The Experts below are selected from a list of 10692 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David De Cremer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pinpointing the role of the self in Procedural Fairness
Self and Identity, 2020Co-Authors: Claire M Hart, Constantine Sedikides, David De CremerAbstract:What is the role of the self in explaining the links between Procedural Fairness and organizational experience? In three experiments, we examined four self-related mechanisms: respect, certainty, s...
-
trust in decision making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome Fairness and Procedural Fairness
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015Co-Authors: Emily C Bianchi, Joel Brockner, Kees Van Den Bos, Marius Van Dijke, Matthias Seifert, Henry Moon, David De CremerAbstract:Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and Procedural Fairness. Moreover, outcome and Procedural Fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of “process/outcome” interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the “low-low” interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the “high-high” interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the “low-low” interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the “high-high” interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people’s experience of outcome and Procedural Fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.
-
when leaders choose to be fair follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders adherence to Procedural Fairness rules
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Ilse Cornelis, David De Cremer, Alain Van Hiel, David M MayerAbstract:Abstract Previous studies on Procedural Fairness have largely neglected to examine factors that influence leaders' enactment of Fairness. Two controlled laboratory experiments and a field study with leaders working within organizations investigated the combined impact of follower belongingness needs and leader empathy. It was revealed that leaders are more apt to enact fair procedures when followers' belongingness needs are high rather than low. This effect was further moderated by leader empathy, such that highly empathic leaders, either because of individual differences or through situational induction, take followers' belongingness needs more into account. The relevance of these findings for Procedural rule adherence and violation as a dependent variable and empathic leadership is discussed.
-
when does Procedural Fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2012Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, David De Cremer, David M Mayer, Niels Van QuaquebekeAbstract:Abstract We examined how Procedural Fairness interacts with empowering leadership to promote employee OCB. We focused on two core empowering leadership types— encouraging self-development and encouraging independent action . An experiment revealed that leaders encouraging self-development made employees desire status information more (i.e., information regarding one’s value to the organization). Conversely, leaders encouraging independent action decreased employees’ desire for this type of information. Subsequently, a multisource field study (with a US and German sample) showed that encouraging self-development strengthened the relationship between Procedural Fairness and employee OCB, and this relationship was mediated by employees’ self-perceived status. Conversely, encouraging independent action weakened the Procedural Fairness-OCB relationship, as mediated by self-perceived status. This research integrates empowering leadership styles into relational Fairness theories, highlighting that multiple leader behaviors should be examined in concert and that empowering leadership can have unintended consequences.
-
the effect of followers belongingness needs on leaders Procedural Fairness enactment mediation through interpersonal and team attraction
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2012Co-Authors: Ilse Cornelis, David De Cremer, Alain Van HielAbstract:An important component of ethical leadership entails leaders' enactment of Procedural Fairness. The present two studies examined the role of followers' relational motives as antecedents of leaders' adherence to Procedural Fairness rules and explored the mediating role of attraction. In an experimental study, we demonstrated that followers' belongingness needs influenced leaders' inclination to grant them voice. This finding was corroborated in a multisource field study of organizational supervisors. Furthermore, these two studies demonstrated that the effect of followers' belongingness needs on the enactment of fair procedures was mediated through a process of interpersonal and group attraction. We discuss the relevance of these findings for theories of Procedural rule adherence as a dependent variable and for the literature on ethical leadership.
