the effect of personality on perceptions of justice
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Managerial PsychologyThe effect of personality on perceptions of justiceJuliana D. Lilly Meghna Virick
Article information:To cite this document:Juliana D. Lilly Meghna Virick, (2006),"The effect of personality on perceptions of justice", Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 5 pp. 438 - 458Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610673960
Downloaded on: 12 November 2014, At: 12:26 (PT)References: this document contains references to 54 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2905 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Anastasios Palaiologos, Panagiotis Papazekos, Leda Panayotopoulou, (2011),"Organizational justice andemployee satisfaction in performance appraisal", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 Iss 8 pp.826-840Wayne K. Hoy, C. John Tarter, (2004),"Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust",International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 250-259A. McDowall, C. Fletcher, (2004),"Employee development:an organizational justice perspective", PersonnelReview, Vol. 33 Iss 1 pp. 8-29
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
The effect of personality onperceptions of justice
Juliana D. LillySam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA, and
Meghna VirickSan Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the effect that work locus of control has onperceptions of trust, perceived organizational support, procedural justice and interactional justice.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 679 alumni of a university inthe Southwestern USA. Regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to test aseries of hypotheses.
Findings – The results indicate that work locus of control has a significant positive relationship onall variables. Perceived organizational support fully mediated the relationship between work locus ofcontrol and perceptions of both procedural and interactional justice. Organizational trust fullymediated the relationship between work locus of control and interactional justice, but only partiallymediated the relationship between work locus of control and procedural justice.
Research limitations/implications – The data used in this paper are cross-sectional. Also, resultsare based on self-report survey data and subject to common method bias. As such, longitudinal studiesare recommended for future research, as are finding antecedents to perceptions of justice that may helpmanagers improve the way they communicate about decision-making at work.
Originality/value – Findings from the study suggest the important role that personality plays as aprecursor to justice perceptions in organizations.
Keywords Justice, Control systems, Organizational behaviour, Trust
Paper type Research paper
Studies pertaining to organizational justice have largely focused on individualresponses to organizational procedures and decisions and how employee perceptions ofjustice may be strengthened in the workplace. The underlying assumption is that themore strongly an employee’s perception of justice is, the more likely he or she is likelyto respond favorably when presented with an unfavorable decision or procedure (Lindand Tyler, 1988; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). Recentwork, however, suggests that organizational justice is not that simple a concept.Greenberg (2001), for example, states that there are many different levels of salience forjustice concerns depending on the organizational setting and the individuals involved.In addition, Greenberg (2001) notes that although people may agree that justice isimportant, the perception of justice may differ from one person to another and from one
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Institute of Behavioral and AppliedManagement Meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, October 2004.
This research was funded by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at Sam HoustonState University.
JMP21,5
438
Received July 2005Revised February 2006Accepted February 2006
Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 21 No. 5, 2006pp. 438-458q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940610673960
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
culture to another. As such, justice research needs to be interpreted in the context of thesituation in which the study is conducted, and researchers need to determine if justiceperceptions can be explained by factors other than the decision outcome, such as levelof personal investment in the decision process or outcome, the historical context oforganizational decisions, and individual differences such as individual personality.
Literature reviewPersonality in justice researchPersonality effects in justice research have been studied primarily as a moderatorbetween justice perceptions and some dependent variable. For instance, one studyfound that hostility and neuroticism moderated the relationship between justiceperceptions and absentee rates (Elovainio et al., 2003), while another found thatunfavorable justice perceptions and negative affectivity both affect deviant employeebehavior (Aquino et al., 1999). Martocchio and Judge (1995) looked at personality traitsand justice in a slightly different way by studying how stable personality traitscontributed to discrepancies between supervisors and employees in absencedisciplinary decisions. However, no studies to date have looked at personality as apredictor of justice perceptions. If personality plays a part in determining anindividual’s perception of justice, then it is possible that an organization can do little tochange that individual’s perception of justice. In other words, the individualpersonality may override any attempt by an organization to increase justiceperceptions.
Lewin (1951) proposes that individual behavior is partly a function of theenvironment, and Mischel (1977) suggests that personality has a stronger effect onbehavior in weak situations open to many interpretations than in strong situations inwhich strong cues are provided for appropriate behavior. It is not always clear how anindividual should behave in a weak situation because there is uncertainty about theappropriate behavior to use. A number of decisions made in organizations must bemade under conditions of uncertainty, where the decision-maker is unable to predictaccurately what the outcomes of a decision might be. This uncertainty may create acondition that stimulates individual political behavior in the organization (Beman andSharkey, 1987), causing individuals high in certain personality characteristics such asMachiavellianism or need for power (McClelland, 1985) to have a greater impact on thesituation than individuals low in these personality traits. The huge amount ofuncertainty that may occur when decisions are made, even in organizations withprocedures and policies in place, can thus lead to weak situations in which individualpersonality dictates what happens, causing individuals to act in ways that areunpredictable. The relational model of justice may serve as a means of understandingwhy personality may play an important role in determining justice perceptions indecision-making.
Group value (or relational) model of justiceThe group value or relational model of justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) is based on theidea that identification with a group influences behavior differently from behaviorinfluenced by self-interest needs and desires. Socialization is a key concept in therelational model of justice because procedures for decision making developed throughgroup norms and traditions are more likely to be accepted by group members since
Perceptions ofjustice
439
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
individual members understand and adopt the values of the group (Bauer et al., 1998;Lind and Tyler, 1988). Interpersonal treatment is particularly important in therelational model of justice because people who are treated with respect and allowedinput into the decision-making process are expected to be more accepting of negativeoutcomes than are people who are treated disrespectfully and whose views are ignoredby decision-makers (Bies and Moag, 1986). The relational model of justice has beensupported in several research studies (Robbins et al., 2000; Tyler, 1989; Tyler et al.,1996) and might help explain why certain personality traits act as antecedents tojustice perceptions, as will be discussed below. This may be particularly so if thepersonality trait is conducive to enhancing an individual’s perception of valued groupstatus. One such personality trait is locus of control.
