Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and procedural fairness. Moreover, outcome and procedural fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of “process/outcome” interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the “low-low” interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the “high-high” interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the “low-low” interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the “high-high” interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people’s experience of outcome and procedural fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.
AbelsonR. P.AronsonE.McGuireW. J.NewcombT. M.RosenbergM. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
2.
AdamsJ. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
3.
AikenL. S.WestG. S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
BoswellW. R.ShippA. J.PayneS. C.CulbertsonS. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 844-858.
6.
BrocknerJ.ChenY.MannixE.LeungK.SkarlickiD. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend upon how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138-159.
7.
BrocknerJ.HeuerL. B.MagnerN.FolgerR.UmphressE.Van den BosK.. . .SiegelP. A. (2003). High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 51-68.
8.
BrocknerJ.WiesenfeldB. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.
9.
ChenY.BrocknerJ.GreenbergJ. (2003). When is it “A pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 1-21.
10.
ColquittJ. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
11.
ColquittJ. A.GreenbergJ.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2005). What is organizational justice: A historical overview. In GreenbergJ.ColquittJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.LePineJ. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk-taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909-927.
13.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
14.
CummingG. (2013). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29.
15.
De CremerD.BrocknerJ.FishmanA.van DijkeM.van OlffenW.MayerD. M. (2010). When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 291-304.
16.
DeutschM. (1985). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
DirksK. T.FerrinD. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
18.
DirksK. T.LewickiR. J.ZaheerA. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 68-84.
19.
FolgerR.RosenfieldD.RobinsonT. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 268-273.
20.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
21.
KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
KwongJ. Y. Y.LeungK. (2002). A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability: Importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 278-299.
23.
LinX. W.CheH. S.LeungK. (2009). The role of leader morality in the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1536-1561.
24.
LindE. A. (1994). Procedural justice, disputing, and reactions to legal authorities (ABF Working Paper No. 9403). Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation.
25.
LindE. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In GreenbergJ.CropanzanoR. (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
27.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
28.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
29.
MayerR. C.GavinM. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while employees watch the boss?Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888.
30.
MowdayR. T.PorterL. W.SteersR. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
31.
NiehoffB. P.MoormanR. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
32.
PreacherK.HayesA. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
33.
RobinsonS. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
34.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view on trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
35.
SaksA. M.AshforthB. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-279.
36.
SherifM.HovlandC. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
SiegelP. A.PostC.BrocknerJ.FishmanA.GardenC. (2005). The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 13-24.
38.
ThibautJ. W.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Van den BosK.LindE. A.VermuntR.WilkeH. A. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034-1046.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
