I predict that direct,
procedural justice experiences and indirect, procedural justice experiences will be related
to procedural justice expectations. In particular, I suggest that direct and indirect
experiences will be positively related to procedural justice expectations.

Hypothesis 3a: Direct procedural justice experiences will be related to procedural

justice expectations such that more positive direct experiences will be associated

with more positive procedural justice expectations.

Hypothesis 3b: Indirect procedural justice experiences will be related to

procedural justice expectations such that more positive indirect experiences will

be associated with more positive procedural justice expectations.

The third source of expectancies suggested by Olson et al. (1996) is other beliefs.
This source of expectancies helps people to build on their knowledge of other objects to
infer what the new situation may hold. For example, I may know a dog is mean because
it has tried to bite numerous people. Thus, I am using my existing belief about the dog to

form an expectancy of how it will act it the future (i.e., it will be mean to other people).

26

Although other beliefs are a potential inﬂuence on expectancies, Olson et al. (1996) do
not clearly separate this source from the past experiences that have given rise to these
beliefs. We gather knowledge either directly or through social means, so how are other
beliefs distinct ﬁom experience? Based on the lack of support given for this source, I
chose not to include it as a potential inﬂuence on procedural justice expectations.

Olson et al. (1996) suggest that expectancies formed from direct personal
experiences should be generally stronger than those not based on direct experience.
Expectancies based on direct experience are thought to be more accurate and trustworthy
compared to expectancies based on other sources. Although not necessarily indirect,
expectancies based on other beliefs may not be as strong as those based on direct
experience. Jones et al. (1984) conducted a study that varied the source of expectancy.
Half of the subjects received expectancy information from someone who knew the
person, and the other half from the person themselves. Jones et al. found that reputation-
based expectancies were overridden by behavioral evidence, but that direct expectancies
had an equal inﬂuence to behavioral evidence in inﬂuencing perceptions of the person.

The differential inﬂuence of direct vs. indirect experiences on the formation of
beliefs and perceptions extends across multiple domains. Within the justice literature,
Lind, Kray, and Thompson’s (1998) research also suggests that direct experiences
inﬂuence justice perceptions more than indirect experiences. Lind et al. (1998) exposed
participants to a situation in which three group members were denied voice in a computer
business task either once each or to a situation in which only one group member received
all three instances of injustice. Their results showed that group members reacted more

negatively to the situation when they each experienced an incident of injustice than when

27

only another team member experienced three instances of injustice. Thus, direct
experiences were more inﬂuential on participants’ perceptions than indirect experiences.

Tyler (1980, 1984) has also examined the inﬂuence of direct vs. indirect
experience on the judged risk of crime victimization. Tyler (1984) conducted a series of
studies to determine what aspects of a crime inﬂuence victims’ subsequent fear of crime
and crime-prevention behavior. In two studies, Tyler surveyed recent victims of a crime.
In Study 1, Tyler found that the informativeness and affect related to the experienced
crime signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced victim’s fear of crime. In Study 2, Tyler found that affect
related to the experienced crime inﬂuenced victim’s reported crime-prevention behavior.
Tyler’s third study asked undergraduate participants to read about another person’s
experience with a crime and provide their reactions to it. Similar to the ﬁrst two studies,
Tyler found that the informativeness and affect related to the crime inﬂuenced
participants’ fear of crime and reported crime-prevention behavior. Given that directly
experienced crimes are more likely to provide useful information and to create strong
aﬁ‘ective reactions, it follows that direct experiences will inﬂuence perceptions of risk of
crime victimization more than indirect experiences.

Tyler (1980) gathered data from interviews and telephone surveys regarding
people’s experience with crime and their crime-related judgments and behaviors. Tyler
found that direct experiences with crime had a larger inﬂuence than indirect experiences
on personal judgments of vulnerability to crimes. Despite this result, Tyler also found
that indirect experiences with crime had a larger inﬂuence than direct experiences on
judgments of the base rate of crime. Tyler noted that these results suggest that the

relative impact of direct vs. indirect experience may depend on the outcome being

28

examined. Although Tyler makes this suggestion, most of the evidence concerning direct
vs. indirect experiences leads me to hypothesize that that direct experiences will have a
stronger inﬂuence than indirect experiences on procedural justice expectations.
Hypothesis 4: Direct procedural justice experiences will be more strongly related
to procedural justice expectations than will indirect procedural justice
experiences.
Additional Factors Inﬂuencing Expectations
In addition to the factors noted above in Hypotheses 3a (past, direct experiences)
and 3b (past, indirect experiences), researchers have suggested a number of other factors
that may inﬂuence procedural justice expectations (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Ball,
Trevino, & Sims, 1993, 1994; Brockner et al., 2001b; Lam et al., 2002). Unfortunately,
few researchers have actually conducted research to support what variables should and
should not be considered as inﬂuences on justice expectations (see Mitrano, 1997 for an
exception). Although there may be many inﬂuences on expectations (e.g., race, gender,
age), I will focus on a subset of variables that have received some empirical support
and/or those that I would expect to inﬂuence procedural justice expectations. Next, I will
discuss the inﬂuence of positive and negative affectivity (PA/NA) and power distance
(PD) on procedural justice expectations.
Positive and Negative Affectivity
Another factor which may more generally pre-dispose people to expect fair or unfair
treatment is their negative affectivity (NA). People high in NA are described as
“distressed and upset and have a negative view of self” and those low in negative

affectivity are “relatively content and secure and satisﬁed with themselves” (p. 465)

29

(Watson & Clark, 1984). Watson and Clark ﬁrrther note that NA is a more general
negative condition accompanied by such states as anger, scorn, revulsion, sadness, and a
sense of rejection. Thus, people high in NA are expected to respond negatively to events
despite the situational factors.

Ball and colleagues (1993) conducted a study in which they asked employees to
recall a recent disciplinary event and the rate their reactions and the perceived
characteristics of the event (e.g., negative demeanor, subordinate control, explanation,
privacy, arbitrariness, and harshness). They found that NA was related to justice
perceptions, intentions to turnover, organizational commitment, and trust of and
satisfaction with their supervisor. The results of a path analysis indicated inﬂuence of
NA on the outcomes was via the employees’ perceptions of the disciplinary event. In a
similar study Ball and colleagues (1994) found that NA was related to the perceived
harshness of the event.

Folger and Konovsky (1989) examined the role of NA in reactions to employees’
pay raises. They found that NA was signiﬁcantly related to employees’ organizational
commitment, trust in supervisor, and the perceived fairness associated with the feedback
given during the pay raise process. Similar to the Ball et al. studies (1993, 1994), these
results suggest that NA may have an important inﬂuence on how people form justice
perceptions. High NA people may always expect to treated unfairly, so they may
consequently perceive unfair treatment no matter what efforts an organization takes to
increase fairness.

Hypothesis 5: Negative affectivity will be negatively related to procedural justice

expectations.

30

Although the research noted above deals with NA, I decided to examine another
variable from the mood literature (i.e., positive affectivity, PA). Watson, Clark, and
Tellegen (1988) deﬁne PA as “the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active and
alert” (p. 1063). Some research ﬁnds negligible correlations between PA and NA (e. g.,
Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985; Watson et al., 1988) and other research ﬁnds
that PA and NA are moderately correlated (e. g., Brenner, 1975; Diener & Emmons,
1984). Zevon and Tellegen (1982) suggest that “if we deﬁne emotions as aroused-
engaged states, then Positive and Negative Affect are best characterized as descriptively
bipolar but affectively unipolar dimensions” (p. 112). Research has shown that PA is
useful for predicting a variety of outcomes such as social activity, depression, and general
distress and dysfunction (Watson et al., 1988). Thus, PA appears to be another factor that
may inﬂuence individual’s general outlook on life and may consequently inﬂuence
individual’s procedural justice expectations.

Hypothesis 6: Positive affectivity will be positively related to procedural justice

expectations.
Power Distance

Brockner et al. (2001a) suggest that there may be both proximal and distal
inﬂuences on legitimacy beliefs. Distal inﬂuences are thought to be those based on
historical or cultural norms. Hofstede’s (1980) power distance (PD) concept is useful for
attempting to understand the types of cultural differences that may inﬂuence procedural
justice expectations. As mentioned earlier, Brockner et al. (2001b) and Lam et al. (2002)
examined individual-level measures of power distance as a moderator of the relationship

between justice elements and outcomes. Their results suggest a stronger relationship

31

between procedural elements and outcomes for people low in power distance compared
to those high in power distance. Thus, people low in power distance may expect
procedural elements/justice to be present more than those high in power distance.
Hypothesis 7: Power distance will be negatively related to procedural justice
expectations.
Sgdies Overview
ML]. The purpose of Study 1 was to provide a test of the role of expectations
as a mediator (Hypothesis 1) a moderator of the procedural justice perceptions to
outcomes relationship (Hypothesis 2a), or a moderator of the procedural justice elements
and process fairness perceptions relationship (Hypothesis 2b) in a controlled lab setting.
In this study, I manipulated procedural justice expectations. Additionally, I included
measures of negative and positive affectivity and power distance as tests of Hypotheses
5-7, respectively. Study 1 was conducted in the context of a resume screening process.
§tu_dy_2. The purpose of Study 2 was to provide an additional test of the role of
procedural justice expectations as a direct inﬂuence on procedural justice perceptions
(Hypothesis 1), a moderator of the procedural justice perceptions to outcomes
relationship (Hypothesis 2a), or a moderator of the procedural justice elements and
process fairness perceptions relationship (Hypothesis 2b). Study 2 also examines the
inﬂuence of past, direct experiences (Hypothesis 3a), past, indirect experiences
(Hypothesis 3b), Negative Affectivity (Hypothesis 5), Positive Affectivity (Hypothesis
6), and Power Distance (Hypothesis 7). Finally, Study 2 includes a test of the relative

inﬂuence of past, direct experiences versus past, indirect experiences on procedural

32

justice expectations (Hypothesis 4). Study 2 was conducted in the context of class
grading procedures.
STUDY 1 METHODS

Participants. 225 participants were recruited from introductory psychology
classes at a large Midwestern University. Participants were either given course credit or
extra credit for their participation in the study. The average age of the sample was 20
years. The sample was 54% Female, 85% White, 8% African American, and 3%
Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 1% American Indian.

m. The design of the Study 1 was a between subjects design in which I
manipulated participants’ expectations of procedural fairness (F air and Unfair). As the
expectation manipulation was read verbally to participants, I randomly assigned each
session to an expectation condition.

Procedure. After signing the consent form (Appendix A), participants were told
that the experiment was intended to provide the researchers with their perceptions of a
selection process used by a local organization (Appendices B and C). Participants were
given a description of the organization and told that their job was to evaluate the fairness
of the resume screening process. Participants were told that they would review the hiring
manager’s resume and a number of resumes. In addition, the experimenter told
participants that they would be provided with the resume screening decisions for the
candidates. The experimenter then gave participants the expectation manipulation checks
(Appendix D). After completing the manipulation checks, the experimenter gave
candidates the hiring manager’s resume, candidates’ resumes, and the resume screening

decisions to review (Appendix B). After 10 minutes of reviewing the information, the

33

experimenter asked participants to provide their ratings of process fairness and outcome
fairness associated with the selection process as well as their organizational commitment
and recommendation intentions (Appendix F). Next, the experimenter gave participants a
questionnaire containing the positive and negative affectivity measure, the power
distance measure, and demogaphics (Appendix G). Finally, the experimenter gave
participants a debrieﬁng as to the purpose of the study (Appendix H).

Expectation Manipulation. In order to create different expectations across
conditions, I created two manipulations that while similar in nature connoted either
positive (Fair) or negative (Unfair) information regarding fairness practices within the
organization.

Fair Expectation. In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality of
the process that the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume
screening step only. Organization X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s
selection practices stems ﬁ'om a desire to insure that the resume screening process
is as efﬁcient as possible. One challenge to maintaining a quality resume
screening process is the small potential for hiring managers to use inconsistent
and/or biased practices. Fortunately, research has found that hiring managers
using a resume screening process similar to that in Organization X do not engage
in these unfair practices. In addition, the current manager has not been accused
of using inconsistent and/or personal biases in the resume screening process
during his tenure as hiring manager. Finally, the director of hiring for the entire
organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss) frequently provides her hiring
managers with training to prevent the use of unfair practices in the resume
screening process. Because of the small potential for unfair practices in the
resume screening process such as the one used by Organization X, I would like
you to review the candidates’ resumes and provide me with your perceptions of
the resume screening process.

Unfair Expectation. In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality
of the process that the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume
screening step only. Organization X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s
selection practices stems from a desire to insure that the resume screening process
is as efﬁcient as possible. One challenge to maintaining a quality resume
screening process is the signiﬁcant potential for hiring managers to use
inconsistent and/or biased practices. Unfortunately, research has found that
hiring managers using a resume screening process similar to that in Organization

34

X engage in these unfair practices. In addition, the current manager has been
accused of using inconsistent and/or personal biases in the resume screening
process during his tenure as hiring manager. Finally, the director of hiring for the
entire organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss) rarely provides her hiring
managers with training to prevent the use of unfair practices in the resume
screening process. Because of the signiﬁcant potential for unfair practices in the
resume screening process such as the one used by Organization X, I would like
you to review the candidates’ resumes and provide me with your perceptions of
the resume screening process.

Resumes. The twelve candidate resumes used in this study were adopted ﬁom
Horvath and Ryan (2003). Table 1 contains the characteristics of the twelve resumes. Of
the twelve resumes, I selected an equal number of males and females. In order to assess
the inﬂuence of expectations, I needed to create resumes that were moderate in
qualiﬁcations since resumes at the extremes (i.e., highly qualiﬁed and highly unqualiﬁed)
would likely be judged similarly despite individuals’ expectations. Thus, I selected 1
highly qualiﬁed and 2 highly unqualiﬁed resumes ﬁ'om Horvath and Ryan. Additionally,
I modiﬁed 9 of the remaining resumes to make them moderate in quality compared to the
extreme candidates (i.e., the highly qualiﬁed and unqualiﬁed resumes). In total, 7 of the
twelve candidates were selected (1 highly qualiﬁed and 6 moderately qualiﬁed
candidates).

In addition to creating resumes moderate in quality, I also wanted to put some
information in the resumes that would allow for variation in perceptions of fairness due to
expectations. To create ambiguity regarding process fairness, 4 of the 6 selected resumes
were created to have similar characteristics as the hiring manager (e.g., activities,

religion, political afﬁliation), but were created to be similarly qualiﬁed as candidates who

did not share these characteristics. I created these resumes in this fashion so that

35

Table 1

Study 1 Resume Characteristics

 

 

Candidate Name Resume Selection Similarities to Hiring Manager
Quality Decision

Sara Franks High Select

Brent Hawks Low Reject Gender

Janet McClellan Low Reject

Christopher Grano Moderate Select Gender, Religion, School
Victoria Niles Moderate Select Activities, Majors, Past Jobs
Jonathan Reyner Moderate Select Gender, Politics, Past Jobs

Michael Smythe Moderate Select Gender, Activities, Religion

Richard Snead Moderate Reject Gender
Ellen VanBuren Moderate Reject
Mary Hirsch Moderate Reject
Wayne Jameson Moderate Select Gender
Laura Mercier Moderate Select

36

participants in the negative expectation condition would perceive these similarities as
evidence of unfairness, whereas participants in the positive expectations would not
perceive these similarities as evidence of unfairness. To make sure that participants in
both conditions did not see these as unfair, I only incorporated a few similarities in these
resumes.

Pilot Experiments.

Expectation Manipulation

To ensure that individuals would perceive the expected difference between the
fair and unfair expectation manipulation, I ran 112 people through a pilot experiment
testing the manipulation. After ageeing to participate in the pilot study (Appendix 1),
participants were told they would review the selection procedures used by an
organization and provide their perceptions of them (Appendices J and K). After
completing the expectation measures, the experimenter gave participants a debrieﬁng
(Appendix L).

In order to check the effect of manipulating individual’s expectations, I
administered two expectations measures after the manipulation. One measure contained
four items that assessed individuals’ expectations of an overall fair resume screening
process (e.g., “I expect that the resume screening pr_o_c_e§§ will be fair”). The second
measure assessed participants’ expectations of procedural justice elements in the resume
screening process (e.g., “The resume screening procedures were applied consistently”).
These measures were given after the experimenter read a description of the organization,

the position being selected, their task, and the expectation manipulation.

37

Demogaphics were not collected in this study because one of the ﬁrst pilot
participants suggested that collecting such information inﬂuenced his and may inﬂuence
other participants’ manner in which they judged their expectations of the scenario. The
pilot participant stated that asking demogaphic information did not seem necessary given
the task, so he thought that he may be expected to ﬁll out the measure differently than
others. Despite not collecting demogaphic information, participants in the pilot study
were taken from the same sample as the main study; thus, they are likely comparable in
demogaphics to the main study.

Throughout the piloting, I made minor adjustments to the wording in order to
better ﬁt the manipulation. The adjustments did not appear to strengthen the
manipulation, but did provide a clearer framing of the situation for participants. Overall,
the results indicated a signiﬁcant difference between the fair and unfair expectation
conditions for both the elements and process fairness manipulation checks
(F(1,1 11)=4.28, p<.05; F(l,111)=6.15, p<.05, respectively). The results indicated that
although there were signiﬁcant differences between the goups, the scale average for both
the elements and process fairness measures in the unfair expectation condition were still
above the midpoint of the scale (3.58 and 3.29, respectively). The results also indicated
that the wording changes did not change participants’ expectations for procedural
elements or process fairness (F(2,1 l 1)=1.28, p=.28; F(2,111)=.28, p=.76, respectively).

Resume Creation ‘

To make sure that individuals would perceive the quality of resumes as I intended,
31 participants were asked to review and then rate the quality of the 12 resumes. After

ageeing to participate in the pilot study (Appendix M), participants were told they would

38

review resumes of candidates who recently went through a resume screening process
used by an organization and provide their perceptions of quality of the resumes. After
reviewing the resumes and completing the quality and resume rankings (Appendix N),
the experimenter gave participants a debrieﬁng (Appendix 0). Similar to the ﬁrst pilot
study, demogaphics were not collected for this pilot study. Participants in the pilot study
were taken from the same sample as the main study; thus, they are likely comparable in
demogaphics to the main study.

The results of the second pilot study indicated that participants perceived one
highly qualiﬁed resume, nine moderately qualiﬁed resumes, and two minimally qualiﬁed
resumes. The results were consistent for both the resume quality ratings and the
candidate ranking data.

Measures. All measures except Positive and Negative Affectivity utilized a ﬁve
point Likert-type scale with anchors of _1_ = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Positive and Negative Affectivity utilized a ﬁve point Likert-type scale with anchors of 1
= very slightly or not al all to _5_ = extremely.

P_o_sjtive amid Negative Affectivity. Positive and Negative affectivity was
measured using Watson et al.’s (1988) PANAS (Positive and Negative Affectivity
Scales) scales. The PANAS scales consist of two 10-item measures, each of which
consists of either positive (e. g., interested, proud, inspired) or negative (e.g., distressed,
jittery, nervous) mood descriptors. Watson et al. have shown the PANAS scales to be
only slightly correlated (average = -.19), have high reliabilities (alphas >.80, test-retest ~

.70), and show reasonable construct validity.

39

 

Power Distgnce. Individual’s beliefs in the acceptability of power differences was
measured using six items adopted from Lam et a1. (2002). An example item is “People
should not express disagreements with their superiors.”

Procedural Elements Expectations. lndividuals’ expectations of procedural
justice in the gading process was measured by adapting the procedural justice scale
developed by Colquitt (2001). Colquitt’s procedural justice scale was designed to
measure procedural justice perceptions, so I modiﬁed the items to tap individuals’
expectations of procedural justice (four items; e.g., “I expect that the resume screening
procedures will be applied consistently”). In addition, Colquitt’s procedural justice scale
is designed so it can be adapted to speciﬁc situations (e.g., hiring, layoffs, etc.). Since the
current study was conducted in a resume screening context, all questions referenced the
resume screening process.

Process Fairness Expectations. Participants’ expectations of process fairness was
measured by adapting Gilliland’s (1994) measure. This four-item measure measures
individuals’ expectations of an overall fair resume screening process. An example item is
“I expect that the resume screening M will be fair.”

Procedural Elements Perceptions. Individuals’ perceptions of procedural justice
in the resume screening process was measured by adapting the procedural justice scale
developed by Colquitt (2001). Colquitt’s procedural justice scale was modiﬁed to ﬁt
perceptions of the resume screening process. Four items were used to assess procedural
justice in the resume screening process (e.g., “The resume screening procedures were

applied consistently”).

40

Process Fairness Perceptions. Perceptions of the overall fairness of the process
was measured using four items by adopting Gilliland’s (1994) of process fairness. An
example item is “I feel the resume screening M was fair.”

Outcome fairness. Participants’ perceptions of outcome fairness were measured
using four items ﬁom Gilliland (1994). An example item is “I feel the selection
outcomes were fair.”

Organizational Commitment. Brockner (2001b) created two measures of
organizational commitment as a proxy for individuals’ satisfaction with a change process.
Thus, I adopted four items from two separate organizational commitment measures
created by Brockner et al. (2001b) and created two additional items. An example item is
“I would be motivated to work for this organization.”

Recommendation Intentions. Three items were taken from Bell, Wiechmann, and
Ryan (20033) to assess participants’ intentions to recommend the organization to others.
An example item is “I would recommend this organization to others.”

STUDY 1 RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliabilities of the measures are
in Table 2. In order to clarify the nature of my measures, I ran a series of factor analyses
and principal components analyses using both an orthogonal and oblique rotation. As all
analyses produced similar results, I will only present the results of the principal
components analyses (PCA) using an oblique rotation. I ran a PCA for the PANAS items
and found that a two-factor solution explained 52% of the variance. The results also

indicated that all items loaded highly (>.50) onto their hypothesized factors and had

41

 

.5. v m 3.. .3. v m a. .2. v m .- .meozﬁoomxm 0383. 12382:; s
885588 E 8.59% 05 E @8583 98 82:88:01 .oREomum .2321
”8280 Sm .380 btoﬁEl .BEBHC 8250 .3859 53 8m cur-T— .eﬂeDuo 82:28 eomcmaoomxm com .mmm HZ ”202

 

 

33 E. E.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- .2. 8.- 8.- 8. 2.“ 8555588.:
88 8. 8.- 8. :.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. i.- E. 88 888$. 2882.2
88 :. 8. :2. 8. 8.- 8. S. 8.- 8. 88 8888< 2588 .8

83 :8. :8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 88 88:25 .8

A88 :8. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- .:.- 8. own 88828 883 s

88 :8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. E. 8.». .8888me .8

8.- :. 8.- 8.- 8. 9.. 8288 8:888 .m

8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 88 8&5 855-850 .4

:2. 2. 8. 8. 88 585 8.5-88 .m

 

8. 8. of 5800 .m
82 8.2 0?. .2
:Saweem4mm_cmz 285‘,

 

 

macaw—otooeBE “Em aces-mica Execﬁm .2832 ~ Nuam

N 2%..-

42

negligible cross-loadings (<.30) on the other factor; thus, I created separate Em
Affectivity and ﬂegative Affectivity scale. The Positive and Negative Affectivity scales
both had high reliabilities (.90 and .89, respectively).

A separate PCA was conducted for the power distance items. Results indicated
that two factors (each with three items) accounted for 55% of the variance. The ﬁrst
factor appeared to tap overall beliefs about power differentials, and the second factor
contained items that referenced power differentials with respect to instructors. The
results indicated that two items in the second factor had low loadings on both factors and
that a third item had moderate loadings on the both factors. I then conducted another
PCA, but dropped the two items that had poor loadings on either factor. The results
indicated that one-factor accounted for 53% of the variance and that all of the items had
moderate loadings (>.40) on the factor. Based on these results, I created a four-item
measure of mwer distance. The coefﬁcient alpha for this scale (.69) was lower than
expected, but was still near the accepted level of .70.

Next, I conducted a PCA with the procedural elements expectations and process
fairness expectations items. I did not include the procedural elements perceptions,
process fairness perceptions, outcome fairness perceptions, organizational commitment,
and recommendation intentions measures in the analysis, as they were separated by the
time participants reviewed the resumes (i.e., 10 minutes) and were conceptually distinct
from the two expectations measures. The results for the expectations items indicated a
one-factor solution accounted for 59% of the variance and all items loaded at least
moderately (>.40) on the factor. I created a med—mﬂjmm measure

based on these results, and it had a reliability of .90.

43

Finally, I conducted a PCA with the procedural elements perceptions, process
fairness perceptions, outcome fairness perceptions, organizational commitment, and
recommendation intentions items. Iran this PCA in order to determine if participants
distinguished between the perceptions measures and those meant to tap their commitment
to and intentions regarding the organization. Results indicated a two-factor solution that
accounted for 58% of the variance. The results indicated that, overall, the procedural
elements perceptions, process fairness perceptions, and outcome fairness perceptions
loaded onto one factor and the organizational commitment and recommendation
intentions items loaded onto a second factor. One commitment item (i.e., “I trust this
hiring manager”) and one intention item (i.e., “I would recommend others apply to this
organization”) loaded slightly higher on the justice perceptions factor than the intentions
factor. Despite this result, I thought their content more accurately represented the
intentions factor, so I created the intentions measure using these items and those from the
second factor. I created the jigtice perceptions measure using the procedural elements
perceptions, process fairness perceptions, and outcome fairness perceptions items. Both
the justice perceptions and intentions measures had high reliabilities (.93 and .90,
respectively).

Manipulation Check

A one-way AN OVA was conducted to test the effectiveness of the expectation
manipulation. The results indicated that the procedural justice expectations measure was
signiﬁcantly different between conditions (F(1,224)=13.58, p<.01). As expected,
participants in the Fair condition had higher procedural justice expectations than

participants in the Unfair condition (3.70 vs. 3.34, respectively). Although the

manipulation produced signiﬁcant differences in expectations, the size of the effect was
rather small (d=.49). These results suggest that participants may not have had enough
experience with this type of process to form stronger expectations. Instead, participants
appeared to base their expectations on the general premise that these types of processes
are at least somewhat fair.

Hypothesis 1: Mediation

I tested Hypothesis 1 (i.e., Procedural justice expectations will directly inﬂuence
justice perceptions, which will, in turn, inﬂuence intentions) using Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) test of mediation. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation is supported
by a) a signiﬁcant relationship of procedural justice expectations and justice perceptions,
b) a signiﬁcant relationship between justice perceptions and intentions, and c) either a
non-signiﬁcant relationship (full mediation) or a change in the degree of relationship
(partial mediation) between procedural justice expectations and intentions when justice
perceptions are controlled.