Locus of controlLocus of control refers to the type of attribution (internal or external) made for eventsand outcomes that occur. The construct is proposed to be a unidimensional continuum,with one end of the continuum labeled internal and the other end labeled external(Rotter, 1966). An internal locus of control refers to the extent to which a person viewshis or her outcomes as being primarily determined by forces internal to the self. Anexternal locus of control refers to the extent to which a person views his or heroutcomes as being primarily determined by external forces to the self. Davis and Davis(1972, p. 124) argue that individuals with an external locus of control “are able tomaintain self-esteem by attributing negative events to forces beyond their control,”.Thus, these authors suggest that an external locus of control serves as a defensivemeasure for the self as a compensating measure. In contrast, an individual with aninternal locus of control should have less of a need to protect the self by makingexternal attributions. Indeed, those individuals with an internal locus of control arewilling to accept the fact that their own actions have caused negative outcomes, andthus may have a higher level of self-esteem than individuals with an external locus ofcontrol. A recent study, in fact, suggests that locus of control and self-esteem arestrongly related and may even be subcomponents of a higher order concept (Judge et al.,2002).
Work locus of control (Spector, 1988) refers to an individual’s belief that outcomes atwork such as promotions or salary increases are controlled either by one’s own actionsindicating an internal locus of control, or by factors beyond the individual’s controlindicating an external locus of control. Spector (1988) found that an internal work locusof control was positively correlated with job satisfaction, commitment, influence atwork, and leader consideration. Thus, as internal work locus of control increased,perceived influence at work increased. Influence at work was measured in Spector’s(1988) study with two items. The first asked how much influence respondents had atwork, with high scores suggesting that the individual perceived their contributions atwork to be valued by others. The second item asked how much input respondents hadinto decisions, with high scores suggesting that the individual perceived their opinionsto be valued by others in the organization. The relational model of justice proposes thatindividuals who perceive their contributions and opinions to be valued by others willbe more likely to believe that decisions made by the group are fair because theyperceive themselves as a valued member of the group. Thus, if individuals with a highinternal work locus of control believe their contributions and opinions at work are
JMP21,5
440
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
valued, then individuals with a high internal work locus of control should believe thatdecisions made by the group are fair:
H1a. As internal work locus of control increases, perceptions of procedural justicewill increase.
A separate issue in the justice literature concerns the concept of interactional justice,defined as an individual’s concerns about “the quality of interpersonal treatment theyreceive during the enactment of organizational procedures” (Bies and Moag, 1986,p. 44). Some authors view interactional justice as a subcomponent of procedural justice(Greenberg, 1993; Lind and Tyler, 1988), but Bies (2001) argues that interactionaljustice is a separate construct distinct from procedural justice. In this paper, weconsider interactional justice to be conceptually different from procedural justice basedon Bies’ (2001) arguments and based on Masterson et al. (2000), who found an empiricaldistinction between interactional and procedural justice and suggested that futureresearch investigate possible antecedents of these two constructs.
Again, using the relational model of justice, individuals who believe they are treatedwith respect and dignity will be more likely to consider themselves as valued membersof the group, and more likely to perceive high levels of justice. Individuals with a highinternal locus of control (measured in part by the item asking how much input theyhave in work decisions) are likely to perceive that their input is valued and that themanager or supervisor asking for their input is treating them with respect. Thus,individuals with a high internal locus of control are likely to have high levels ofinteractional justice:
H1b. As internal work locus of control increases, perceptions of interactional justicewill increase.
Perceived organizational supportPerceived organizational support is defined as “a general perception concerning theextent to which the organization values [employees’] general contributions and caresfor their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1990, p. 51). The authors further note that“positive discretionary activities by the organization that benefited the employeewould be taken as evidence that the organization cared about one’s well-being”(Eisenberger et al., 1990, p. 51). Thus, employees with high levels of perceivedorganizational support believe that the organization values their work and thinkshighly of the individual as an employee. If individuals with an internal work locus ofcontrol believe their contributions and opinions at work are valued, they may alsoperceive that the organization they work for cares about them as an individual.
A number of studies have found a link between locus of control and work-relatedreactions such as job satisfaction (Noor, 2002; Spector et al., 2002), job performance(Blau, 1993), and even ethical work behavior (Forte, 2005). A separate study found thatthe influence of perceived organizational support on job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment was stronger among individuals with an external locus of control thanamong those with an internal locus of control (Chiu et al., 2005), suggesting that a linkmay exist between locus of control and perceived organizational support. Thispotential link is not surprising given that Spector (1988) found that work locus ofcontrol was significantly correlated with perceived influence at work and theconsideration and initiating structure leadership styles. Since perceived influence at
Perceptions ofjustice
441
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
work is one indicator that the organization values employee contributions, and sinceleadership style is one indicator that the organization cares (or does not care) aboutemployees, these two indicators fit the description of perceived organizational supportas defined by Eisenberger et al. (1990). Thus, we expect work locus of control to besignificantly correlated with perceived organizational support:
H2. As internal work locus of control increases, perceived organizational supportincreases.
A number of researchers have suggested and found empirical support for the idea thatjustice perceptions act as an antecedent of perceived organizational support. Forexample, Moorman et al. (1998) found that perceived organizational support mediatedthe relationship between justice and organizational citizenship behavior, although theauthors also suggest that the process may be reciprocal such that perceivedorganizational support is an antecedent of justice rather than justice an antecedent forperceived organizational support. Masterson et al. (2000) also found that perceivedorganizational support mediated the relationship between procedural justice andseveral dependent variables. Their rationale for testing perceived organizationalsupport as a mediator was based partially on a desire to extend the findings ofMoorman et al. (1998) and on the idea that employees perceive fairness as acontribution or antecedent to the organizational relationship. This paper takes theposition that perceived organizational support is an antecedent of justice perceptionsand will mediate the relationship between work locus of control and perceptions ofjustice.Acknowledging Moorman et al.’s (1998) suggestion that the relationshipbetween perceived organizational support and justice perceptions could be reciprocal,we believe that the relational model of justice supports the idea that perceivedorganizational support precedes perceptions of justice. The premise of the relationalmodel of justice is that respectful treatment leads to perceived group status and groupidentification. Because the individual identifies with the group, he or she is more likelyto accept group decisions and perceive higher levels of justice than individuals who donot identify with the group. Although one can justifiably argue that fair treatmentenhances group status, it is unlikely for new employees to start a job with a situation inwhich they must immediately make a justice judgment. In other words, the relationshipbetween an employee and an employer rarely begins with a justice judgment of fair orunfair; rather, it often begins with the employee determining if they received enoughinformation or enough authority to perform the job. It is this initial treatment that setsthe stage for perceptions of organizational support with justice judgments eitherenhancing or reducing the initial perception:
H3a. The direct relationship between work locus of control and procedural justicewill be mediated by perceived organizational support.
