-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
1/13
RESEARCH NOTES
Academy
o
Management /ournai
1992, Vol. 35, No. 3. 626- 637 .
DISTRIBUTIVE AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AS
PREDICTORS OF SATISFACTION WITH PERSONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
DEAN B. McFARLIN
PAUL D. SWEENEY
Marquette Universi ty
Distributive justice was found to be a more important predictor of two
personal outcomes, pay satisfaction and job satisfaction, than proce-
dural justice, whereas the reverse w as true for two organizational out-
comes organizational commitment and subordinate s evaluation of
supervisor. However, procedural and distributive justice also inter-
acted in predicting organizational outcomes. We discuss limitations of
this study and directions for future research.
Folger and Konovsky captured the key distinction regarding justice in
work organizations, noting that distribu tive justice refers to the perce ived
fairness of the amounts of compensation employees receive; procedural jus-
tice refers to the perceived fairness of the means used to determine those
am ou nts (1989: 115). However, few studies have examined how both dis-
tribu tive and p roc ed ura l justice affect ou tcom es (e.g., Folger & Kon ovsky,
1989; Greenberg, 1987a; Konovsky, Folger, & Crop anzan o, 1987). In add i-
tion, most research has focused on legal rather than work-related issues. For
example, Greenberg and Folger (1983) showed that defendants viewed trial
verdicts (distributions) positively if they were seen as the result of fair pro-
cedu res , an effect called the fair process effect (cf. M usante, Gilbert, &
Thibaut, 1983). Folger and Konovsky pointed out that this research has
suggested different predictive roles for procedural and distributive justice.
In particular, studies have found distributive justice to predict satisfaction
with specific, personal outcomes, like case verdicts, better than procedural
justice. The reverse is true, however, when people make more general eval-
uatio ns of, for instanc e, legal institutio ns or their rep resenta tives (Lind &
Tyler, 1988).
In fact, the few studies that have been done in organizational settings
have tended to support the notion that the predictive roles of procedural and
distributive justice depend, at least in part, on the nature of the outcome in
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
2/13
1992 McFarlin and Sweeney
7
faction, and perceived conflict than distributive justice. Konovsky and col-
leagues (1987] found that procedural justice predicted organizational com-
mitment, but not pay satisfaction, whereas the reverse was true for distrib-
utive justice. Similarly, Folger and Konovsky (1989) found that procedural
justice accounted for more variance in organizational co mm itment an d trust
in a supervisor than distributive justice, wbereas tbe reverse was true for
satisfaction w itb a pay raise. i
Ov erall, tbese re sults suggest tbat pr oce dur al justice may be la more
important predictor tban distributive justice of outcomes related to evaluat-
ing a company as an institution and its representatives, sucb as organiza-
tional commitment and trust in supervisor. In contrast, distributive justice
may be a more important predictor of personal outcomes, like satisfaction
witb pay level, tban procedural justice.
Interestingly, tbese results reflect wbat we migbt call a main effect ap-
proacb to examining tbe predictive roles of distributive and procedural jus-
tice in field research. Tbere are few studies of tbe interactive effects of tbe
two types of justice. In fact, tbe existing researcb evidence about interactive
effects com es from laboratory stu dies. For exam ple, in a recent investigation
by Greenberg (1987a), subjects worked on a task in wb icb distributive justice
(pay levels) and procedural justice (bow pay levels were determined) were
manipulated. He found an interaction of tbe following form; subjects saw
bigb p ay levels as fair regardless of proc edu res bu t saw low pay levels as fair
only when fair procedures were used. Perceptions of unfair treatment were
maximized wben pay was low and procedures were unfair. Similarly, in a
laboratory study, Cropanzano and Folger (1989) found tbat resentnient was
bigbest wben subjects perceived tbat unfair procedures prevented tbem
from receiving big b rew ards for task perform ance. j
Botb Greenberg (1987a) and Cropanzano and Folger (1989) pointed out,
bowever, tbat researcb was needed to determine wbetber tbese laboratory
interactions generalize to organizational settings. An attempt at suqb gener-
alization was tbe focus of our researcb. Anotber key researcb question was
wbetber existing tbeory allows for a precise prediction regarding tbe form
sucb interactions may take. We used referent cognitions tbeoryj (Folger,
1986) to derive just sucb a prediction.