Table 3 shows the ﬁrst condition of mediation was not supported as the
expectation condition is not related to justice perceptions. Given the lack of support for
mediation using the expectation condition as the IV, I decided to further explore the
possibility of mediation using the procedural justice expectations measure. Table 4
shows that the ﬁrst two steps are supported as procedural justice expectations are
signiﬁcantly related to justice perceptions (B=.21) and justice perceptions are
signiﬁcantly related to intentions (B=.68). The ﬁnal step supported partial mediation as

the relationship between procedural justice expectations and intentions decreased when

45

Table 3

Mediated Regression Results: Regressing Justice Perceptions on Expectation Condition

 

 

Predictor/ Step [3 AR2 R2
DV: Justice Perceptions
1. Age -.11 .03 .03
Gender .03
Black-White Dummy Code -.10
Other-White Dummy Code -.03
Positive Affectivity .07
Negative Affectivity -.03
Power Distance .03
2. Expectation Condition .03 .00 .03

 

N95 N=218. DV = dependent variable. For Expectation condition: 0=Unfair, 1=F air.
For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male, 2=Female.
Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are ﬁom the ﬁnal step of the
model with all variables entered.

46

Table 4

Mediated Regression Results: Reggessing Justice Perceptions and Intentions on
Procedural Justice Expectations

 

 

Predictor/ Step (3 AR2 R2
DV: Justice Perceptions
1. Age -.11“ .03 .03
Gender .02
Black-White Dummy Code -.09
Other-White Dummy Code -.02
Positive Affectivity .04
Negative Affectivity -.00
Power Distance .02
2. Procedural Justice Expectations .21 ** .04** .O7*
DV: Intentions
1. Age .05 .03 .03
Gender .03
Black-White Dummy Code -.00
Other-White Dummy Code -.06
Positive Affectivity .06
Negative Affectivity -.07
Power Distance .04
2. Justice Perceptions .68“ .45M .48**
DV: Intentions
1. Age -.03 .03 .03
Gender .03
Black—White Dummy Code -.07
Other-White Dummy Code -.07
Positive Affectivity .06
Negative Affectivity -.06
Power Distance .05
2. Procedural Justice Expectations .2?“ .07** .10“

 

Note: N=218. DV = dependent variable. For Expectation condition: 0=Unfair, 1=Fair.
For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male, 2=Female.
Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are ﬁom the ﬁnal step of the
model with all variables entered.

19< .10. * p< .05. **p< .01.

 

47

Table 4 (cont.)

Mediated Regession Results: Regessing Justice Perceptions aLnd Intentions on
Procedural Expectations

 

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Intentions

1. Age .04 .03 .03

Gender .02

Black-White Dummy Code -.00

Other-White Dummy Code -.05

Positive Affectivity .04

Negative Affectivity -.06

Power Distance .04
2. Justice Perceptions .66" .45" .48"
3. Procedural Justice Expectations .13* .02* .50*

 

No_te_: N=218. DV = dependent variable. For Expectation condition: 0=Unfair, 1=Fair.
For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male, 2=Female.
Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefficients are ﬁom the ﬁnal step of the
model with all variables entered.

*g<.10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

48

controlling for justice perceptions (B=.27 to 13:. l 3), but remained signiﬁcant (p<.05).
These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1.
Hymthesis 23: Moderapion

I tested Hypothesis 2a (i.e., Procedural justice expectations will moderate the
relationship between justice perceptions and intentions) with moderated regression
analyses using both the expectation condition and procedural justice expectations
measure. The results in Table 5 indicated that neither the interaction of the expectation
condition and justice perceptions measure nor the interaction of the procedural justice
expectations and justice perceptions measures were signiﬁcant; thus, Hypothesis 2a was
not supported. The largest predictor of intentions in both models was justice perceptions,
which is not surprising given previous justice research. Results also indicated that both
the expectation condition and expectations measure were signiﬁcant in their respective
regression equations. These results suggest that people with higher expectations may be
more likely to react positively to the situation, regardless of their perceptions of the
process.
Hypothesis 2b: Moderation

In order to test Hypothesis 2b (i.e., Procedural elements expectations will
moderate the relationship between procedural elements perceptions and process fairness
perceptions), I had to re-organize some of the measures used in the above analyses. As
noted above, the procedural elements expectations and process fairness expectations
measures loaded onto a single factor (i.e., procedural justice expectations). In addition,
the procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions measures loaded

onto a single factor (i.e., justice perceptions). If Hypothesis 2b is correct, I expect the

49

Table 5

Moderated Rggession Results: RegLessig Intentions on Interaction of Expectation

 

Condition pnd Justice Perceptions and Interaction of Procedural Expectations and Justice

 

 

ﬁrm
Predictor/Step 13 AR2 R2
DV: Intentions
1. Age .06 .03 .03
Gender .04
Black-White Dummy Code -.02
Other-White Dummy Code -.05
Positive Affectivity .06
Negative Affectivity -.08
Power Distance .05
2. Expectation Condition .10* .47** .50**
Justice Perceptions .65M
3. Expectation Condition X Perceptions .05 .00 .50"
DV: Intentions
1. Age .04 .03 .03
Gender .02
Black-White Dummy Code -.01
Other-White Dummy Code -.05
Positive Affectivity .04
Negative Affectivity -.06
Power Distance .03
2. Procedural Justice Expectations .13* .47" .50M
Justice Perceptions .66”
3. Expectations Measure X Perceptions -.03 .00 .50“

 

N_otg: N=218. DV = dependent variable. For Expectation condition: 0=Unfair, 1=Fair.
For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male, 2=Female.
Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are from the ﬁnal step of the
model with all variables entered.
* p< .05. ** p< .01.

SO

relationship between the procedural elements perceptions and process fairness
perceptions measures to be stronger for both participants in the Fair condition and for
participants with higher procedural elements expectations. To test Hypothesis 2b, 1 used
the original expectations measures (i.e., procedural elements and process fairness
expectations) and perceptions measures (i.e., procedural elements and process fairness
perceptions and outcome fairness perceptions) described in the Methods section. Results
(Table 6) indicated that the interaction of the expectation condition and procedural
elements perceptions measure added a signiﬁcant albeit a small amount of variance to the
prediction of process fairness perceptions (AR2=.01; AF (1,207)=3.88, p = .05). To clarify
the nature of the interaction, I ran a partial correlation for each condition where I
partialled out all of the variables in Step 1 of the regression equation in Table 6. The
results indicated that the correlation between the procedural elements perceptions and
process fairness perceptions was exactly two times higher for participants in the Unfair
condition than for participants in the Fair condition (r = .46 and .23, respectively). This
result is contrary to that predicted in Hypothesis 2b.

The results also indicated that outcome fairness perceptions signiﬁcantly related
to process fairness perceptions, which is consistent with previous research. In addition,
non African-American participants rated the process as less fair than White participants.
Negative affectivity was also related to process fairness perceptions such that the more
participants generally View situations negatively, the less process fairness they perceived
in the resume screening process. Finally, power distance was positively related to
process fairness perceptions; thus, the more accepting participants are of power

differences between people, the more they perceived the resume screening process as fair.

51

Table 6

Moderated Regression Results: RegessingProcess Fairness Perceptions on Interpetion of
Expectation Condition and Procedural Elements Perceptions and Interaction of
Procedural Elements Expectations and Procedural Elements Perceptions Measures

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Process Fairness Perceptions

l.

2.

3.

Age

Gender

Black-White Dummy Code
Other-White Dummy Code
Positive Affectivity

Negative Affectivity

Power Distance

Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Expectation Condition
Procedural Elements Perceptions
Expectation Condition X Perceptions

DV: Process Fairness Perceptions

l.

2.

3.

Age

Gender

Black-White Dummy Code
Other-White Dummy Code
Positive Affectivity

Negative Affectivity

Power Distance

Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Procedural Elements Expectations
Procedural Elements Perceptions
Elements Expectations X Perceptions

-.02

.03

-.03
-.08*

.03

-.O7*

.11M
.62**
.02

.37"

-.10*

-.Ol

.05

-.02
-.O8*

04

-.08*

.11"
.61"

-.O6

.32"
.00

AR2

.71**

.04"

.71**

.04"

.00

R2

.71M

.75**

.76**

.71**

.75"

.75"

 

Note: N=218. DV = dependent variable. For Expectation condition: 0=Unfair, 1=Fair.
For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male, 2=Female.
Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are from the ﬁnal step of the

model with all variables entered.
TIP-05. *p<.05. MKQ<.01.

52

Predictors of Procedural Justice Expectations

To test Hypotheses 5-7, I regressed the procedural justice expectations measure
on the individual differences measures (i.e., negative and positive affectivity and power
distance). The results in Table 7 indicated that, as a set, the individual difference
measures were not related to procedural justice expectations. The only individual
difference that was related to procedural justice expectations was positive affectivity
(B=.16). The positive relationship indicated that the more a person tends to view
situations in a positive manner, the more they expected the resume screening process
would be fair. These results provide support for Hypothesis 6. The results for negative
affectivity and power distance were not signiﬁcant; thus Hypotheses 5 and 7 were not

supported.

Table 7

Hierarchical Regpession Results: Regressipg Procedural Justice Expectations on
Individual Differences and Demogaphics

 

 

 

 

Predictor/ Step (3 R2
DV: Procedural Justice Expectations
1. Age .03 .05
Gender .06
Black-White Dummy Code -.02
Other-White Dummy Code -.07
Positive Affectivity .16*
Negative Affectivity -.1 1
Power Distance .04

 

Nata; N=218. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy
Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority Group. For Gender: 1=Male,
2=Female. Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests.
*p=.os. *p<.05. **p<.01.

53

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION
The results of Study 1 provide partial support for the inﬂuence of procedural justice
expectations on intentions via justice perceptions as suggested by Shapiro and Kirkman
(2001). Partial mediation was supported using the procedural justice expectations
measure. These results suggest that people’s expectations may inﬂuence their fairness
perceptions regardless of the characteristics of the situation.

Although I found partial mediation using the procedural justice expectations
manipulation check measure, I did not ﬁnd mediation using the expectation manipulation.
This result may be due to the fact that although the procedural justice expectations
manipulation check differed across conditions, the effect size was rather small (n2=.06).
It appears that the numerous statements in the manipulation suggesting the resume
screening process would be fair or unfair did not inﬂuence participants’ procedural
justice expectations enough so that the expectation condition accurately represented
participants as having fair and unfair procedural justice expectations, respectively.

I also found no support for the moderating inﬂuence of procedural justice
expectations on the relationship between justice perceptions and intentions as
hypothesized by Brockner and colleagues (2001a). I did ﬁnd some support for the
moderating inﬂuence of procedural elements expectations on the relationship between
perceptions of procedural elements and process fairness perceptions. Although some
support was found for this hypothesis, it was not as I predicted. Procedural elements
perceptions and process fairness perceptions were more strongly related in the Unfair

than Fair condition. One explanation may be that the instructions in the Unfair condition

54

more strongly attuned participants to fairness issues than the instructions did in the Fair
condition. Participants in the Fair condition may have been more likely to judge the
process as fair, regardless of the presence or not of the procedural elements. Regardless
of the nature of the interaction, the signiﬁcance of the interaction suggests that procedural
justice expectations play a role in the formation of procedural justice perceptions.

Results also support the inﬂuence of positive affectivity (r=. 16), but not negative
affectivity or power distance, on procedural justice expectations. As predicted, the more
a person tends to view situations in a positive manner, the more they expected the resume
screening process would be fair. This result suggests that what people expect in terms of
procedural fairness may be determined by relatively stable aspects of personality that are
likely to transfer across situations. Thus, regardless of what an organization may tell its
employees, people may expect to be treated fairly/unfairly based on how they tend to
approach and/or view situations.

The results of Study 1 should be considered in light of some potential limitations.
First, although the manipulation produced signiﬁcant differences in expectations, the
condition did not predict justice perceptions even though the manipulation check measure
did. Although the manipulation produced signiﬁcant differences in expectations, the size
of the effect was rather small (d=.49). As suggested earlier, these results may indicate
that participants may not have had enough experience with this type of process to form
stronger expectations. Instead, people who have no experience in a situation may tend to
base their expectations on the general feelings regarding how fair similar processes tend
to be. A related limitation may be the generalizability of the ﬁndings from Study 1. In a

situation where participants are part of the process, expectations may function differently

55

or have less of an inﬂuence than other factors not present in a lab setting. Thus,
differences in either amount of experience or level of involvement in the process may
affect how expectations inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions.

In order to address these limitations, Study 2 was conducted using an applied
sample. Study 2 was intended to provide another test of the hypotheses in Study 1.
Study 2 also was intended to provide a test of additional factors thought to inﬂuence
procedural justice expectations.

STUDY 2 METHODS

Participants. Participants were recruited ﬁ'om introductory psychology classes at a
large Midwestern university. Participants received extra credit for their participation in
the study. 626 participants completed the ﬁrst survey. The average age of the initial
sample was 21 years. This sample was 75% Female, 82% White, 9% Aﬁican American,
3% Asian, and 3% Hispanic. 510 participants (i.e., 81% of the initial sample) completed
the second survey. The average age of the sample completing both surveys was 21 years.
This sample was 75% Female, 83% White, 9% African American, 3% Asian, and 3%
Hispanic.

In order to ensure that participants were paying attention during the both surveys,
a ﬁve-item carelessness scale (see Appendix P) was used in the ﬁrst survey and four of
the carelessness items were used in the second survey. After the data was collected, it
was clear that participants did not respond “Strongly Agree” to all items and that this
result may be due to the subjective nature of some of the questions. For example, the
statement “Grass is green” is correct, but grass may also be blue, red, etc. For other items

(e.g., “The moon orbits Earth”), the answer was more objective and responses to the

56

contrary were more indicative of carelessness. Given the fact that most items were at
least partially true, I decided to use a cutoff that reﬂected participants who, on average,
agreed with each item. As I used a l to 5 Likert scale for the ﬁve carelessness items, I
decided to use a cut-off of 20 for the ﬁrst scale and 16 for the second scale. Using the
cut-off for the ﬁrst scale, I dropped 42 people from the initial sample to be used in
analyses assessing the relationship between individual differences and procedural justice
expectations and values; thus, I had 584 participants for these analyses. From the sample
of 510 people who completed both surveys, I excluded 68 people whose scores were
either below 20 on the ﬁrst carelessness scale or below 16 on the second carelessness
scale. Finally, nine people did not have a grade for their ﬁrst test, so they were not
included in the analyses. Thus, 433 people were used for the mediation vs. moderation
analyses.

Procedure. During the ﬁrst two weeks of class, students were asked to participate
in a study examining their perceptions of the current Psychology class they were taking.
Students interested in participating were directed to a website where they completed a
consent form (Appendix Q) and the ﬁrst survey. The ﬁrst survey included the procedural
justice elements expectations measure, process fairness expectations measure, procedural
justice elements values measure, process fairness values measure, participants’ past
experiences in classes, positive and negative affectivity, power distance beliefs, class
commitment, class intentions, and demogaphics. In addition, a technical computer
experience measure was included to help assess the prevalence of common method

variance.

57

After their ﬁrst examination, participants were sent an email containing a link to
the second web-based survey. The second survey included measures of procedural
justice elements, process fairness perceptions, class satisfaction, class commitment, class
intentions, and recommendation intentions. After completion of the study, participants
were given a debrieﬁng as to the purpose of the study (Appendix R).

Measures. All measures except Positive and Negative Affectivity utilized a ﬁve
point Likert-type scale with anchors of _1_ = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Positive and Negative Affectivity utilized a ﬁve point Likert-type scale with anchors of 1
= very slightly or not al all to 5 = extremely. A complete list of the following measures is
provided in Appendix P. The measures of positive and negative affectivity, power
distance, procedural elements expectations, process fairness expectations, procedural
elements perceptions, process fairness perceptions, outcome fairness perceptions, and
recommendation intentions are the same used in Study 1, but I made wording
modiﬁcations to ﬁt the context of Study 2 (i.e., class grading procedures).

Pre-te§t mew

Past Experiences. Four measures were used to assess different aspects of
participants’ faimess-related experiences. The degree to which participants have directly
experienced procedural fairness in their previous classes was measured using four items
adopted from Bell, Wiechmann, and Ryan (2003a). An example item is “In my previous
classes, grading has usually been conducted in a fair manner.”

The degree to which participants have indirectly experienced procedural fairness
regarding classes was measured using four items created by the researcher. These items

attempt to tap instances of procedural fairness learned via social means versus direct

58

experience by participant. An example item is “I usually hear that people’s class work is
graded fairly.”

The degree to which participants have information regarding the fairness of their
class was measured using four items created by the researcher. An example item is “l
have heard that this class (i.e., PSY X) uses fair grading procedures.”

The degree to which participants have information regarding the fairness of their
instructor was measured using four items created by the researcher. An example item is
“I have heard that this instructor (i.e., the one for PSY X) uses fair grading procedures.”

Procedural Elements Values. The extent to which participants value procedural
justice elements was assessed by modifying the procedural justice elements scale. An
example item is “I value that the procedures will be applied consistently.” Bell et al.
(2003a) found an alpha of .79 for this measure. Principal components analysis of the Bell
et al. data supported the distinction between procedural elements values and expectations;
thus, although these concepts are related, individuals are able to distinguish between the
values and expectations attached to procedural justice elements.

Process Fairness Values. The value participants attach to process fairness was
measured by adapting the process fairness expectations measure. An example item is “I
value that the grading mags is fair.”

Technical Computer Experience. The amount of in-depth computer experience
that individuals have with computers (e.g., knowledge of LANs, reading computer
magazines) was measured using six items ﬁom Potosky and Bobko (1998). An example
item is “I know what an operating system is.” Wiechmann and Ryan (2003) found an

alpha of .79 for this measure.

59

Pre- anal Post-Test Measures

Class Commitment. Individuals’ initial commitment to the class was measured
using nine items taken from Allen and Meyer’s (1990) 24-item measure of affective,
continuance, and normative commitment. To reduce the length of the original measure, I
selected the best three items ﬁ'om each scale in terms of its loadings on the primary
factor, cross-loadings on the other two factors, and relevance to a classroom setting. For
the ﬁrst survey, I included the three-item continuance commitment and normative
commitment measures, but did not include the three-item affective commitment measure
as its items reference aspects of commitment that would likely only develop with
signiﬁcant exposure to the class. The second survey contained all three three-item factors
of commitment (i.e., continuance, normative, and affective commitment).

Class Intentions. Five items were ad0pted from Bell et al.’s (2003a) measure of
class intentions. This measure assesses the degree to which participants are likely to
remain active in their class, and was originally created to parallel measures of withdrawal
intentions. An example item is “I intend to attend lectures.”

Carelessness. Five items were written to assess the degree to which participants
were paying attention to the items. The ﬁve carelessness items were interspersed
throughout the rest of the above measures. The items were written to be basic, factual
items that only participants who were not paying attention would not agree with. An

example item is “The moon orbits Earth.”

60

Post-teat only measures

Class Satisfaction. Individuals’ overall satisfaction with the class was measured
using six items adapted from Agho, Price, and Mueller (1992). An example item is “I
feel fairly well satisﬁed with this class.”

STUDY 2 RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliabilities of the measures are
in Table 8. Similar to Study 1, I ran a series of factor analyses and principal components
analyses using both an orthogonal and oblique rotation. As all analyses produced similar
results, I will only present the results of the principal components analyses (PCA) using
an oblique rotation.

For the Survey 1 items, I conducted a separate PCA for each of the individual
difference measures (i.e., power distance, PANAS, past experience), the set of
expectations and values measures (i.e., procedural elements expectations, procedural
elements values, process fairness expectations, and process fairness values), and the set
of intentions and commitment measures (i.e., class intentions, continuance commitment,
and normative commitment). For the Survey 2 items, I conducted separate PCAs for the
perceptions measures (i.e., procedural elements perceptions, process fairness perceptions,
and outcome fairness perceptions) and for the outcome measures (i.e., class satisfaction,
class intentions, recommendation intentions, continuance commitment, normative
commitment, and affective commitment). The ﬁnal list of measures and their items is

located in Appendix S.

61

.5. vm .22.. .wo. Vm .2.
.vauZ 2N:- mmwmnz ; ._- 885528: :2 1828882: 05 :2 28358282 8.28 8028:5820m .2808 222082.22 28 woman 0:28.20 8802- .oEEomnN
.2822"— 2202200 228: .9280 brocmzl .823“: 88on 22.2255 £02 .8: $255 m 2222-2- HNH Suﬁsm 2 «EC-n:- ”202

 

 

62

 

2.8. 88. 82. 8.- 2. 2.8.- 88. 8. 28.8 28.: 882288288 82283 28882.2 .88
8. .2. 28.- 2.8. 88. r. 2 8.- 8.- 88. 2.8.8 2.: 85289.82 8288828 28282288 .82
:82. 2.8.- 8.- 8.- 1.82. 28. 8.- 8. 8.8 2: 8828288828228 88> .222
8. 8.- r. 28. 88.- :2 2.- 28.- 8. 8. 28.2. 2.: 8828:, 82282 28.58828 .2
.2. 28. :8 2. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 82.. 88.2. 2.: 888888882 82282 28.58828 .82
2.8.- 8.- 8.- ...2. 8. 8.- 8. 88. 88.8 2 2: 2228222688 822822282 .82
:2. 8.- 8.- 88. .8. 8.- :82. 2.8. 2 2.8 2: 2228252222228 8228222288 .2
28.- 28. 8. 8.- 8. _..2 2. .8. 88. 8.2. 2: 88882222 88 .82
2.8. 8.- 1.82.- 8; 8. 8.- 28. 82.. 2.2.8 2.: 8885 838.2 .2
8. 8.- 3:.- 8. .88.- 8. :2 2.- 2.8. 88.2 2: 8.22285: 88882 .22
8.- 88. 8. 2.8.- 8.- .2 2. 8. 88. 8.8 2.: 823882.28. 82228.2 .2
.2.- ..2. 8.- 8.- 28. 8. 8.- 88. 2.8. 2: 252282888222 88 8228872 .8
:2.- 8.- :2 2. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 3.. 88.8 2.: 82282888222 886 82228.2 .8
288 88.- :88.- 8. 8. 88.- :88.- 8. 28.8 2: 8.282888 2822882 .8882 .8
282.8 :88. :2.- 8.- 28.- 8.- 8. 8.8 2: 88228882 2882.2 82228.2 .8
28.8 2.8.- ..8.- 8. 28. 88. 8.8 2: 882288 28222 .8
.88.- 8.- 2.8. 8. 8. 2.: 88 85:52 888 28282 288 .2.
88. :8. 88. 88. 2.: 88 822268 2282825.. 888.: .8
2.8.- 2.2.. 88.2 2.: 88228 .8
8.8 8.88 2: 8.... .2

8 8 8 2. 8. 8 2 28 :82 828825

 

 

 

 

 

812222823285 82848-228259 Emacﬁm .2282 Nix—832m

w 0382-

Any-Va: .mo.vm*

.vanz “NH ”Nmmu Z ”2 .2. 88058.23 5 22888me 05 5 38220889 08 80322282852 .288 22682-2: co woman 228.20 «mo-r .oEEomum
.2822"— 5980 Ba .9280 b.8052n2 .ozguo 80on 888885 502 .888 .3328 N 08E. MN..- Sotsm _ 2.5-2."— H 682

 

 

 

8.- 8.- 88.- 8. 8. 822.- 8.- 28. 88.8 2.8.: 88258828 888882 .88
88. 8o.- .....82.- 8o. 88.- 8.- *2 2. 88. 8.8 28.: 85888 8.288288 .88
88.- .2. *2 2. 8. 88. 8o. 8. 88. 28.2. 28: 88882 8820 .8
8. 8o. 8. 8. 8. 8.. 8o.- 88. 88.8 28: 88888 82888. .88
8o. 8. :88. 8o.- :82.- 8.- 8. 28.82 88.88 28.: 8288 .88 .8.
8.- .2. 1.82. :8.- 2. 8.- 8. 88. 28.8 28: 88888.2 888882 88880 .28
8 8 8 2V 8 .8- 2 Q8 5822 82.28.55

 

 

822828-5885 :28 82228385 Eucaﬂm 85802 N Edm

3883 m 038.2.

63

.S. vm t. .8. vm ..
.vauz “NH mmwmnz J F 38558; E :28me 2: E 3882a 8m moms—Emzom .28,-w «Eon-o2 :o woman 03.5 38- .oEEom-I.
.222“— uovcoo 5m .380 bugs—2"— .BEBHO ”mocoo ESE—Q £3 Sm ins-Sm m 2::- HNH Suﬁsm ﬂ oat-n _ H ”2o Z

 

:8. 8. :2.- 8. ...:.- 8.- 8. 8. :8.- Agaozaeom 883258853
5.- 8.- 8. ...:.- 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8.- chooscoaxmssaaoo 82:89.2
:3. *2.- 8. :3”. ..:.- 8.- :2. 8. 8. 518328238qu86>.M:
1.8. 1.:- S. :8. :2.- 8. *2. 8.- 8. 258:; 88335888.:
$3 *2- 8. :8. :2.- 8- :2. 8. 8. 25825883 8382838888
:3 8. 8. :8. 8. *2. 8. 8. cbeogeeou 28:82.:

:3 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- :2.- cbéﬁéEB 85:568.:

GE .8.- 8.- :8. 8. 8. 2.5888.£§6.2

33 ......:. 8.- 8. *8.- chaos-2938.2

GM: 8.- 8.- 8.- 2535585. 35802.:

5: 8.. a. :b 35:88... 3:58 .2

$3 :2. :b 888.85 3.29 3:802 .8

:3 5:23:55 320 .388; .8

3.: 00.55me 80.52.: .ozawwoz .b

:b 855me 8265 .0388 .o

c: 885%m .025 .m

A _ .5 080 5555 9.20 305m 550 .v

2.: 250 585 565:2 58:: .m

A5380 .N

at»? ._

 

2 2 3 m— N— : o— a m 033.5»

 

 

macs-ﬂotoobuﬁ ﬁnal-aoumgon Emu. Sam £582 N Nae. Im

:83 w 2%...

