Content uploaded by Deborah E. Rupp
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Deborah E. Rupp on Dec 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: EFFECTS OF EMOTIONS ON JUSTICE
Effects of Discrete Emotions on Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice
Zinta S. Byrne
Colorado State University
Deborah E. Rupp
University of Illinois, Champagne-Urbana
Tasha Eurich
Colorado State University
Poster at the 18
th
Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
April 11-13, 2003, Orlando, Florida
Note: Contact Zinta S. Byrne, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, 80523, Zinta.Byrne@colostate.edu, (970) 491-6982 regarding this manuscript.
Fairness and Emotions 2
Abstract
We examined the effects of naturally occurring discrete emotions (happiness, anger, pride,
resentment) on individuals’ perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice.
Results revealed that happy and proud participants rated all three forms of fairness significantly
higher than angry and resentful participants. This study presents a first look at emotions as an
antecedent to fairness perceptions.
Fairness and Emotions 3
Effects of Discrete Emotions on Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice
Researchers of organizational justice have studied the behavioral and attitudinal reactions
to perceptions of fairness for some time (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Folger & Greenberg, 1985).
Perceptions of justice refer to the evaluation of the fairness of outcomes, processes, and
interpersonal treatment (Adams, 1965; Bies & Moag, 1986; Folger & Greenberg, 1985;
Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). The literature is
abundant with examples showing that justice matters in the workplace. For example, researchers
have shown that individuals demonstrate higher levels of job performance, greater levels of
commitment, increased job and pay satisfaction, greater levels of trust, and more organizational
citizenship behaviors when they feel that decision making processes are fair, and that they have
been treated fairly (e.g., Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt,
Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Konovsky &
Cropanzano, 1991; Malatesta & Byrne, 1997; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000;
Moorman, 1991; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996, 1997; Tyler & Lind,
1992; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002).
Although attitudinal and behavioral consequences to fairness perceptions have been
examined, not as much research has been conducted to understand the antecedents of fairness.
Since fairness has consistently been shown to influence key organizational attitudes and
behaviors, it appears necessary that we begin to more thoroughly examine constructs that might
influence fairness perceptions. Specifically, in this study we tested whether discrete emotions
affect three distinct types of fairness judgments: judgments about outcomes, judgments about
procedures, and judgments about interpersonal treatment. We first provide a brief overview of
Fairness and Emotions 4
these three forms of fairness and then turn our focus to the study of emotions and mood, and how
these constructs might affect and possibly shape justice perceptions.
Perceptions of Organizational Justice
Justice researchers have consistently identified three different types of fairness
perceptions: distributive, procedural, and interactional (Colquitt et al., 2001). Distributive justice
perceptions refer to judgments about the fairness of the outcomes an individual receives
(Deutsch, 1985). In this study distributive justice referred to the fairness of the actual grades
students received from their professors. Procedural justice refers to judgments made about the
fairness of the procedures used to make a decision or allocate a resource (e.g., Folger &
Greenberg, 1985). In this study, fair procedures referred to the fairness of how professors
determined the grades for students. Finally, interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness
of the interpersonal treatment received during the implementation of a procedure (Bies & Moag,
1986). In an organizational context, interactional justice often refers to the degree to which a
supervisor treats subordinates politely and with respect. In our study, interactional justice refers
to whether professors were respectful when sharing the grades with individual students. It is
important in assessing and examining fairness perceptions that they are relevant to the situation
(e.g., Colquitt, 2001).
Substantial justice research has targeted the examination of fairness perceptions to a
specific event or process such as a performance appraisal or selection situation. For example,
Gilliland (1994) examined organizational justice of selection processes. Similarly, Korsgaard
and Roberson (1995) have examined fairness within performance appraisal processes. On the
other hand, there is a body of justice research which has been based in the laboratory using
vignettes or scenarios depicting fair and unfair procedures and outcomes, and assessing reactions
Fairness and Emotions 5
to these events (e.g., Greenberg, 1993; van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998). Regardless of the
approach, field or laboratory setting, few researchers have examined the antecedents to fairness
outside of specific events (e.g., performance appraisal feedback, simulated social dilemmas).
This suggests that most of this justice literature has framed the environment in which participants
make their justice judgments. It might be possible that this framing and setting the context for
justice judgments actually affects them (Levin & Gaeth, 1988; Levin, Schneider, & Gaeth,
1998). We, therefore, believe that the current study is a first step in adding to the justice
literature by examining the affect of naturally occurring emotions on the three types of fairness
described above.
Mood Affects Judgments and Behavior
Our supposition that perhaps emotions are an antecedent to fairness perceptions is based
on research in the mood and emotions literature. Research has shown that mood states have an
influence on the evaluations individuals make about people and events (Bower, 1981; Clark &
Fiske, 1982; George, 1991; Moore & Isen, 1990; O’Malley & Davies, 1984; Sinclair & Mark,
1992). For example, in a study of mood and performance appraisal Sinclair (1988) found that
ratings of performance information about a teacher showed greater halo effects when raters were
in a positive mood as compared to raters in a depressed mood state. Furthermore, Sinclair found
that participants in positive moods rated the teacher more positively overall than did participants
in neutral or depressed mood states. Consistent with Sinclair, Isen and colleagues (Isen, Shalker,
Clark, & Karp, 1978) showed that individuals who rated being in a good mood made more
positive judgments than did members of a control group. They concluded that in certain
contexts, a positive mood serves as a cue for influencing decisions.