Briefly, according to referent cognitions tbeory, individuals evaluate
tbeir work experiences by reflecting on w bat migbt bave be en un der dif-
ferent circumstances and conditions (Folger, 1986). One way erriployees
migbt accomplisb sucb a comparison would be to cognitively simulate bow
tbeir current work situation migbt be different bad tbeir organization used
fairer procedures. In fact, Cropanzano and Folger (1989) suggested' tbat ref-
erent cognitions tbeory offers a potential conceptual framework for tbe in-
teractive effects of distributive and procedural justice.
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
3/13
628 Academy
o
Management Journal August
contrast tbis situation to tbe more positive outcomes tbat tbey would bave
obtained bad tbe decision maker used fair allocation procedures. On tbe
otber band, referent cognitions tbeory predicts tbat wben people perceive
procedures to be fair, resentment will be minimal, even when distributive
justice is low. Unde r suc b cond itions, it wo uld be more difficult for em ploy-
ees to envision alternative fairer procedures tbat could bave led to better
outcomes.
To test tbis intera ction pattern in a field setting, we su rveyed a group of
bank employees. In addition to measuring procedural and distributive jus-
tice, we assessed perceptions of two important personal outcomes, pay and
job satisfaction, and two organizational outcomes: organizational commit-
ment and subordinate's evaluation of supervisor. If Cropanzano and Folger's
(1989) application of referent cognitions tbeory is correct, we would expect
tbat tbe evaluation of tbese outcomes would be most negative wben botb
distributive and procedural justice are low. But we would expect positive
evaluations wben procedural justice is bigb, regardless of tbe level of dis-
tributive justice.
A more speculative prediction is tbat tbe interaction pattern referent
cognitions tbeory suggests will be clearest wben tbe focus is on organiza-
tional, as opposed to personal, outcomes. Because tbe former focus on tbe
sources of tbe procedures tbat affect employees, sucb as supervisors and tbe
employing organization as an institution, tbey provide a clearer target for
retaliation tban outcomes of a more personal nature. In otber words, allow-
ing employees to evaluate an organization as an institution gives tbem tbe
opportunity to blame tbe parties responsible for creating tbe rules of tbe
gametbe unfair procedurestbat have resulted in a lack of distributive
justice. Referent cognitions tbeory suggests tbat employees' resentment is
not only a function of low d istributive justice, but also of tbe opp ortu nity to
blam e m isfor tune on tbe actions of otbers ratber tba n on tbeir ow n be-
bavior (Cropanzano
Folger, 1989).
Finally, sbould tbe interactions we predicted fail to materialize, we
determined tbat our focus would sbift to tbe interpretation of main effects.
In view of prior researcb (e.g., Alexander
Ruderman, 1987), we predicted
tbat distributive and procedural justice would eacb produce strong main
effects for a variety of outcomes. Given Folger and Konovsky's (1989) and
Konovsky and colleagues' (1987) results, bowever, we expected procedural
justice to produce a stronger main effect in predicting organizational out-
comes tban distributive justice. We expected tbe reverse to be true witb
personal outcomes.
M THO S
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
4/13
1992 McFarlin and Sweeney 629
resulting in a response rate of 61 percent. Tbe respondents' mean age was
33.8 years (s.d. = 12.1); tbeir m ean com pan y tenu re was 6.3 years (s.d. =
5.8); and 74 percent were women. Tbese respondent demograpbics com-
pared favorably witb company statistics for tbe work force as wboje, sug-
gesting tbat problems resulting from response bias were unlikely to be a
major tbreat. In tbe total work force, 68 percent of tbe employees were
w om en, w itb an average age of 34.6 years and an average comp any te nur e of
6.9 years.
Measures
Predictors were measures of global distributive and procedural justice.
Criterion variables w ere two m easures reflecting eva luations of tbe surveyed
organization and its representatives and two measures of satisfaction witb
personal outcomes. ;
Distributive justice
We used five of tbe six items from Price and Muel-
ler's (1986) Distributive Justice Index. Tbese items ask workers to indicate
tbe extent to wbicb tbey bave been fairly rewarded in view of tbeir respon-
sibilities, experience, job stress, effort, and performance. Rewards in tbe
index are defined broadly, witb money, praise, and recognition all being
listed as exa m ples . An exam ple of tbe item format is as follows: How fair
bas [company name] been in rewarding you wben you consider tbe amount
of effort tbat you put into your w ork ? ( 1 = very unfair, 5 = very 'fair).