64

.3. VG: .mo.vm*

.vauz ”N..- mmwmnz ; 9. 8085583 5 Enema? of E 325829 0.8 worm—58:3” .288 «Eon-o2 =0 woman 2880 “mou- .oEEomuN
.222"— 5300 Sm .380 btoEZL .ozguo 80on 85855 Eon Sm $3.58 N oEC- "NH Suﬁsm _ BEE-I; H 882

 

 

8.- 1.88. 8.- 8. :8. 8. 8. 8. 8. at 8588880 382882 .8
8.- 8.- :8. 8.- 8.- 8. : _.- 8.- ...N _. at 885588 85388880 .8
:8. 88. 8. :88. 8.- 8. :8 _. 8. 8.- at 888835 8886 .8
8. *8. 8.- :8 8. 8. 8.- :2. 8. 8.- 9.: 88888 88888. .8
88. 8.- 88.- 8. : _.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- a: 880 .88- .8
*2. 8.- *8.- 8. :2.- 8.- 8. 88. 8.- a: 8888858 8.886888 86850 .8
2 2 E 2 8 : 2 8 8 838:8,

 

 

mucus—oboeoﬁ— 98 8:38:60 235% 8582 m 95m

3888 8 8388

65

.5. vm .1. .mo. vm _..
.vauz ”NH ”Nwmnz ; H 808055882 5 8:036 05 5 “8080808 08 m0zm=8=0m .0808 .5092: :0 38: 0880 802. .0880muN
.032"— 8980 Sm .8380 88.852"— .SEBHO ”80800 85:50 53 Sm .8033 N 08:. "NH 3033 _ 0:: H1 H ”082

 

 

A88 8. :8. :8. at 8888888 883 858828 .88
98 88. 8.- :C 88888 858880 838... .88

:8 :8. 2: 8283888888 86> .M:

88.8 2.: 88> 883 888828 .2

C 5 mcozﬂoaxm 00:83- 8860005 .3
:5 8:025:800 03855 2 .m—

25 80888800 00895800 .3

C 5 8:03:02: 8820 .9

C 5 02885 830m .N_

C 5 335005.58: 02:80 2 .2

:5 838888. 83:88 .2

A ~ 5 8:85.85 8820 .0Z8w02 d
:5 savanna-«5 88—0 .0338?”

C 5 005280962 800865 632802

2 5 00:38me 800505 63:83
2.: 88888 825

2 5 0250 88:50 95.5 868M 850
2.: 880 5&5 8885. 88.8.8
CC 8880

at 8<

ANN-666500

 

m N N mN NN _ N ON 2 w _ 2 038285

 

 

8828—28088:— 28 828308“ 2.898% 280.2 N 83m

8888 8 82.:-

66

Any-vat. .mo.vm*

.vau 2 “NH ”Nwmuz ”E- 38558: :2 8:036 05 E 02:08:: 0.8 00:58:32 .088 “Eon-2: :0 0080 0.8.5 80H .0880..T.N
.0821 ”80:00 Sm .0080 btoﬁzn— .223”: 80:00 >EE=Q £0: Sm $023- N 08:- HNH S033 _ 083M5- ”0:02

 

 

 

:2. 3. : : N. 8. 8. 8.- 3.- :_ _.- 8.- at 88.58800 88882 .8
0.3 8. :2.- :£.- :8.- :m~.- mo. 8. S.- ab 858800 8:85:50 .8
:3 :8. mo. 5.- mo. :2; :_ w :_ _. at 82835 :86 .8
A80 :8. :3. :2. S. we. :2. at 8288: 8:85. .8
:8. :2. 8.- 8. :8. 5.0 880 :88 .2
$8 :8. S. :2. :2. 5.0 88:88: 8:58: 05830 .8

mm 8 mm mm 8 cm 2 M: t 28:;

 

 

 

 

 

9288:0808— :Swlﬂgzwréﬂ 0.828% 6:802 NL>cBm

3:80 8 03::-

67

.8. vm 2. .8. vm .

.Xeuz ”S mmwmuz ”E 38583 a Esme“.

05 E @8585 8a mo_:_5§0m .038 “£092: :0 Emma 3E0 amok
.o_mEon_n~ .232"— uowcoo 8m .320 btoEEl 62.570 ”mo—you
.3550 Eon 8m $255 N 08:. um... S023 ~ 08;“; ”202

 

 

$3 at 805588 023552 .3
RC EugEEoU 35:23:00 .3

at 22225 $20 .3.

Am: cowoﬂmzmm mam—O .mm

at 035 an; .NN

Amt mcocaoobm mmoEmwm 080850 ._N

 

0N oEatm>

 

 

 

macaw—28885 was .mcoma3oo Bag—Sm 2.802 N 33m

3.88 w 2%...

68

First, I conducted a PCA analysis using the procedural elements expectations and
values measures and the process fairness expectations and values measures. Initial
results indicated that three factors accounted for 58% of the variance. Results indicated
that similar to Study 1, most of the procedural elements expectations and process fairness
expectations loaded onto a single factor; thus, these measures were combined into an
overall procedural justice expectations measure. One process fairness expectations item
(i.e., “Overall, I expect that I will be dissatisﬁed with the way people are graded in this
class”) was dropped ﬁom the procedural justice expectations measure due to its low
loading compared to the rest of the expectations items. The results also indicated that the
value items that referenced the same aspects of justice as the ﬁrst factor loaded onto a
single factor; thus, these measures were combined into an overall procedural justice
v_alge_§ measure. One process fairness values item (i.e., “Overall, I value not being
dissatisﬁed with the way people are graded in this class”) was dropped from the
procedural justice values measure due to its low loading compared to the rest of the
values items. The results also indicated that the three items on the procedural elements
expectations and procedural elements values scales that referenced the amount of voice in
the grading process (i.e., “I expect [value] that I will be able to express my views and
feelings during the grading process,” I expect [value] that I will have inﬂuence over the
scores arrived at by the grading process,” and “I expect [value] that I will be able to
appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures”) comprised a third factor; thus, I
created a voice expectations/values measure. The three values and expectations measures

all had acceptable reliabilities (>.70).

69

Next, I conducted a PCA of the past experiences items (i.e., direct and indirect
experiences, class information, and instructor information). The PCA indicated a ﬁve-
factor solution that accounted for 72% of the variance. The four items that referenced
direct experiences with fairness in past classes loaded onto one factor, so I created a
direct experience measure. Results also indicated that the four items referencing indirect
experiences of fairness loaded onto two separate factors. The two items referencing
indirect, positive experiences comprised one factor and the two items referencing
indirect, negative experiences comprised a second factor; thus, I created separate
measures for both the positive and negative aspects of indirect experiences. Finally,
results indicated that although participants did not distinguish between information
regarding the class and instructor, they did distinguish between positive and negative
information. Similar to the indirect experience measures, I created a four-item ppsitive,
class information and a four-item n_egative. class information measure. In examining the
positive and negative factors for both class information and indirect experiences, the
results supported these factors as being substantive and not method-based. If these
factors were due to the presence of negatively worded items, I would have expected an
overall negatively worded factor. Instead, the results supported multiple negative factors
that cut across content areas. In other words, the indirect, negative experience items
loaded onto a separate factor from the negative, class information items. Given this result
and the initial removal of participants who were carelessly responding, these results are
not suggestive of poorly worded items or the nature of the sample (Schmitt & Stults,

1985). Across all of the experience measures, the only experience measure that did not

70

have an acceptable reliability (>.70) was the positive, indirect experiences measure (.45).
This is not surprising given the measure is comprised of only two items.

A separate PCA was conducted for the power distance scale. Results indicated
that two factors accounted for 50% of the variance. I examined the two factors, but could
not determine the source of the second factor; thus, I ran a second PCA, which forced a
one-factor rotated solution. Five of the six items loaded moderately on the factor
(between .40 and .70), but one item (“Students at a university should pay high respect to
their instructors”) had an extremely low loading (.21), so was dropped from the scale.
The ﬁve-item power distance scale had a poor reliability (.56), which was surprising
given the high alpha (.88) in the original source from which it was adopted and its higher
alpha in Study 1 (.69). It may be that changing the context of the items did not make
sense to students as much as it did to the employees for whom it was originally created.

A PCA also was conducted for the class intentions and commitment items. PCA
results indicated that a three-factor solution accounted for 59% of the variance. The
results indicated that each item loaded onto its intended factor, so three three-item
measures were created (i.e., continuance commitment, normative commitment, and ﬂag
intentions). Although the class intentions measure had an acceptable reliability (.75), the
two commitment measures had low reliabilities. The continuance commitment measure
was only slightly below the accepted level (.67), but the normative commitment measure
was signiﬁcantly below .70 (i.e., .51). The reliabilities for each factor in Allen and
Meyer’s study were much higher, but their reliabilities were based on the original 24-item

commitment scale (i.e., three eight-item facets of commitment).

71

Next, Iran a PCA for the 20 Positive and Negative Affectivity items. Two factors
accounted for 45% of the variance. Each item loaded onto the appropriate factor; thus, a

ten-item Positive Affectivity and ten-item Negative Affectivrﬂ measure was created.

 

Both measures had high reliabilities (.85 and .86, respectively).

The ﬁnal PCA for the Survey 1 items was for the six-item technical computer
experience measure. One factor explained 47% of the variance and the item loadings
were all moderate to high. The technical computer experience measure had an alpha of
.77.

The next PCA I conducted was for the items on the second survey. A PCA of the
procedural elements perceptions, process fairness perceptions, and outcome fairness
perceptions items indicated that a two-factor solution that accounted for 57% of the
variance. 1 found that the procedural elements perceptions and process fairness
perceptions measures loaded onto a single factor and the perceived outcome fairness
items loaded onto a second factor; thus, I created an overall gocedural mstice
pergptions measure and an outcome fairness perceptions measure. Both the procedural
justice perceptions and outcome fairness perceptions measures had high reliabilities (.87
and .88, respectively).

Next, I conducted a PCA of all the outcome measures (i.e., class satisfaction, class
commitment, class intentions, and recommendation intentions). The results indicated that
a four-factor solution accounted for 59% of the variance. The ﬁrst factor appeared to
represent an affective component of students’ reactions to their class. The six class
satisfaction items, three recommendation intentions items, and the three affective

commitment items all loaded onto this ﬁrst factor. Given this result, I combined these

72

items into an affective reaction; measure. The results also indicated the four class
intentions items, the three continuance commitment items, and the three normative
commitment items loaded onto separate factors; thus, I created separate gl_ass intentions.
continuance commitment, and normative commitment measures. The items across the
four factors all had moderate to high loadings on their respective factors and low cross-
loadings on the other factors. The coefficient alphas for the outcome measures were:
affective reactions (.93), class intentions (.67), continuance commitment (.74), and
normative commitment (.54).

In summary, most measures on Surveys 1 and 2 were above or near the generally
accepted level for reliability (.70). The positive, indirect experience, power distance, and
normative commitment (both Survey 1 and 2 measures) measures had poor reliabilities
compared to the rest of the measures and the reliability rule of thumb. Given the
reliabilities for these three measures, all subsequent results highlighting these measures
should be considered with these reliabilities in mind.

Analysis Overview

In this section, I will brieﬂy overview the analysis plan for testing Hypotheses 1,
2a, and 2b. In STEP 1 of all analyses, I decided to enter the Time 1 commitment and
intentions measures (i.e., class intentions, continuance commitment, and normative
commitment). I then entered the demographic and individual difference measures in
STEP 2 of all analyses. All variables aﬁer STEPS l and 2 were entered according to
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method of testing mediation or the standard method for testing
interactions in regression. The order of variables I used in STEPS l and 2 was used so

that I could provide a more stringent test of the relationships between the demographic

73

and individual difference measures and the outcome of interest. The Time 1 commitment
and intentions measures were included in the study as they paralleled some of the
outcomes measures at Time 2, but were not variables that I had identiﬁed as potential
correlates of expectations and perceptions.
Hypothesis 1: Mediation

Similar to Study 1, I used the Baron and Kenny (1986) method of testing the
relationship between procedural justice expectations and outcomes as mediated by
procedural justice perceptions. Table 9 shows that the ﬁrst condition of mediation was
met as procedural justice expectations were signiﬁcantly related to procedural justice
perceptions (B=.24). Table 10 contains the results of Baron and Kenny’s second
condition necessary for mediation (i.e., a signiﬁcant relationship between the mediating
variable and the dependent variable) for the four outcome variables. The results indicated
that procedural justice perceptions were signiﬁcantly related to affective reactions
(B=.22) and continuance commitment on the second survey ([3=-.14). Given these results,
I regressed these two outcome variables onto procedural justice expectations to test the
third step of mediation. Table 11 shows that procedural justice expectations did not
signiﬁcantly relate to either of the two outcomes that survived the second step. The
mediation results for procedural justice values (Tables 12 and 13) and voice
expectations/values (Tables 14 and 15) were identical to those using the procedural

justice expectations measure.

74

Table 9

Mediated Regression Results — STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice Perceptions on
Procedural Justice Expectations

 

 

Predictor/ Step [3 AR2 R2
DV: Procedural Justice Perceptions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) -.04 .03" .03"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.13 **
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .02
2. Gender -.03 .11" .14“
Age .03
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .07"
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .01
Direct Experience .05
Positive, Indirect Experience .02
Negative, Indirect Experience .10*
Positive, Class Information -.13**
Negative, Class Information .03
Positive Affectivity .01
Negative Affectivity -.03
Power Distance .02
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .47M .22" .36M
Test Grade .01
4. Procedural Justice Expectations .24" .05" .41 **

 

Eta: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and signiﬁcance levels are based on
two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the AR2 signiﬁcance levels are
based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

75

Table 10

Mediated Regression Results - STEP 2: Regressing Class Outcomes on Procedural

Justice Perc_eptions

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Affective Reactions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1)
Continuance Commitment (Time 1)
Normative Commitment (Time 1)

2. Gender
Age
African American Dummy Code
Other Racial Group Dummy Code
Direct Experience
Positive, Indirect Experience
Negative, Indirect Experience
Positive, Class Information
Negative, Class Information
Positive Affectivity
Negative Affectivity
Power Distance

3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Test Grade

4. Procedural Justice Perceptions

.12**
.00
.11*
403
412**
.04
.11**
413**
.03
404
402
.02
.07+
a03
.10*
.24**
.15**
.22**

.AR?

.04**

.03

.18**

.03“

R2

.04M

.07**

.25“

.28"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. [3 is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and signiﬁcance levels are based on
two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the AR2 signiﬁcance levels are

based on F tests for that step.
tp<.10. l"p<.05. **p<.01.

76

Table 10

Mediated Regression Results — STEP 2: Regessinglass Outcomes on Procedural

Justice Percgptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Class Intentions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1)

Continuance Commitment (Time 1)
Normative Commitment (Time 1)

2. Gender
Age

Aﬁican American Dummy Code
Other Racial Group Dummy Code

Direct Experience
Positive, Indirect Experience
Negative, Indirect Experience
Positive Class Information
Negative Class Information
Positive Affectivity
Negative Affectivity
Power Distance

3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Test Grade

4. Procedural Justice Perceptions

.57"

.04
.04

.07’r

03
02
06
05
05

-.03

.07“

02
01
01

01

-.O9

O7

.04

AR2

.36M

.02

.00

.00

R2

.36”

.38"

.38“

.38“

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and signiﬁcance levels are based on
two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the AR2 signiﬁcance levels are

based on F tests for that step.
1‘p<.10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

77

Table 10

Mediated Regression Results - STEP 2: Regressing Class Outcomes on Procedura_l
Justice Pergptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Continuance Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .04 .28“ .28"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .48"
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
2. Gender -.02 .03 .31 **
Age .071
African American Dummy Code -.04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience -.05
Positive, Indirect Experience .04
Negative, Indirect Experience .01
Positive, Class Information .02
Negative, Class Information .00
Positive Affectivity -.08"
Negative Affectivity .03
Power Distance -.O9*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.07 .02" .33"
Test Grade -.05
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.l4** .01" .34”

 

m N= 433. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and signiﬁcance levels are based on
two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the AR2 signiﬁcance levels are
based on F tests for that step.

+p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

78

Table 10

Mediated Regpession Result - STEP 2: Reggessing Class Outcomeapn Procedural
J_rr_stice Perceptiona(cont.)

 

Predictor/ Step [3 AR2 R2

 

DV: Normative Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .03 .35M .35**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.04
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .59"
2. Gender .00 .04* .39“
Age -.08*
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .02
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .04
Direct Experience -.07
Positive, Indirect Experience .01
Negative, Indirect Experience -.01
Positive, Class Information .03
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity -.03
Negative Affectivity -.01
Power Distance .15"
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .09 .01* .40"
Test Grade .06
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.06 .00 .40"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

79

Table 11

Mediated Regression Results - STEP 3: RegressingAffective Reactions and Continuance
Commitment On Procedural Justice Expectations

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Affective Reactions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1)
Continuance Commitment (Time 1)
Normative Commitment (Time 1)

2. Gender
Age
African American Dummy Code
Other Racial Group Dummy Code
Direct Experience
Positive, Indirect Experience
Negative, Indirect Experience
Positive, Class Information
Negative, Class Information
Positive Affectivity
Negative Affectivity
Power Distance

3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Test Grade

4. Procedural Justice Expectations

12*
03
11*
04

-.ll*

05
12**

-.ll*

03
01

-.05

03
081

-.O3
.10*
.34"
.15**
.01

AR2

.04**

.03

.18"

.00

R2

.04**

.07**

.25“

.25”

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coeﬁicient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.

 

*p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

80

Table 11

Mediated Regession Results — STEP 3: Regessirg Affective Reactions and Continuance
Commitment On Procedural Justice Expectations (cont.)

 

 

Predictor/ Step [3 AR2 R2
DV: Continuance Commitment
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .08 .28** .28“
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .49"
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
2. Gender -.02 .03 .31 **
Age .07
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.05
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience -.06
Positive, Indirect Experience .04
Negative, Indirect Experience .00
Positive, Class Information .04
Negative, Class Information -.01
Positive Affectivity -.08+
Negative Affectivity .04
Power Distance -.09*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.14** .02" .33"
Test Grade -.05
4. Procedural Justice Expectations -.02 .00 .33”

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and

 

signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
tp<.10. *p<.05. **p< .01.

81

Table 12

Mediated Reggession Results — STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice Percgptions on
Procedural Justice Values

 

 

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2
DV: Procedural Justice Perceptions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) -.03 .03** .03"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.12**
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .03
2. Gender -.03 .11** .14**
Age .03
African American Dummy Code .081
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .02
Direct Experience .08)r
Positive, Indirect Experience .02
Negative, Indirect Experience .12"
Positive, Class Information -.14**
Negative, Class Information .03
Positive Affectivity .02
Negative Affectivity -.04
Power Distance .00
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .48" .22** .36**
Test Grade -.02
4. Procedural Justice Values .19" .03M .39**

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
1p< .10. *p< .05. **p<.01.

82

Table 13

Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regssirag Affective Reactions and Continuance
Commitment On Procedural Justice Values

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Affective Reactions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .11* .04” .04"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.03
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .1 1*
2. Gender -.04 .03 .07"
Age -.1 1*
African American Dummy Code .05
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .12**
Direct Experience -.1 1*
Positive, Indirect Experience .03
Negative, Indirect Experience -.01
Positive, Class Information -.05
Negative, Class Information .03
Positive Affectivity .08'r
Negative Affectivity -.03
Power Distance .10*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .34** .18** .25"
Test Grade .15**
4. Procedural Justice Values .05 .00 .25“

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefficient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

83

Table 13

Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regressing Affective Reactions and Continuance
Commitment On Procedural Justice Values ( cont.)

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Continuance Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .04 .28** .28M
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .50**
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.05
2. Gender -.02 .03 .31 **
Age .07*
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.05
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience -.06
Positive, Indirect Experience .03
Negative, Indirect Experience .00
Positive, Class Information .03
Negative, Class Information -.01
Positive Affectivity -.08“
Negative Affectivity .04
Power Distance -.09*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.14** .02** .33**
Test Grade -.04
4. Procedural Justice Values -.04 .00 .33“

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
Tp< .10. *p< .05. **p<.01.

84

Table 14
Medizged Regression Results — STEP 1: Regressing Procedural Justice Perceptions on

Voice ExpectationsNalues

 

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2
DV: Procedural Justice Perceptions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) -.02 .03** .03**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.14**
Normative Comrrritrnent (Time 1) .03
2. Gender -.03 .11** .14**
Age .05
African American Dummy Code .04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience .1 1*
Positive, Indirect Experience .02
Negative, Indirect Experience .12*
Positive, Class Information -.15**
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity .00
Negative Affectivity -.04
Power Distance .00
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .47** .22" .36**
Test Grade .00
4. Voice Expectations\Values .21" .04" .40"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

85

Table 15

Mediated Regression Results — STEP 3: Regressig Affective ReactionL and Continuance
Commitment on Voice ExpectationsNalues

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Affective Reactions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1)
Continuance Commitment (Time 1)
Normative Commitment (Time 1)

2. Gender
Age
Aﬁican American Dummy Code
Other Racial Group Dummy Code
Direct Experience
Positive, Indirect Experience
Negative, Indirect Experience
Positive, Class Information
Negative, Class Information
Positive Affectivity
Negative Affectivity
Power Distance

3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Test Grade

4. Voice ExpectationsNalues

.12**

-.03

.ll*

-.04
-.11*

.05
.12**

-.10*

.03

-.Ol

.05
.03
.08*

-.O3

.09*
.34"
.15**
.00

AR2

.04“

.03

.18**

.00

R2

.04"

.O7**

.25"

.25“

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefficient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.

+p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

86

Table 15

Mediatﬁed Regression Results — STEP 3: messingAffective Reactions and Continuance
Commitment on Voice Expectations/Values

 

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Continuance Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .04 .28** .28"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .50"
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
2. Gender -.02 .03 .31 **
Age .06
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .01
Direct Experience -.06
Positive, Indirect Experience .03
Negative, Indirect Experience .00
Positive, Class Information .04
Negative, Class Information .00
Positive Affectivity -.08"
Negative Affectivity .04
Power Distance -.09*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.l3** .02** .33**
Test Grade -.05
4. Voice Expectations\Values -.04 .00 .33“

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p_<.10. *p< .05. "p<.01.

87

Tables 9, 12, and 14 show that, across all three regressions, a number of other
variables were signiﬁcantly related to procedural justice perceptions in addition to
procedural justice expectations, procedural justice values, and voice expectations/values.
As expected, outcome fairness perceptions had a large, positive relationship to procedural
justice perceptions (average B=.47) . Continuance commitment also showed a
signiﬁcant, negative relationship to procedural justice perceptions (average B=-.13). In
the ﬁrst weeks of class, the more students were committed to the class because of the
scarcity of other class alternatives, the less fair they perceived the grading process to be
after their ﬁrst test. Indirect, negative experiences were positively related to procedural
justice perceptions (average B=.l 1), which indicates that the more negative things
students have heard about other people experiencing unfair grading procedures, the more
students thought their current class’ grading procedures were fair. This result is in
contrast to the signiﬁcant, negative relationship between positive, class information and
procedural justice perceptions (average B=-.14). The more positive things students heard
about their current class from others, the more negative were students’ procedural justice
perceptions. Both of these results were contrary to what I expected and may signify a
reaction to unmet expectations. If a student had heard negative things about other
classes, but feels he/she has been treated fairly in his/her current class, he/she may rate
the class as more fair. Similarly if a student heard positive things about the class, but
feels that he/she has been treated unfairly in his/her current class, he/she may perceive
less fairness. Both ideas suggest that met expectations may play an important role in

forming procedural justice perceptions.

88

The African-American dummy code (average B=.07) and direct experiences
(average B=.10) were marginally related to procedural justice perceptions in two of the
three regression equations. Aﬁican American students were more likely to rate their
current class’ grading procedures as fair compared to White students. Additionally, the
more direct, positive experiences students have had in the past with grading procedures,
the more likely they were to rate their current class’ grading procedures as fair.
Hypothesis 2a: ModeraLtion

Table 16 contains the results of testing the interaction of procedural justice
expectations and procedural justice perceptions on the four outcome variables. The
results indicated that the interaction term was non-signiﬁcant in all four regressions. The
moderation results for procedural justice values (Tables 17) and voice
expectations/values (Tables 18) were identical to those using the procedural justice
expectations measure. Based on these results, Hypothesis 2a was not supported.

The results indicated that the largest predictors of class intentions, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment after students’ ﬁrst test were the same measures
as those that were predictive during the ﬁrst two weeks of the class. For all the equations
regressing Time 2 class intentions, continuance commitment, and normative commitment
on procedural justice expectations, the parallel Time 1 measures accounted for 95%,
82%, and 88% of the total variance explained by all of the variables in the regression.
Although each equation had other variables that did account for signiﬁcant variance in

the outcome, the Time 1 measures were clearly the largest drivers of the parallel Time 2

89

Table 16

Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Expectations and Perc_eptions

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Affective Reactions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .13“ .04** .04**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .01
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .l 1*
2. Gender -.03 .03 .07**
Age -.12**
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .03
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .11**
Direct Experience -.12*
Positive, Indirect Experience .03
Negative, Indirect Experience -.04
Positive, Class Information -.02
Negative, Class Information .02
Positive Affectivity .081
Negative Affectivity -.03
Power Distance .09*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .23** .l8** .25**
Test Grade .15**
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions .23M .03" .28**
Procedural Justice Expectations -.04
5. Perceptions X Expectations .03 .00 .28"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p<.05. **p< .01.

90

Table 16

Moderated Regression Results: Regpessing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Expectations and Perceptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Class Intentions

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .57** .36** .36**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .04
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .04
2. Gender .03 .02 .38**
Age .01
African American Dummy Code .06
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .05
Direct Experience .05
Positive, Indirect Experience .07“
Negative, Indirect Experience -.04
Positive, Class Information .02
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity .01
Negative Affectivity .07“
Power Distance .01
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.09 .00 .38**
Test Grade .06
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions .04 .00 .3 8**
Procedural Justice Expectations .00
5. Perceptions X Expectations .03 .00 .38"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p<.10. *p< .05. **p<.01.

91

Table 16

Moderated Regzession Results: Regpessing Cla§s Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Expectations and Percgptions (cont.)

 

1.

3.

4.

 

Predictor/Step 5 AR2 R2
DV: Continuance Commitment
Class Intentions (Time 1) .03 .28“ .28**
Continuance Comrrritrnent (Time 1) .48**
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
. Gender -.02 .03 .31 **
Age .07)r
African American Dummy Code -.04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience -.05
Positive, Indirect Experience .04
Negative, Indirect Experience .01
Positive, Class Information .02
Negative, Class Information .00
Positive Affectivity -.08*
Negative Affectivity .03
Power Distance -.O9*
Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.07 .02" .33“
Test Grade -.05
Procedural Justice Perceptions -.l4** .01* .34**
Procedural Justice Expectations .01
Perceptions X Expectations .04 .00 .34"

5.

 

Nate; N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p<.10. *p< .05. **9< .01.

