Inequality and Procedural Justice in Social Dilemmas

This study investigates the influence of resource inequality and the fairness of the allocation procedure of unequal resources on cooperative behavior in social dilemmas. We propose a simple formal behavioral model that incorporates conflicting selfish and social motivations. This model allows us to predict how inequality influences cooperative behavior. Allocation of resources is manipulated by three treatments that vary in terms of procedural justice: allocating resources randomly, based on merit, and based on ascription. As predicted, procedural justice influences cooperation significantly. Moreover, gender is found to be an important factor interacting with the association between procedural justice and cooperative behavior.

Testing procedural justice theory in Belgium and Sweden

Procedural justice theory assumes that trust in procedural justice and in the effectiveness of the police are important issues for building the legitimacy of the aforementioned institution. Additionally, the perception of police legitimacy, as a result of public trust, is necessary for the recognition of police authority. When citizens recognize the right of the police to determine authority, they are assumed to feel the obligation to obey the police and ultimately comply with the law and cooperate with the police. This theoretical framework is mainly tested in Anglo-Saxon countries. Hence, the purpose of this contribution is to test the key assumptions of procedural justice theory in the Belgian and Swedish context using data of the European Social Survey (ESS). Attention is paid not only to the role of procedural justice, but also to the role of deterrence and the role of personal morality to explain the willingness to cooperate with the police and compliance with the law. This allows us to compare the impact of procedural justice with the impact of other possible determinants. We used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to do the analyses. The results suggest that the reason why people cooperate with the police is different in both countries

Age and trust as moderators in the relation between procedural justice and turnover: a large-scale longitudinal study

Item does not contain fulltextThe current study investigated the moderating roles of age and trust in the relation of procedural justice with turnover. It was expected that the relation between procedural justice and turnover was weaker for older workers and those with high prior trust in their leader. Older workers are better at regulating their emotions, and focus more on positive aspects of their relationships with others, and therefore react less intensely to unfair treatment. Moreover, people with high trust are more likely to attribute unfair treatment to circumstances instead of deliberate intention than people with low trust. Finally, we expected a three-way interaction between age, trust, and procedural justice in relation to turnover, where older workers with high trust would have less strong reactions than younger workers and older workers with low trust. Results from a three-wave longitudinal survey among 1,597 Dutch employees indeed revealed significant interactions between trust and procedural justice in relation to turnover. Furthermore, the three-way interaction was significant, with negative relations for younger workers, but a non-significant relation was found for older workers with low trust. Contrary to expectations, negative relations were found between procedural justice and turnover for older workers with high trust

Using self-definition to predict the influence of procedural justice on organizational, interpersonal, and job/task-oriented citizenship behaviors

An integrative self-definition model is proposed to improve our understanding of how procedural justice affects different outcome modalities in organizational behavior. Specifically, it is examined whether the strength of different levels of self-definition (collective, relational, and individual) each uniquely interact with procedural justice to predict organizational, interpersonal, and job/task-oriented citizenship behaviors, respectively. Results from experimental and (both single and multisource) field data consistently revealed stronger procedural justice effects (1) on organizational-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves strongly in terms of organizational characteristics, (2) on interpersonal-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves strongly in terms of their interpersonal relationships, and (3) on job/task-oriented citizenship behavior among those who define themselves weakly in terms of their distinctiveness or uniqueness. We discuss the relevance of these results with respect to how employees can be motivated most effectively in organizational settings

Procedural Justice

The real work of procedure is to guide conduct. It is sometimes said that the regulation of primary conduct is the work of the general and abstract norms of substantive law—clauses of the constitution, statutes, regulations, and common law rules of tort, property, and contract. But substance cannot effectively guide primary conduct without the aid of procedure. This is true because of three problems: (1) the problem of imperfect knowledge of law and fact, (2) the problem of incomplete specification of legal norms, and (3) the problem of partiality. The solution to these problems is particularization by a system of dispute resolution—in other words, a system of procedure. A theory of procedural justice is a theory about the fairness of the institutions that do the job of particularization. A theory of procedural justice must answer to two problems. The easy problem of procedural justice is to produce accurate outcomes at a reasonable cost. Of course, what is easy in theory may be difficult in practice. A very high order of art and science may be required to design actual systems of civil adjudication that achieve accuracy at a reasonable cost while minimizing collateral violations of substantive rights. But the practical problems of procedural architecture should not obscure the obvious: procedural justice aims at accuracy and efficiency. In the abstract, these goals are shared by both the theorists and practitioners of procedural design. The hard problem of procedural justice marks the point at which consensus about shared goals gives way to controversy. The hard problem of procedural justice goes deep. Procedural justice is necessarily imperfect, because perfect accuracy is unattainable and approaching the unattainable would be unjustifiably costly. The fact of irreducible procedural error is that even the best system of civil procedure that human ingenuity can design will make mistakes. This fact gives rise to the hard problem of procedural justice. How can litigants who will be finally bound by a mistaken judgment regard themselves as under an obligation to comply with the judgment? Framing the hard question of procedural justice suggests the key to the answer. The participatory legitimacy thesis makes clear what outcome reductionism obscures: because a right of participation must be afforded to those to be bound by judicial proceedings in order for those proceedings to serve as a legitimate source of authority, the value of participation cannot be reduced to a function of the effect of participation on outcomes; nor can the value of participation be reduced to a subjective preference or feeling of satisfaction. Solving the hard problem of procedural justice clears the way to the formulation of principles of procedural justice. The Participation Principle requires that the arrangements for the resolution of civil disputes be structured to provide each interested party with a right to adequate participation. The Accuracy Principle requires that the arrangements for the resolution of civil disputes should be structured so as to maximize the chances of achieving the legally correct outcome in each proceeding. Together, the two principles provide guidance where guidance is needed, both for the architects of procedural design and reform and for judges who apply general procedural rules to particular cases