Procedural justice
We constructed a four-item procedural justice scale
tbat use d tbe sam e basic format and five-point respo nse scale as tbeiDistrib-
utive Justice Index. Respondents indicated tbe extent to wbicb tbe general
proc edu res used to com m unicate performance feedback, determine, pay in-
creases, and evaluate performance and prom otability were fair. '
Organizational outcomes
Organizational commitment was assessed
using four items from Cook and Wall's (1980) commitment scale. Tbese
items ask workers to express tbeir agreement or disagreement witb various
statem ents (e.g., I feel myself to be a part of tbis com pany ), using five-point
scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Tbe second organizational
outcome, sub ordina te's e valuation of supervisor, was assessed w itb a single
item: O verall, I tbink my boss is a poor performer (1 = strongly agree, 5 =
strongly disagree). Several nationa l prob ability studies (e.g, Qu inn
Staines,
1979) bave previo usly used an essentially equiva lent item. j
Personal outcomes
We used tbree items to assess pay JeveJ satis/a ction .
Two of tbe items used five-point agree-disagree formats; tbese were : Tb e
pay for my job is exc ellent and I am satisfied w itb my current pay. Tbe
tbird item asked resp ond ents bo w tbey felt about tbeir pay (7 = deligbted,
1 = terrible ; cf. An drew s & W itbey, 1976). Since tbey bad different mea -
surem ent scales, we standa rdized tbese tbree items before com bining tbem .
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
5/13
630 Academy
of
Management Journa) August
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 prese nts m ean s, correlations, and reliability coefficients, w bere
app licable, for all study variables. Tbe reliabilities for m ulti-item scales w ere
generally very good, witb alpbas ranging from .75 to .92. One concern tbat
migbt be raised, bowever, is tbe correlation between procedural and distrib-
utive justice (.67). To belp allay tbis concern, we would make tbree points.
First, prior researcb bas successfully sbown tbat tbese scales predict differ-
ent dependent measures, suggesting tbat tbey are independent constructs.
Second, prom inent researcbers bave claimed tbat altbougb tbey are separate
constructs, in practice a sizable correlation sbould be found between tbem
(e.g., Folger, 1987). For example, Folger cited an important study by Tyler
(1984) in wbicb tbe correlation between distributive and procedural justice
was
77
Tbird, we conducted an empirical analysis tbat sbeds some addi-
tional ligbt on tbis issue.^
Regression nalys is Results
Separa te three-s tep, bierarcb ical regression analyses were performed for
eacb outcome variable. At step 1, we entered five control variables: salary,
job type, age, gender, and tenure. Staines, Pottick, and Fudge (1986) cau-
tioned tbat tbese types of variables need to be controlled for, given tbeir
general potential to inflate or suppress relations between otber variables.
Salary and job typ e were of special co nce rn, given tbeir pote ntia l to affect tbe
particular outcome variables used in tbis study.
As Table 2 sbows, age significantly predicted pay level satisfaction, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Consistent witb earlier re-
searcb findings (Weaver, 1980), our finding was tbat older workers te nd ed to
bave bigber commitment and satisfaction tban younger workers. Job type
also significantly predicted job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, and
organizational commitment, witb managers being more positive tban cleri-
cal employees.