92

Table 16

Moderated Regression Results: Reggessing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Expectations and Percaptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/Step B ARZ R2

 

DV: Normative Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .02 .35" .35""'I
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.05
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .59**
2. Gender .00 .04* .39M
Age -.O9*
African American Dummy Code .02
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .04
Direct Experience -.08’r
Positive, Indirect Experience .01
Negative, Indirect Experience -.02
Positive, Class Information .04
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity -.03
Negative Affectivity -.01
Power Distance .15**
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .09 .011 .40**
Test Grade .06
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.08 .00 .40**
Procedural Justice Expectations .04
5. Perceptions X Expectations .04 .00 .40"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p<.10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

93

Table 17

Moderated Reggession Results: RegressirgClass Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Values and Perc_eptions

 

l.

3.

4.

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2

DV: Affective Reactions

Class Intentions (Time 1) .12** .04** .04"

Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .00

Normative Commitment (Time 1) .10*

Gender -.03 .03 .07**

Age -.12**

Aﬁican American Dummy Code .04

Other Racial Group Dummy Code .12**

Direct Experience -.13 *

Positive, Indirect Experience .03

Negative, Indirect Experience -.04

Positive, Class Information -.02

Negative, Class Information .02

Positive Affectivity .08+

Negative Affectivity -.03

Power Distance .10*

Outcome Fairness Perceptions .24** .18** .25"

Test Grade .15"

Procedural Justice Perceptions .22** .03** .28"

Procedural Justice Values .01

Perceptions X Values -.03 .00 .28”

5.

 

Nata: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
lp< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

94

Table 17

Moderated Reggession Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Values and Percaptions (cont.)

 

1.

3.

4.

5.

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Class Intentions

Class Intentions (Time 1) .58** .36** .36**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .04

Normative Commitment (Time 1) .04

Gender .03 .02 .38"
Age .02

African American Dummy Code .06

Other Racial Group Dummy Code .04

Direct Experience .05

Positive, Indirect Experience .07)r

Negative, Indirect Experience -.03

Positive, Class Information .02

Negative, Class Information .00

Positive Affectivity .01

Negative Affectivity .07“

Power Distance .01

Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.09+ .00 .38"
Test Grade .07

Procedural Justice Perceptions .05 .00 .38"
Procedural Justice Values -.03

Perceptions X Values .03 .00 .38"

 

Nata: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
lp< .10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

95

Table 17

Moderated Regession Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of
Procedural Justice Values and Perceptions (contﬁ

 

1.

3.

4.

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Continuance Commitment
Class Intentions (Time 1) .04 .28** .28“
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .48**
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
. Gender -.02 .03 .31**
Age .07“
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience -.05
Positive, Indirect Experience .04
Negative, Indirect Experience .01
Positive, Class Information .02
Negative, Class Information .00
Positive Affectivity -.08*
Negative Affectivity .04
Power Distance -.09*
Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.08 .02** .33**
Test Grade -.04
Procedural Justice Perceptions -.13** .01* .34**
Procedural Justice Values -.02
Perceptions X Values .04 .00 .34**

5.

 

Ma: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p<.10.*p<.05.**p<.01.

96

Table 17

Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of

Procedural Justice Values and Percaptions (cont.)

 

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Normative Commitment
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .02 .35" .35**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.05
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .59"
2. Gender .00 .O4* .39"
Age -.08*
African American Dummy Code .02
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .05
Direct Experience -.07
Positive, Indirect Experience .02
Negative, Indirect Experience -.02
Positive, Class Information .03
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity -.03
Negative Affectivity -.02
Power Distance .16"
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .091 .011 .40**
Test Grade .05
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.08 .00 .40"
Procedural Justice Values .06
5. Perceptions X Values -.01 .00 .40"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.

*p<.10. *p<.05. "p<.01.

97

“_Z'
luV—I-o

Table 18

Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of Voice
ExpectationsNalues and Procedural Justice Perceptions

 

l.

3.

4.

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Affective Reactions
Class Intentions (Time 1) .13" .04** .04"
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .01
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .10*
. Gender -.03 .03 .07**
Age -.12**
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .12**
Direct Experience -.13 *
Positive, Indirect Experience .03
Negative, Indirect Experience -.03
Positive, Class Information -.02
Negative, Class Information .02
Positive Affectivity .08“
Negative Affectivity -.02
Power Distance .09*
Outcome Fairness Perceptions .24" .18** .25"
Test Grade .15M
Procedural Justice Perceptions .23" .03“ .28“
Voice Expectations\Values -.04
Perceptions X Voice -.03 .00 .28“

5.

 

I‘m N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.

p< ..10 *p< ..05 **p< ..01

98

Table 18

Moderated Regression Results: Regressing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of Voice

Expectations/Values and Procedural Juatice Perceptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/ Step

DV: Class Intentions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1)

Continuance Commitment (Time 1)
Normative Commitment (Time 1)

2. Gender
Age

African American Dummy Code
Other Racial Group Dummy Code

Direct Experience
Positive, Indirect Experience
Negative, Indirect Experience
Positive, Class Information
Negative, Class Information
Positive Affectivity
Negative Affectivity
Power Distance

3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions
Test Grade

4. Procedural Justice Perceptions
Voice Expectations\Values

5. Perceptions X Voice

.58"

.04
.03
.03
.01
.07
.05
.05
.07+
-.03
.02
.01
.01
.07”
.01
-.09
.07
.05
-.03
.01

AR2

.36”

.02

.00

.00

.00

R2

.36’Ml

.38M

.38"

.38"

.38"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the
AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.

*p<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

99

Table 18

Moderated Regression Results: Regpessing Class Outcomes on the Interaction of Voice
Expectations/Values and Procedural Justice Perceptions (cong

 

Predictor/ Step i AR2 R2

 

DV: Continuance Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .03 .28” .28**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) .48M
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.04
2. Gender -.02 .03 .31"
Age .08?
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .01
Direct Experience -.05
Positive, Indirect Experience .04
Negative, Indirect Experience .01
Positive, Class Information .02
Negative, Class Information .00
Positive Affectivity -.08*
Negative Affectivity .03
Power Distance -.09*
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions -.07 .02** .33"
Test Grade -.05
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.13* .01* .34“
Voice Expectations\Values -.02
5. Perceptions X Voice .05 .00 .34"

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
lp< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

100

Table 18

Moderated Regression Results: Ragressingglass Outcomes on the Interaction of Voice
ExpectationsNalues and Procedural Justice Perceptions ( cont.)

 

Predictor/Step [3 AR2 R2

 

DV: Normative Commitment

1. Class Intentions (Time 1) .03 .35** .35**
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.04
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .58"
2. Gender .00 .04* .39**
Age -.09*
African American Dummy Code .02
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .05
Direct Experience -.07
Positive, Indirect Experience .01
Negative, Indirect Experience -.01
Positive, Class Information .04
Negative, Class Information .01
Positive Affectivity -.02
Negative Affectivity -.01
Power Distance .15**
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .08 .014: .40**
Test Grade .06
4. Procedural Justice Perceptions -.05 .00 .40**
Voice Expectations\Values -.05
5. Perceptions X Voice .02 .00 .40**

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
19< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

101

measures.

For affective reactions, the results indicated that the most variance (64%) was
accounted for by outcome fairness perceptions and the test grade. Higher outcome
fairness perceptions and receiving a higher test grade were related to higher affective
reactions regarding the class. Independent of the outcome, students’ perceptions of the
class’ grading procedures was also positively related to their affective reactions (B=.23).
Finally, class intentions and normative commitment were signiﬁcantly and positively
related to class satisfaction (B=.13 and .11, respectively).
Hypothesis 2b: Moderation

In order to test Hypothesis 2b (i.e., Procedural elements expectations will
moderate the relationship between procedural elements perceptions and process fairness
perceptions), I had to re-organize some of the measures as I did in Study 1. As I noted
earlier, the procedural elements expectations and process fairness expectations measures
loaded onto two factors (i.e., procedural justice expectations and voice
expectations/values). In addition, the procedural elements perceptions and process
fairness perceptions measures loaded onto a single factor (i.e., procedural justice
perceptions). If Hypothesis 2b is correct, I expect the relationship between the
procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions measures to be stronger
for participants with higher procedural elements expectations. To test Hypothesis 2b, I
created a three-item voice and a ﬁve-item non-voice procedural elements expectations
measure. In addition, I created a three-item voice and a ﬁve-item non-voice procedural
elements perceptions measure to parallel the same elements measured in the two

expectations measures. Thus, I created two elements expectations measures, two

102

elements perceptions measures, and the original four-item process fairness perceptions
measure for the current analysis. Thus, I regressed process fairness perceptions onto the
main effects of the ﬁve-item non-voice procedural elements expectations measure, the
ﬁve-item non-voice procedural elements perceptions measure, and the interaction of the
two measures. In addition, I regressed process fairness perceptions onto the main effects
of the three-item voice procedural elements expectations measure, the three-item voice
procedural elements perceptions measure, and the interaction of the two measures.

Results indicated that the interaction of the non-voice elements expectations and
perceptions measure was signiﬁcant albeit a small effect (AR2=.01; AF(1,413)=6.68, p <
.05). To clarify the nature of the interaction, I created high and low procedural elements
expectation groups using a median split. Similar to Study 1, I computed partial
correlations for each group where I partialled out all of the variables in Steps 1-3 of the
regression equation in Table 19. The results indicated that the correlation between the
procedural justice elements and process fairness perceptions measure for participants in
the high procedural elements expectations group (r = .76) was higher than the same
correlation for participants in the low procedural elements expectations group (r = .54).
This interaction is consistent with that predicted in Hypothesis 2b.
Predictors of Procedural Justice Expectations and Values

In order to provide a stringent test of the relationship between the set of individual
difference variables and procedural expectations proposed in Hypothesis 3a (past, direct

experiences), Hypothesis 3b (past, indirect experiences), Hypothesis 5 (Negative

103

Table 19

Moderated Reggession Results: Regzessing Process Fairness Percaptions on Procedural
Elements and Percaptions

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2
DV: Process Fairness Perceptions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) -.05 .04** .04“
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.07*
Normative Commitment (Time 1) -.01
2. Gender .00 .11** .15**
Age .02
African American Dummy Code .05“
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .01
Direct Experience -.03
Positive, Indirect Experience -.03
Negative, Indirect Experience .02
Positive, Class Information -.09**
Negative, Class Information -.02
Positive Affectivity .02
Negative Affectivity .03
Power Distance .01
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .36" .29" .44"
Test Grade .01
4. Procedural Elements Expectations .05 .21** .65**
Procedural Elements Perceptions .53"
5. Elements Expectations X Perceptions .08* .01* .66**
DV: Process Fairness Perceptions
1. Class Intentions (Time 1) -.01 .04M .04“
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.12**
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .02
2. Gender -.03 .11** .15**
Age .01
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .04
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .00
Direct Experience .10*
Positive, Indirect Experience -.04
Negative, Indirect Experience .10

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*a<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

104

Table 19

Moderated Regzession Results: RegpessiagProcess Fairness Perceptions on Procedural
Elements and Perceptions (cont.)

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2

 

DV: Process Fairness Perceptions

Positive, Class Information -.15**
Negative, Class Information -.05
Positive Affectivity .01
Negative Affectivity .05
Power Distance -.01
3. Outcome Fairness Perceptions .48" .29** .44**
Test Grade .02
4. Voice Expectations .01 .07** .51 **
Voice Perceptions .28“
5. Voice Expectations X Perceptions .05 .00 .51**

 

Note: N= 433. DV = dependent variable. B is the standardized regression coefﬁcient and
signiﬁcance levels are based on two-tailed t-tests. Increments for variables entered at the

AR2 signiﬁcance levels are based on F tests for that step.
*p< .10. *p< .05. **p< .01.

105

Affectivity), and Hypothesis 6 (Positive Affectivity) and Hypothesis 7 (Power Distance),
I entered all of the individual difference measures into a single regression equation. In
order to explore the potential inﬂuence of the sample demographics on procedural justice
expectations, procedural justice values, and voice expectations/values, I entered all
available demographics into STEP 1 of the regression equation and then entered all of the
individual difference measures in STEP 2.

Procedural Justice Expectations

The results in Table 20 indicate that the demographic variables did not
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence procedural justice expectations. Results also supported the
relationship between procedural justice expectations and a number of individual
difference measures. Direct experiences were positively related to procedural justice
expectations (B=.21), which indicates that the more fair the grading procedures have been
in people’s previous classes, the more they expect fair grading procedures in their current
class. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was supported.

Weak support was found for the relationship between indirect experiences and
procedural justice expectations. Although positive, indirect experiences did not inﬂuence
procedural justice expectations (B=-.05), negative, indirect experiences did signiﬁcantly
relate to procedural justice expectations (B=.18). Counter to my prediction, the more
instances of unfair grading procedures that people heard from others, the more people
expect to have fair grading procedures in their current class. Results also indicated that

neither positive nor negative information regarding the class and instructor inﬂuenced

106

Table 20

Hierarchical Reggession Results: Regressing Procedural Justice Expacaaﬁons. Values. a_11c_l
Voice Expectations/Vamps on Demogaphics and Individual Differences

 

 

Predictor/Step B AR2 R2
DV: Procedural Justice Expectations
1. Gender .04 .00 .00
Age .00
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .06
Other Racial Group Dummy Code .07
2. Direct Experience .21** .12M .12**
Positive, Indirect Experience -.05
Negative, Indirect Experience .18**
Positive, Class Information .06
Negative, Class Information .02
Positive Affectivity .14**
Negative Affectivity .00
Power Distance -.16**

DV: Procedural Justice Values

1. Gender -.03 .02* .02*
Age .04
African American Dummy Code -.08’
Other Racial Group Dummy Code -.07*
2. Direct Experience .25** .O9** .11**
Positive, Indirect Experience -.09*
Negative, Indirect Experience .15**
Positive, Class Information .04
Negative, Class Information -.02
Positive Affectivity .09*
Negative Affectivity .05
Power Distance -.14**

 

lio_t_e_: N=581. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are from the ﬁnal step of
the model with all variables entered. All variables measured at Time 1.

lp<.10. *p<.05. **p< .01.

107

Table 20

Hierarchical Regression Results: Regressiang Procedural Justice Expectations Values and
Voice ExpectationsNalues on Demographics and Individual Differences (cont.)

 

 

 

Predictor/ Step B AR2 R2
DV: Voice ExpectationsNalues
1. Gender -.03 .02’r .02"
Age -.05
Aﬁican American Dummy Code .14**
Other Racial Group Dummy Code -.02
2. Direct Experience .05 .O9** .07**
Positive, Indirect Experience -.07
Negative, Indirect Experience .16**
Positive, Class Information .03
Negative, Class Information .07
Positive Affectivity .18“
Negative Affectivity -.01
Power Distance -.1 l**

 

m N=581. DV = dependent variable. For both Dummy Codes: 0=White, 1=Minority
Group. Signiﬁcance based on two-tailed t-tests. All coefﬁcients are from the ﬁnal step of
the model with all variables entered. All variables measured at Time 1.

Tp<.10. *p<.05. **p<.01.

108

procedural justice expectations (B=.06 and .02, respectively). Given these results, weak
support was found for the relationship of indirect experience (Hypothesis 3b) and
procedural justice expectations (i.e., for the negative measure), but not in the
hypothesized direction.

Support was found for the relationship between procedural justice expectations
and positive affectivity (B=.14), but not for negative affectivity (B=.00). The more
people generally approach situations in a positive manner, the more they expect to have
fair grading procedures in their current class. Thus, Hypothesis 6, but not Hypothesis 5,
was supported.

Finally, results indicated support for the relationship between power distance and
procedural justice expectations (B=—. l 6). As predicted, people higher in power distance
beliefs expect to be treated less fair in the current class. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was
supported.

Procedural Justice Values

The same regression analysis that was run for procedural justice expectations was
also run for procedural justice values (Table 20). Results indicated that the set of
demographic variables signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced procedural justice values. Although
signiﬁcant as a set of variables at STEP 1, there were only marginal (i.e., p<.10) effects at
STEP 2 for two of the demographic variables. The negative beta weights for the Black-
White dummy code (B=—.08) and Other-White dummy code (B=-.07) indicate that the
African Americans and other non-White races value procedural justice less than Whites.

The results for the regression of procedural justice values on the individual

difference measures were largely similar to those for procedural justice expectations.

109

Direct experiences were positively related to procedural justice values (B=.25), which
indicates that the more fair the grading procedures have been in people’s previous
classes, the more people value fair grading procedures in their current class.

Unlike the results for procedural justice expectations, both positive and negative,
indirect experiences were signiﬁcantly related to procedural justice values (B=-.09 and
.15, respectively). The results for both variables were contrary to my prediction. The
more instances of fair grading procedures that people heard from others, the less people
valued having fair grading procedures in their current class. Additionally, the more
instances of unfair grading procedures that people heard from others, the more people
valued having fair grading procedures in their current class. Although post-hoe, one
possible explanation for both ﬁndings may be that people tend to de-value or value
aspects of fairness that are generally present or absent, respectively, in other situations. If
other people have generally experienced fair grading procedures, a person may not
believe those aspects to be as important as if they have had negative experiences.

Similar to procedural justice expectations, results indicated that neither positive
nor negative information regarding the class and instructor inﬂuenced procedural justice
values (B=.04 and -.02, respectively).

Similar to the results for procedural justice expectations, support was found for
the relationship between procedural justice values and positive affectivity (B=.09), but
not for negative affectivity (B=.05). The more people generally approach situations in a
positive manner, the more they value having fair grading procedures in their current

class.

110

Finally, results indicated support for the relationship between power distance and
procedural justice values (B=-.14). People higher in power distance beliefs place less
value on being treated fairly in their current class.

Voice ExpectationMas

The results for the voice expectations/values (Table 20) indicated that the set of
demographic variables were marginally related to voice expectations/values (p=.05). At
STEP 2, the positive beta weight for the Black-White dummy code (B=. 14) indicates that
the Aﬁican Americans expect/value having voice in the grading process more than
Whites.

The results for the regression of voice expectations/values indicated that unlike
procedural justice expectations and values, direct experiences were not related to voice
expectations/values (B=.05). Although positive, indirect experiences did not inﬂuence
voice expectations/values (B=-.O7), negative, indirect experiences did signiﬁcantly relate
to voice expectations/values (B=.16). Counter to my prediction, the more negative things
students heard about the class and instructor, the more people expected/valued having a
chance to provide some voice in the grading procedures. Similar to the results for
procedural justice expectations and values measures, results indicated that neither
positive nor negative information regarding the class and instructor inﬂuenced voice
expectations/values (B=.03 and -.07, respectively).

Results again indicated that positive affectivity was signiﬁcantly related to

111

expectation/values (B=.18), but not negative affectivity (B=-.01). The more people
generally approach situations in a positive manner, the more they expect/value having
voice in the grading procedures.

Finally, results indicated support for the relationship between power distance and
voice expectations/values (B=—.11). The higher people are in power distance, the less
they expect/value having voice in the grading procedures.

_S_u111_m_arv of Procedtﬂl Justice Expectations and Values Predictors

Across the three expectations and values measures (i.e., procedural justice
expectations, procedural justice values, and voice expectations/values), a number of
individual differences had signiﬁcant relationships to what students expected and valued
regarding the grading procedures in their class. Although not hypothesized, Aﬁican
American students placed less value on procedural justice than White students
(marginally signiﬁcant) and had higher expectations/placed more value on having voice
in the grading process.

Supporting Hypothesis 3a, direct experiences were positively and signiﬁcantly
related to both procedural justice expectations and values. The more positive experiences
with grading procedures that a student has had in the past, the more he/she expected and
valued fair grading procedures in his/her current class.

Partial support was found for the relationship between indirect experiences and
procedural justice expectations (Hypothesis 3b). Positive, indirect experiences were only
related to procedural justice values. Negative, indirect experiences were positively and
signiﬁcantly related to all three measures such that the more negative things a student

heard about grading procedures from others, the more the student expected and valued

112

fair grading procedures in his/her current class and the more he/she expected/valued
having voice in the grading process.

Positive affectivity was signiﬁcantly related to all three measures. The more a
student tends to view situations in a positive manner, the more the student expected and
valued fair grading procedures in his/her current class and the more he/she
expected/valued having voice in the grading process. Finally, power distance was
negatively related to all three measures. The more accepting students were of power
differentials, the less they expected and valued fair grading procedures in their class and
the less they expected/valued having voice in the grading process.

Direct vs. Indirect Experiences

Hypothesis 4 predicted that direct experiences would have a stronger relationship
with procedural justice expectations than indirect experiences. Using Cohen and Cohen’s
(1983, p. 57) formula for dependent correlations, I calculated the difference between the
correlations of direct and indirect (positive and negative) experiences and procedural
justice expectations. The results indicated that direct experiences were more highly
correlated to procedural justice expectations (r=.17) than positive, indirect experiences
(r=.00) (t(584)=3.28, p<.05), but not negative, indirect experiences (r=.10) (t(584)=l .12,
p>.05). These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 4.

I applied the same formula for the difference between direct and indirect (positive
and negative) experiences and the procedural justice values. The results indicated that
direct experiences were more highly correlated to procedural justice values (r=.21) than
both positive, indirect (1=-.02) (t(584)=4.74, p<.05) and negative, indirect experiences

(r=.07) (t(584)=2.21, p<.05).

113

Finally, I conducted the same analyses on the difference between direct and
indirect (positive and negative) experiences and voice expectations/values. The results
indicated that direct experiences were not more highly correlated to voice
expectations/values (r=-.01) than positive, indirect experiences (r=-.04) (t(584)=.70,
p>.05). Counter to what I expected, negative, indirect experiences (r=. l 3) were more
highly related to voice expectations/values than were direct experiences (r=-.01)
(t(584)=-2.00, p<.05).

Additional Analysis
Prediction of Study Completion

Logistic regression was conducted to predict participants’ completion of the
second survey. Recall that of the 626 participants who completed the ﬁrst survey, 116
failed to complete the second survey. The results in Table 21 indicate that direct
experience was positively related to study completion (B=.78); thus, the more positive
grading experiences a student had directly experienced in the past, the more likely the
student was to complete the second survey. Negative, indirect experience was related to
study completion (B=.41) such that the more negative grading experiences a student had
heard from others, the more likely the student was to complete the second survey.

Two other variables were marginally related to study completion (i.e., negative,
class information and procedural justice expectations). Negative, class information was

negatively related to study completion (B=-.47); thus, the fewer negative things a student

114

Table 21

Logistic Regression of Study Completion on Individual Differences. Test Grar_1_e_,
Procedural Justice Expectations. Values. and Voice Expectations\Values

 

 

Parameter Standard Wald Odds
Estimate Error Chi- Ratio
Square
Class Intentions (Time 1) .18 .30 .35 1.20
Continuance Commitment (Time 1) -.23 .17 1.73 .80
Normative Commitment (Time 1) .35 .25 2.00 1.42
Test Grade .02 .01 2.40 1.02
Gender .48 .33 2.14 1.61
Age -.01 .01 .68 .99
Aﬁican American Dummy Code -.50 .47 1.14 .61
Other Racial Group Dummy Code -.18 .57 .10 .84
Direct Experience .78 .29 7.32IMI 2.18
Positive, Indirect Experience .10 .28 .12 1.10
Negative, Indirect Experience .41 .20 4.04* 1.51
Positive, Class Information -.15 .24 .38 .86
Negative, Class Information -.47 .28 2.81,r .62
Positive Affectivity .00 .29 .00 1.00
Negative Affectivity -.30 .24 1.55 .74
Power Distance .02 .35 .00 1.02
Procedural Justice Expectations -.88 .49 3.181 .42
Procedural Justice Values .33 .43 .59 1.39
Voice Expectations\Values -.27 .39 .50 .76

 

Note: Modeling odds of study completion (0=no, 1=yes). Model Chi-square with 19
degrees offreedom is 37.19; p < .01.
1p<.10. *p<.05. **p< .01.

heard about their class, the more likely the student was to complete the second survey.
Finally, procedural justice expectations were negatively related to study completion (B=-
.88). The more negative a student’s expectations of the grading process were, the more

likely he/she was to complete the second survey.

115

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION

The results provided mixed support for the inﬂuence of procedural justice
expectations on outcomes via procedural justice perceptions. Using the Baron and Kenny
(1986) method of testing mediation, procedural justice expectations were consistently
related to procedural justice perceptions, but none of the four outcome variables. These
results were replicated using the procedural justice values and voice expectations/values
measures. These results provide weak support for mediation.

The moderating role of procedural justice expectations on the relationship
between procedural justice perceptions and outcomes was not supported in any of the
interactions using the three expectations and values measures on any of the outcome
measures. Partial support was found for the moderating role of procedural elements
expectations on the relationship between procedural elements perceptions and process
fairness perceptions. The results indicated that, as hypothesized, the relationship between
procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions was stronger when
students expected those elements to be present than when they did not. This result
suggests that researchers should not assrune that the presence or absence of procedural
elements in a situation necessitates that the perceiver will judge the process as fair or
unfair. This result suggests that procedural justice perceptions are, at least in part,
formed from expectations that people hold regarding procedural elements.

The results also supported the relationship between a number of individual
difference measures and procedural justice expectations and values. In addition, a
number of measures were signiﬁcantly related to procedural justice perceptions beyond

the inﬂuence of outcome faimess perceptions. Both results suggest that individual

116

differences deserve a more important role in justice models than they have received to
date (Ryan and Ployhart, 2000). The results also suggest that these factors are quite
varied and span demographics, experiences, and personality factors.

The results also suggest that the nature of past experiences may inﬂuence the
impact that they have on procedural justice expectation and values. Partial support was
found the notion that direct experiences play a larger role in the formation of procedural
justice expectations than information gathered from others. These results support
previous research which suggests that direct experiences strengthen aspects of
expectations (e. g., certainty, accessibility) that make them more inﬂuential than socially
transmitted information (Olson et al., 1996; Lind et al, 1998).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Overall, the results of both studies provide some evidence for the antecedents and
consequences of procedural justice expectations. and values. Table 22 contains an
overview of the hypotheses and the level of support for found each hypothesis. Both
Studies 1 and 2 found partial support for inﬂuence of justice expectations on outcomes
via their inﬂuence on procedural justice perceptions as suggested by the work of Shapiro
and Kirkman (2001) (Figure 1). In Study 2, the results for mediation using the three
procedural justice expectations and values measures provided identical results. Brockner
et al.’s (2001a) model (Figure 2) suggested that procedural justice expectations have a
moderating effect on the procedural justice perceptions to outcomes relationship. The

results for all three procedural justice expectations and values measures did not support

117

Table 22

Study 1 and 2 Results Summa_ry

 

 

 

Support for Hypothesis
Hypothesis Study 1 Study 2
H1: Procedural justice expectations will
directly inﬂuence procedural justice Partial support Partial support
perceptions, which will, in turn, inﬂuence
outcomes.
H2a: Procedural justice expectations will Not supported Not supported

moderate the relationship between procedural
justice perceptions and outcomes.