Joel Brockner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
in self defense reappraisal buffers the negative impact of low Procedural Fairness on performance
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2020Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Joel BrocknerAbstract:Contrary to an often-found result in the organizational justice literature, we suggest that there may be circumstances under which organization members will not perform poorly in response to being on the receiving end of low Procedural Fairness. To explain the theoretical mechanism, we integrate the group engagement model of justice with the emotion regulation perspective. Specifically, we argue that the detrimental effect of lower Procedural Fairness on performance is attenuated when individuals engage in reappraisal. Moreover, this is the case because reappraisal makes lower Procedural Fairness less likely to undermine self-perceived standing in the organization. Three experiments and a multisource survey among employees reveal support for these predictions. This research contributes to the organizational justice literature by showing that reappraisal can help maintain performance when people have experienced low Procedural Fairness, extending the typical finding that low Procedural Fairness undermines performance. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
-
what influences managers Procedural Fairness towards their subordinates the role of subordinates trustworthiness
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2015Co-Authors: Guozhen Zhao, Yaru Chen, Joel BrocknerAbstract:Abstract Four studies examined when and why the trustworthiness of subordinates influenced their managers' Procedural Fairness towards them. Subordinates seen as having more benevolence trustworthiness elicited greater Procedural Fairness from their managers, whereas subordinates seen as having less integrity trustworthiness elicited greater Procedural Fairness. Moreover, the positive (negative) relationship between subordinates' benevolence (integrity) trustworthiness and managers' Procedural Fairness was more pronounced when subordinates were perceived as higher in ability trustworthiness. Additional moderating and mediating findings suggest that managers' tendencies to show high Procedural Fairness towards their subordinates reflect two different underlying motivations: (1) to help managers maintain or cultivate good working relationships with their subordinates, and (2) to maintain control over their subordinates, that is, to make it less likely for subordinates to behave in ways that disrupt managers from attaining their goals. Implications for the organizational justice and trust literatures are discussed.
-
trust in decision making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome Fairness and Procedural Fairness
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015Co-Authors: Emily C Bianchi, Joel Brockner, Kees Van Den Bos, Marius Van Dijke, Matthias Seifert, Henry Moon, David De CremerAbstract:Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and Procedural Fairness. Moreover, outcome and Procedural Fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of “process/outcome” interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the “low-low” interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the “high-high” interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the “low-low” interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the “high-high” interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people’s experience of outcome and Procedural Fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.
-
hedging your bets uncertainty about continued success reduces people s desire for high Procedural Fairness
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Joel Brockner, Phyllis A Siegel, Batia M Wiesenfeld, Shu ZhangAbstract:A central tenet of organizational justice theory is that people prefer decisions to be made with higher than with lower Procedural Fairness. The results of five studies unearthed a boundary condition for this general tendency. People who experienced non-contingent success had less of a desire to be treated with higher Procedural Fairness relative to their counterparts who experienced contingent success. Furthermore, four of the five studies examined moderating influences on the relationship between success contingency and Fairness preferences and found, as predicted, that the relationship was stronger when people were more motivated to protect against threats to the self.
-
when do Procedural Fairness and outcome Fairness interact to influence employees work attitudes and behaviors the moderating effect of uncertainty
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: David De Cremer, Joel Brockner, Ariel Y Fishman, Marius Van Dijke, Woody Van Olffen, David M MayerAbstract:Prior research has shown that Procedural Fairness interacts with outcome Fairness to influence employees' work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees' tendencies to respond more positively to higher Procedural Fairness are stronger when outcome Fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people's uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between Procedural Fairness and outcome Fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers' reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries.
Kees Van Den Bos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
trust in decision making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome Fairness and Procedural Fairness
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015Co-Authors: Emily C Bianchi, Joel Brockner, Kees Van Den Bos, Marius Van Dijke, Matthias Seifert, Henry Moon, David De CremerAbstract:Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and Procedural Fairness. Moreover, outcome and Procedural Fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of “process/outcome” interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the “low-low” interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the “high-high” interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the “low-low” interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the “high-high” interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people’s experience of outcome and Procedural Fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.
-
the influence of interdependent self construal on Procedural Fairness effects
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005Co-Authors: Joel Brockner, David De Cremer, Kees Van Den Bos, Yaru ChenAbstract:Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of Procedural Fairness on people’s attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people’s reactions to Procedural Fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between Procedural Fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), Procedural Fairness had more of an influence on participants’ reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed.