H3b. The direct relationship between work locus of control and interactional justicewill be mediated by perceived organizational support.
Organizational trustThe relational model of authority (Tyler, 1989) suggests that people care about the wayauthorities treat them in an organization because authority figures’ actions provideinformation on whether or not the individual is a respected member of the organization.
JMP21,5
442
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
The more organizational authorities treat employees with respect and dignity, the morelikely employees are to identify themselves as members of the group with high status.This identification with the group and with the authority figures in that group is linkedto organizational trust (Tyler and Degoey, 1996).
Spector (1988) found that internal work locus of control was positively correlatedwith leader consideration, a relational aspect of supervision. If individuals with a highinternal work locus of control believe their supervisors treat them with respect, they arelikely to identify themselves as high status group members. As high status groupmembers, they are likely to have increased levels of organizational trust according tothe relational model of authority. In addition, as organizational trust increases,perceptions of justice should also increase because group identification is strong andthe individual should be more likely to accept group decisions:
H4. As internal work locus of control increases, perceptions of organizational trustwill increase.
H5a. As organizational trust increases, perceptions of procedural justice willincrease.
H5b. As organizational trust increases, perceptions of interactional justice willincrease.
As with perceived organizational support, trust typically has been considered aconsequence of justice rather than an antecedent of justice (Brockner and Siegel, 1996),with justice having a causal impact on trust. This causal relationship has beensupported empirically (Ambrose and Schminke, 2003; Kernan and Hanges, 2002; Sidle,2003), but like perceived organizational support, we believe that trust may begin beforeany decisions about organizational justice are made.
Lewicki and Bunker (1996) propose a theoretical model of trust development thatincludes three levels of trust, the first of which is calculus-based trust. Calculus-basedtrust “is an ongoing, market-oriented, economic calculation whose value is derived bydetermining the outcomes resulting from creating and sustaining the relationshiprelative to the costs of maintaining or severing it” (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996, p. 120).New members of an organization start with this level of trust and assume that theorganization will try to avoid the costs of being untrustworthy such as a badreputation, excessive employee turnover, or lawsuits. In other words, new employeesand new managers start the relationship with a basic level of trust that relies onpunishments and rewards to ensure that all parties do what they say they will do. Onlyat the second level of trust, knowledge-based trust, does predictability as required injustice perceptions become a factor. Knowledge-based trust is “grounded in the other’spredictability – knowing the other sufficiently well so that the other’s behavior isanticipatable” (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996, p. 121). The third type of trust,identification-based trust, occurs when both parties “effectively understand andappreciate the other’s wants; this mutual understanding is developed to the point thateach can effectively act for the other” (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996, p. 122).
Brockner and Siegel (1996) suggest that trust is considered to be a belief about aparty’s future behavior, but this definition is a general one that could apply to all levelsof trust as defined by Lewicki and Bunker. It is possible, then, that trust is anantecedent of justice perceptions if a basic level of trust (calculus-based trust) exists
Perceptions ofjustice
443
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
before any specific actions occur in a new relationship to increase or reduce the initialtrust. As such, trust may act as a mediator in the relationship between work locus ofcontrol and justice perceptions. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses, and showthe entire model to be tested in Figure 1:
H6a. The direct relationship between work locus of control and procedural justicewill be mediated by organizational trust.
H6b. The direct relationship between work locus of control and interactional justicewill be mediated by organizational trust.
MethodSubjects for the study were contacted through the alumni association of a university inthe southwest. 20,000 letters were sent to a random sample of alumni asking them toparticipate in a longitudinal study on work attitudes. 1,207 alumni returned cardsstating that they would participate, and the first survey generated 679 useable surveysfor a response rate of 56.25 percent, with subjects working in 15 different industries.The data in this paper are from the first survey in a series of four. The final samplecharacteristics included:
. a mean age of 44.23 years;
. 48.8 percent male and 51.2 percent female;
. average hours worked each week of 45.64; and
. 33.4 percent of all respondents classified themselves as managers or executives,42.3 percent classified themselves as professionals, and 22.8 percent classifiedthemselves as employees.
Figure 1.Proposed model withpersonality as anantecedent to justiceperceptions
JMP21,5
444
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Work locus of control was measured with an abbreviated version of Spector’s (1988)scale. Trust was measured using an abbreviated version of Cummings and Bromiley’s(1996) organizational trust inventory, which measures the cognitive and affectdimensions of trust. Cummings and Bromiley’s instrument is based on threedimensions: affect, cognitive, and behavioral intention. The behavioral dimension isused primarily for validation at the end, and was not appropriate for use in this study.Although the organizational trust inventory does not exactly match the dimensions oftrust as described by Lewicki and Bunker, the Cummings and Bromiley scale isadditive, with lower scores suggesting the presence of calculus-based trust and higherscores suggesting the presence of knowledge or identification-based trust. Perceivedorganizational support was measured using items from the Survey of PerceivedOrganizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Measures of justice were based on reactions to changes that had occurred in theworkplace. Subjects were asked to mark on a list all changes that had occurred in theworkplace in the last six months and indicate if the change was positive or negative.From the list, subjects were then asked to identify the single most important changethat had happened in the last six months and classify the change in terms of its overalleffect on them personally on a seven-point scale, with 1 being very bad and 7 beingvery good. Subjects then completed a three-item measure of procedural justiceconcerning the fairness of procedures used to implement the most important changeand a five-item measure of interactional justice concerning the treatment they receivedfrom the individual implementing the change. Procedural justice and interactionaljustice were measured using items from Colquitt’s (2001) subscales of organizationaljustice. Table I shows the correlation matrix and lists each variable’s mean, standarddeviation, and coefficient alpha.