H2b: Procedural elements expectations will Partial support Partial support
moderate the relationship between procedural
elements perceptions and process fairness

perceptions.
H3a: Direct procedural justice experiences **Not tested" Supported
will be related to procedural justice (B=.21)

expectations such that the more positive direct
experiences will be associated with more
positive procedural justice expectations.

H3b: Indirect procedural justice experiences "Not tested" Weak support

will be related to procedural justice Negative,
expectations such that the more positive indirect exp.
indirect experiences will be associated with (B=.18)
more positive procedural justice expectations.

Hypothesis 4: Direct procedural justice **Not tested” Partial support
experiences will be more strongly related to Direct (B=.17)
procedural justice expectations than will - Indir. (B=.00)

indirect procedural justice experiences.

H5: Negative affectivity will be negatively Not supported Not supported
related to procedural justice expectations.

H6: Positive affectivity will be positively Supported Supported
related to procedural justice expectations. (B=.16) (B=.14)

H7: Power distance will be negatively related Not supported Supported
to procedural justice expectations. (B=-. 16)

 

118

Brockner et al.’s model of justice expectations. The mediation and moderation results
suggest that procedural justice expectations and values are similar in nature and inﬂuence
outcomes (i.e., commitment, intentions) via their inﬂuence on procedural justice
perceptions, not their interaction with procedural justice perceptions.

Although Brockner et al.’s (20013) moderation model was not supported, both
studies provided some evidence that procedural elements expectations moderated the
relationship between procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions as
suggested by previous research (Van den Bos et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., cited in
Brockner et al., 2001a) (Figure 5). Although this set of results suggests that procedural
justice expectations and values inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions, they do not
answer the exact nature of their inﬂuence. The current data suggest expectations can
directly inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions (Figure l) or can inﬂuence the
relationship of procedural elements and procedural justice perceptions (Figure 5).

Both studies also shed light on the potential antecedents of procedural justice
expectations and values. The results from Study 2 also indicated that past experiences
had more or less of inﬂuence on procedural justice expectations and values depending on
their source. The results also provided further evidence for the similarity of procedural
justice expectations and values as the signiﬁcant predictors were similar across measures.
These results provide much needed support to previous justice research which has
attempted to understand the types of individual differences that may inﬂuence the
formation of procedural justice perceptions (e. g., Brockner et al., 1994; Mitrano, 1997;
Davidson & Friedman, 1998; Wiechmann & Ryan, 2003).

Mediation

119

The mixed results for mediation were found across both a lab study in which 1
manipulated procedural justice expectations and a classroom study in which students’
expectations were measured in the ﬁrst two weeks of their psychology class. In Study 1,
I found partial mediation using the procedural expectations measure, but did not ﬁnd
mediation using the expectation condition. In Study 2, I did not ﬁnd mediation for any
of the outcomes using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method.

These results suggest that Shapiro and Kirkrnan’s (2001) notion of anticipatory
justice m have signiﬁcant consequences for organizations. Despite organizations’
attempts to manage justice perceptions, employees may still perceive unfairness due to
their expectations of the situation. The ultimate outcome may be lower satisfaction,
lower commitment, fewer citizenship behaviors, and a greater likelihood of leaving the
organization. Given the scant research on anticipatory injustice, more research is needed
to understand the exact nature of this effect in organizations. The present research,
especially that of Study 2, suggests that expectations of procedural justice vary across
individuals and that these expectations may have important consequences.

At a theoretical level, these results provide valuable insight into how procedural
justice perceptions are formed. In their recent review of justice research, Gilliland and
Chan (2001) note the lack of research attempting to identify and test the mechanisms by
which justice perceptions are formed. The results of the current paper suggest that
expectations are one such mechanism that may inﬂuence the formation of justice
perceptions.

This notion should not be surprising given the vast data that supports the role of

expectations in inﬂuencing a variety of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (see Miller

120

& Turnbull, 1986 and Olson et al., 1996, for reviews). When presented with any
situation, people hold a variety of expectations regarding how the situation will unfold
and the likely outcome of the situation. One of those expectations is likely to concern
how fairly the person believes he/ she will be treated. In any situation where people are
trying to gain a desired outcome, the involved parties are most likely attuned to
anticipating how fair the procedures used to determine the outcome will be. As people
are generally biased in favor of conﬁrming their expectations, it follows that they will
attend to information that conﬁrms their expectations and ignore information contrary to
their expectations. The inability to signiﬁcantly change participants’ expectations in
Study 1 may suggest that participants were merely conﬁrming the expectations that they
held before the experiment. In other words, participants either used the manipulation to
conﬁrm their expectations or ignored the manipulation to keep their pre-existing
expectations intact.

The results of the current study have implications for Lind’s (2001) Fairness
Heuristic Theory. One question that Fairness Heuristic Theory attempts to answer is how
justice judgments are formed (Van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke, 2001). Fairness Heuristic
Theory suggests that, when encountering a new situation, people attempt to quickly
gather fairness information that will allow them to judge whether or not to trust the other
party. Although Fairness Heuristic Theory does not explicit state that expectations may
play a role in forming justice heuristics, it is quite reasonable to assume that people’s
expectations may inﬂuence the initial justice heuristic that is formed. Fairness Heuristic
Theory proceeds to suggest that people maintain this fairness heuristic until an event

signiﬁcantly deviates from their expectations. Though not explicitly stated, the theory

121

seems to argue that expectations play a major role in inﬂuencing justice perceptions.
Expectations are likely to help form the initial fairness heuristic and then serve as a basis
for judging the fairness of subsequent events until a severe enough deviation ﬁ'om those
expectations occurs.

Expectations also have theoretical implications for Folger’s (1986) Referent
Cogrritions Theory (RCT). RCT suggests that people react to events by forming “could,”
should,” and “would” counterfactuals (e. g., simulated events contrary to the facts). The
“could” and “should” counterfactuals compare what the decision-maker did to other
available, feasible behaviors and to prevailing moral standards, respectively. The
“would” counterfactual compares the current state to other potential states by considering
relevant social comparisons, expectations, and referent standards. Although RCT pays
little attention to expectations, it is likely that expectations play an important role in
forming the “would” counterfactual because expectations allow a person to consider what
it would have been like to receive alternative (i.e., fair) treatment (“what would have
been the expected or anticipated outcome if only. . ..”). The results of the mediation
analyses suggest that more research is needed to understand the role of expectations in

current justice theories (i.e., Fairness Heuristic Theory and Referent Cognitions Theory).

122

Moderation

Both studies provided no support for Brockner et al.’s (2001 a) model of
procedural justice expectations. As Brockner et al.’s model originally included a
combination of expectations and values (i.e., legitimacy beliefs), I ran additional analyses
to see if an additive or multiplicative combination of these components would add
additional variance to the models predicting the outcome measures (i.e., affective
reactions, class intentions, continuance commitment, and normative commitment).
Neither combination of expectations and values inﬂuenced any of the relationships
between procedural justice perceptions and the outcome measures. These results are not .
surprising given a number of ﬁndings. First, some support was found for the mediating
role that procedural justice expectations appear to play in inﬂuencing justice perceptions
and outcomes. Both studies provide more support for a mediating vs. moderating role for
procedural justice expectations.

Another reason for the non-signiﬁcant interactions is likely the strong inﬂuence
that other factors had on the four outcome measures. In Study 2, the largest predictors of
three of the four outcomes on the second survey (i.e., class intentions, continuance and
normative commitment) were the same measures collected during the ﬁrst two weeks of
class. These results are interesting as they suggest that students’ expected involvement
and their commitment at the beginning of the semester remain unchanged regardless of
what happened over the course of the next month. In these three regressions, neither
students’ ﬁrst test grade nor their perceptions of the fairness of the outcome associated

with that grade were signiﬁcantly related to the measures on the second survey.

123

For affective reactions, the three commitment and intentions measures on the ﬁrst
survey were signiﬁcantly related to the affective reactions, but less so than the inﬂuence
of test grade and outcome fairness perceptions. Study 1 also found that the justice
perceptions measure was the largest predictor of intentions. The results for affective
commitment support the notion that justice perceptions are largely based on self-interest
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Self-interest models suggest that people
seek justice in order to insure that they obtain desired outcomes. In support of the self-
interest model, a number of empirical studies have found that the largest inﬂuence on
procedural justice perceptions is the event’s outcome and how fair people perceive that
outcome to be (e.g., Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Carnpion, 1998; Chan, Schmitt, Jennings,
Clause, & Delbridge, 1998; Gilliland, 1994; Horvath, Ryan, & Stierwalt, 2000; Kluger &
Rothstein, 1993; Ployhart & Ryan, 1997). The fact that the non-affective measures in
Study 2 (i.e., class intentions, continuance commitment, and normative commitment) did
not produce the same results as the affective reactions suggests that self-interest may
function differently in inﬂuencing various reactions. Overall, these results suggest that if
researchers want to understand what drives justice perceptions and related outcomes (e. g.,
intentions, satisfaction, commitment), they should attempt to measure: a) individuals’
expectations of justice, b) individuals’ perceived involvement in the situation, and c)
various attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (e. g., satisfaction, intentions to quit,
organizational citizenship behaviors) relevant to the context they are examining. Finally,
future research would seem to beneﬁt from understanding what predicts these initial
intentions and commitment perceptions given their large inﬂuence over time on people’s

subsequent intentions and commitment.

124

Brockner et al.’s (2001 a) model may also be incorrect given the signiﬁcant
interaction of procedural elements expectations and procedural elements perceptions on
process fairness perceptions found in both studies. The nature of the signiﬁcant
interaction in Study 2 indicated that the relationship between procedural elements
perceptions and process fairness perceptions was stronger for students who expected
those elements to be present than for those that did not expect those procedural elements.
The nature of the signiﬁcant interaction in Study 1 was contrary to that hypothesized and
found in Study 2. Procedural elements perceptions and process fairness perceptions were
more strongly related in the Unfair than F air condition. As noted earlier, one explanation '
may be that the instructions in the Unfair condition more strongly attuned participants to
determine whether certain elements were present than the instructions did in the Fair
condition. In other words, participants in the Unfair condition were lead to believe that
they would likely ﬁnd elements missing; whereas participants in the F air condition were
lead to believe that they would ﬁnd that these elements would be present. Participants in
the Fair condition may have been more likely to think that the procedural elements were
present and subsequently judge the process as fair, regardless of the actual presence or
not of the procedural elements. Future research should attempt to clarify the exact nature
of the interaction.

These results, along with those found in the mediation analyses, provide further
support that procedural justice expectations play a role in the formation of justice
perceptions and not in the relationship between justice perceptions and outcomes (Van
den Bos et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., cited in Brockner et al., 2001a). These results also

supplement other research which suggests that other moderators such as explanations

125

(e.g., Ployhart, Ryan & Bennett, 1999; Tyler & Bies, 1990) and social comparisons (e.g.,
Grienberger, Rutte, & van Knippenberg, 1997) may inﬂuence the process by which
procedural justice elements inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions.
Predictors of Expectations and Values

The results ﬁ'om both studies support the relationship between a number of
individual differences and procedural justice expectations and values. Overall, it appears
that both personality-based and experience-based factors are important in understanding
procedural justice expectations and values. Two personality-based individual differences
(i.e., positive affectivity and power distance) were related to procedural justice
expectations as well as procedural justice values and voice expectations/values. The
results for positive and negative affectivity provide further support for the distinctiveness
of these two factors that is debated in personality psychology. As Zevon and Tellegen
(1982) suggest, “if we deﬁne emotions as aroused-engaged states, then Positive and
Negative Affect are best characterized as descriptively bipolar but aﬂectively unipolar
dimensions” (p. 112). In both Study 1 and 2, positive and negative affectivity were not
correlated (.05 and -.01 , respectively) and positive affectivity was related to procedural
justice expectations, but negative affectivity was not. The non-signiﬁcant results for
negative affectivity are surprising given previous research which supports its relationship
to procedural justice perceptions (Ball et al., 1993, 1994; Folger & Konovsky, 1989).
Future research should be careful not to use only one of these factors due to the
assumption that they are bipolar personality traits.

Power distance was the other personality trait that was related to procedural

j ustice expectations and values, but only in Study 2. This result supports Brockner et

126

al.’s (2001b) and Lam et al.’s (2002) research that suggests power distance beliefs may
be an important variable to incorporate into justice models. One issue with an individual-
level power distance measure is that most research regards power distance as a country-
level measure. Although most research has considered Hofstede’s (1980) four
dimensions as country-level variables, a recent meta-analysis by Oysennan, Coon, and
Kernmelmeier (2002) indicates signiﬁcant variance in at least one of Hofstede’s (1980)
dimensions (i.e., individualism/collectivism) both across countries, as has been typically
cited, but also within countries that have been typically been labeled as either
individualist or collectivist. Given that cultures high and low in power distance are
formed from people who hold those power distance beliefs, it stands to reason that
researchers can gain valuable insight into this construct by measuring it at the individual
level. Study 2 provides evidence that US. students do vary in their power distance
beliefs and that these beliefs inﬂuence their expectations of how fair the grading
procedures will be in the current class. This result along with the signiﬁcant relationship
of positive affectivity and procedural justice expectations suggest that people expect to be
treated fairly or not based on factors that are stable over time.

In addition to personality-based inﬂuences on expectations and values, Study 2
found support that experience-based measures also inﬂuence people’s procedural justice
expectations and values as suggested by previous justice researchers (e. g., Brockner et
al., 1994; Olson et al., 1996; Davidson & Friedman, 1998; Mitrano, 1997; Brockner et al.,
2001 a; Shapiro & Kirkman, 2001; Gilliland & Steiner, 2001). Both direct and indirect

experiences were signiﬁcantly related to procedural justice expectations and values. The

127

results for direct experience were consistent with those hypothesized (i.e., a positive
relationship), but the results for the indirect experiences measures were unexpected.

Factor analyses indicated that both indirect experiences and class-related
information were composed of both positive and negative factors. Although each four-
item scale comprised two negatively coded items, the four negatively coded items did not
load onto an overall negatively coded item factor. Given this result and the initial
removal of participants who were carelessly responding, these results are not suggestive
of poorly worded items or the nature of the sample (Schmitt & Stults, 1985). Similar to
the results for positive and negative affectivity, these results suggest that positive and
negative socially transmitted information may be best characterized as descriptively
bipolar but aﬂectively unipolar dimensions.

The differentiation of positive and negative justice experiences is not a new idea
in justice research (Gilliland & Chan, 2001; Gilliland, Benson, & Schepers, 1998;
Mikula, 1990). Mikula and colleagues (1990, 1998) have developed a model of injustice
and have shown empirically that injustice experiences create different reactions than
justice experiences. Gilliland et al.’s (1998) research examined the impact of injustice
and justice instances on individual’s justice perceptions. Gilliland et al. found that both
justice violations and non-violations equally impact justice judgments, but that violations
and non-violations interact differently when people have to decide a course of action
based on their justice judgments. When deciding a course of action, people use non-
violations less in making their decision when the number of justice violations surpasses a
certain threshold. Thus, the differentiation of positive and negative justice experiences

may be a useful distinction for justice researchers to consider in future research.

128

Study 2 found that negative, indirect experiences were related to procedural
justice expectations and values, but none of the other three indirect experience measures
(i.e., positive, indirect experience, positive, class information, and negative, class
information) were signiﬁcantly related to either procedural justice expectations or values.
These results suggest that pe0ple may give less credence to information that is socially
transmitted, whether positive or negative. The results for negative, indirect experiences
were contrary to what I hypothesized in that the more negative things a person has heard
about grading procedures from others, the more he/ she expects and values fair grading
procedures in his/her current class. As suggested earlier, this relationship suggests that
hearing about negative experiences from other people may polarize people’s expectations
that they will not be treated the same way as others have been. In other words, people
may take the attitude that “Yeah, this happened to other people, but I am not going to let
it happen to me in this class.” This result suggests it may be beneﬁcial for people to hear
about other people’s experiences of being treated unfairly. Hearing more information
appears to strengthen a person’s beliefs that he/she will not receive the same treatment in
the future. Given this unexpected result, more research is needed to replicate the
distinctiveness of positive and negative social information as well as the nature of the
results found for negative, indirect experiences.

Direct vs. Indirect Experiences

The relative inﬂuence of direct vs. indirect experiences on procedural justice
expectations and values remains an open issue given the results in Study 2. Direct
experiences were more highly related to procedural justice expectations than positive,

indirect experiences and were more highly related to procedural justice values than both

129

positive and negative, indirect experiences. These results support previous research which
suggests that expectations based on direct experience are more accurate and trustworthy
compared to expectations ﬁ'om other sources (Jones et al., 1984; Olson et a1, 1996).
These results also support Lind et al.’s (1998) research on the inﬂuence of direct vs.
socially transmitted experiences of injustice on justice perceptions. Lind et al. highlight
the large number of justice studies showing that self-interest plays an important role in
how people form justice judgments; thus, personal experiences with injustice should have
more of an inﬂuence on justice judgments than others’ experiences of injustice.

Although Study 2 also found a difference between the relationship of direct and
negative, indirect experience and voice expectations/values, it was in the opposite
direction than I predicted. These results support Lamertz’s (2002) research which ﬁnds
that peers can and do provide important information on which people form justice
perceptions. Tyler’s (1980) research also found the relative inﬂuence of direct and
indirect experiences depends on the outcome being measure. Tyler found that direct
experiences with crime were more highly related to personal judgments of vulnerability
to crimes, but the opposite was true for personal judgments of the base rate of crime.
More research is needed to understand the role of source on procedural justice
expectations and values.

Overall, these results suggest Olson et al.’s (1996) ﬁ'amework may be useful for
clarifying how procedural justice expectations are formed. Olson et al. suggest that the
three sources of expectations (i.e., direct personal experience with objects, indirect
experience via communicating with others, and other beliefs) provide different

information on which an expectation’s certainty, accessibility, explicitness, and

130

importance are based. It appears that direct experiences do not always increase these
characteristics compared to indirect experiences. An issue not addressed in the current
study is that the relative inﬂuence of different sources of social information (i.e.,
supervisor, peer, media) on people’s expectations. For example, a person may discount
information heard from an unfamiliar person, but trust information heard from a
supervisor.

To better understand when direct vs. indirect experiences will be more highly
related to procedural justice expectations, more research is needed to better understand
not only the different sources of expectations, but also how much they inﬂuence the four
characteristics of expectations (i.e., certainty, accessibility, explicitness, and importance).
Do direct experiences always inﬂuence the certainty of an expectation more than the
other two sources of expectations? Does this pattern hold across all four characteristics?
What are the implications of the answers to these questions on the relationship between
expectations and perceptions? Future expectations research should attempt to understand
the weights assigned to different sources of information and how these weights vary
across the four characteristics of expectations outlined by Olson et al. (1996).

Limitations
Studies 1 and 2 Limitations

There are potential limitations of both studies that deserve some attention. One
potential limitation of both studies was the representativeness of the sample. Both studies
were largely young, White college students and Study 2 was also mostly female.
Although I ideally would have liked to have had a more diverse sample, there is little

research to suggest clear differences in procedural justice expectations or perceptions

131

based on race, gender, or age (see the following papers for exceptions: Major & Konar,
1984; Brockner & Adsit, 1986; DeMaris & Yang, 1994; Davidson & Friedman, 1998).
In the current two studies, only race showed a somewhat consistent inﬂuence on
procedural justice expectations and perceptions; thus, a more diverse sample may have
provided stronger and more consistent results.

Another potential limitation is the generalizability of the ﬁndings. Study 1 was
conducted in a laboratory setting and manipulated expectations. Although the procedures
may have been artiﬁcial, I attempted to make the process seem as natural as possible.
Participants were simply asked to review a resume screening process and give me their
perceptions of the fairness involved. It is hard to conceive how I would be able to
ethically manipulate procedural justice expectations outside of a laboratory setting.
Study 2 was conducted using a classroom sample, but, for the most part, the results
replicated those found in the lab; thus, the same ﬁndings replicated across different
contexts and provide some support that the results will generalize to other situations. As
the goal of both studies was to understand basic processes by which procedural justice
expectations inﬂuence procedural justice perceptions and outcomes, these results should
generalize across any situation in which the same basic processes are occurring. To my
knowledge, no justice research exists which suggests that the basic processes underlying
the formation of justice perceptions and outcomes differ across contexts. It is
conceivable that some of the antecedents of justice expectations and values may differ
across contexts, but that question remains open given the infancy of research on justice

expectations.

132

A concern with cross-sectional research is the presence of common method
variance (e.g., Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Spector, 1987;
Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). Although some research suggests that common
method variance is not as prevalent as researchers used to think (e. g., Crampton &
Wagner, 1994) or that it is rarely severe enough to invalidate research ﬁndings (e. g., Doty
& Glick, 1998), I examined this issue to see if it may have inﬂuenced the data. The fact
that the multiple PCAs in Studies 1 and 2 supported multiple factors and, for the most
part, those in line with the original measures, suggests that common method variance was
not prevalent in either study. If common method variance were prevalent, I would have .
found single factor solutions for many of the PCA.

Another point that reduces the likelihood of common method variance in Study 2
is that a number of the relationships examined involved variables that were assessed
longitudinally, with at least three weeks separating the Survey 1 and 2 measures.
Longitudinal designs are considered to be less susceptible than cross sectional designs to
common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Lindell & Whitney, 2001).

Finally, Lindell and Whitney (2001) suggest including a marker variable to
estimate the inﬂuence of common method variance. The concept is to ﬁnd variables that
are theoretically not related to the criterion of interest in the study. The presence of
common method variance is indicated by a signiﬁcant correlation of the marker variable
and the criterion and/or similar correlations of the marker variable and the criterion as the
predictors in the study. Lindell and Whitney suggest placing the marker variable between
the predictors and criteria. To assess the presence of common method variance in Study

2, I placed a measure of technical computer experience between the expectation measures

133

and perception measures (i.e., at the end of the ﬁrst survey) as the key relationship in the
current study is between these measures. This marker variable was chosen as it is a self-
report in nature, has high reliability (.79), is theoretically susceptible to common method
variance, and is theoretically not related to procedural justice expectations or perceptions
in the current context. In addition, Wiechmann and Ryan (2003) found a non-signiﬁcant
correlation of .13 between the technical computer experience and procedural justice
perceptions measures used in the current study.

In the present study, technical computer experience was weakly correlated with
all thirteen Survey 1 and 2 perceptual measures (average |r| = .04, range -.12 to .10). The .
technical computer experience measure was only signiﬁcantly correlated with the Time 1
and 2 class intentions (r=-.11 and -.12) and positive, indirect experience (r=.10)
measures. In addition, the other perceptual measures in the study showed consistently
higher correlations with the other hypothesized measures. If common method variance
was a signiﬁcant factor in the current study, the technical computer experience measure
should have been related to the rest of the perceptual measures as highly as the other
measures proposed in the hypotheses. The results of including the marker variables
provides further evidence that common method variance did not account for the results in
Study 2. All evidence suggested that common method variance was not a signiﬁcant
problem in either study and did not play a major role in inﬂuencing the results.

Another potential limitation of both studies was the lack of any behavioral
outcomes. The only behavioral measure I had in either study was completion of the
second survey in Study 2. The results of logistic regression supported the relationship

between procedural justice expectations and study completion. Although I was not able

134

to include students’ procedural justice and outcome fairness perceptions in the logistic
regression, these results provide some evidence that students’ behavior, in addition to
their attitudes, are related to their procedural justice expectations. Ideally, I would have
included perceptual measures, self-reported intentions, and behavior-based measures in
both studies. Given the laboratory setting in Study 1, I had difﬁculty conceptualizing a
feasible behavioral measure that would be related to participants’ perceptions of the
organization conducting the resume screening process. The difﬁculties in collecting
behavioral data in Study 2 lie in the structure of the classes from which I gathered the
data as well as my ability to gain acceptance to collect this type of measure ﬁom the
instructors. Most of the classes from which I gathered data were large (i.e., > 100), so the
instructors did not have the opportunity to assess who was in class on a given day and did
not attempt to hand back assignments in a structured manner. To my knowledge, none of
the instructors had out-of-class sessions that could be used to gather a behavioral
measure. Despite the lack of behavioral measures, I did include measures that were
proxies of key outcome variables of importance to organizations (i.e., job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, recommendation intentions, and withdrawal intentions).
Future efforts should attempt to assess behaviors that are important to organizations such
as OCBs, attendance, task performance, and productivity.
Study 1 Limitations

In addition to the potential limitations of both studies, each study had some
unique limitations. One potential limitation of Study 1 was that some people did not buy
the manipulation, even after repeated suggestions that the process would be fair or unfair.

Although I did ﬁnd that participants’ procedural justice expectations signiﬁcantly

135

differed across the Fair and Unfair conditions, the signiﬁcant difference between the
means (3.70 and 3.34, respectively) is likely due to the signiﬁcant power I gained ﬁom
over 100 participants in each condition. Supplemental analyses indicated that the
expectation condition was still not signiﬁcantly related to outcome perceptions after
discarding participants in the Fair and Unfair conditions whose expectations were one
standard deviation below and above the manipulation check mean, respectively. Thus,
although the manipulation worked in the right direction and was statistically signiﬁcant,
it did not appear to inﬂuence procedural justice expectations to a great enough degree.