-
high Procedural Fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self evaluations an attributional analysis
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2003Co-Authors: Joel Brockner, Kees Van Den Bos, Riel Vermunt, Larry Heuer, Nace R Magner, Robert Folger, Elizabeth E Umphress, Mary Magner, Phyllis A SiegelAbstract:Abstract Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and Procedural Fairness often interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when Procedural Fairness is low, high Procedural Fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on people’s use of Procedural Fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
-
Procedural justice and status status salience as antecedent of Procedural Fairness effects
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002Co-Authors: Janwillem Van Prooijen, Kees Van Den Bos, Henk A M WilkeAbstract:The current article explores status as an antecedent of Procedural Fairness effects (the findings that perceived Procedural Fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to Procedural Fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger Procedural Fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger Procedural Fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of Fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of Procedural justice are discussed.
-
uncertainty management the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived Procedural Fairness
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001Co-Authors: Kees Van Den BosAbstract:On the basis of Fairness heuristic theory, it is argued in this article that people especially need Fairness when they are reminded about aspects of their lives that make them uncertain. It is therefore proposed that thinking about uncertainty should make Fairness a more important issue to people. The findings of 3 experiments support this line of reasoning: Asking (vs. not asking) participants 2 questions that solicited their thoughts and feelings of being uncertain led to stronger effects of perceived Procedural Fairness on participants' affective reactions toward the way they were treated. It is argued that these findings suggest that Fairness matters to people especially when they are trying to deal with things that make them uncertain. An implication of the current findings therefore may be that Fairness is important to people because it gives them an opportunity to manage uncertain aspects of their lives.
Marius Van Dijke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
in self defense reappraisal buffers the negative impact of low Procedural Fairness on performance
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2020Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Joel BrocknerAbstract:Contrary to an often-found result in the organizational justice literature, we suggest that there may be circumstances under which organization members will not perform poorly in response to being on the receiving end of low Procedural Fairness. To explain the theoretical mechanism, we integrate the group engagement model of justice with the emotion regulation perspective. Specifically, we argue that the detrimental effect of lower Procedural Fairness on performance is attenuated when individuals engage in reappraisal. Moreover, this is the case because reappraisal makes lower Procedural Fairness less likely to undermine self-perceived standing in the organization. Three experiments and a multisource survey among employees reveal support for these predictions. This research contributes to the organizational justice literature by showing that reappraisal can help maintain performance when people have experienced low Procedural Fairness, extending the typical finding that low Procedural Fairness undermines performance. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
-
trust in decision making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome Fairness and Procedural Fairness
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015Co-Authors: Emily C Bianchi, Joel Brockner, Kees Van Den Bos, Marius Van Dijke, Matthias Seifert, Henry Moon, David De CremerAbstract:Reactions to decisions are shaped by both outcome and Procedural Fairness. Moreover, outcome and Procedural Fairness interact to influence beliefs and behaviors. However, different types of “process/outcome” interaction effects have emerged. Many studies have shown that people react particularly negatively when they receive unfair or unfavorable outcomes accompanied by unfair procedures (the “low-low” interactive pattern). However, others find that people react especially positively when they receive fair or favorable outcomes accompanied by fair procedures (the “high-high” interactive pattern). We propose that trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the process/outcome interaction. Across three studies, when trust was high, the “low-low” interactive pattern emerged. When trust was low, the “high-high” interactive pattern emerged. The findings suggest that when people’s experience of outcome and Procedural Fairness diverged from how they expected to be treated, they reacted in the direction of their experiences; otherwise, their reactions were consistent with their expectations.