ResultsAs the results in Table I suggest, H1a, H1b, H2, H4, H5a and H5b are generallysupported by the strong correlations between the variables. Six regression models wererun to determine the strength of the relationships, with results shown in Tables II-VII.Age, gender, and job type were used as control variables. Job type was coded asemployee; manager; executive; and professional.
H1 states that as internal work locus of control increases, perceptions of proceduraland interactional justice will also increase; the results shown in Table II support thishypothesis. We found one of the control variables, job type to have an independenteffect on procedural justice (b ¼ 0:10, p , 0:05), but not on interactional justice
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Work locus of control 26.19 4.52 (0.65)2. Organizational trust 34.91 9.81 0.45 * (0.92)3. Perceived organizational support 42.64 12.25 0.49 * 0.81 * (0.92)4. Interactional justice 22.20 5.76 0.31 * 0.52 * 0.56 * (0.94)5. Procedural justice 11.62 5.73 0.59 * 0.45 * 0.54 * 0.55 * (0.84)
Notes: * p , 0:001; coefficient alpha representing scale reliabilities are in parentheses
Table I.Descriptive statistics and
correlations
Perceptions ofjustice
445
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
(b ¼ 0:07, p , 0:08). We did find internal work locus of control to be associated withperceptions of procedural justice (b ¼ 0:28, p , 0:001), and interactional justice(b ¼ 0:25, p , 0:001). The adjusted R-squared value for procedural justice was 0.09,and for interactional justice was 0.07. H2 states that there will be a positiverelationship between work locus of control and perceived organizational support; theresults shown in Table III support this hypothesis (b ¼ 0:47, p , 0:001), aftercontrolling for sex, age and job type.
H3 states there is a significant mediating effect of perceived organizational supporton the relationship between work locus of control and perceptions of procedural andinteractional justice. These hypotheses were tested in three steps, as proposed byBaron and Kenney (1986). Step one is to show that the initial variable (work locus ofcontrol) is correlated with the outcome variable (procedural justice and interactionaljustice). Step one is the same as H1, and regression results shown in Table II indicateda significant positive relationship between work locus of control and perceptions of
Procedural justice Interactional justiceH1a H1b
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Control variablesGender 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03Age 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04Job type 0.11 * 0.10 * 0.08 0.07
Independent variableWork locus of control 0.28 * * 0.25 * *
R 2 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.08Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.07Change in R 2 0.08 0.065F 4.02 * 15.97 * * 2.13 11.51 * *
Notes: * p , 0:01; * * p , 0:001Table II.Results of H1
Organizational supportModel 1 Model 2
Control variablesGender 0.05 0.04Age 0.06 0.03Job type 0.08 * 0.08 *
Independent variableWork locus of control 0.47 * *
R 2 0.01 0.23Adjusted R 2 0.01 0.23Change in R 2 0.22F 2.63 * 45.46 * *
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:001Table III.Results of H2
JMP21,5
446
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
both procedural justice and interactional justice; thus, the requirements of step onehave been met.
The second step is to see if work locus of control is correlated with perceivedorganizational support. Step two is the same as H2, and regression results shown inTable III indicated a significant positive relationship between these two variables. Stepthree is to show that the mediator (perceived organizational support) affectsperceptions of procedural and interactional justice. This step was tested usingregression analysis with procedural and interactional justice as the dependentvariables and work locus of control and perceived organizational support as thepredictors. The results of this step shown in Table IV indicated that there is asignificant independent effect of perceived organizational support on perceptions ofjustice (b ¼ 0:52, p , 0:001 for procedural justice and b ¼ 0:51, p , 0:001 for
Step Independent Variable Beta Adj R 2 Change R 2 F
Dependent: procedural justice (H3a)Step 1 Work locus of control 0.28 * 0.09 15.97 *
Step 2 Independent variable – work locus of control 0.47 * 0.23 45.46 *
Dependent variable – perceived organizationalsupport
Step 3 Work locus of control 0.04Perceived organizational support 0.52 * 0.31 0.22 51.12 *
Dependent: interactional justice (H3b)Step 1 Work locus of control 0.25 * 0.07 11.51 *
Step 2 Independent variable – work locus of control 0.47 * 0.23 45.46 *
Dependent variable – perceived organizationalsupport
Step 3 Work locus of control 0.02Perceived organizational support 0.51 * 0.27 0.20 41.01 *
Notes: * p , 0:001; mediation test for a) work locus of control – perceived org. support - proceduraljustice; b) work locus of control – perceived org. support – interactional justice
Table IV.Results of H3
Organizational trustModel 1 Model 2
Control variablesGender 0.04 0.03Age 0.09 * 0.07Job type 0.03 0.02
Independent variableWork locus of control 0.01 0.43 * *
R 2 0.01 0.19Adjusted R 2 0.19Change in R 2 2.36 0.18F 0.01 36.64 * *
Note: * p , 0:005; * * p , 0:001Table V.
Results of H4
Perceptions ofjustice
447
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
interactional justice) and that the effects of work locus of control on justice perceptionscontrolling for perceived organizational support are zero (b ¼ 0:04, p , 0:32 forprocedural justice and b ¼ 0:02, p , 0:60 for interactional justice). Thus, according tothe procedure suggested by Baron and Kenney to test for mediation, perceivedorganizational support completely mediates the relationship between work locus ofcontrol and procedural justice and completely mediates the relationship between worklocus of control and interactional justice. In addition, the control variables had noimpact individually on the results, except a marginal impact on the R-square value.