In hindsight, the failure of the expectation condition should not be surprising
given the results of this and other research (e. g., Brockner et al., 1994; Mitrano, 1997;
Davidson & Friedman, 1998; Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2003b) that suggests individual
differences are related to procedural justice expectations. Although positive affectivity
was signiﬁcantly related to participants’ procedural justice expectations, the measure did
not change the relationship between the expectation condition and outcome perceptions.
In hindsight, I should have included some measures to parallel those of Study 2. It may
be that participants’ direct experience with similar selection processes or with
organizational hiring processes in general may have helped to predict who would be more
susceptible to the manipulation. In addition, measures of indirect, past experiences may
have also shed light on the ability to manipulate expectations in a laboratory setting.
Study 2 Limitations

Study 2 was limited by some of the measures’ reliabilities. Although a few were
slightly below the accepted reliability level (.70), three of the measures (Survey 1 and 2

normative commitment and power distance) had poor reliabilities (.51, .54, and .56,

136

respectively). Future research should attempt to use Allen and Meyer’s (1990) original
nine-item normative commitment scale instead of three-item measure I used. The reason
for the low reliability of the power distance measure is somewhat confusing given its
somewhat acceptable reliability in Study 1 (.69). One reason for the lower reliability for
this scale in both studies may be the wording changes I made to ﬁt a school context. Lam
et al.’s (2002) original measure referenced power distance beliefs regarding employees
and organizations and had a much higher reliability (.88) than that found in either study.
It may be that the power distance issues are not as an integral part of academic life; thus,
students may have been confused as to the nature of the items. Researchers interested in .
using Lam et al.’s power distance measure in a context different than that for which it
was originally developed should attempt to verify that the measure makes sense to the
targeted population.
Future Directions

The current paper attempted to clarify the antecedents and consequences of
procedural justice expectations and values. Although the ﬁndings ﬁ'om both studies
helped to answer some of the questions surrounding procedural justice expectations and
values, a number of issues still remain that future research should address. One issue that
remains open is the role of procedural justice expectations in the formation of procedural
justice perceptions. Some support was found for the notion that what people expect
regarding fairness can inﬂuence their faimess perceptions. Future research should
attempt to replicate the results found in the current studies. More explicitly, do
expectations play a direct role in what people perceive or do they attune people to certain

procedural elements in the situation? I do not think that these roles exclude each other,

137

but future research should attempt to assess if one or both of these processes is present in
justice-related situations.

Another question of interest is the relationship between procedural justice
expectations and values. In Study 2, the relationship between the expectations, values,
and voica factors were moderate (average r = .52), but not so high that they constituted
the same factor. Nevertheless, these three measures produced almost identical results in
most of the analyses. The scale means for the procedural justice expectations, values and
voice measures were relatively high (4.35, 4.31, and 3.97 on a ﬁve-point scale,
respectively), but did vary enough to suggest not all people hold the same values and
expectations of being treated fairly. Future research should attempt to further clarify the
antecedents of procedural justice expectations and values. It is also of interest to see if
the voice factor remains a separate factor across other samples and measures of
procedural elements expectations and values. Finally, future research should investigate
why these measures function in the same way. Brockner et al.’s (2001a) original notion
of legitimacy beliefs included both values and expectations. The results of Study 2
suggest that values and expectations may both legitimize procedural justice. In terms of
the moderation results, it may be that expecting and/or valuing procedural elements
legitimizes the presence or absence of those elements, so procedural justice perceptions
are more inﬂuenced by the perceptions that those legitimized elements are present or
absent in the situation. For the mediation results, values and/or expectations may
legitimize what people will try to conﬁrm in a given situation. If a person does not
expect and/or value being treated fairly, he/she may be more likely to conﬁrm the

legitimacy belief that he/she were not treated fairly in the situation.

138

Another question not examined in this study is the relationship between
procedural justice expectations and expectations of the other justice dimensions (i.e.,
distributive, interpersonal, and informational). As research suggests that justice
perceptions constitute four dimensions (e. g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001), it is
likely that people also hold distinct expectations regarding each type of justice. Recent
research by Bell et al. (2003b) indicates that, although related, people hold distinct
expectations for each type of justice. Bell et al’s results also indicate the antecedents of
expectations are somewhat different across justice dimensions and that the strongest
predictor of each of the four types of justice perceptions are most strongly predicted by
their parallel expectations measures. Future research should attempt to incorporate Bell
et al.’s results and those of the current study to examine what predicts these different
types of expectations. Do individual differences such as positive affectivity and power
distance inﬂuence all types of justice expectations? Another question of interest is: Do
expectations of one type of justice inﬂuence other types of justice expectations? That is,
,if I expect that a selection process will be fair, do I also expect that I will be given
adequate information during the process?

Future research may also want to examine whether people hold different justice
expectations regarding various stakeholders in a situation. There is some evidence within
the justice literature that different dimensions of justice may be more predictive of certain
outcomes than others (e.g., Bias & Moag, 1986; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney &
McFarlin, 1993; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Colquitt et al., 2001).
Bias and Moag (1986) suggested that interactional and informational justice would be

more likely to inﬂuence reactions to the person carrying out the process and procedural

139

justice would be more likely to inﬂuence reactions to the employing organization. In
addition, Greenberg (1990) and Lind and Tyler (1988) suggested that distributive justice
may be more inﬂuential on reactions to more speciﬁc personal-oriented outcomes such as
satisfaction with a pay raise and that procedural justice may be more inﬂuential on
reactions to more general perceptions of the system carrying out the process. These
results suggest that people may have expectations of different aspects of a situation and
that these expectations may be more inﬂuential on some outcomes than others. Future
research that measures more targeted procedural justice expectations and perceptions may
increase our ability to differentially predict important outcomes such as comnritrnent,
satisfaction, and OCBs. In addition to holding different expectations of different
stakeholders, do the expectations of certain stakeholders inﬂuence justice perceptions
more than those of others? For example, I may expect more out of a long-time co-worker
than of a new person in my workgroup. Given this scenario, I may always tend to
conﬁrm my expectations that my ﬁiend will be fair, but may be more objective in
assessing how fair the new person is acting.

Given the signiﬁcant relationships in Study 2 between direct and indirect
experiences and procedural justice expectations, an issue that deserves attention is the
cyclical relationship of expectations and perceptions over time. In a given situation, the
results of both studies suggest that expectations inﬂuence a person’s procedural justice
perceptions. If that person feels they were treated unfairly, we know that ﬁom the
aforementioned results that this negative experience will inﬂuence the expectations of the
process in subsequent situations. Another related question is: Do experiences of justice

or injustice have diminishing inﬂuences over time on subsequent justice expectations?

140

These issues suggest that expectations may function differently in new situations vs.
situations in which a person has repeated interactions. When a person is new to an event
or person, he/she may not have enough experience to have strong expectations, so
characteristics of the situation and/or interaction may have more of an impact on
procedural justice perceptions. On the other hand, a person’s expectations may play an
important role in how they form procedural justice perceptions if he/she has had repeated
interactions in a particular environment or with a particular person. Future research
should attempt to understand how the type of situation (i.e., novel vs. familiar) impacts
the relationship between expectations and perceptions.

One question that was indirectly addressed in the current study is the relative
inﬂuence of expectations versus other factors on procedural justice perceptions. The
results of both studies indicated that factors such as outcome fairness perceptions and a
person’s initial commitment and intentions may be more inﬂuential than a person’s
expectations. Future research should attempt to clarify when expectations are more likely
to inﬂuence perceptions compared to other factors in the situation. Research from social
psychology suggests that the nature of the expectation (i.e., the strength, type, source) and
nature of the behavioral evidence may be important factors in determining how
expectations inﬂuence perceptions and behavior (Jones et al., 1984; Swann & Ely, 1984;
Fiske et al., cited in Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Irving & Meyer, 1994). As Higgins and
Bargh (1987) state, “pe0ple are neither largely ‘theory-driven’ nor predominantly ‘data-
driven’; rather, they are conﬁnle compelled by the relation between knowledge and

events” (p. 387).

141

Future research should also expand the list of individual differences examined in
Studies 1 and 2. The individual differences were selected based on the existing research
which links individual differences to justice perceptions, but there are likely other factors
that contribute to the formation of justice expectations. Factors such as justice climate
(Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002), Belief in a Just World (see Furnham & Procter, 1989
for a review), and organizational cynicism (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998) may be
additional factors that inﬂuence procedural justice expectations.

Practical Implications

If organizations want to manage fairness perceptions, they need to know how
these perceptions are formed. The current research suggests that employees’ expectations
may inﬂuence justice perceptions. Unfortunately, the signiﬁcance of positive affectivity,
power distance, and past experiences suggest that some people may be more likely to
perceive events as fair or unfair despite the outcome of the event or the process involved.
Thus, practically, these results may suggest that not everyone will be happy, no matter
what an organization attempts.

Nevertheless, Study 1 provided some evidence that people’s expectations can be
inﬂuenced. If expectations can be inﬂuenced, organizations may be able to gain a key
foothold in managing fairness perceptions. As both direct and indirect experiences
inﬂuence expectations, organizations may be able to manage what people expect in their
organization by distinguishing their practices ﬁom the negative ones that employees’
previous employers used and by comparing their practices to the positive ones that
employees have encountered in the past. Organizations may also be able to manage

justice perceptions by quelling “water cooler” talk that occurs after an event within the

142

organization. When a negative event occurs within the organization, leaders may be able
to manage future expectations by knowing that what people expect may be based, in part,

on what they hear from others within the organization.

143

REFERENCES

Agho, A. 0., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of
measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
_Ogapational Psychology,ﬂ, 1-18.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., Sims, H. P., Jr. (1993). Justice and organizational
punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events. Social Jastice Research. 6. 39-
67.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1994). Just and unjust punishment:
Inﬂuences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 299-322.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efﬁcacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personaligy and Social Psychology, 51, 1173—1182.

Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P. Jr., Dolen, M. R., & Carnpion, M. A. (1998).
Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome

feedback. Joum_al of Applied Psychology, 83, 892-903.

144

Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., Ryan, A. M. (2003a). The interaction of justice
values, expectations, and perceptions on affective and behavioral outcomes. (manuscript
in progress).

Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2003b). Antecedents and
consequences of organizational justice expectations. (manuscript in progress).

Bies, R. J ., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interaction justice: Communication criteria of
fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds) Research on
Negotiations in Organizations (V 01. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brenner, B. (1975). Enjoyment as a preventive of depressive affect. Journal of .
Communng Psychology, 3, 346-357.

Brockner, J., Ackerrnan, G., & Fairchild, G. (2001a). When do elements of
procedural fairness make a difference? A classiﬁcation of moderating inﬂuences. In J.
Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds) Agiances in Orgaﬂtional Justice. Lexington,
MA: New Lexington.

Brockner, J., Ackerrnan, G., Greenberg, J ., Gelfand, M. J ., Francesco, A. M.,
Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D.
(2001b). Culture and procedural justice: The inﬂuence of power distance on reactions to
voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,_3_7_, 300-315.

Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the equity-

satisfaction relationship: A ﬁeld study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 585-590.

145

Brockner, J ., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., &
Bies, R. J. (1994). The interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity
on the victims and survivors of job loss. Academv of Management Journal. 37. 397-409.

Brockner, J ., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The inﬂuence of prior
commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are,
the harder they fall. Administrative Science Qaarterly, 37, 397-401.

Brockner, J ., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for
explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.

Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Jennings, D., Clause, C. S., & Delbridge, K. (1998).
Applicant perceptions of test fairness: Integrating justice and self-serving bias

perspectives. Interraationzalournal of Selection and Assessment 6 232-239.

 

Cohen, J ., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Reggession / Correlation
Apalysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:
A meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviogad Human Decision Processasaag, 278-321.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J ., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational

justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

146

Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams:
Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55,
83-109.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. III (1994). Percept-percept inﬂation in
microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

Davidson, M., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Persistent injustice effect among black
managers. Administrative Science Qaarterly, 43, 154-183.

Dean, J. W. Jr., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism.
Academy of Management Review. 23. 341-352.

DeMaris, A., & Yang, R. (1994). Race, alienation, and interpersonal mistrust.
Sociolg’cal Spectrum. 14. 327-349.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative
affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105-1117.

Diener, E., Larsen, R. J ., Levine, S., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Intensity and
frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. J oumaal of Perscaality
and Social Psychology, 48, 1253-1265.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common
methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.

Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Conﬁrming ﬁrst

 

impressions in the employment interview: A ﬁeld study of interviewer behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 79, 659-665.

147

Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of inﬂuence tactics in
perceptions of performance evaluations’ fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
288-303.

Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H.
W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds), Justice in Social Relatiapa (pp. 145-
162). New York, NY: Plenum.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive
justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-
130.

Fumham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of
the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365-384.

Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.

Gilliland, S. W., Benson, L. 111, Schepers, D. H. (1998). A rejection threshold in
justice evaluations: Effects on judgment and decision-making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Deciaion Processes. 76. 113-131.

Gilliland, S. W., & Chan, D. (2001). Justice in organizations: Theory, methods,
and applications. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, Kepir Sinangil, H., & C. Viswesvaran
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial.Work, and Organizational PsycholograVolume 2 '—

Organizational Psychology (pp. 143-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

148

Gilliland, S. W., & Steiner, D. D. (2001). Causes and consequences of applicant
perceptions of unfairness. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory
to practice (pp. 175-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

Greenberg, J., & McCarty, C. L. (1990). The interpersonal aspects of procedural
justice: A new perspective on pay fairness. Labor Law J ournal_,_ﬂ, 580-586.

Grienberger, I. V., Rutte, C. G., & van Knippenberg, A. F. M. (1997). Inﬂuence
of social comparison of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 913-919.

Harrison, D. A., & Shaffer, M. A. (1994). Comparative examinations of self-
reports and perceived absenteeism norms: Wading through Lake Wobegon. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 240-251.

Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception.
_;A_r_1_naal Review ofaPs,vchology,_3_8, 369-425.

Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs:
Infonnation-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N.
Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds), WWW.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consguences: International Differences in

Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

149

Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of
the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation. Sex Roles 48, 115-130.

 

Horvath, M., Ryan, A. M., & Stierwalt, S. L. (2000). The inﬂuence of
explanations for selection test use, outcome favorability, and self-efﬁcacy on test-taker
perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 83. 310-330.

Irving, P. G., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Reexamination of the met-expectations
hypothesis: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 937-949.

Jones, E. E., Schwartz, J ., & Gilbert, D. T. (1984). Perceptions of moral-
expectancy violation: The role of expectancy source. Social Cogaitiop, 2, 273-293.

Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). The inﬂuence of selection test type on
applicant reactions to employment testing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 3-25.

Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J ., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between
organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 23. 1-18.

Lamertz, K. (2002). The social construction of fairness: Social inﬂuence and
sense making in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 19-37.

Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal
cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds),
Advances In Organizational Justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

150

Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of
injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by
authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 75. 1-22.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method
variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psycholom, 114-
121.

Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay
expectations and their possible causes. Academy of Maaagement JoumM, 777-792.

Markham, S. E., & McKee, G. H. (1995). Group absence behavior and
standards: A multilevel analysis. ,A_cademy of Marggement Journal. 38. 1174-1190.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and
treatment on work relationships. Aaademy of Management Journal. 43. 738-748.

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

Management Journal. 35. 626-637.

151

Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types
and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 20, 133-149.

Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the
elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Persorarlipy and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 24. 769-783.

Miller, D. T., & Tumbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes.
Annual Review of Psychomyaz, 233-256.

Mitrano, J. R. (1997). That’s not fair!: The social construction of organizational .
(in)justice among professionals. Sociological Inguig, 67, 182-206.

Mueller, C. W., & Wynn, T. (2000). The degree to which justice is valued in the
workplace. Social Justice Research. 13. 1-24.

Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J ., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds). Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Oyserrnan, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin. 128. 3-72.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of

selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3-16.

152

Ployhart, R. B, Ryan, A. M., & Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection
decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations.
Journal of Applied Psachology. 84. 87-106.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Manaaement. 12. 531-544.

Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1998). The Computer Understanding and Experience
Scale: A self-report measure of computer experience. Computers in Human Belpavior.
_11, 337-348.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological
contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of OrgaﬂationjaBeaavior- 1 5. 245-
259.

Ross, M., & Olson, J. M. (1981). An expectancy-attribution model of the effects
of placebos. Psychological Review. 88. 408-437.

Ross, M., & Olson, J. M. (1982). Placebo effects in medical research and
practice. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social Psychologyand Behaviogl Medicine (pp. 441-458).
London: Wiley.

Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1984). On the conﬁrrnability and disconﬁnnability of
trait concepts. Journal of Persoaalitv and Social Psychology,_5_Q, 131-142.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection
procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Jar_m_a_l_o_f

Management, 26, 565-606

153

Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors deﬁned by negatively keyed items:
The results of careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement. 9. 367-3 74.

Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to the change to
work teams: The inﬂuence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 12, 51-66.

Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2001). Anticipatory injustice: The
consequences of expecting injustice in the workplace. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano
(Eds). Advances in Organizational Justice. Lexington, MA: New Lexington.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and
perceptions at work: Myth or signiﬁcant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
438-443.

Swann, W. B. Jr., & Ely, R. J. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-veriﬁcation versus
behavioral conﬁrmation. Journal of Pers_<arality and Social Psychology, 46, 1287-1302.

Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluation of the “ends”
and “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 55. 23-40.

Thibaut, J ., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Paychological Analysis.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R. (1980). Impact of direct and indirectly experienced events: The

origin of crime-related judgments and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39, 13-28.

154

Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of
their courtroom experience. _Iaw & Society Review. 18. 51-74.

Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to
assess the fairness of legal procedures. Ly & Society Review. 22. 103-135.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal
context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carrroll (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and
Organizational Settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas:
Procedural justice and social identiﬁcation effects on support for authorities. Journal of _
Personalig and Social Paycholgy,_6_9, 482-497.

Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of
procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic
theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.) Justice in the Workplace (Vol. 2): From Theory to
Epacti_ce (pp. 49-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1996). The consistency rule
and the voice effect: The inﬂuence of expectations on procedural fairness judgments and
performance. European Journal of Social Paychology. 26. 411-428.

Wanous, J. P. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to
inside. Psychological Bulletin. 84. 601-618.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects
of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.

155

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin. 96. 465-490.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of
brief measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Jouraal of Persaraﬂty
and Social Psychology,_5_4, 1063-1070.

Wiechmann, D., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Reactions to computerized testing in
selection contexts. Article in press at International Journal of Selection and Assessment.

Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance
in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 462-468.

Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An
idiographic / nomothetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,_ﬂ,

111-122.

156

APPENDIX A

STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT

157

INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Perceptions, Part Two Study

Investigators’ Names: Darin Wiechmann and Dr. Ann Marie Ryan

Description and The study in which you are about to participate investigates
Explanation of students’ perceptions of a selection process. You will be
Procedures: asked to review some resumes and evaluate the fairness of

the selection process.

Beneﬁts: Participation in this study requires a total of one-half hour
of your time. You will receive 1 extra-credit point for your
one-half hour time commitment.

Risks and Discomforts: None

 

Thank you for participating in our study! If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the investigator (Darin Wiechmann; Room 20 Baker Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824; 353-9166; wiechma?.@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish - Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Your participation in this research is voluntary and you
may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or may
discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which you
are entitled. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Your data will be treated with strict conﬁdence on the part of the investigators. Your
data shall not be identiﬁable in any report of research ﬁndings. Once again, this
information will be kept completely conﬁdential and will be examined only by the
investigators. A copy of this consent form will be available for you to take home.
Within three years of participation, a copy of this signed consent form will be provided to
you upon request.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Name (please print) Signature

 

 

Student Number Date

158

APPENDIX B

STUDY 2: EXPERIMENTER INSTRUCTIONS (FAIR CONDITION)

159

General Instructions — Fair Expectation Condition

Welcome to the experiment. My name is and I will be your

 

experimenter today. First of all, I would like to ask everyone to turn off all cell phones
and pagers, so we are not interrupted during the session.

The purpose of bringing you here today is for you to provide us with your
perceptions of a selection process used by a local organization. The organization of
which I am speaking sells a variety of ofﬁce equipment (i.e., printers, desks, chairs,
copiers) throughout Michigan. Throughout this study, I will refer to this organization as
Organization X. In a move to become more competitive in the marketplace, Organization
X recently became interested in the quality of their process for selecting entry-level
Technical Writers. These individuals are responsible for working with a team of other
Technical Writers on various projects, such as writing the assembly and instruction
manuals for their products, and writing some training manuals for current employees
regarding how to use their software (such as MSOfﬁce, etc.). Applicants need to have
solid communications skills. No previous familiarity with the products is required. The
ﬁrst step in the selection process is a resume screening. After the hiring manager reviews
the resumes, he selects which candidates will proceed to the next stage of the selection
process. The organization then gives each candidate an extensive and costly test battery,
which includes interviews and various ability tests. The ﬁnal selection decisions for this
position are based are a variety of factors measured in the selection process. For the
Technical Writer position, the hiring manager currently makes all of the selection

decisions in the resume screening step only. Today, your job will be to examine twelve

160

resumes of candidates who recently went through the resume screening process and your
evaluations of the fairness of the procedures used to screen candidates.

Any resume screening process involves some amount of human judgment and
thus some room for personal biases and stereotypes to inﬂuence a person’s decisions.
Biases and stereotypes typically arise from a variety of characteristics that differ across
people. Factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, activities, hobbies, interests, college
attended, place of birth, and values can all inﬂuence how we view other people. For
example, I attended a private college, so I may be biased to select people for jobs who
also attended private colleges. Another example is that sports fans may view those
people who like sports as better candidates. A fair resume screening process is never
perfect, but does attempt to minimize the inﬂuence of these factors on the decisions
made.

In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality of the process that
the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume screening step only.
Organization X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s selection practices stems from a
desire to insure that the resume screening process is as efﬁcient as possible. One
challenge to maintaining a quality resume screening process is the small potential for
hiring managers to use inconsistent and/or biased practices. Fortunately, research has
found that hiring managers using a resume screening process similar to that in
Organization X do not engage in these unfair practices. In addition, the current manager
has not been accused of using inconsistent and/or personal biases in the resume screening
process during his tenure as hiring manager. Finally, the director of hiring for the entire

organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss) frequently provides her hiring managers

161

with training to prevent the use of unfair practices in the resume screening process.
Because of the small potential for unfair practices in the resume screening process such
as the one used by Organization X, I would like you to review the candidates’ resumes
and provide me with your perceptions of the resume screening process.

In order for you to determine the fairness of the hiring manager’s resume
screening, I will provide you with the hiring manager’s resmne. By examining his
resume, you may be able to detect certain biases, which are inﬂuencing the way he
carries out the resume screening process. In other words, is he selecting people based on
factors other than those that are job-related?

Organization X’s goal is to hire the most qualiﬁed candidates that they can. For '
the Technical Writer position, candidates need to have solid communications skills. In
addition, grade point average and previous work experiences are two factors that are used
to screen out candidates. Thus, these three factors (communication skills, GPA, and
previous work experience) are important to consider when evaluating the quality of the
resumes.

Does anyone have any general questions about the task that you will be
performing today?

First, I would like you to answer a few questions about your perceptions of the
resume screening process. Please put your PID in the PID section. While ﬁlling out the
scantron, please make sure the number of the question you are answering corresponds to
the number of the question on the scantron. In addition, please make sure to completely
erase your old answer if you decide to change your response.

[Hand out the manipulation check measure and collect when ﬁnished]

162

Now, I will hand out a copy of the hiring manager’s resume and the resumes of
twelve recent candidates who went through the resume screening process. In addition, I
will also pass out a list of the candidates and the selection decisions made by the hiring
manager in the resume screening step. The hiring manager’s resume (i.e., the one for
Doug Percival) is the ﬁrst resume in the packet. Your job is CAREFULLY review the
hiring manager’s resume and candidates’ resumes and judge whether the resume
screening process is being carried out in a fair manner. After you have CAREFULLY
examined all of the resumes, I will ask you to provide your ratings of the fairness of the
resume screening process. You will have 10 minutes to review the resumes before
making your ratings. Are there any questions?

[Hand out resume packets]
[After 10 minutes, hand out the reactions questionnaire and collect when ﬁnished]

Now, I would like you to answer the following questions regarding your
perceptions of the resume screening process. Please be honest as to how you perceive the
fairness of the resume screening process.

[Hand out the ﬁnal questionnaire and collect when ﬁnished]

Finally, I would like you to answer the following questions regarding your

general perceptions of situations and your demographics. Please be honest about how

you generally view situations.

Now that we are ﬁnished, I will give you a debrieﬁng as to the purpose of the study.

163

APPENDIX C

STUDY 2: EXPERIMENTER INSTRUCTIONS (UNFAIR CONDITION)

164

General Instructions-Unfair Expectation Condition

Welcome to the experiment. My name is and I will be your

 

experimenter today. First of all, I would like to ask everyone to turn off all cell phones
and pagers, so we are not interrupted during the session.

The purpose of bringing you here today is for you to provide us with your
perceptions of a selection process used by a local organization. The organization of
which I am speaking sells a variety of ofﬁce equipment (i.e., printers, desks, chairs,
copiers) throughout Michigan. Throughout this study, I will refer to this organization as
Organization X. In a move to become more competitive in the marketplace, Organization
X recently became interested in the quality of their process for selecting entry-level
Technical Writers. These individuals are responsible for working with a team of other
Technical Writers on various projects, such as writing the assembly and instruction
manuals for their products, and writing some training manuals for current employees
regarding how to use their software (such as MSOfﬁce, etc.). Applicants need to have
solid communications skills. No previous familiarity with the products is required. The
ﬁrst step in the selection process is a resume screening. After the hiring manager reviews
the resumes, he selects which candidates will proceed to the next stage of the selection
process. The organization then gives each candidate an extensive and costly test battery,
which includes interviews and various ability tests. The ﬁnal selection decisions for this
position are based are a variety of factors measured in the selection process. For the
Technical Writer position, the hiring manager currently makes all of the selection

decisions in the resume screening step only. Today, your job will be to examine twelve

165

resumes of candidates who recently went through the resume screening process and your
evaluations of the fairness of the procedures used to screen candidates.

Any resume screening process involves some amount of human judgment and
thus some room for personal biases and stereotypes to inﬂuence a person’s decisions.
Biases and stereotypes typically arise from a variety of characteristics that differ across
people. Factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, activities, hobbies, interests, college
attended, place of birth, and values can all inﬂuence how we view other people. For
example, I attended a private college, so I may be biased to select people for jobs who
also attended private colleges. Another example is that sports fans may view those
people who like sports as better candidates. A fair resume screening process is never
perfect, but does attempt to minimize the inﬂuence of these factors on the decisions
made.

In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality of the process that
the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume screening step only.
Organization X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s selection practices stems from a
desire to insure that the resume screening process is as efﬁcient as possible. One
challenge to maintaining a quality resume screening process is the signiﬁcant potential
for hiring managers to use inconsistent and/or biased practices. Unfortunately, research
has found that hiring managers using a resume screening process similar to that in
Organization X engage in these unfair practices. In addition, the current manager has
been accused of using inconsistent and/or personal biases in the resume screening process
during his tenure as hiring manager. Finally, the director of hiring for the entire

organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss) rarely provides her hiring managers with

166

training to prevent the use of unfair practices in the resume screening process. Because
of the signiﬁcant potential for unfair practices in the resume screening process such as the
one used by Organization X, I would like you to review the candidates’ resumes and
provide me with your perceptions of the resume screening process.

In order for you to deterrrrine the fairness of the hiring manager’s resume
screening, I will provide you with the hiring manager’s resume. By examining his
resume, you may be able to detect certain biases, which are inﬂuencing the way he
carries out the resume screening process. In other words, is he selecting people based on
factors other than those that are job-related?

