This work examined the effect of procedural justice and item frame on responses to positively and negatively worded survey items. Under conditions of low procedural justice, there is a significant difference in the rating of distributive justice items positively and negatively framed, but not when procedural justice is high. Implications for decision frame theory and biasing of responses to survey items are considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1982) Psychological testing. (5th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
2.
BarrettH. E.TaylorT. R. (1986) Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.
3.
BrocknerJ.WiesenfeldB. M.MartinC. L. (1995) Decision frame, procedural justice, and survivors' reactions to job layoffs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 59–68.
4.
DevellisR. F. (1991) Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
EdwardsJ. E.ThomasM. D.RosenfeldP.Booth-KewleyS. (1997) How to conduct organizational surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
FolgerR.CropanzanoR. (1998) Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
KorsgaardM. A.SchweigerD. M.SapienzaH. J. (1995) Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60–84.
8.
LindE. A.KanferR.EarlyP. C. (1990) Voice, control and procedural justice: instrumental and non-instrumental concerns for fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.
9.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978) Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill.