H4 states that there will be a positive relationship between internal work locus ofcontrol and perceptions of organizational trust. The results shown in Table V supportthis hypothesis (b ¼ 0:43, p , 0:001), and the control variables had no individual effecton the relationship. H5 states that as organizational trust increases, perceptions of
Procedural justice Interactional justiceH5a H5b
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Control variablesGender 0.02 20.01 0.04 0.01Age 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.02Job type 0.10 * 0.09 * 0.07 0.06
Independent variableOrganizational trust
0.46 * * 0.49 * *
R 2 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.24Adjusted R 2 0.02 0.23 0.01 0.24Change in R 2 0.21 0.23F 4.11 * 43.41 * * 1.86 44.61 * *
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:001Table VI.Results of H5
Step Independent variable Beta Adj R 2 Change R 2 F
Dependent: procedural justice (H6a)Step 1 Work locus of control 0.28 * * 0.09 15.97 * *
Step 2 Independent variable – locus of control 0.43 * * 0.19 36.64 * *
Dependent variable – trustStep 3 Work locus of control 0.11 *
Trust 0.41 * * 0.23 0.14 36.53 * *
Dependent: interactional justice (H6b)Step 1 Work locus of control 0.25 * * 0.07 11.51 * *
Step 2 Independent variable – locus of control 0.43 * * 0.19 36.64 * *
Dependent variable – trustStep 3 Work locus of control 0.06
Trust 0.46 * * 0.24 0.17 36.25 * *
Notes: * p , 0:01; * * p , 0:001; mediation effects for a) work locus of control - trust – proceduraljustice (H6a); b) work locus of control – trust – interactional justice (H6b)
Table VII.Results of H6
JMP21,5
448
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
procedural and interactional justice will increase. The results in Table VI indicate thatthis relationship is supported (b ¼ 0:46, p , 0:001 for procedural justice and b ¼ 0:49,p , 0:001 for interactional justice), after controlling for sex, age, and job type.
H6 states there is a significant mediating effect of trust on the relationship betweenwork locus of control and perceptions of procedural and interactional justice. The samethree-step procedure outlined by Baron and Kenney (1986) was used in this second test.Step one is the same as H1, with the results shown in Table II. Step two is the same asH4, with the results shown in Table V. Step three results are shown in Table VII. Theeffects of work locus of control on justice perceptions controlling for organizationaltrust are zero for interactional justice (b ¼ 0:06, p , 0:13), but not for proceduraljustice (b ¼ 0:11, p , 0:01), indicating that organizational trust fully mediates therelationship between work locus of control and interactional justice, but only partiallymediates the relationship between work locus of control and procedural justice.
Structural equation modelingIn addition to regression analysis, we tested the hypotheses using structural equationmodeling with AMOS 6.0. This allowed us to test all the relationships simultaneously,to account for measurement error, and to use an alternative means for testingmediation. We tested both the measurement model and the structural model. Meansubstitution was used as most items had less than 10 percent missing data, asrecommended by Donner (1982). In addition to the chi-square test, we used additionalmeasures of fit such as the goodness of fit index (GFI) (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1986), thenormed fit index (NFI (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980)), comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler,1990), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). To test our mediationhypotheses, we used two models, the theoretical model, which was the full mediationmodel, and the saturated model, which was the partial mediation model that containedthe additional paths between work locus of control and procedural and interactionaljustice.
Measurement and structural modelA two-step analysis was done: the confirmatory factor analysis and the structuralmodel. The confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the factor structure ofour measures, all of which were drawn from preexisting scales. The chi square for theconfirmatory factor analysis was significant at 1,063.5 (df, 340, p , 0:00). Estimationof the CFA model generated good fit statistics (CFI ¼ 0:95; GFI ¼ 0:90; NFI ¼ 0:93;TLI ¼ 0:94; RMSEA ¼ 0:054). As such we can conclude that our questionnaire itemsdid load on the predetermined theoretically-derived factors.
In the next step we tested the structural model, contained in Figure 1 (but notincluding the dotted line relationships). We allowed the two justice measures to becorrelated since the justice measures are theoretically similar but still considered to betwo distinct concepts (Bies, 2001). We also allowed trust and support to be correlatedbecause although they are also considered to be distinct constructs, they were highlycorrelated with each other at 0.81. A chi square test of model fit was significant at1063.8 (df, 342, p , 0:00). Since the chi-square tends to be unreliable, we usedadditional indicators of fit. The other fit indices suggested good model fit GFI ¼ 0:90;NFI ¼ 0:93; TLI ¼ 0:94, CFI ¼ 0:95, RMSEA ¼ 0:056.
Perceptions ofjustice
449
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Parameter estimates are contained in Table VIII. Examination of the parameterestimates indicated that all paths except one were significant as shown by the criticalratios and p values in Table VIII, and the standardized parameter estimates in Figure 2.H2 and H4 were supported implying that as internal work locus of control increases,there is an increase in perceived organizational support as well as perceptions oforganizational trust. H5a, which hypothesized a positive relationship between trustand procedural justice was not supported, but H5b, which stated that there would be apositive relationship between trust and interactional justice was supported. Anexamination of the squared multiple correlations indicated that the percent of varianceexplained by the predictors was as follows: 0.32 of the variance in social support, 0.25of the variance in trust, 0.24 of the variance in interactional justice and 0.29 of thevariance in procedural justice.
MediationTo assess the mediating impact of trust and support on the relationship between worklocus of control and procedural and interactional justice, we evaluated two models.
Figure 2.Model 1: full mediationstructural model
Independent variable Dependent variable Estimatea SE CR p
Work locus of control Trust 1.52 * * 0.19 8.09 0.00Work locus of control Perceived organizational support 1.45 * * 0.17 8.48 0.00Trust Procedural justice 20.13 0.11 21.22 0.22Trust Interactional justice 0.20 * 0.07 2.81 0.00Social support Procedural justice 1.02 * * 0.13 7.78 0.00Social support Interactional justice 0.35 * * 0.0 4.01 0.00
Notes: a Unstandardized parameter estimates; * p , 0:01; * * p , 0:001
Table VIII.Parameter estimates withstandard errors (SE);critical ratios (CR) and pvalues
JMP21,5
450
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Model 1, contained in Figure 2, is the fully mediated model that hypothesizes that worklocus of control only influences perceptions of justice through the intervening effects oftrust and support. Model 2, contained in Figure 3, is a partially mediated model thathypothesizes that work locus of control influences perceptions of justice both indirectly(through trust and social support) and directly. Model 2 is identical to Model 1 exceptfor the two paths that have been added between work locus of control and proceduraljustice and between work locus of control and interactional justice. The goodness-of-fitindex for Model 1, the full mediation model as mentioned earlier was 0.90(x 2 ¼ 1; 063:5(df ¼ 342; NFI ¼ 0:93; TLI ¼ 0:94, CFI ¼ 0:95, RMSEA ¼ 0:056). An examination ofthe standardized parameter estimates (see Figure 2) shows that H3a and H3b aresupported, indicating that perceived organizational support fully mediates therelationship between work locus of control and justice. This is evident by thesignificant paths between work locus of control and support and between support andprocedural justice. We also find that trust fully mediates the relationship between worklocus of control and interactional justice, thereby lending support for H6a. We did nothowever find support for H6b.