Organization X’s goal is to hire the most qualiﬁed candidates that they can. For
the Technical Writer position, candidates need to have solid communications skills. In
addition, grade point average and previous work experiences are two factors that are used
to screen out candidates. Thus, these three factors (communication skills, GPA, and
previous work experience) are important to consider when evaluating the quality of the
resumes.

Does anyone have any general questions about the task that you will be
performing today?

First, I would like you to answer a few questions about your perceptions of the
resume screening process. Please put your PID in the PID section. While ﬁlling out the
scantron, please make sure the number of the question you are answering corresponds to
the number of the question on the scantron. In addition, please make sure to completely
erase your old answer if you decide to change your response.

[Hand out the manipulation check measure and collect when ﬁnished]

167

Now, I will hand out a copy of the hiring manager’s resume and the resumes of
twelve recent candidates who went through the resume screening process. In addition, I
will also pass out a list of the candidates and the selection decisions made by the hiring
manager in the resume screening step. The hiring manager’s resume (i.e., the one for
Doug Percival) is the ﬁrst resume in the packet. Your job is CAREFULLY review the
hiring manager’s resrune and candidates’ resumes and judge whether the resume
screening process is being carried out in a fair manner. After you have CAREFULLY
examined all of the resumes, I will ask you to provide your ratings of the fairness of the
resume screening process. You will have 10 minutes to review the resumes before
making your ratings. Are there any questions?

[Hand out resume packets]
[After 10 minutes, hand out the reactions questionnaire and collect when ﬁnished]

Now, I would like you to answer the following questions regarding your
perceptions of the resume screening process. Please be honest as to how you perceive the
fairness of the resume screening process.

[Hand out the ﬁnal questionnaire and collect when ﬁnished]

Finally, I would like you to answer the following questions regarding your

general perceptions of situations and your demographics. Please be honest about how

you generally view situations.

Now that we are ﬁnished, I will give you a debrieﬁng as to the purpose of the study.

168

APPENDIX D

STUDY 1: MANIPULATION CHECKS

169

Please respond to the following questions by ﬁlling in the apprOpriate circle on the
scantron sheet. For each question, please use the following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

IMPORTANT — Make sure that the number of the statement matches the number on the
scantron sheet.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Procedural Justice Elements Expectations

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

1. I expect that the resume screening procedures will be applied consistently.

2. I expect that the resume screening procedures will be free of bias.

3. I expect that the resume screening procedures will be based on accurate information.
4. I expect that the resume screening procedures will be ethical.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Process F aiarness Expectations

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

5. I expect that the resume screening process will be fair.

6. I expect that the process used to screen out resumes will be fair.

7. I expect that I will be satisﬁed with the resume screening process.

8. Overall, I expect that I will feel dissatisﬁed with the v_vay people are screened out in
this resume screening process.

170

APPENDIX E

STUDY 1: RESUMES

171

EDUCATION:

Doug Percival

[address deleted]

BA in Sociology and Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1988

EXPERIENCE:

1986-1988

1988-1990

1990-1991

1991-1993

l993-present

AF FILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.20

Research Assistant, Department of Business, University of Michigan
0 Conducted literature reviews, copied articles, cataloged articles.
0 Served as experimenter for various research studies.

Regional Representative, [Greek Organization]

0 Traveled within the Midwest to oversee local chapters.

- Discussed fraternal issues such as local events, rush processes,
implications of national policies, etc.

Sales Associate, InfoCorp, Kalamazoo, MI

0 Contacted potential customers in order to assess their needs for
garden-based products.

0 Conducted strategic sales techniques to fulﬁll clients’ needs.

Human Resources Assistant, Organization X, Detroit, MI
0 Assisted in interviewing candidates for customer service positions.
0 Maintained training database for sales associates.

Hiring Manger, Organization X, Detroit, MI

- Assesses Organization X’s need for Technical Writers.

0 Selects associates for Technical Writing positions.

0 Maintains training database for Technical Writers.

0 Oversees multiple Human Resources Assistants - provides yearly
feedback, and schedules weekly duties, and conducts weekly team
meetings.

Society for Human Resource Management (1988-2002)
Detroit Republicans (1992-2000; Secretary 2000-2002)

First Lutheran Church of Detroit Executive Board (1995-2002)
National Riﬂe Association (1985-2002)

HOBBIES:

Hunting, Fishing, Camping
Sports - Basketball, Baseball, Football, Hockey

Antique Cars

172

Sara Franks

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in English, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2002
GPA: 3.57
EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998 Reporter, UT newspaper (The Daily Beacon)
o Investigated city and county government events.
0 Conducted interviews with key stakeholders (i.e., local
citizens, ofﬁcials).
- Integrated multiple sources to write daily article.

1999-2002 Technical Writer, Landscaping Associates, Inc. (family business)
0 Prepared advertisements and brochures for potential customers.

AF F ILIATIONS:

Golden Key National Honors Society (1998-1999)
Omicron Delta Kappa Honors Society (1998-2000)
Forestry Club member (2000-2001)

Intramural Softball team member (2001-2002)

HOBBIES:

Reading
Swimming
Playing the Cello

173

Janet McClellan

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in Literature, Eastern Michigan University, 2001
GPA: 2.56
EXPERIENCE:

1999-2001 Delivery person, Detroit Free Press
0 Delivered daily newspapers to several neighborhoods
- Collected money from newspaper customers on the route
- Solicited new customers along the route

1997-2000 Cafeteria Employee, EMU Food Services
- Helped prepare and serve food in residence hall cafeterias.
- Performed cleaning and maintenance duties.

AF FILIATIONS:

Circle K member (service society), 1998-2001
EMU Debate Club, 1999-2001

HOBBIES:
Bicycling

Playing in a softball league
Going to concerts

174

EDUCATION:

Brent Hawks

[address deleted]

BA in Education, Grand Valley State University, 2000

EXPERIENCE:
1996-1998

1998-2000

2000-2002

AF FILIATIONS:

GPA: 2.45

Store Clerk, Best Buy, Grand Rapids, MI
0 Helped customers locate items
0 Assisted in store anti-theft security

Sales Clerk, JC Penney Co., Grand Rapids, MI
0 Interacted with customers in the shoes department.
0 Assisted customers with locating and trying on shoes.

Ofﬁce Assistant, Smith and Karon Law Firm, Flint, MI
- Performed general ofﬁce duties.

GVSU Collegiate Chorus, 1998-2000
GVSU Student Board Voting Member, 1995-1996

HOBBIES:

Computer programming

Piano playing

Watching sports

175

ChristOpher Grano

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in English, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2002
GPA: 3.4
EXPERIENCE:

1999-2001 Web Page Designer, Department of Psychology
0 Constructed layout and graphics of the psy.msu.edu web pages.
- Wrote and edited the descriptions of psychology classes,

interest groups, faculty, and the application process.

2000—2002 Temporary Employee, Stafﬁng Associates Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
0 Worked at various clerical and customer service jobs on a
temporary basis.

AFFILIATIONS:
Dean’s List Member (1998)
Lutheran Youth Group (2000-2002)
UM Cycling Club (1999-2001)

HOBBIES:
Tennis

Writing poetry
Listening to music

176

EDUCATION:

Victoria Niles

[address deleted]

BA in Business (Minor in Sociology), Ohio University, 2001

EXPERIENCE:

1997-1998

1998-2001

2000-2001

AF F ILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.15

Counselor, Sunshine Student Center
0 Facilitated after school program for children ages 6-12.

0 Coordinated activities with other counselor via weekly
communication sessions.

0 Talked to parents and supervisors regarding children’s
activities.

Research Assistant, Sociology Department, UT

0 Conducted literature reviews and made copies of journal
articles at the request of the supervising professor

o Ran subjects for sociology department research experiments

Resident Advisor, Shaw Hall
0 Worked with other hall staff members to create a positive
living environment for students living in the hall.

0 Assisted in writing the Resident Advisor Manual for MSU

Member of [Greek Organization], 1997-2001
Keats’ Society (English poetry club), 1999-2000

HOBBIES:

Softball, Tennis, Football, Hockey

Computers

Hiking

177

EDUCATION:

EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998

1998-2000

2000-2002

AF F ILIATIONS:

Jonathan Reyner

[address deleted]

BA in Education, DePaul University, 2001
GPA: 3.2

(summer job) Kitchen Employee, Smarties Café

o Cleaned and set up restaurant before it opened every day
0 Washed dishes and cooking instruments

0 Occasionally bussed tables

Temarketer, InfoCorp, Evanston, IL

- Contacted individuals to attempt to sell them various lawn care
products.

Clerk, DePaul Bookstore

o Ran the cash register

0 Took inventory of books, and stocked books and other items

0 Prepared technical reports on customer service skills of
employees for bookstore managers

Habitat For Humanity (1997-2000)
Chicago Young Republicans (1998-2001)

HOBBIES:

Astronomy

Playing the trumpet

Camping

178

EDUCATION:

Laura Mercier

[address deleted]

BA in Communications, Bowling Green State University, 2002

GPA: 3.05

EXPERIENCE:
1998-1999 Food Service Employee, BGSU
- Prepared and cooked food in residence hall cafeterias
o Assisted in cleaning the kitchen area, dishes, etc.
1999-2001 Intern, Brooks / Cole Publishing Company
0 Edited manuscripts of textbooks and novels for publication.
0 Wrote correspondence to authors and agents on behalf of the
supervising editor.
2000-2002 Front Desk Assistant, Green Hall
0 Worked with hall staff to ensure the safety of the residents.
0 Answered telephones and residents’ questions
0 Communicated daily activities to hall residents
AF F ILIATIONS:
Volunteer at Toledo Art Museum (Toledo, OH), 1999-2002
Falcon Acapella, 2000-2002
HOBBIES:
Pottery
Jogging
Gardening

179

EDUCATION:

Ellen VanBuren

[address deleted]

BA in Communications, Michigan State University, 2002

EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998

1998-2000

2000-2002

AF FILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.35

MSU Parking Attendant, MSU Department of Public Safety
0 Worked in parking booths, charging visitors and commuters
parking fees

Intern, Ofﬁce of Public Relations, State of Michigan

0 Assisted PR representatives in preparing press releases.

0 Assisted PR manager in creating and editing departmental
guidelines.

0 Performed additional ofﬁce duties.

Data Entry Operator, Lehman Survey Group, Lansing, MI
0 Entered survey responses into spreadsheets

Intramural racquetball, 1999-2001
Member of [Greek Organization], 1997-2001

HOBBIES:

Painting

Photography

Movies

180

Wayne Jameson

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:

BA in Communications, Michigan State University, 2002
GPA: 3.25

EXPERIENCE:

1998-2000 Assistant, MSU Computer Labs
0 Maintained computer labs

o Answered questions from students regarding how to operate
ofﬁce software

2000-2002 Reporter for the State News
- Researched stories for the daily newspaper.
- Performed in-person and telephone interviews of sources.

AFFILIATIONS:

Dean’s List (1998-2000)
Associated Students of Michigan State University (1999-2002)

HOBBIES:

Woodworking
Bowling
Model airplanes

181

Mary Hirsch
[address deleted]

EDUCATION:

BA in Literature, University of Illinois, Carbondale, 2002
GPA: 3.3

EXPERIENCE:

1998-2000 Library Assistant, UIC Libraries Copy Center
0 Worked at the copy desk, assigning copiers and charging
students and faculty for copies

0 Made sure that copiers had toner and paper

2000-2002 Senior Tutor, Writing Lab
- Helped students write and edit term papers.
0 Hired new tutors, and supervised the work of other tutors.

AF FILIATIONS:
UIC Young Authors Club (2000-2002)
Golden Key National Honors Society Member, 1998-2000
Cheerleading squad (1998-2001)
HOBBIES:
Writing
Sculpting
Dancing

182

EDUCATION:

EXPERIENCE:

1 996-2000
Park

1998-2000

AF FILIATIONS:

Michael Smythe

[address deleted]

BA in English, Wright State University, 2000
GPA: 3.35

(summer job) Food Service Employee, Cedar Point Amusement

Worked at three stands in the park
Prepared food for guests
Utilized customer service skills to interact with guests

Worked on instruction manuals for training new employees in
food service procedures

Landscaping Assistant, Gerdernan Enterprises, Dayton, MI
0 Mowed and fertilized lawns for homes and businesses
0 Distributed mulch, and planted various plants

0 Assisted in designing landscapes.

Raiders Writing Club, 1999-2000
Intramural Football participant, 1997-2000
Smith Hall President, 1999-2000

Youth Ministry of Dayton, 1998-2000

HOBBIES:

Weight lifting, jogging, kickboxing

Hiking

Car restoration

183

Richard Snead

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in English, Western Michigan University, 2001
GPA: 3.1
EXPERIENCE:

1997-2000 Tutor, English Department, WMU
- Helped ENG 101 and ENG 234 students complete term papers.

2000-2002 Smythe Manufacturing, Kalamazoo, MI
0 Assisted in preparing various training manuals for jobs within
the organization.
0 Edited existing technical documents.

AFFILIATIONS:

WMU Dean’s List (1996-1998)
WMU Sailing Club, 1997-1999, (President, 1998-1999)

HOBBIES:

Playing the drums in a local band
Karate ,
Roller Hockey

184

APPENDIX F

STUDY 1: OUTCOME MEASURES

185

Please respond to the following questions by ﬁlling in the appropriate circle on the
scantron sheet. For each question, please use the following scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree
3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

IMPORTANT - Make sure that the number of the statement matches the ntunber on the
scantron sheet.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Process Fairness

The following items refer to the procedures used by the hiring manager in making
decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the following questions using the
scale above.

9. I feel the resume screening process was fair.

10. The process used to screen out resumes was fair.

11. I am satisﬁed with the resume screening process.

12. Overall, I feel dissatisﬁed with the ﬂy people were screened out in this resume
screening process.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Procedural Justice Elementa

The following items refer to the procedures used by the hiring manager in making
decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the following questions using the
scale above.

13. The resume screening procedures were applied consistently.

14. The resume screening procedures were free of bias.

15. The resume screening procedures were based on accurate information.
16. The resume screening procedures were ethical.

186

l = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Outcome Fairness
The following items refer to the outcomes of the resume screen step used by the hiring
manager. Please answer the following questions using the scale above.

17. Overall, I feel the results of the resume screening were u_nfair.
18. I feel the selection outcomes were fair.

19. Overall, I am satisﬁed with the selection outcomes.

20. I am dissatisﬁed with the selection outcomes.

 

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Organizational Commitment
The following items refer to your perceptions of the hiring manager and organization.

Please answer the following questions using the scale above.

21. I trust this hiring manager.

22. I would be motivated to work for this hiring manager.

23. I trust this organization.

24. I would be motivated to work for this organization.

25. I would be proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.
26. I would do my best to help this organization.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Recommendation Intentions

The following items refer to your intentions concerning this organization. Please answer
the following questions using the scale above.

27. I would recommend this organization to others.

28. I would recommend others apply to this organization.
29. I would be hesitant to recommend this organization to anyone I know.

187

APPENDIX G

STUDY 1: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND DEMOGRAPHICS

188

Please respond to the following questions by ﬁlliag in the appropriate circle on the
opscan sheet. IMPORTANT - Make sure that the number of the statement matches the
number on the opscan sheet.

Positive and Negative Affectivity

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions.
Read each item and then ﬁll in the appropriate answer on your opscan sheet. Indicate to
what extent you generally feel this way (that is, how you feel on average). Use the
following scale to record your answers.

1 = Very Slightly or 2 = A little 3 = Moderately 4 = Quite a bit 5 = Extremely
not at all

30. interested
31. distressed
32. excited
33. upset

34. strong

35. guilty

36. scared

37. hostile

38. enthusiastic
39. proud

40. irritable
41. alert

42. ashamed
43. inspired
44. nervous
45. determined
46. attentive
47. jittery

48. active

49. afraid

189

Power Distance
The following items refer to your views on relationships between people. Please answer
the questions using the following scale.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.

People should not express disagreements with their superiors.

People should pay high respect to their superiors.

It is all right for superiors to emphasize the symbols that separate them from their
subordinates.

Powerful people should try to look as powerful as they are.

People should consider their superiors as being of a different kind.

Other people are a potential threat to one’s power and rarely can be trusted.

Demagraphics
56. What is your gender?

l= Male
2=Female

57. What is your ethnic background?

1 =Aﬁican-American
2=Hispanic

3=Asian
4=American Indian
5=White

58. What year student are you?

1 =Freshman
2=Sophomore
3=Junior

4=Senior
5=Graduate or Other

What is your age?

For this question, please put your response in the SECTION boxes on the front side of
your scantron form. For example, if you are 18, you would ﬁll in 018 in the SECTION
bubbles.

190

APPENDIX H

STUDY 1 : DEBRIEFING FORM

191

Debrieﬁrgfor Perceptions. Part Two Study

The study you participated in this semester was designed to understand how people form
perceptions of fairness. Researchers have generally assumed that how people are treated
can predict how they will react to the situation. The current study attempted to
understand more about this relationship by examining some different factors that can
affect this relationship. We propose that what people expect can inﬂuence the types of
reactions that people have in these situations. The idea is that if you expect to be treated
fairly, you may be more likely to see the process as fair. On the other hand, if you do not
expect to be treated fairly, you may be more likely to see the process as unfair. Thus, our
purpose in the current study was to better understand the factors that can inﬂuence
peoples’ perceptions of fairness. Thanks for you participation.

If you any questions or comments, please feel free me at the information listed below:

Darin Wiechmann (517) 353-9166 or wiechma2@msu.edu

192

APPENDIX I

STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT (STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY PILOT
EXPERIMENT)

193

INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Perceptions Study

Investigators’ Names: Darin Wiechmann and Dr. Ann Marie Ryan

Description and The study in which you are about to participate investigates
Explanation of peoples’ perceptions selection procedures used by an
Procedures: organization. You will be asked to examine their

procedures and provide your perceptions of them.

Beneﬁts: Participation in this study requires a total of ﬁve minutes of
your time. You will receive 1 extra-credit point for your
ﬁve minute time commitment.

Risks and Discomforts: None

 

Thank you for participating in our study! If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the investigator (Darin Wiechmann; Room 20 Baker Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824; 353-9166; wiechma2fti).msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu. or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Your participation in this research is voluntary and you
may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or may
discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which you
are entitled. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Your data will be treated with strict conﬁdence on the part of the investigators. Your
data shall not be identiﬁable in any report of research ﬁndings. Once again, this
information will be kept completely conﬁdential and will be examined only by the
investigators. A copy of this consent form will be available for you to take home.
Within three years of participation, a copy of this signed consent form will be provided to
you upon request.

 

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Name (please print) Signature

 

 

Student Number Date

194

APPENDIX J
STUDY 1: STRENGTH OF EXPECTAN CY PILOT EXPERIMENT (POSITIVE

EXPECTATION CONDITION)

195

In this experiment, I will be asking you to provide me with your perceptions of a
selection process used by a local organization. The organization of which I am speaking
sells a variety of ofﬁce equipment (i.e., printers, desks, chairs, copiers) throughout
Michigan. Throughout this study, I will refer to this organization as Organization X. In a
move to become more competitive in the marketplace, Organization X recently became
interested in the quality of their process for selecting entry-level Technical Writers.
These individuals are responsible for working with a team of other Technical Writers on
various projects, such as writing the assembly and instruction manuals for their products,
and writing some training manuals for current employees regarding how to use their
software (such as MSOfﬁce, etc.). Applicants need to have solid communications skills.
No previous familiarity with the products is required. The ﬁrst step in the selection
process is a resume screen. After the hiring manager reviews the resumes, he selects
which candidates will proceed to the next stage of the selection process. The
organization then gives each candidate an extensive and costly test battery, which
includes interviews and various ability tests. The ﬁnal selection decisions for this
position are based are a variety of factors measured in the selection process. For the
Technical Writer position, the hiring manager currently makes all of the selection
decisions in the resume screen step only.

In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality of the process that
the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume screen step only. Organization
X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s selection practices in the resume screen step stems

from a desire to insure that the resume screen step is useful. One challenge to

196

maintaining a quality resume screen is the small potential for hiring managers to use
inconsistent and/or biased practices. Fortunately, research has found that managers using
a resume screen process Similar to that in Organization X do not engage in these unfair
practices. In addition, the current manager has not been accused of using inconsistent
and/or personal biases in the resume screen process during his tenure as hiring manager.
Finally, the director of hiring for the entire organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss)
ﬁequently provides her hiring managers with resume screen training to prevent the use of
unfair practices. Because of the small potential for unfair practices in the resume screen
process such as the one used by Organization X, I would like you to review the
candidates’ resumes and provide me with your perceptions of the resume screen process.
Given this situation, I would like you to provide me with your expectations that
this hiring manager uses fair practices in the resume screen step. The next page consists
of a series of questions that ask about your perceptions of the resume screen process used

by the hiring manager in Organization X.

197

l = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Somewhat Agree 5 - Strongly Agree

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

__ 1. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be consistent.

_ 2. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be free of bias.

__ 3. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be based on accurate information.
_ 4. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be ethical.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Somewhat Agree 5 - Strongly Agree

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

_ 1 I expect that the resume screen process will be fair.

__ 2. I expect that the process used to screen out resumes will be fair.

__ 3. I expect that I will be satisﬁed with the resume screen process.

_ 4. Overall, I expect that I will feel dissatisﬁed with the m people are screened out
in this resume screen process.

198

APPENDIX K
STUDY 1: STRENGTH OF EXPECTAN CY PILOT EXPERIMENT (NEGATIVE

EXPECTATION CONDITION)

199

In this experiment, I will be asking you to provide me with your perceptions of a
selection process used by a local organization. The organization of which I am speaking
sells a variety of ofﬁce equipment (i.e., printers, desks, chairs, copiers) throughout
Michigan. Throughout this study, I will refer to this organization as Organization X. In a
move to become more competitive in the marketplace, Organization X recently became
interested in the quality of their process for selecting entry-level Technical Writers.
These individuals are responsible for working with a team of other Technical Writers on
various projects, such as writing the assembly and instruction manuals for their products,
and writing some training manuals for current employees regarding how to use their
software (such as MSOfﬁce, etc.). Applicants need to have solid communications skills.
No previous familiarity with the products is required. The ﬁrst step in the selection
process is a resume screen. After the hiring manager reviews the resumes, he selects
which candidates will proceed to the next stage of the selection process. The
organization then gives each candidate an extensive and costly test battery, which
includes interviews and various ability tests. The ﬁnal selection decisions for this
position are based are a variety of factors measured in the selection process. For the
Technical Writer position, the hiring manager currently makes all of the selection
decisions in the resume Screen step only.

In the current experiment, your job is to evaluate the quality of the process that
the hiring manager uses to make decisions at the resume screen step only. Organization
X’s evaluation of the hiring manager’s selection practices in the resume screen step stems
ﬁom a desire to insure that the resume screen step is useful. One challenge to

maintaining a quality resume screen is the signiﬁcant potential for hiring managers to use

200

 

inconsistent and/or biased practices. Unfortunately, research has found that managers
using a resume screen process similar to that in Organization X engage in these unfair
practices. In addition, the current manager has been accused of using inconsistent and/or
personal biases in the resume screen process during his tenure as hiring manager.
Finally, the director of hiring for the entire organization (i.e., the hiring manager’s boss)
rarely provides her hiring managers with resume screen training to prevent the use of
unfair practices. Because of the signiﬁcant potential for unfair practices in the resume
screen process such as the one used by Organization X, I would like you to review the
candidates’ resurnes and provide me with your perceptions of the resume screen process.
Given this situation, I would like you to provide me with your expectations that
this hiring manager uses fair practices in the resume screen step. The next page consists
of a series of questions that ask about your perceptions of the resume screen process used

by the hiring manager in Organization X.

201

1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Somewhat Disagree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Somewhat Agree 5 - Strongly Agree

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

_ 1. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be consistent.

_ 2. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be free of bias.

_ 3. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be based on accurate information.
_ 4. I expect that the resume screen procedures will be ethical.

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 3 - Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 - Somewhat Agree 5 - Strongly Agree

The following items refer to your expectations about the procedures used by the hiring
manager in making selection decisions at the resume screen step. Please answer the
following questions using the scale above.

_ 1 I expect that the resume screen process will be fair.

__ 2. I expect that the process used to screen out resumes will be fair.

_ 3. I expect that I will be satisﬁed with the resume screen process.

_ 4. Overall, I expect that I will feel dissatisﬁed with the way people are screened out
in this resume screen process.

202

APPENDIX L

STUDY 1: DEBRIEF IN G FORM (STRENGTH OF EXPECTANCY PILOT
EXPERIMENT)

203

Debrieﬁng for Perceptions Study

The study you participated was designed to pilot some materials for a study that I will be
running later this semester. In the current study, I was interested in checking if the
background information I gave you lead you to expect that the organization of which I
Spoke used unfair procedures. My interest is whether peoples’ expectations of a situation
can inﬂuence their perceptions of that situation. Thus, our purpose in the current study
was to better understand the factors that can inﬂuence peoples’ perceptions of fairness.
Thanks for you participation.

If you any questions or comments, please feel free me at the information listed below:

Darin Wiechmann (517) 353-9166 or wiechnra2@msu.edu

204

APPENDIX M

STUDY 1: INFORMED CONSENT (CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT EXPERIMENT)

205

 

11F

INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Perceptions Study

Investigators’ Names: Darin Wiechmann and Dr. Ann Marie Ryan

Description and The study in which you are about to participate investigates

Explanation of peoples’ perceptions of some resumes candidates who

Procedures: recently applied to an organization. You will be asked to
examine their resumes and provide your perceptions of
their quality.

Beneﬁts: Participation in this study requires a total of one-half hour

of your time. You will receive 1 extra-credit point for your
one-half hour time commitment.