Unions and Procedural Justice: An Alternative to the Common Rule

Can unions substitute a procedural justice role for their traditional reliance on establishing a¿common rule¿? The decline of ¿bureaucratic¿ models of employee management and the riseof performance pay and performance management conflicts with the common rule asmanagement seek to tie rewards more closely to individual and organisational performance.CEP studies of performance pay in the British public services illustrate the potential for aprocedural justice role to ensure that such pay systems are operated fairly, otherwise they riskdemotivating staff. Evidence is presented to show that employees regard unions as effectivevehicles for procedural justice. In this way, management can achieve better operation of theirincentive schemes, and employees may experience less unfairness and poisoned workrelations.performance-related pay, public services, procedural justice, management

Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons

All social situations are ‘ordered’ in some way, comprising a constantly changing set of relationships that establish the structure within which human action occurs. In many circumstances this order is hidden, even ephemeral; we are barely aware of its presence. But this is not the case in prisons. Social order in prison is in many ways highly visible: it is established and managed by the omnipresent rules that govern prison life. In large part these rules are oriented toward reproducing the extant regime. They lay down apparently strict criteria for what constitutes order and what is to be done if it is breached. But what is meant by order in prison? Most socia

The Effects of Selection System Characteristics and Privacy Needs on Procedural Justice Perceptions: An Investigation of Social Networking Data in Employee Selection

Privacy violations have been suggested as an important variable in procedural justice perceptions, but the nature of this relationship is not well understood. Privacy has been investigated as a precursor to overall justice perceptions, but to date no published research investigates the role of privacy in the Gilliland procedural justice model (1993), one of the most influential procedural justice models in the literature. This dissertation explored this relationship by applying the Gilliland model to a situation rife with potential privacy issues: the use of social networking site information in employee selection. As in Gilliland’s model, selection system characteristics altered procedural justice rule perceptions. These rule perceptions were then related to overall procedural justice perceptions of the selection system. It was also hypothesized that privacy concerns moderated the relationship between procedural justice rule perceptions and overall justice perceptions such that the relationship was stronger for those with lower needs for privacy. An alternative hypothesis, that privacy needs directly affect overall procedural justice perceptions, was also tested. For the full study, 1,318 participants’ responses to surveys on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk) were analyzed to assess their reactions to hypothetical employee selection scenarios with high or low justice for the following procedural justice rules: job relatedness content, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, and consistency of administration. The model was partially supported, with the manipulation of justice rules being related to perceptions of the associated procedural justice rules, which were then also related to overall procedural justice perceptions. Further, privacy concerns were related to overall procedural justice perceptions. The moderating role of privacy concerns on the relationship between procedural justice rule perceptions and overall procedural justice perceptions was not supported. A post hoc analysis revealed that the interaction between objective procedural justice and privacy concerns had a small effect on procedural justice perceptions. Practical implications, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed

Willing and able: action-state orientation and the relation between procedural justice and employee cooperation

Existing justice theory explains why fair procedures motivate employees to adopt cooperative goals, but it fails to explain how employees strive towards these goals. We study self-regulatory abilities that underlie goal striving; abilities that should thus affect employees’ display of cooperative behavior in response to procedural justice. Building on action control theory, we argue that employees who display effective self-regulatory strategies (action oriented employees) display relatively strong cooperative behavioral responses to fair procedures. A multisource field study and a laboratory experiment support this prediction. A subsequent experiment addresses the process underlying this effect by explicitly showing that action orientation facilitates attainment of the cooperative goals that people adopt in response to fair procedures, thus facilitating the display of actual cooperative behavior. This goal striving approach better integrates research on the relationship between procedural justice and employee cooperation in the self-regulation and the work motivation literature. It also offers organizations a new perspective on making procedural justice effective in stimulating employee cooperation by suggesting factors that help employees reach their adopted goals

The influence of and change in procedural justice on self-rated health trajectories: Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health results

Objectives: Procedural justice perceptions are shown to be associated with minor psychiatric disorders, long sickness absence spells and poor self-rated health, but previous studies have rarely considered how changes in procedural justice influence changes in health. Methods: Data from four consecutive biennial waves of the Swedish Longitudinal Survey of Health (SLOSH) study (N=5,854) were used to examine trajectories of self-rated health. Adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic position, and marital status, we study the predictive power of change in procedural justice perceptions using individual growth curve models within a multilevel framework. Results: The results show that self-rated health trajectories slowly decline over time. The rate of change was influenced by age and sex, with older people and women showing a slower rate of change in self-rated health. After adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic position, and marital status, procedural justice was significantly associated with self-rated health. Also, improvements in procedural justice were associated with improvements in self-rated health. Additionally, a reverse relationship with self-rated health and change in self-rated health predicting procedural justice was found. Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that procedural justice at work is a crucial aspect of the psychosocial work environment and that changes towards more procedural justice could influence self-rated health positively. The reciprocal association of procedural justice and self-rated health warrants further research