-
when does Procedural Fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2012Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, David De Cremer, David M Mayer, Niels Van QuaquebekeAbstract:Abstract We examined how Procedural Fairness interacts with empowering leadership to promote employee OCB. We focused on two core empowering leadership types— encouraging self-development and encouraging independent action . An experiment revealed that leaders encouraging self-development made employees desire status information more (i.e., information regarding one’s value to the organization). Conversely, leaders encouraging independent action decreased employees’ desire for this type of information. Subsequently, a multisource field study (with a US and German sample) showed that encouraging self-development strengthened the relationship between Procedural Fairness and employee OCB, and this relationship was mediated by employees’ self-perceived status. Conversely, encouraging independent action weakened the Procedural Fairness-OCB relationship, as mediated by self-perceived status. This research integrates empowering leadership styles into relational Fairness theories, highlighting that multiple leader behaviors should be examined in concert and that empowering leadership can have unintended consequences.
-
when do severe sanctions enhance compliance the role of Procedural Fairness
Journal of Economic Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Peter Verboon, Marius Van DijkeAbstract:Building on theoretical notions that severe sanctions (more than mild ones) can communicate that sanctioned behavior is morally unacceptable, we argued that particularly authorities who enact the sanction procedures in a fair manner stimulate compliance with their decisions. This is because such authorities should be considered legitimate to communicate what is morally acceptable and unacceptable. This interactive effect of sanction size and Procedural Fairness on compliance should thus be mediated by moral evaluations of the authority. A field survey and an experiment revealed support for these predictions. These results thus support a non-instrumental perspective on the effectiveness of sanction severity in increasing compliance with authorities.
-
the role of authority power in explaining Procedural Fairness effects
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, David De Cremer, David M MayerAbstract:Building on Fairness heuristic theory, Fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate Procedural Fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural Fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of Procedural Fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.
David M Mayer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
when leaders choose to be fair follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders adherence to Procedural Fairness rules
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013Co-Authors: Ilse Cornelis, David De Cremer, Alain Van Hiel, David M MayerAbstract:Abstract Previous studies on Procedural Fairness have largely neglected to examine factors that influence leaders' enactment of Fairness. Two controlled laboratory experiments and a field study with leaders working within organizations investigated the combined impact of follower belongingness needs and leader empathy. It was revealed that leaders are more apt to enact fair procedures when followers' belongingness needs are high rather than low. This effect was further moderated by leader empathy, such that highly empathic leaders, either because of individual differences or through situational induction, take followers' belongingness needs more into account. The relevance of these findings for Procedural rule adherence and violation as a dependent variable and empathic leadership is discussed.
-
when does Procedural Fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2012Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, David De Cremer, David M Mayer, Niels Van QuaquebekeAbstract:Abstract We examined how Procedural Fairness interacts with empowering leadership to promote employee OCB. We focused on two core empowering leadership types— encouraging self-development and encouraging independent action . An experiment revealed that leaders encouraging self-development made employees desire status information more (i.e., information regarding one’s value to the organization). Conversely, leaders encouraging independent action decreased employees’ desire for this type of information. Subsequently, a multisource field study (with a US and German sample) showed that encouraging self-development strengthened the relationship between Procedural Fairness and employee OCB, and this relationship was mediated by employees’ self-perceived status. Conversely, encouraging independent action weakened the Procedural Fairness-OCB relationship, as mediated by self-perceived status. This research integrates empowering leadership styles into relational Fairness theories, highlighting that multiple leader behaviors should be examined in concert and that empowering leadership can have unintended consequences.
-
the role of authority power in explaining Procedural Fairness effects
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: Marius Van Dijke, David De Cremer, David M MayerAbstract:Building on Fairness heuristic theory, Fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate Procedural Fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural Fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of Procedural Fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.
-
when do Procedural Fairness and outcome Fairness interact to influence employees work attitudes and behaviors the moderating effect of uncertainty
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: David De Cremer, Joel Brockner, Ariel Y Fishman, Marius Van Dijke, Woody Van Olffen, David M MayerAbstract:Prior research has shown that Procedural Fairness interacts with outcome Fairness to influence employees' work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees' tendencies to respond more positively to higher Procedural Fairness are stronger when outcome Fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people's uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between Procedural Fairness and outcome Fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers' reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries.