Risks and Discomforts: None

 

Thank you for participating in our study! If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the investigator (Darin Wiechmann; Room 20 Baker Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824; 353-9166; wiechma2@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu. or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Your participation in this research is voluntary and you
may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or may
discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which you
are entitled. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Your data will be treated with strict conﬁdence on the part of the investigators. Your
data shall not be identiﬁable in any report of research ﬁndings. Once again, this
information will be kept completely conﬁdential and will be examined only by the
investigators. A copy of this consent form will be available for you to take home.
Within three years of participation, a copy of this signed consent form will be provided to
you upon request.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

 

Name (please print) Signature

 

 

Student Number Date

206

APPENDIX N

STUDY 1: CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT EXPERIMENT

207

 

NFL;

In this experiment, I will be asking you to provide me with your perceptions of
the quality of twelve resumes recently submitted to a local organization. The
organization of which I am speaking sells a variety of office equipment (i.e., printers,
desks, chairs, copiers) throughout Michigan. Throughout this study, I will refer to this
organization as Organization X. In a move to become more competitive in the
marketplace, Organization X recently became interested in the quality of their process for
selecting entry-level Technical Writers. These individuals are responsible for working
with a team of other Technical Writers on various projects, such as writing the assembly
and instruction manuals for their products, and writing some training manuals for current
employees regarding how to use their software (such as MSOfﬁce, etc.). Applicants need
to have solid communications skills. No previous familiarity with the products is
required. In their current system, the hiring manager makes all of the selection decisions
for the Technical Writer position. The ﬁrst step in the selection process is a resume
screen, which is used to narrow down the number of candidates before who will be given
an extensive and costly test battery. Today, your job will be to examine twelve resumes
of candidates who recently went through the process and provide your evaluations of the
quality of the candidates’ resumes.

Organization X’s goal is to hire the most qualiﬁed candidates that they can. For
the Technical Writer position, candidates need to have solid communications skills. In
addition, grade point average and previous work experiences are two factors that are used

to screen out candidates. Thus, these three factors (communication skills, GPA, and

208

previous work experience) are important to consider when evaluating the quality of the
resumes

Using the factors I just mentioned, your job is carefully review the candidates’
resumes and provide your ratings of the quality of each candidates’ resume. In addition,
you will then rank order the candidates’ resumes to most qualiﬁed to least qualiﬁed.

Before reviewing the candidates’ resumes, please take a minute to re-exarnine the
job description and requirements that Organization X uses to screen out resumes
described on the previous page. This is important in making ratings of the quality of the

candidates’ resumes.

209

According to the job description and criteria used to select Technical Writers,

how qualiﬁed do you think the candidate is based on his/her resume?

Please use the following scale to make your rating:

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10
deﬁnitely not qualiﬁed moderately qualiﬁed deﬁnitely qualiﬁed
Candidate Quality Rating

Names to be ﬁlled in

210

Now, I would like you to rank order the candidates from 1 (most qualiﬁed) to 12 (least
qualiﬁed) based on the quality of their resumes. Again, remember to rank candidates
according to the job description and criteria used to select Technical Writers. Make sure

you use all numbers between 1 and 12.

Candidate Rank

Names to be ﬁlled in

211

This page contains the selection decisions made by the hiring manager (i.e., Doug
Percival) in the resume screening step. Beside each candidate’s name is the outcome of
whether their resume was selected or not to continue in the selection process.

 

Candidate Resume Screen Decision
Richard Snead Not Selected
Janet McClellan Not Selected
Victoria Niles Selected
Laura Mercier Selected
Ellen VanBuren Not Selected
Sara Franks Selected
Wayne Jameson Selected
Michael Smythe Selected
Mary Hirsch Not Selected
Jonathan Reyner Selected
Brent Hawks Not Selected
Christopher Grano Selected

212

EDUCATION:

Doug Percival

[address deleted]

BA in Sociology and Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1988

EXPERIENCE:

1986-1988

1988-1990

1990-1991

1991-1993

1 993-present

AF F ILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.20

Research Assistant, Department of Business, University of Michigan
0 Conducted literature reviews, copied articles, cataloged articles.
- Served as experimenter for various research studies.

Regional Representative, [Greek Organization]

0 Traveled within the Midwest to oversee local chapters.

0 Discussed fraternal issues such as local events, rush processes,
implications of national policies, etc.

Sales Associate, InfoCorp, Kalamazoo, MI

0 Contacted potential customers in order to assess their needs for
garden-based products.

0 Conducted strategic sales techniques to ﬁrlﬁll clients’ needs.

Human Resources Assistant, Organization X, Detroit, MI
0 Assisted in interviewing candidates for customer service positions.
0 Maintained training database for sales associates.

Hiring Manger, Organization X, Detroit, MI

0 Assesses Organization X’s need for Technical Writers.

- Selects associates for Technical Writing positions.

- Maintains training database for Technical Writers.

0 Oversees multiple Human Resources Assistants - provides yearly
feedback, and schedules weekly duties, and conducts weekly team
meetings.

Society for Human Resource Management (1988-2002)
Detroit Republicans (1992-2000; Secretary 2000-2002)

First Lutheran Church of Detroit Executive Board (1995-2002)
National Riﬂe Association (1985-2002)

HOBBIES:

Hunting, Fishing, Camping
Sports — Basketball, Baseball, Football, Hockey

Antique Cars

Richard Snead

213

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in English, Western Michigan University, 2001
GPA: 3.1

EXPERIENCE:

1997-2000 Tutor, English Department, WMU
o Helped ENG 101 and ENG 234 students complete term papers.

2000-2002 Smythe Manufacturing, Kalamazoo, MI
0 Assisted in preparing various training manuals for jobs within
the organization.
0 Edited existing technical documents.

AFFILIATIONS:

WMU Dean’s List (1996-1998)
WMU Sailing Club, 1997-1999, (President, 1998-1999)

HOBBIES:

Playing the drums in a local band
Karate
Roller Hockey

214

Janet McClellan

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in Literature, Eastern Michigan University, 2001
GPA: 2.56
EXPERIENCE:

1999-2001 Delivery person, Detroit Free Press
0 Delivered daily newspapers to several neighborhoods
0 Collected money from newspaper customers on the route
0 Solicited new customers along the route

1997-2000 Cafeteria Employee, EMU Food Services
0 Helped prepare and serve food in residence hall cafeterias.
o Performed cleaning and maintenance duties.

AF FILIATIONS:

Circle K member (service society), 1998-2001
EMU Debate Club, 1999-2001

HOBBIES:
Bicycling

Playing in a softball league
Going to concerts

215

EDUCATION:

Victoria Niles

[address deleted]

BA in Business (Minor in Sociology), Ohio University, 2001

EXPERIENCE:

1997-1998

1998-2001

2000-200 1

AF FILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.15

Counselor, Sunshine Student Center

0 Facilitated after school program for children ages 6-12.

0 Coordinated activities with other counselor via weekly
communication sessions.

- Talked to parents and supervisors regarding children’s
activities.

Research Assistant, Sociology Department, DU

0 Conducted literature reviews and made copies of journal
articles at the request of the supervising professor

o Ran subjects for sociology department research experiments

Resident Advisor, Gilbert Hall

0 Worked with other hall staff members to create a positive
living environment for students living in the hall.

0 Assisted in writing the Resident Advisor Manual for OU

Member of [Greek Organization], 1997-2001
Keats’ Society (English poetry club), 1999-2000

HOBBIES:

Softball, Tennis, Football, Hockey

Computers

Hiking

216

EDUCATION:

Laura Mercier

[address deleted]

BA in Communications, Bowling Green State University, 2002

EXPERIENCE:

1998-1999

1 999-2001

2000-2002

AF F ILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.05

Food Service Employee, BGSU
0 Prepared and cooked food in residence hall cafeterias
o Assisted in cleaning the kitchen area, dishes, etc.

Intern, Brooks / Cole Publishing Company
0 Edited manuscripts of textbooks and novels for publication.

- Wrote correspondence to authors and agents on behalf of the
supervising editor.

Front Desk Assistant, Green Hall

0 Worked with hall staff to ensure the safety of the residents.
0 Answered telephones and residents’ questions

0 Communicated daily activities to hall residents

Volunteer at Toledo Art Museum (Toledo, OH), 1999-2002
Falcon Acapella, 2000-2002

HOBBIES:

Pottery
Jogging
Gardening

217

EDUCATION:

Ellen VanBuren

[address deleted]

BA in Communications, Michigan State University, 2002

EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998

1998-2000

2000-2002

AFFILIATIONS:

GPA: 3.35

MSU Parking Attendant, MSU Department of Public Safety
0 Worked in parking booths, charging visitors and commuters
parking fees

Intern, Ofﬁce of Public Relations, State of Michigan

0 Assisted PR representatives in preparing press releases.

0 Assisted PR manager in creating and editing departmental
guidelines.

0 Performed additional ofﬁce duties.

Data Entry Operator, Lehman Survey Group, Lansing, MI
0 Entered survey responses into spreadsheets

Intramural racquetball, 1999-2001
Member of [Greek Organization], 1997-2001

HOBBIES:

Painting

Photography

Movies

218

Sara Franks

[address deleted]

EDUCATION:

BA in English, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2002
GPA: 3.57

EXPERIENCE:

1996-1999 Reporter, UT newspaper (The Daily Beam)
- Investigated city and county government events.
0 Conducted interviews with key stakeholders (i.e., local
citizens, ofﬁcials).
0 Integrated multiple sources to write daily article.

1999-2002 Technical Writer, Landscaping Associates, Inc. (family business)
0 Prepared advertisements and brochures for potential customers.

AFFILIATIONS:

Golden Key National Honors Society (1998-1999)
Omicron Delta Kappa Honors Society (1998-2000)
Forestry Club member (2000-2001)

Intramural Softball team member (2001-2002)

HOBBIES:

Reading
Swimming
Playing the cello

219

Wayne Jameson

[address deleted]

EDUCATION:

BA in Communications, Michigan State University, 2002
GPA: 3.25

EXPERIENCE:

1998-2000 Assistant, MSU Computer Labs
0 Maintained computer labs

- Answered questions from students regarding how to operate
ofﬁce software

2000-2002 Reporter for the State News
0 Researched stories for the daily newspaper.
o Performed in-person and telephone interviews of sources.

AFFILIATIONS:

Dean’s List (1998-2000)
Associated Students of Michigan State University (1999-2002)

HOBBIES:

Woodworking
Bowling
Model airplanes

220

EDUCATION:

EXPERIENCE:

1 996-2000
Park

1998-2000

AF F ILIATIONS:

Michael Smythe

[address deleted]

BA in English, Wright State University, 2000
GPA: 3.35

(summer job) Food Service Employee, Cedar Point Amusement

Worked at three stands in the park
Prepared food for guests
Utilized customer service skills to interact with guests

Worked on instruction manuals for training new employees in
food service procedures

Landscaping Assistant, Gerdeman Enterprises, Dayton, OH
0 Mowed and fertilized lawns for homes and businesses
0 Distributed mulch, and planted various plants

0 Assisted in designing landscapes.

Raiders Writing Club, 1999-2000
Intramural Football participant, 1997-2000
Smith Hall President, 1999-2000

Youth Ministry of Dayton, 1998-2000

HOBBIES:

Weight lifting, jogging, kickboxing

Hiking

Car restoration

221

Mary Hirsch
[address deleted]

EDUCATION:

BA in Literature, University of Illinois, Carbondale, 2002
GPA: 3.3

EXPERIENCE:

1998-2000 Library Assistant, UIC Libraries Copy Center

0 Worked at the copy desk, assigning copiers and charging
students and faculty for copies
0 Made sure that copiers had toner and paper

2000-2002 Senior Tutor, Writing Lab
0 Helped students write and edit term papers.
0 Hired new tutors, and supervised the work of other tutors.

AF FILIATIONS:
UIC Young Authors Club (2000-2002)
Golden Key National Honors Society Member, 1998-2000
Cheerleading squad (1998-2001)
HOBBIES:
Writing
Sculpting
Dancing

222

EDUCATION:

EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998

1998-2000

2000-2002

AF F ILIATIONS:

Jonathan Reyner

[address deleted]

BA in Education, DePaul University, 2001
GPA: 3.2

(smnmer job) Kitchen Employee, Smarties Café

o Cleaned and set up restaurant before it opened every day
0 Washed dishes and cooking instruments

0 Occasionally bussed tables

Temarketer, InfoCorp, Evanston, IL

0 Contacted individuals to attempt to sell them various lawn care
products.

Clerk, DePaul Bookstore

o Ran the cash register

0 Took inventory of books, and stocked books and other items

0 Prepared technical reports on customer service skills of
employees for bookstore managers

Habitat For Humanity (1997-2000)
Chicago Young Republicans (1998-2001)

HOBBIES:

Astronomy

Playing the trumpet

Camping

223

Brent Hawks

[address deleted]
EDUCATION:
BA in Education, Grand Valley State University, 2000
GPA: 2.45
EXPERIENCE:

1996-1998 Store Clerk, Best Buy, Grand Rapids, MI
0 Helped customers locate items
0 Assisted in store anti-theft security

1998-2000 Sales Clerk, JC Penney Co., Grand Rapids, MI
- Interacted with customers in the Shoes department.
0 Assisted customers with locating and trying on shoes.

2000-2002 Ofﬁce Assistant, Smith and Karon Law Firm, Flint, MI
0 Performed general ofﬁce duties.
AFFILIATIONS:

GVSU Collegiate Chorus, 1998-2000
GVSU Student Board Voting Member, 1995-1996

HOBBIES:
Computer programming

Piano playing
Watching sports

224

Christopher Grano

[address deleted]

EDUCATION:

BA in English, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2002
GPA: 3.4

EXPERIENCE:

1999-2001 Web Page Designer, Department of Psychology
0 Constructed layout and graphics of the psy.um.edu web pages.
0 Wrote and edited the descriptions of psychology classes,

interest groups, faculty, and the application process.

2000—2002 Temporary Employee, Stafﬁng Associates Inc., Ann Arbor, MI

0 Worked at various clerical and customer service jobs on a
temporary basis.

AF FILIATIONS:
Dean’s List Member (1998)
Lutheran Youth Group (2000-2002)
UM Cycling Club (1999-2001)

HOBBIES:
Tennis

Writing poetry
Listening to music

225

APPENDIX 0

STUDY 1: DEBRIEFING FORM (CANDIDATE RESUME PILOT EXPERIMENT)

226

Debrieﬁng for Perceptions Study

The study you participated was designed to pilot some materials for a study that I will be
running later this semester. In the current study, I was interested in checking if you
perceived the resumes as I designed them. My goal in creating these materials was to
make some good, mediocre, and poor resumes. I will be using these resumes in an
experiment to see if peoples’ expectations of a selection process can inﬂuence their
perceptions of that situation. Thus, our purpose in the current study was to gather some
data to help out future study work better. Thanks for you participation.

If you any questions or comments, please feel free me at the information listed below:

Darin Wiechmann (517) 353-9166 or wiechma2@msu.edu

227

APPENDIX P

STUDY 2: INITIAL MEASURES

 

228

Past Experiences
Instructor

I have heard that this instructor (i.e., the one for PSY 236) uses fair grading procedures.
On several occasions, other people have told me that this instructor has given unfair
grades. (R)

I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly by this instructor.

In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures by this instructor.
(R)

Class

I have heard that this class (i.e., PSY 236) uses fair grading procedures.

On several occasions, other people have told me that they received unfair grades in this
class. (R)

I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly in this class.

In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures in this class. (R)
Direct

In my previous classes, grading has usually been conducted in a fair manner.

On several occasions, I have received unfair grades in my classes. (R)

In my experiences, instructors have typically graded me in fair manner.

In general, I would say that the grades I have received in school have been fair and
accurate.

Indirect

In the past, people have told me their classes used fair grading procedures.

On several occasions, other people have told me that they received unfair grades. (R)

I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly.

In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures. (R).

Positive and Nagative Affectivity

This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions.
Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word.
Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on average).
Use the following scale to record your answers.

1 2 3 4 5
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely
or not at all

interested irritable

distressed alert

excited ashamed

upset inspired

strong nervous

guilty determined

scared attentive

hostile jittery

enthusiastic active

proud afraid

229

Power Distance

Students should not express disagreements with their instructors.

Students at a university should pay high respect to their instructors.

It is all right for instructors at a university to emphasize the symbols that separate them
from students.

Powerful people should try to look as powerful as they are.

Students should consider instructors as being of a different kind.

Other people are a potential threat to one’s power and rarely can be trusted.

Procedural Juatice Elements Expectations

I expect that I will be able to express my views and feelings during the grading process.
I expect that I will have inﬂuence over the scores anived at by the grading process.

I expect that the grading procedures will be applied consistently.

I expect that the grading procedures will be free of bias.

I expect that the grading procedures will be based on accurate information.

I expect that I will be able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.

I expect that the grading procedures will be ethical.

Process Fairness Expecgtions

I expect that the grading process will be fair.

I expect that the procedures used to grade people for this class will be fair.
I expect that I will be satisﬁed with the grading process.

Overall, I expect that I will feel dissatisﬁed with the _vyay people are graded in this class.

(R)

Procedural Justice Elements Values

I value being able to express my views and feelings about the grading process.
I value having inﬂuence over the scores arrived at by the grading process.

I value that grading procedures are applied consistently.

I value that grading procedures are free of bias.

I value that grading procedures are based on accurate information.

I value being able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.

I value that grading procedures will be ethical.

Process Framess Values

I value that the grading process is fair.

I value that the procedures used to grade people for this class is fair.

I value being satisﬁed with the grading process.

Overall, I value not being dissatisﬁed with the ﬂy people are graded in this class. (R)

Procedural Justice Elements

I am able to express my views and feelings during the grading process.
I have inﬂuence over the scores arrived at by the grading process.

The grading procedures are applied consistently.

The grading procedures are free of bias.

The grading procedures are based on accurate information.

230

I am able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.
The grading procedures uphold ethical and moral standards.

Process Fairness

I feel the grading process is fair.

The procedures used to grade people for this class are fair.

I am satisﬁed with the grading process.

Overall, I feel dissatisﬁed with the m people are graded in this class. (R)

Outcomeﬁrimess

Overall, I feel the real; of the test is Qfair. (R)
I feel the test outcome is fair.

Overall, I am satisﬁed with the test outcome.

I am dissatisﬁed with the test outcome. (R).

 

Class Satisfaction

I am often bored with this class. (R)

I feel fairly well satisﬁed with this class.

I am satisﬁed with this class for the time being.
Most days I am enthusiastic about this class.

I like this class better than the average student does.
I ﬁnd real enjoyment in this class.

Class Commitment

Aﬂective

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this class. (R)

This class has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

I enjoy discussing this class with people outside it.

Continuance

I feel that I have too few options to consider dropping this class.

One of the few serious consequences of leaving this class would be the scarcity of
available alternatives.

Right now, staying in this class is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
Normative

I think that students these days drop and add classes too often.

I do not think it is wrong to drop and add classes. (R)

If I found another class that was better, I would not feel it was right to leave this class.

Class Intentions

I intend to work hard in this class for the remainder of the semester.
I intend to attend lectures.

I intend to do my reading assignments.

I intend to put little effort in PSY X. (R)

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation Intentions
I would recommend this class to others.
I would recommend this instructor to others.

I would be hesitant to recommend this class to anyone I know. (R)

Technical Computer Experience

I frequently read computer magazines or other sources of information that describe new

computer technology.

I know how to recover deleted or “lost data” on a computer or PC.

I know what a LAN is.
I know what an operating system is.
I know how to write computer programs.

I know how to install software on a personal computer.

Qarelesapess Scale

The sky is blue.

Grass is green.

Michigan State is in Michigan.
The moon orbits Earth.

We live on the planet Earth.

Demographics
What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age? __

What is your ethnic background (check one):

_ Aﬁican-American __ Hispanic __ Asian

White __ Other

What year student are you?
__ Freshman __ Sophomore __ Junior
Other

What is your cumulative GPA?

232

_ American Indian

Senior Graduate or

APPENDIX Q

STUDY 2: INFORMED CONSENT

233

INFORMED CONSENT

Project Title: Perceptions Study

Investigators’ Names: Darin Wiechmann and Dr. Ann Marie Ryan

Description and The study in which you are about to participate investigates
Explanation of students’ perceptions of their experiences in their current
Procedures: Psychology course. You will be asked to answer two

questionnaires over the next several weeks to help me
understand your perceptions of the class.

Beneﬁts: Participation in this study requires a total of one-half hour
of your time. You will receive extra-credit points for your
one-half hour time commitment.

Risks and Discomforts: None

 

Thank you for participating in our study! If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the investigator (Darin Wiechmann; Room 20 Baker Hall, East Lansing,
MI 48824; 353-9166; wiechma2@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact -— anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) by phone:
(517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Your participation in this research is voluntary, and your
privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. You are ﬂee to
withdraw this consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time without
penalty. As I need the data for both time periods, I require that you ﬁll out all both
questionnaires. Failure to complete both questionnaires will result in the loss of the
extra-credit points As part of our study, I need to link your test scores in the class to the
responses you provide on the questionnaires. Therefore, I ask for your permission to
obtain the results of your ﬁrst test from the instructor. Once again, this information will
be kept completely conﬁdential and will be examined only by the investigator. A copy
of this consent form will be available for you to take home. Within three years of
participation, a copy of this signed consent form will be provided to you upon request.

Pressing Continue below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

I agree to participate in the following study.

continue

234

APPENDIX R

STUDY 2: DEBRIEFING FORM

235

Debrieﬁag for Perceptions Study

The Study you participated in this semester was designed to understand how people form
perceptions of fairness and the outcomes of these fairness perceptions. Researchers have
generally assumed that how people are treated can predict how they will react to the
situation. The current study attempted to understand more about this relationship by
examining some different factors that can affect this relationship. We propose that what
people value and expect can inﬂuence the types of reactions that people have in these
situations. The idea is that if you value and expect to be treated fairly and then you
perceive that you were treated unfairly, you are likely to react negatively to the situation.
On the other hand, if you do not value and expect to be treated fairly, you likely will not
be surprised by the situation and will react differently. Thus, our purpose in the current
study was to better understand the factors that can inﬂuence peoples’ perceptions of
fairness. Thanks for you participation.

If you any questions or comments, please feel free me at the information listed below:

Darin Wiechmann (517) 353-9166 or wiechma2@msu.edu

236

APPENDIX S

STUDY 2: FINAL MEASURES

237

Direct Experiences
In my previous classes, grading has usually been conducted in a fair manner.

On several occasions, I have received unfair grades in my classes. (R)

In my experiences, instructors have typically graded me in fair manner.

In general, I would say that the grades I have received in school have been fair and
accurate.

Indirect. Poﬂve Experiences
In the past, people have told me their classes used fair grading procedures.
I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly.

Indirect. Nagative Experiences
On several occasions, other people have told me that they received unfair grades.
In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures.

Positive. Cla§s Information

I have heard that this instructor (i.e., the one for PSY 236) uses fair grading procedures.
I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly by this instructor.

I have heard that this class (i.e., PSY 236) uses fair grading procedures.

I usually hear that people’s class work is graded fairly in this class.

Negative. Class Information

On several occasions, other people have told me that this instructor has given unfair
grades.

In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures by this instructor.
On several occasions, other people have told me that they received unfair grades in this
class.

In the past, I have heard about instances of unfair grading procedures in this class.

Power Distance

Students should not express disagreements with their instructors.

Students at a university should pay high respect to their instructors.

It is all right for instructors at a university to emphasize the symbols that separate them
ﬁom students.

Powerful people should try to look as powerful as they are.

Students should consider instructors as being of a different kind.

Other people are a potential threat to one’s power and rarely can be trusted.

238

PANAS

This scale consists of a ntunber of words that describe different feelings and emotions.
Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word.
Indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on average).
Use the following scale to record your answers.

 

 

l 2 3 4 5
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely
or not at all
l_’o_sitive Affectivity Nagative Affectivity
interested irritable
alert distressed
excited ashamed
inspired upset
strong nervous
determined guilty
attentive scared
active hostile
enthusiastic jittery
proud afraid

Procedural Justice Expectaﬁons

I expect that the grading procedures will be applied consistently.

I expect that the grading procedures will be free of bias.

I expect that the grading procedures will be based on accurate information.
I expect that the grading procedures will be ethical.

I expect that the grading process will be fair.

I expect that the procedures used to grade people for this class will be fair.
I expect that I will be satisﬁed with the grading process.

Procedural Justice Valrﬁ

I value that grading procedures are applied consistently.

I value that grading procedures are free of bias.

I value that grading procedures are based on accurate information.

I value that grading procedures will be ethical.

I value that the grading process is fair.

I value that the procedures used to grade people for this class is fair.
I value being satisﬁed with the grading process.

Voice ExpectationsNalues
I expect that I will be able to express my views and feelings during the grading process.
I expect that I will have inﬂuence over the scores arrived at by the grading process.
I expect that I will be able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.
I value being able to express my views and feelings about the grading process.

239

I value having inﬂuence over the scores arrived at by the grading process.
I value being able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.

Procedural Justice Perception_s

I am able to express my views and feelings during the grading process.
I have inﬂuence over the scores arrived at by the grading process.
The grading procedures are applied consistently.

The grading procedures are free of bias.

The grading procedures are based on accurate information.

I am able to appeal the scores arrived at by the grading procedures.
The grading procedures uphold ethical and moral standards.

I feel the grading process is fair.

The procedures used to grade people for this class are fair.

I am satisﬁed with the grading process.

Outcome Fairness

Overall, I feel the _r_e_sal_t of the test is _uafair. (R)
I feel the test outcome is fair.

Overall, I am satisﬁed with the test outcome.

I am dissatisﬁed with the test outcome. (R).

Affective Reactions

I am often bored with this class. (R)

I feel fairly well satisﬁed with this class.

I am satisﬁed with this class for the time being.

Most days I am enthusiastic about this class.

I like this class better than the average student does.

I ﬁnd real enjoyment in this class.

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to this class. (R)
This class has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

I enjoy discussing this class with people outside it.

I would recommend this class to others.

I would recommend this instructor to others.

I would be hesitant to recommend this class to anyone I know. (R)

Continuance Commitment

I feel that I have too few options to consider dropping this class.

One of the few serious consequences of leaving this class would be the scarcity of
available alternatives.

Right now, staying in this class is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

240

Normative Commitment

I think that students these days drop and add classes too often.

I do not think it is wrong to drop and add classes. (R)

If I found another class that was better, I would not feel it was right to leave this class.

Class Intentions

I intend to work hard in this class for the remainder of the semester.
I intend to attend lectures.

I intend to do my reading assignments.

I intend to put little effort in PSY X. (R)

Technical Computer Experience
I frequently read computer magazines or other sources of information that describe new

computer technology.

I know how to recover deleted or “lost data” on a computer or PC.
I know what a LAN is.

I know what an operating system is.

I know how to write computer programs.

I know how to install software on a personal computer.

Carelesspess Scale

The sky is blue.

Grass is green.

Michigan State is in Michigan.
The moon orbits Earth.

We live on the planet Earth.

Demogzaphics
What is your gender? Male Female

What is your age?

What is your ethnic background (check one):

_ Aﬁican-American __ Hispanic __ Asian __ American Indian

White _ Other

What year student are you?
_ Freshman __ Sophomore _ Junior __ Senior Graduate or
Other

What is your cumulative GPA?

 

241