Riël Vermunt

How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors provide an explanation of the frequently replicated fair process effect (the finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects how people react to outcomes). The authors argue that, in many situations, people may find it difficult to assess whether their outcome is fair or unfair and satisfying or unsatisfying because they only have information about their own outcome and they do not know the outcomes of others and that, in these situations, people use the fairness of the procedure as a heuristic substitute to assess how to judge their outcome. The results of 2 experiments corroborate the authors line of reasoning. Findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.

Procedural and distributive justice : What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next

In this article, 2 experiments are presented. In both experiments, the independent variables were whether the procedure was accurate or inaccurate, whether the outcome was favorable or unfavorable, and whether participants were informed about the procedure before or after they were informed about the outcome. The independent variables were manipulated by means of scenarios in Experiment 1 and by means of the R. Vermunt, A.P. Wit, K. van den Bos, and E.A. Lind (1996) paradigm in Experiment 2. As predicted on the basis of the authors analysis of fairness heuristic theory, the findings revealed that what people judge to be fair is more strongly affected by information that is received first than by subsequently received information. The findings are discussed in terms of recent developments toward an integration of the procedural and distributive justice domains.

The consistency rule and the voice effect : The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

In procedural justice research it has frequently been found that allowing people an opportunity to voice their opinion enhances their judgements of the fairness of a decision-making procedure. The present study investigated how this voice effect is affected by the consistency over time rule, which dictates that, once people expect a certain procedure, deviation from the expected procedure will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. Two experiments were conducted. In both experiments the independent variables manipulated were whether subjects were explicitly told to expect a voice procedure, were explicitly told to expect a no-voice procedure, or were told nothing about a subsequent procedure, and whether or not subjects subsequently received an opportunity to voice their opinion. The manipulations were induced by means of scenarios in Experiment 1, and by means of the Lind, Kanfer and Early (1990) paradigm in Experiment 2. In both experiments it was found that subjects who expected a voice procedure or who expected nothing judged receiving the voice procedure as more fair than receiving the no-voice procedure, but that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure (inconsistency) as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure (consistency). Furthermore, effects of the manipulated variables on subjects task performance were found in Experiment 2.

Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making

The authors investigate the effect of power differences and associated expectations in social decision making. Using a modified ultimatum game, the authors show that allocators lower their offers to recipients when the power difference shifts in favor of the allocator. Remarkably, however, when recipients are completely powerless, offers increase. This effect is mediated by a change in framing of the situation: When the opponent is without power, feelings of social responsibility are evoked. On the recipient side, the authors show that recipients do not anticipate these higher outcomes resulting from powerlessness. They prefer more power over less, expecting higher outcomes when they are more powerful, especially when less power entails powerlessness. Results are discussed in relation to empathy gaps and social responsibility.

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.

An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice: Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the integration of distributive and procedural justice in positive and negative outcome allocations. The framework consists of seven basic assumptions, seven propositions, and seven groups of interrelated hypotheses. The expected outcome offers a coherent program for future justice research based on the realization that distributive and procedural aspects of fairness cannot be meaningfully treated (1) in isolation from one another, and (2) without taking into account the valence of the allocated outcome. The framework should also reveal the need to reassess existing distributive and procedural justice study conclusions that neglected to examine the interactive effects of the allocation outcome (distribution) and the procedure and the outcome valence.

Noise within the social context: annoyance reduction through fair procedures.

The social context of noise exposure is a codeterminant of noise annoyance. The present study shows that fairness of the exposure procedure (sound management) can be used as an instrument to reduce noise annoyance. In a laboratory experiment (N = 117) participants are exposed to aircraft sound of different sound pressure level (SPL: 50 vs 70 dB A)--which is experienced as noise--while they work on a reading task. The exposure procedure (fair versus neutral) is modeled in line with findings from social justice theory. In the fair condition, participants can voice their preference for a certain sound sample, although they cannot deduce whether their preference is granted. In the neutral condition, participants are not asked to voice their preference. Results show the predicted interaction effect of sound pressure level and procedure on annoyance: Annoyance ratings are significantly lower in the fair condition than in the neutral condition, but this effect is found only in the 70 dB condition. When the SPL is considerably disturbing, fair procedures reduce noise annoyance. Consequences of the reported findings for both theory and practice are discussed.

Self-esteem and outcome fairness: differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Results of a survey of 222 detainees in Dutch jails and police stations showed that outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with high self-esteem were more strongly related to outcome considerations than to procedural considerations, whereas outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with low self-esteem were more strongly related to procedural considerations than to outcome considerations. It was proposed that these differences were due to the fact that (a) procedures more strongly express a social evaluation than outcomes and (b) individuals with low self-esteem are more concerned with social evaluations than individuals with high self-esteem. The implications of the results for other individual-differences factors and other populations than detainees are discussed.

The Effects of Unfair Procedure on Negative Affect and Protest

The present study extends earlier research on procedural unfairness by assessing subjects reactions to a procedural change before they learn about the outcome of the changed procedure. Subjects performed a series of four tests. After three tests, the procedure to calculate the test scores was changed into a procedure that was very inaccurate or slightly inaccurate compared to what subjects had experienced until then. The very inaccurate procedure was judged as more unfair as the slightly inaccurate procedure. As predicted, the unfair procedure raised negative affect and motivated subjects to protest. Implications of the results for procedural justice theory are discussed.

Physiological Relaxation: Stress Reduction Through Fair Treatment

The effects of fair treatment on physiological stress reactions of participants in a moderately high or low mental pressure condition are studied. On the basis of Injustice Stress Theory IST; Vermunt, R., and Steensma, H. In: Cropanzano, R. (ed.), Justice in the Workplace (Vol. 2), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48,2001, predictions were made about procedural fairness as stress reducing factor. The results supported the expected effect of fair treatment, in that lower cardiovascular activity was measured after fair treatment but not after unfair treatment. Moreover, three-way interactions showed that participants with type-A behavior in the low mental pressure conditions had lower cardiovascular activity after fair treatment but not after unfair treatment, while participants with type-B behavior showed lower cardiovascular activity after fair treatment in the moderately high mental pressure condition. The discussion focuses on the difference between fair treatment and social support as well as on the several ways to reduce stress by being fair.