At step 2, distributiv e and proce dural justice we re entered . Botb types of
justice were significant predic tors of eacb outcome variable. Con sistent w itb
Folger and K onovsky s (1989) conten tions, bow ever, d istributive justice
^
Podsakoff and Organ (1986) reviewed techniques that address method variance, including
a procedure called the single factor approach. The logic of this approach is that if method
variance ac coun ts for the relations betw een two or more variables, a factor an alysis should yield
a single global (method) factor. Since researchers have generally viewed this approach as weak
but as possibly prov iding some useful information, w e combined it with a stronger confirmatory
factor a naly sis, u sing LISREL VI (Joreskog
Sorbom, 1985), which tests models that increase in
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
6/13
992
Mc arlin and Sweeney
6 3
I
(8
tn
u
I
'ft
(S
o
O5
CO
o
CO
t H
f H
o
o
1
2
o
o
CO
CO
i n
1
CM
1
CO
o
i n
r H
CM
1
CM
o
o
i n
CO
1
i n
i n
CO
CO
i n
o
o
o
o
o
CO
J"
CO
e
00
00
o
1
i n
o
O l
o
CM
CO
CM
o
o
o
B
c
"cr
CO
CM
i n
CM
O
o
1
r H
r H
O l
i n
i n
tv
CO
;o
r H
C
t
o
s
a
B
O
cd
3
te
s
e
n
CO
t v
r H
CO
q
t n
q
C31
O
1
r-*
i n
1
oa
r H
t v
i n
CO
so
v
i n
tv
CM
CO
O l
i n
CO
r H
r H
CM
CM
CM
r H
1
r H
r H
r H
r H
CO
CO
CO
CO
"B
1
[
J
B
U
O
z
iq
CO
i n
CO
CO
i n
q
CM
1
CO
o
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
r H
o:
v .
Z
a
t
9
t v
CO
CJl
" :
o
CO
t v
CO
CO
i n
q
o
CO
o
1
r H
o
t v
o
o
c:i
u
s
c
B
i
e
l
3
B
o
i
i2
B
i
c
01
o
B
cd
B
o
5
II
CM
T3
B
cd
B
cd
2 .
"3 01
oi -o
in 01
o 00
V r?
c
CO
u
g
cn
03
tH
CO
CD
O
CO
x
03
0 0
CO
C
CO
B
II
CM
-a
a
cd
L
cn 01
B a
o >>
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
7/13
6
Academy ofManagement Journal
TABLE 2
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses
August
Independent
Variables
Step 1
Tenure
Gender
Age
Salary
Job type
AR^
Step 2
Procedural justice
Distributive justice
AR2
Step 3
AR^ for interaction
of procedural and
distributive justice
F
f
Personal
Pay Level
Satisfaction
.02
- . 0 2
.16***
.0 0
.0 8
.04***
.14***
.52***
.37***
.0 0
56.29***
8 63
Outcomes
Job
Satisfaction
- . 0 3
.02
.31***
.07
.15***
.12***
.18***
.30***
.18***
.0 0
32.68***
8 6 4
Organizational Outcomes
Subordinate s
Evaluation
of Supervisor
.0 0
.0 5
- . 0 2
- . 0 5
.12**
.03**
.23***
.15**
.11***
.01*
14.74***
8 626
Organizational
Commitment
- . 0 2
- . 0 3
.23***
.0 8
.10*
.08***
.34***
.23***
.26***
.01**
42.19***
8,631
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
tended to be a more important predictor of personal outcomes (pay and job
satisfaction) than procedural justice. In addition, procedural justice was a
more important predictor of both organizational outcomes than distributive
justice (see Table 2).^
In step 3, we entered th e interaction of distributive and proc edu ral
justice. As Table 2 shows, the interaction terms for both evaluation of su-
pervisor and organizational commitment were significant. When plotted (cf.
Cohen Cohen, 1983), both outcomes yielded the same interaction pattern.
^ Following a reviewe r's suggestion, we condu cted our regression analyses again, en tering
distributive and procedural justice on separate steps to more closely examine their relative
predictive power. The results of tbese analyses were consistent with those given in Table 2;
procedural justice was a stronger predictor of organizational outcomes tban distributive justice,
with the reverse being true for personal outcomes. Specifically, witb procedural justice con-
trolled, distributive justice accounted for an additional 5 percent of tbe variance in job satis-
faction and 14 percent of tbe variance in pay level satisfaction; wben tbe order of entry was
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
8/13
1992
McFarlin and Sweeney
6 33
FIGURE I
Interactive EffectsofD istributiveandProcedural Justiceon
Organizational ommitment
Organizational
Commitment
19.0 -
18.5 -
18.0
-
17.5
-
16.5
-
16.0
-
15.5
15.0
-
14.5
Higb procedural justice
Low procedural justice
Low
Higb
Distributive Justice
To illustrate this pattern,wepresent theinteraction fororganizationalcom-
mitment in Figure 1, which shows that although employees who felt that
proced ures w ere fair tende d tohave higher levelsof organizational commit-
ment than thosewho felt procedures were unfair, thisgap wasm uch larger
when distributive justice was low. Specifically, when procedural justice was
low, organizational commitment varied considerably
as a
function
of dis-
tributive justice. When procedural justice washigh, how ever, organizational
commitment varied little
as a
function
of
distributive justice. Again,
an
identical interaction pattern emerged for evaluation of supervisor.^
DIS USSION I
Distributive
and
Procedural Justice
as
Predictors
Our finding that both distributive and procedural justiceareimportant
predictors of work outcomes underscores recent admonitions for organiza-
^
A
reviewer raised
a
concern about
tbe
reliability
of our
single-item supervisor evaluation
measure.