Next, we tested Model 2 (see Figure 3), the saturated model, and found the GFI to be0.90 (NFI ¼ 0:93, CFI ¼ 0:95; TLI ¼ 0:94; RMSEA ¼ 0:056). Examination of theindices suggests that this model is a good fit for the data as well. However, we foundthat in Model 2, the direct path between work locus of control and procedural justice(Critical ratio ¼ 20:53, p ¼ 0:60) and between work locus of control and interactionaljustice (Critical ratio ¼ 0:07, p ¼ 0:94) was not statistically significant. In addition, thechange in x 2 between Model 1 and Model 2 was only 0.34 (df ¼ 2); and this change wasnot statistically significant. Thus we can conclude that there is greater support for thefully mediated model in which trust and support mediate the relationship betweenwork locus of control and perceptions of justice.
Figure 3.Model 2: partial mediation
structural model
Perceptions ofjustice
451
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
DiscussionWhen employees do not get what they want, keeping them from reacting in a negative,destructive manner can be a full-time job for managers. Justice studies have done anexcellent job of identifying how procedures, outcomes, and interpersonal treatment canencourage employees to accept unfavorable work decisions without resorting to someof the more negative behaviors often associated with the disappointment of getting anegative outcome. However, it seems that no matter how fair an organization is inmaking decisions, it is likely that there will always be a small minority that simplydoes not respond the way we expect. The 80/20 rule (or the Pareto Principle), suggeststhat 80 percent of employee-related problems may be caused by 20 percent of theemployees. Thus, finding the factors that cause the minority to respond inunacceptable ways may help managers cope more effectively with problems.
H1 results showed that the personality trait of work locus of control had asignificant impact on perceptions of both interactional and procedural justice. Usingpersonality as an antecedent of justice is a new concept in the justice literature, but onethat may help explain why the perception of justice may differ from one person toanother. Individual personality characteristics influence the way one interacts with hisor her environment, and certainly affect the way individuals perform their jobs (Tettet al., 1991). It seems logical, then, to suggest that individual personality characteristicswill play a role in the development of an individual’s perceptions of justice. Learningwhich personality traits are correlated with justice perceptions may help managers hirethe appropriate employees in the beginning or at least learn ways to deal with thepersonality traits which are less conducive to positive justice beliefs.
The results of H2 and H4 showed a significant positive relationship between worklocus of control and perceptions of trust and support. The effect of locus of control onwork effectiveness has been studied extensively, with researchers finding thatindividuals with a high internal locus of control were more likely to take risks (Milleret al., 1982), were more satisfied with their jobs (Andrisani and Nestel, 1976), engagedin more careful career planning (Thornton, 1978), and performed better on jobsrequiring initiative and innovation (Blau, 1993). When people believe they control whathappens to them at work, they are more positive in general about their work situation,which may translate into higher perceptions of trust and support. However, individualswith an external locus of control tend to do better on routine assignments with directsupervision (Blau, 1993; Spector, 1982), so hiring internals into the wrong job maycreate negative perceptions of trust and support.
H3 and H6 looked at the mediating effects of organizational trust and perceivedorganizational support on the relationship between work locus of control andperceptions of justice. Perceived organizational support fully mediated the relationshipfor both procedural and interactional justice, but trust did not. Organizational trustonly partially mediated the relationship between work locus of control and proceduraljustice, but fully mediated the relationship between work locus of control andinteractional justice. The difference is due perhaps to the fact that procedural justice isconcerned primarily with the mechanics of decision making while interactional justiceis concerned primarily with the interpersonal treatment one receives during thedecision-making process and implementation. If trust is linked to identification withthe group and with authority figures in that group (Tyler and Degoey, 1996), then theinterpersonal treatment given by authority figures in the form of interactional justice
JMP21,5
452
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
perceptions will have a stronger relationship to trust than will the structural processesby which decisions are made.
Job type was the only control variable that had an independent effect on perceptionsof procedural justice and perceived organizational support, albeit very small effects. Apost hoc analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that subjects who were managers orexecutives had higher perceptions of procedural justice and organizational supportthan subjects who were employees or professionals. It seems likely that subjects whoare in decision-making positions, such as managers and executives, would rate thesevariables higher since they are likely involved in developing the procedures to be usedin the organization.
Limitations of studyThere are several limitations of this study that should be addressed. The sample of thisstudy, although representing a wide range of industries, jobs, and ages of the workingpopulation, is a self-selected sample located primarily in the southwest. The results donot represent workers in areas in which widespread economic problems are prevalent.This same survey administered in the rust belt states might reflect very differentresults due to sustained problems of unemployment, which may cause individuals toassume a more external locus of control over their work situation.
Another limitation involves common method variance. There were no independentmeasures of any of the variables. To counteract this limitation, the survey wasdesigned in such a way as to minimize the ability of subjects to guess what the studywas about. Subjects were told only that the study was about work attitudes and wereasked to report their honest opinions of their work situation. Of course, all subjectswere guaranteed confidentiality of their responses. In addition, results from theconfirmatory factor analysis lend validity to our measures and mitigate the effect of thecommon method variance.
The theories used to support the hypotheses, primarily the group value model ofjustice and the relational model of authority, are well-grounded; however, bringingpersonality theories into the mix causes some of the predictions of the original theoriesto change, especially with regard to trust and support as antecedents to justice. We donot offer a comprehensive theory that takes these changes into account, and proposethat future research could more fully examine these relationships. However, we dobelieve that personality should be considered in determining antecedents of justice andhope that this paper serves as a starting point for helping to explain why someindividuals do not respond positively to conscious efforts by organizations to increaseprocedural fairness.
