Larry Heuer

A Deservingness Approach to Respect as a Relationally Based Fairness Judgment

Value judgments, attributional judgments, and self-esteem are predicted to moderate the relationship between respectful treatment and procedural justice. In three studies, the moderation hypothesis is supported. In Studies 1 and 2, attributional and value judgments are shown to moderate the effect of respect so that respect is most important for those individuals who perform positively valued behaviors, particularly those who are responsible for those behaviors. Path analyses in Study 2 reveal that the respect-justice relationship is mediated by perceptions of deservingness. Study 3, a field survey, shows that respect is more important for the procedural fairness judgments of high self-esteem individuals. Several theoretical perspectives support the argument that these variables moderate the relation between respectful treatment and procedural fairness because of their impact on deservingness judgments. This deservingness effect is proposed to have implications for understanding the moderating effects of situational and personality variables for numerous fairness models.

High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis

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.

The Role of Resource and Relational Concerns for Procedural Justice

Two studies test the hypothesis that trust, neutrality, and standing influence procedural justice because of their relation to resource motives as well as the relational motive posited by the Group Value Theory. In Study 1, El Salvadorons were asked to evaluate a procedure for seeking redress for a rights violation and the current national government. Both the rights procedure and the government were evaluated on the dimensions of trust, neutrality, standing, absolute outcome, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness. In separate models of procedural fairness, the relational variables exerted both resource and relational effects. The same model was examined among U.S. residents questioned about a recent encounter with another individual. The resource hypothesis was supported again, despite changes in the cultural and political context and the operationalization of key constructs. These studies suggest a broader interpretation of the meaning of the relational variables than is typically emphasized in current theoretical conceptualizations.

Disability and Procedural Fairness in the Workplace

In a recent law review article, Peter Blanck (2006) writes movingly about disabled individuals’ experiences with, and reactions to, workplace discrimination, “… they wanted real jobs. They did not want to live on welfare checks; they wanted paychecks. They fought to be participants in society and not view the world as outsiders from a nursing home bed.” (p. 694). Blanck’s stories are about disabled Americans who fought against discrimination. The individuals were discriminated against because of their disabilities: they were fired from their jobs; denied the necessary accommodations to perform their assigned tasks; and denied equal access to governmental services and public facilities.