Interactional justice refers to the fairness in interpersonal treatment received by an individual both before and after the decision-making. Violation of interactional justice leads to the negative consequences. Literature on organizational justice has already identified the influence of gender on interactional justice. Current research is based on Indian context, where numerous intergroup relations create a different group dynamics. In India, apart from gender, religious stereotyping also plays a significant role in social context. The present experimental study investigates how appraiser’s decision on performance rating and reward recommendation is influenced by interactional justice-related stereotype. This study was conducted on Hindu (240) and Muslim (240) postgraduate students of Indian universities in two experimentations. Result reveals the influence of gender and religious bias on appraiser’s decision-making on performance-based reward system. It has been observed that if there is a violation of interactional justice, female employees sharing the same religious group membership with the appraiser are subjected to the most unfavorable performance rating and reward recommendation. Again, in case of interactional justice adherence, this group is rewarded with the maximum benefit. The whole analysis reveals that performance evaluators expect interactional justice from female employee of their own religious group membership. If there is a violation, this group will be the maximum sufferer.
AllenT. D.RushM. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247–260.
2.
AmanatullahE. T.MorrisM. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–267. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017094
3.
AmbroseM. L.SchminkeM. (2003). Organizational structure as a moderator of relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295–305. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.295
4.
BiesR. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5.
BlauP. M. (1968). Social exchange. In SillsD. L. (Ed.) , International encyclopaedia of the social sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 452–458). New York, NY: MacMillan.
6.
BrescollV. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–641. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994
7.
BrocknerJ.De CremerD.van den BosK.ChenY.R. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construction on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155–167. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.11.001
8.
CaleoS. (2016). Are organizational justice rule gendered? Reactions to men’s and women’s justice violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1422–1435. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000131
9.
CarliL. L. (2001). Assertiveness. In WorrellJ. (Ed.) , Encyclopaedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (pp. 157–168). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
10.
ChoudhuryR. (2006). Understanding family life in India. In ChowdhuryA.CarsonD. K.CarsonC. (Eds.), Family life education in India: Perspective, challenges and applications (pp. 31–57). New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
11.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1988). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., vol. 2, pp. 151–192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Cohen-CharashY.SpectorP. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
13.
Colquitt. J. A.ScottB. A.JudgeT.A.ShawJ.C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.
14.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.RodellJ. B.LongD. M.ZapataC. P.ConlonD. E.WessonM. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade latter: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 659–696. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
15.
CostarelliS. (2012). Coping with intergroup threat via biased attributions to low group effort. Social Psychology, 43, 47–59. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000083
16.
CropanzanoR.GreenbergJ. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In CooperC. L.RobertsonI. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317–372). New York, NY: Wiley.
17.
EaglyA. H.MakhijaniM. G.KlonskyB. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22.
18.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
19.
FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (1988). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
FolgerR.RosenfieldD.RobinsonT. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 268–273.
21.
GhoshE. S. K.KumarR.TripathiR. C. (1992). The communal cauldron: Relations between Hindus and Muslims in India and their reactions to norm violations. In de RidderR.TripathiR. (Eds.), Norm violation and intergroup relations (pp. 70–89). New York, NY: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
22.
GreenbergJ. (1990). Looking fair vs being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 12, pp. 111–157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234
24.
HeilmanM. E. (2012). Gender stereotype and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
25.
HeilmanM. E.ChenJ. J. (2005). Same behaviour, different consequences: Reaction to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431–441. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431
26.
KakarS. (1996). The colors of violence: Cultural identities, religion and conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
KakarS. (2000). The time of Kali: Violence between religious groups in India. Social Research, 67(3), 877–899.
28.
KausarZ. (2006). Communal Riots in India: Hindu–Muslim Conflict and Resolution. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 26(3), 353–370.
29.
KhanS. S.SenR. (2009). Where are we going? Perspective on Hindu-Muslim relations in India. In MonitielC. J.NoorN. M.(Eds.) , Peace psychology in Asia (pp. 43–64). New York, NY: Springer.
30.
LindE.TylerT. (1988). The social psychology of justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
31.
McFarlinD. B.SweeneyP. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256489
32.
MillerD.T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–553.
33.
MishraS. (2005). Religious identity and ego strengths: A study of Hindu and Muslim boys and girls. Psychological Studies, 50(2/3), 127–133.
34.
MitraA.RayD. (2014). Implications of economic theory of conflict: Hindu-Muslim violence in India. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4), 719–765. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676316
35.
MishraA.K.Akoijam.A.B.MishraG (2009). Social psychological perspectives in self and identity. In MishraG. (Ed.) . Psychology in India: Social and organizational processes (Vol. 2, pp. 53–103). New Delhi: Pearson Education.
36.
OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.TurnerJ. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. New York, NY: Blackwell.
37.
OkimotoT. G.BrescollV. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371949
38.
Platow EgginsR. A.ChattopadhyayR.BrewerG.HardwickL.MilsomL.WelshJ. (2013). Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: Non-instrumental voice and authority group membership. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 361–376. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02083.x
39.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
40.
RaoS. K. R. (1969). Social institutions among Hindus. Mysore: Rao and Raghavan.
41.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629
42.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash towards agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
43.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspiration. Social Psychology, 41(3), 192–202. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000027
44.
SharmaA. (1981). Some aspect of attitude and behaviour of mother. Indian Psychological Review, 20, 30–42.
45.
SinhaD. (1988). Basic Indian values and behaviour disposition in the context of national development. In SinhaD.KaoH. S. R.(Eds.) , Social values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 1–55). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
46.
SpearsR.OakesP. J.EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (Eds.). (1997). The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. New York, NY: Blackwell.
47.
TajfelH. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in social psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.
48.
TajfelH. (1982). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TajfelH.FlamentC.BillingM. G.BundyR. F. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–177.
50.
ThibautJ. W.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.McGartyC. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454–463.
52.
TurnerJ. C.OnoratoR. S. (1999). Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In TylerT. R.KramerR. M.JohnO. P.(Eds.) , The psychology of social self (pp.11–46). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53.
TylerT.LindE. (1992). A relationship model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. (Ed.) , Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 115–192). New York, NY: Academic Press.
54.
TylerT. R.SmithH. J. (1999). Justice, social identity, and group process. In TylerT. R.KramerR. M.JohnO. P.(Eds.) , The psychology of social self (pp. 223–264). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
van den BosK. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In GreenbergJ.ColquittJ.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 273–300). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56.
WhitmanD. S.CaleoS.CarpenterN. C.HornerM. T.BernerthJ. B. (2012). Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytical examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 776–791. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028021