Research has shown that internal locus of control is associated with positivewellbeing, both on and off the job, in many different cultures (Spector et al., 2002).Because of the extensive literature on locus of control as a personality characteristicand its relationship to a number of work-related outcomes, this study focused on thelink between personality and perceptions of justice in the workplace, using work locusof control as the personality trait of interest. However, further research is needed todetermine which additional variables need to be included in the model, and specificpersonality variables related to work issues, such as need for achievement or need forpower, might be useful in fleshing out the relationship between personality and justiceperceptions.
Perceptions ofjustice
453
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
ConclusionThe results in this study indicate that work locus of control, a personality trait, acts asan antecedent to perceptions of organizational trust, perceived organizational support,and justice. This finding is a natural extension of the idea that justice needs to beunderstood and interpreted in the context of the situation being studied. Severalorganizations today require applicants to take personality tests as part of theapplication process before granting an interview, hoping to eliminate individuals withpersonalities that will not fit the position or the culture (American ManagementAssociation, 2000). Although applicants may not always approve of personality testing(Ambrose and Rosse, 2003), the results of this study suggest that hiring individualswith an internal locus of control may help an organization to limit negative perceptionsat work such as mistrust and injustice that can lead to negative employee behaviors.Bies and Tripp (1996) found in anecdotal data that trust violations lead individuals toseek revenge, which can include working less, publicly embarrassing the perpetrator,or even violence. Thus, it seems prudent to study those personality traits that mayaffect perceptions of justice in the workplace.
Personality traits are fairly stable over time for most individuals, but it is importantto remember that individuals have a variety of personality characteristics. Excessiveattention to only one personality characteristic can be very misleading in predictinghow an individual will behave in a given situation. The purpose of this study was notto predict individual beliefs based on personality type, but rather to try and bringabout a greater understanding of why some people may have different perceptions oforganizational justice. One of the strengths of this study is that respondentsrepresented 15 different industries and dozens of different organizations to make theresults generalizable to a large piece of the working population. What we found showsthat justice studies should probably take into account the role that personality plays asa precursor to other beliefs about organizations. In addition, we found that variablessuch as organizational trust and organizational support may be antecedents to justiceperceptions as well. The justice literature clearly shows that justice perceptions havean impact on employee behavior at work (see Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) for areview of several studies), and finding antecedents to these perceptions may helpmanagers improve the way they communicate about decision making at work.
The exact role that organizational trust and perceived organizational support playin perceptions of justice is not completely answered by this paper. We hypothesizedand found that these two variables acted as antecedents to justice, but many previousstudies found that justice preceded perceptions of trust and support (for trust seeAmbrose and Schminke (2003); Kernan and Hanges (2002); Sidle (2003); for support seeMasterson et al. (2000); Moorman et al. (1998)). Theoretical arguments can be made fora reciprocal relationship between the variables in that trust and support are affected byjustice judgments, even though perceptions of trust and support often precede anyspecific incidents that would require an individual to make a justice judgment. Someresearchers have even suggested that propensity to trust is a personality trait(Worchel, 1979), indicating that perceptions of trust form the basis on whichsucceeding justice judgments are made. We cannot state the exact causal relationshipbetween justice and trust or between justice and support, and did not intend this paperto determine this exact relationship. This paper does, however, respond to the call for
JMP21,5
454
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
interpreting justice in the context of the situation by introducing personality as animportant component that should not be ignored.
References
Ambrose, M.L. and Rosse, J.G. (2003), “Procedural justice and personality testing: an examinationof concern and typicality”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 502-26.
Ambrose, M.L. and Schminke, M. (2003), “Organization structure as a moderator of therelationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizationalsupport, and supervisory trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 295-305.
American Management Association (2000), 2000 AMA Survey on Workplace Testing, AmericanManagement Association, New York, NY.
Andrisani, P.J. and Nestel, G. (1976), “Internal-external control as contributor to and outcome ofwork experience”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 156-65.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. and Bradfield, M. (1999), “Justice constructs, negative affectivity, andemployee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1073-91.
Baron, R.M. and Kenney, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W. and Callister, R.R. (1998), “Organizational socialization: a review anddirections for future research”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,Vol. 16, pp. 149-214.
Beman, D.R. and Sharkey, T.W. (1987), “The use and abuse of corporate politics”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 30, pp. 26-30.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indices in structural equations”, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Bies, R.J. (2001), “Interactional (in)justice: the sacred and the profane”, in Greenberg, J. andCropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA, pp. 89-118.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, inLewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazeman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation inOrganizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55).
Bies, R.J. and Tripp, T.M. (1996), “Beyond distrust: getting even and the need for revenge”, inKramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage Publications, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 246-60.
Blau, G. (1993), “Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance dimensions”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 125-38.
Brockner, J. and Siegel, P. (1996), “Understanding the interaction between procedural anddistributive justice”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 390-413.
Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), “An integrative framework for explaining reactions todecisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120,pp. 189-208.
Perceptions ofjustice
455
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Chiu, C., Lin, C., Tsai, Y. and Hsiao, C. (2005), “Modeling turnover intentions and theirantecedents using the locus of control as a moderator: a case of customer serviceemployees”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 181-99.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of ameasure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), “The organizational trust inventory (OTI): developmentand validation”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-30.
Davis, W.D. and Davis, D.E. (1972), “Internal-external control and attribution of responsibility forsuccess and failure”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 123-36.
Donner, A. (1982), “The relative effectiveness of procedures commonly used in multipleregression analysis for dealing with missing values”, American Statistician, Vol. 36,pp. 378-81.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizationalsupport”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 500-7.
Elovainio, M., Kivimake, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M. and Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2003),“Personality as a moderator in the relations between perceptions of organizational justiceand sickness absence”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 379-95.
Forte, A. (2005), “Locus of control and the moral reasoning of managers”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 58 Nos 1-3, pp. 65-77.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes oforganizational justice”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: ApproachingFairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,pp. 79-103.