To
address this issue,
we
corrected
tbe
correlation matrix
for
measurement error
and
conducted
the
analysis again using
the
corrected matrix. Wbere possible, used alpha
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
9/13
634 Academy o Management Journal August
tional researchers to examine both types of justice (Greenberg, 1987a,b), We
also found, as expected, that distributive justice tended to be a stronger
predictor of personal outcomes than procedural justice, whereas the reverse
was true for organizational outco m es. The fairness of a firm s pro ced ure s
may have a greater impact on organizational commitment than the fairness
of personal outcomes that workers receive, perhaps because procedures de-
fine th e org aniza tion s cap acity to treat employee s fairly. Th us , if they see
procedures as fair, employees may view the organization positively, even if
they are currently dissatisfied with such personal outcomes as a low pay
raise. In contrast, a pay cut may c ripp le an emp loyee financially, and a larger
paycheck will buy more, regardless of whether procedures were fair or not
(cf. Folger
Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky et al, 1987). Our findings are con-
gruent with research in the legal arena that suggests that distributive and
proce dural justice have different predictive roles depen ding on whe ther th e
outcome in question is personal or reflects more general evaluations of legal
institutions or their representatives (Lind Tyler, 1988).
However, we also found that distributive and procedural justice had
significant interactive effects on our organ izational outco m es, su bo rdin ate s
evaluation of supervisor and organizational commitment. Consistent with
Crop anzan o an d Folger s (1989) app lication of referent cogn itions theo ry,
these interactions revealed that the combination of unfair procedures and
low distributive justice produced the lowest ratings. In contrast, fair proce-
dures produced high commitment and supervisor evaluations, regardless of
the level of distributive justice. Advocates of referent cognitions theory ar-
gued that, under conditions of procedural fairness, employees will find it
difficult to envision that more positive alternative outcomes could have
occurred.
Referent cognitions theory may also help explain why we found inter-
action effects for organizational, but not personal, outcomes. According to
the theory, employee resentment requires not only low distributive justice,
but also the ability to identify other people and the procedures that they use
as the source of poor outcomes (Cropanzano
Folger, 1989). Thus, organ-
izational outcom es m ay represent a clear target for blame, whereas personal
outcomes do not. By definition, organizational outcomes make salient the
institutional sources of the procedures that affect employees.
Limitations and irections for Future Research
One of the most basic limitations of the present study is its exclusive
reliance on cross-sectional, self-report data. This reliance precludes us from
making strong causal statemen ts about our results. The use of a longitud inal
design wo uld improve the ab ility to make causal stateme nts. In add ition, o ur
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
10/13
1992 McFarJin an d Sweeney 635
approach raises the issue of common method variance. Although we can at
least partially allay concerns about method variance in our particular case
(see the Results section), we wo uld also encourage future justice resea rchers
to take steps to avoid method variance problems in field settings', by, for
instance, collecting mu ltiple measures. [
Concern might also arise about the small magnitude of our interaction
effects. Since interaction terms are not independent of main effects in re-
gression analyses, Cohen and Cohen (1983) recommended that researchers
test simple main effect models before entertaining more complicated inter-
active models. This procedure tends to underestimate the amount; of vari-
ance for which interaction terms truly account. Furthermore, the literature
on regression ana lysis prov ides several cau tions about interpreting t;he theo-
retical or practical significance of interaction terms on the basis ofjthe pro-
portion s of variance expla ined (cf. Cham poux Peters, 1987; Ped hazu r,
1982; Stone Hollenbeck, 1984). Apparently, a key issue is not how much
variance is explained, but whether the increment is statistically significant,
indicating that the relationship in question is being moderated. However, to
understand the actual nature of an interaction effect, researchers should plot
separate regression equations for different values of the moderator^ variable
and exam ine the resulting pa ttern for its theoretical or practical significance
(Stone Hollenbeck, 1984). This is the approach we took in this research.
