none

Thesis (M.Sc.)--Saint Mary's University, 2009. / Includes abstract and appendices. Supervisor: Camilla M. Holmvall. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 56-68).

Affective reactions to unfair treatment date back to the earliest work on organizational justice. Seminal research on inequity identifies anger and guilt as primary responses to judgments of low justice. More recently, interpersonal justice has been linked to emotions such as anger and hostility. In fact, interpersonal justice is arguably the most emotionally charged of all the justice types. Yet, despite the strong theoretical support and empirical evidence linking interpersonal justice to negative emotions, we are unsure whether dignity and respect from a supervisor may also influence positive emotions. Justice scholars have also begun to investigate the moderating influence of status on to the effects of interpersonal justice. It has been suggested, and empirically demonstrated, that people of lower objective status (hierarchical position, race) react more strongly to fairness relative to those higher in status. However, we do not yet know how the effects of interpersonal justice may be moderated by employees’ perceptions of personal status, workgroup status, or supervisor status. Furthermore, scholars have yet to examine the moderating influence of status on emotional reactions to interpersonal justice. In this dissertation, I answer recent calls for further investigation into the relationships between interpersonal justice and emotions and between interpersonal justice and status. Specifically, I draw from affective events theory and self-enhancement theory to develop a model of interpersonal justice, status, and emotions. In this model, I hypothesize a mediating effect of emotions on the relationships between interpersonal justice and a number of distal attitudes and behaviors. I further predict a moderating influence of justice orientation and three types of status—personal (self) status, workgroup status, and supervisor status—on the interpersonal justice to emotions relationships. A sample of 427 university-based military cadets provided partial support for my model. As expected, interpersonal justice predicted a number of important distal outcomes indirectly through both positive and negative emotions. Personal status, supervisor status, and justice orientation moderated several of the relationships between interpersonal justice and emotions. Implications for practice and theory are discussed.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Texas A&M University, 2007. / Advisers: Adrienne Colella, Elizabeth Umphress. Includes bibliographical references.

Workplace unfairness has been known as one of the influential elements towards workplace behavior. In the last decade, the rise and popularity of social media may have change people's perception of unfairness as well as their affect which may have an effect on their behavioral outcomes. Although research of unfairness on workplace behavior has been examined, little attention has been paid to the effect of social media exposure. Drawing on construal level theory, this research examined the effects of interactional unfairness on employees' behavioral outcomes through negative affect, as well as moderating effect of social media exposure on interactional unfairness and negative affect. Two studies were conducted in China and the United States respectively to enhance the generalization. In Study 1, a two-wave survey of employees and one-wave survey of supervisors were conducted in China and Hong Kong. Hypotheses were tested in hierarchical linear modelling with 147 matched dyad relationships in the sample. In Study 2, a two-wave survey was conducted in the United States. 262 full time employees from a variety of occupations completed an online questionnaire. The results showed negative correlation on social media exposure and construal level. In addition, age was positively significant to construal level and organizational citizenship behavior, and negatively significant to turnover intention on both studies, and negatively significant to negative affect on Study 2. Additional implications for research and practice will be discussed

No description available.

Research on the topics of procedural justice and participative decision making (PDM) has been extensive over the last four decades. Procedural justice provides a framework for predicting the perceived fairness of procedures in an organization. PDM is concerned with shared decision making in the workplace. Only recently has the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) gained the attention of business leaders and organizational psychologists. OCB is discretionary behavior by an individual that is not recognized by his/her organization's formal reward system, but that does contribute positively to the organization. All three of these concepts have been identified as having value in an organization, as well as value to organization members. The purpose of this research is to evaluate if PDM and procedural justice are positively related to OCB. The following research reveals findings from a study conducted on a college campus using vignettes and questionnaires to assess participants' willingness to engage in OCBs. Results from this study indicate that there were no significant findings when evaluating if there are main effects or interactive effects of participation decision making and procedural justice on organizational citizenship behavior.

No description available.

The present research in ethical decision-making draws from the fields of moral philosophy, social psychology, and organizational theory with the intention of establishing links among social/organizational influences, individual cognitive elements of moral behavior, individual difference characteristics, and the intention to act ethically. Ethical decision-making, by investigating the moral judgment (evaluation) and moral intent components of an ethical decision-making model, was examined. This augments existing research concerning inconsistencies between the ethical behavior of an individual and the individual's level of moral development, which in the workplace are hypothesized to be related to organizational factors. Research questions developed from this groundwork, as well as research on moral ideology and organizational justice, were formulated to examine how moral ideology, moral evaluation, and organizational justice work together to explain moral intent. Moral evaluation explained 55% of the variance in moral intent after controlling for moral ideology and organizational justice. For a subset of the data, three organizational justice variables explained a very modest proportion of the variance in moral evaluation after controlling for two moral ideology variables. Implications for future research and considerations for practice are presented. / Ph. D.

Organizational justice has been the source of a great deal of recent research attention and has consequently been linked to a number of organizationally-relevant constructs, including organizational citizenship behaviors (Moorman, 1991), employee theft (Greenberg, 1990a), organizational commitment (Tyler, 1991), turnover (Dailey & Kirk, 1992) and job performance (Gilliland, 1994). However, researchers' ability to integrate findings from these diverse contexts is currently limited by the absence of a standardized operationalization of the justice construct. To compound this problem, little research has investigated the psychometric properties of existing organizational justice measures. For example, no research has empirically examined the dimensionality or the suggested context-sensitivity of this construct (cf., Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Therefore, the purposes of the current study were to evaluate the psychometric properties of justice and to attempt to develop a global measure that could be applied across contexts. Study 1 involved three phases (1) screening a set of organizational justice items, (2) investigating the dimensionality of organizational justice and (3) examining justice for evidence of measurement stability. The set of items used in the current study was primarily collected from published research by Hauenstein, McGonigle and Flinder (1997). A set of 48 items with acceptable psychometric characteristics was identified. Phase 2 investigated the dimensionality of these items. Results indicated that none of the four a priori models of organizational justice dimensionality could adequately account for the dimensionality of these items. However, three alternative models were discovered. The first model includes the four dimensions suggested by Greenberg (1993b) in addition to a general organizational justice factor while the second model includes only justice and injustice factors in addition to the original organizational justice factor. Finally, the results of an exploratory factor analysis suggested three factors: Systemic Justice; Distributive Injustice; and Distributive Justice. Phase 3 then investigated the stability of this solution across subgroups while Study 2 compared exploratory factor structures across two work contexts. Results demonstrated some differences at both item- and construct-level in organizational justice across levels of job satisfaction and work experience. Further, some factorial instability across work contexts (e.g., selection, performance appraisal) was also observed. As a result, it was concluded that developing a global measure of organizational justice is difficult given the demonstrated context-sensitivity of the construct. Instead, a series of guidelines for developing future measures of organizational justice is proposed. / Ph. D.