Greenberg, J. (2001), “The seven loose can(n)ons of organizational justice”, in Greenberg, J. andCropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA, pp. 245-71.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1986), LISREL IV: analysis of Linear Structural Relationships byMaximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables and Least Squares Methods, 4th ed.,Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2002), “Are measures of self-esteem,neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common coreconstruct?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 693-710.
Kernan, M.C. and Hanges, P.J. (2002), “Survivor reactions to reorganization: antecedents andconsequences of procedural, interpersonal and informational justice”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 916-29.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”,in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 114-39.
Lewin, K. (1951), “Formalization and progress in psychology”, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), FieldTheory in Social Science, Harper, New York, NY.
Lind, A.E. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press,New York, NY.
JMP21,5
456
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
McClelland, D.C. (1985), Human Motivation, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors ofsatisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 35, pp. 626-37.
Martocchio, J.J. and Judge, T.A. (1995), “When we don’t see eye to eye: discrepancies betweensupervisors and subordinates in absence disciplinary decisions”, Journal of Management,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 251-78.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and socialexchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.
Miller, D., Kets deVries, M. and Toulouse, J.M. (1982), “Top executive locus of control and itsrelationship to strategy making, structure, and environment”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 25, pp. 237-53.
Mischel, W. (1977), “The interaction of person and situation”, in Magnusson, D. and Endler, N.S.(Eds), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational supportmediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenshipbehavior?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 351-7.
Noor, N.M. (2002), “Work-family conflict, locus of control and women’s well-being: tests ofalternative pathways”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 142 No. 5, pp. 645-62.
Robbins, T.L., Summers, T.P., Miller, J.L. and Hendrix, W.H. (2000), “Using the group valuemodel to explain the role of noninstrumental justice in distinguishing effects ofdistributive and procedural justice”, Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 511-8.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control ofreinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, No. 80.
Sidle, S.D. (2003), “Best laid plans: establishing fairness early can help smooth organizationalchange”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, pp. 127-8.
Spector, P.E. (1982), “Behavior in organizations as a function of employees’ locus of control”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 482-97.
Spector, P.E. (1988), “Development of the work locus of control scale”, Journal of OccupationalPsychology, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 335-40.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Sanchez, J.I., O’Driscoll;, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Bussing, A., Dewe,P., Hart, P., Luo, L., Miller, K., de Moraes, L., Renault, L., Ostrognay, G.M., Pagon, M.,Pitariu, H.D., Poelmans, S.A.Y., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V. andSalgado, J.F. (2002), “Locus of control and well-being at work: how generalizable areWestern findings?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 453-66.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1993), “Workers’ evaluations of the ‘ends’ and the ‘means’: anexamination of four models of distributive and procedural justice”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, pp. 23-40.
Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M. (1991), “Personality measures as predictors of jobperformance: a meta-analytic review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 703-42.
Thornton, G.C. (1978), “Differential effects of career planning on internals and externals”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 471-6.
Perceptions ofjustice
457
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Tyler, T.R. (1989), “The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 830-8.
Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996), “Trust in organizational authorities: the influence of motiveattributions on willingness to accept decisions”, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds),Trust in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 331-56.
Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P. and Smith, H. (1996), “Understanding why the justice of group proceduresmatters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 913-30.
Worchel, P. (1979), “Trust and distrust”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), The SocialPsychology of Intergroup Relations, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Corresponding authorMeghna Virick can be contacted at: [email protected]
JMP21,5
458
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Heather L. Scheuerman, Shelley Keith Matthews. 2014. The Importance of Perceptions in RestorativeJustice Conferences: The Influence of Offender Personality Traits on Procedural Justice and Shaming.Justice Quarterly 31, 852-881. [CrossRef]
2. Erik C. Naimon, Morell E. Mullins, Katerine Osatuke. 2013. The effects of personality and spiritualityon workplace incivility perceptions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 10, 91-110. [CrossRef]
3. David M. Wasieleski, William E. Spangler, Mordechai Gal-Or. 2012. Facilitating Consumer Acceptanceof RFID and Related Ubiquitous Technologies. International Journal of Applied Logistics 1:10.4018/ijal.20100101, 16-27. [CrossRef]
4. Benjamin E. Baran, Linda Rhoades Shanock, Lindsay R. Miller. 2012. Advancing Organizational SupportTheory into the Twenty-First Century World of Work. Journal of Business and Psychology 27, 123-147.[CrossRef]
5. Roy K. SmollanChapter 6 Emotional Responses to the Injustice of Organizational Change: A QualitativeStudy 175-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. Alice H.Y. Hon, Jixia Yang, Lin Lu. 2011. A cross‐level study of procedural justice perceptions. Journalof Managerial Psychology 26:8, 700-715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Mark M. Suazo, William H. Turnley. 2010. Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationsbetween individual differences and psychological contract breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25:6,620-648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Roy K. Smollan, Jonathan A. Matheny, Janet G. SayersChapter 4 Personality, affect, and organizationalchange: a qualitative study 85-112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
9. Edward A. Duplaga, Marzie Astani. 2010. An Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions ofWhich Classroom Policies Are Fairest. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 8:10.1111/dsji.2010.8.issue-1, 9-33. [CrossRef]
10. Rick R.J. Tallman, Nealia S. Bruning. 2008. Relating employees' psychological contracts to theirpersonality. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23:6, 688-712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. David M. Wasieleski, Mordechai Gal-Or. 2008. An enquiry into the ethical efficacy of the use of radiofrequency identification technology. Ethics and Information Technology 10, 27-40. [CrossRef]
12. Adrian Furnham. 2007. Managerial psychology: state‐of‐the‐art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:6,610-621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Wayne A. Hochwarter, James A. Meurs, Pamela L. Perrewé, M. Todd Royle, Timothy A. Matherly.2007. The interactive effect of attention control and the perceptions of others' entitlement behavior onjob and health outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:5, 506-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. David M. Wasieleski, William E. Spangler, Mordechai Gal-OrFacilitating Consumer Acceptance of RFIDand Related Ubiquitous Technologies 16-27. [CrossRef]
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 1
2:26
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)