Still, we would suggest that researchers be sensitive to the limitations of
moderated regression analysis and follow the recommendations that have
been made to minimize them.
Finally, a basic direction for future research is to determine whether
personal and organizational outcomes other than those examined here and
in previous research will yield similar predictive patterns for distributive
and procedural justice. More research is also needed to explain why distrib-
utive and procedural justice may differentially affect personal and organiza-
tional outcomes. To address this issue may require a better understanding of
w
pe rsonal an d organizational outco me s differ. A s Cropan zano a nd Folger
(1989) suggested, referent cognitions theory may provide a useful guiding
framework for such efforts.
R E F E R E N E S I
Alexander, S., Ruderman, M. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organ-
izational bebavior. Social Justice Research 1: 177-198 .
And rews, F. M.,
W ithey, S. B. 1976.Social indicators of well-being: Ame ricans] perception
of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Ben tler, P., Bone tt, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Rulletin 103: 588-606.
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
11/13
^36
Academy of
Managem ent Journal August
Cohen, J.,
Gohen, P. 1983.Applied mu ltiple regression/correlation analysis for the beha v-
ioral sciences (2d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gook, J.,
Wall, T. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and
personal need nonfulfillment.
Joumal of Occupational Psychology
53 : 39-5 2 .
Gropan zano, R., Folger, R. 1989. Referent cognitions and task decision autono my : Beyond
equity theory.Joumal of Applied Psychology 74: 293-299.
Folger, R. 1986. Rethinking equity tbeory: A referent cognitions m odel. In. H. W.Bierhoff R. L.
Gohen,
J. Greenberg (Eds.),Justice in social relations: 145-162. New York: Plenum.
Folger, R. 1987. Distributive and procedural justice in tbe workplace. Social Justice Research
1: 143-159.
Folger, R.,
Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of proc edural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions.Academy of Managem ent Journal 32: 115-130 .
Greenberg, J. 1987a. Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means
justify the ends? Joumol of Applied Psychology 72: 5 5 - 7 1 .
Greenberg, J. 1987b. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.Academy of Managemen t
Review 12: 9-22.
Green berg, J., Folger, R. 1983. Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in
groups and organizations. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Rasic group processes: 235-256. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Joreskog, K. G., Sorbom, D. 1985.LISR LVI:Analysis of linear structural relationships by
the method of maximum likelihood. M ooresv ille, IN: Scientific Software.
Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R.,
Gropanzano, R. 1987. Relative effects of procedural and distrib-
utive justice on employee attitudes.
Represen tative Research in Social Psychology
17 :
Lind , E. A., Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum.
Musante, L., Gilbert, M. A.,
Tbibaut, J. 1983. Tbe effects of control on perceived fairness of
procedures and outcomes.Journal of Experim ental Social Psychology 19: 223-23 8.
Pedbazer, E. J. 1982. Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinebart,
Winston.
Podsakoff P. M., Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects
Joumal of Management
12:
531 544.
Price , J. L., M ueller, G. W. 1986. Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,
MA: Pitman.
Qu inn, R. P., Staines, G. L. 1979. The 1977 quality of employm ent survey. Ann Arbor:
Institute for Social Researcb, University of Michigan.
Sta ines , G. L., Pottick, K. J.,
Fudge, D. A. 1986. Wives' employment and husb and s' attitudes
toward work and life.Journal of Applied Psycho logy 71: 118-12 8.
Stone, E. F.,
Hollenbeck, J. R. 1984. Some issues associated w ith the use of m oderated regres-
sion. O rganizational Rehavior and Human Performance 34: 195-21 3.
Tucker, L. R., Lewis, G. 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor anal-
ysis.
Psychometrika
38: 1 10.
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
12/13
1992
McFarlin and Sweeney 7
Dean B McFarlin is an associate professor of management in the College of Business
Administration at Marquette University. His research interests include job satisfaction,
participative management, justice in organizations, and cross-cultural differences in
organizational behavior.
Paul D Sweeney
is an associate professor of management in the College of Business
Administration at Marquette University. His research interests include employee per-
ceptions of fairness, control, and satisfaction as well as cross-cultural differences in
organizational behavior.
-
7/25/2019 Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Js
13/13