Fairness and Emotions 6
In an explanation of the effect of positive mood on evaluations, researchers suggest that
individuals in positive moods tend to retrieve information and memories that are positive (Clark
& Fiske, 1982). Individuals make mood-congruent judgments and this appears to be a reliable
phenomenon (Mayer, 2001; Mayer, Gaschke, Braverman, & Evans, 1992). In addition, people
who are in a good mood are less likely to closely examine the arguments presented to them
(Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990).
Negative mood-congruent judgments may also occur. Although the research is sparse,
evidence exists for the effect of negative moods on behaviors and judgments. For example,
temporarily depressed individuals and those with a negative outlook perceive themselves as
having less social support (Cohen, Towbes, & Flocco, 1988; Vinokur, Schul, & Caplan, 1987).
When asked what was going on in their life, participants replied based on their current mood
(Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz, Strack, Kommer, & Wagner, 1987). Prior research findings also show
that sad individuals seem to engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding whether to engage
in helping behaviors (Schaller & Cialdini, 1990). This cost/benefit analysis appears very similar
to the ratio calculation performed when forming distributive fairness judgments (e.g., Adams,
1965). Adams (1965) proposed that individuals make cognitive evaluations of the ratio between
their contributions and the resultant outcomes (i.e. economic or social compensation), as
compared to the perceived ratio of others’ input and returns, in making distributive justice
judgments.
It appears that mood research has shown evidence for positive moods resulting in more
favorable judgments and negative moods resulting in more unfavorable judgments. Consistent
with this evidence supporting mood-congruent judgments, we expected that positive and
negative discrete emotions would show similar effects on judgments of fairness.
Fairness and Emotions 7
Discrete Emotions versus Moods. Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999) suggest that
researchers examine discrete emotions (e.g., anger, guilt, pride, and happiness) as opposed to
diffusive states of mood because different reactions can be attributed to specific discrete
emotions. Therefore, in keeping with the recommendation of Weiss et al. (1999), rather than
simply examining positive or negative moods, we evaluated the effects of discrete emotions on
fairness perceptions. We examined the same four discrete emotions as Weiss et al. (1999) with
one exception; we replaced guilt with resentment. We felt strongly that college students signing
up for a research study would rarely walk into the study feeling guilty. Based on our experiences
and anecdotal evidence from other researchers, we anticipated that college students would be
more inclined to feel resentful for having to take their personal time to complete a research
credit. Given that we were unable to find published literature to suggest differences in how the
four discrete emotions might affect each of the three forms of fairness, we were unable to
hypothesize differential effects for emotions on the three justices. Consistent with the mood
literature, we therefore hypothesized that:
H1: Participants who report feeling happy will rate (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and
(c) interactional justice higher than individuals who report feeling angry.
H2: Participants who report feeling happy will rate (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and
(c) interactional justice higher than individuals who report feeling resentful.
H3: Participants who report feeling proud will rate (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and
(c) interactional justice higher than individuals who report feeling angry.
H4: Participants who report feeling happy will rate (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and
(c) interactional justice higher than individuals who report feeling resentful.
Method
Fairness and Emotions 8
Participants
A total of 504 undergraduate students enrolled in a general psychology course at a
western university participated as part of a class research requirement. We purposely sought a
large sample size in order to increase the likelihood that our sample would include participants
experiencing the range of emotions necessary for our study. Participants’ age ranged from 17 to
42 years of age, with the average age of 19.44 years. Approximately 54% of the sample was
female. Approximately 87% identified themselves as Caucasian, 4% Latino/Hispanic, 2.4%
Asian/Indian/Island Pacific, 0.8% African American, and 5% chose not to report their ethnicity.
Procedures
After completing an informed consent form, participants were asked to complete a
questionnaire measuring four discrete emotions (angry, happy, proud, and resentful), distributive,
procedural, and interactional fairness perceptions, and general demographic information. For
this first examination of the effects of discrete emotions on fairness perceptions, we chose to
examine naturally occurring emotions rather than induce extremes that may or may not be seen
in normal college student populations. Participants’ current emotional state was measured prior
to administering any other questionnaire, in order to determine their mood before making
fairness evaluations.
Measures.
Similar to Weiss et al. (1999) we measured two positive emotions (happy and proud), and
two negative emotions (angry and resentful). Participants were asked to rate “at this moment I
feel” the four discrete emotions on a response scale ranging from (1) not at all to (5) very much.
We assessed distributive, procedural, and interactional justice using Colquitt’s (2001)
measures. All justice items were rated on a five-point response scale ranging from (1) to a small
Fairness and Emotions 9
extent to (5) to a great extent. As suggested by Colquitt, items were tailored to fit the context in
which the data were collected -- in our case, an educational setting. We modified the instructions
on the procedural justice items to refer to the procedures that their general psychology instructor
used to give exams and determine points received on exams; interactional items to refer to the
general psychology instructor who gives the course exams; and the distributive justice items to
refer to the number of points typically received on exams. We obtained alpha reliability
coefficients of .75 for procedural justice, .91 for interactional justice and .87 for distributive
justice.
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates
for the variables in this study. Reliability estimates were all greater than .70, which is within an
acceptable range for research purposes (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Because participants were asked to rate all four discrete emotions, it was possible for
them to rate them all high, even though not all emotions are compatible and can actually be felt
at the same time (e.g., angry and happy). Therefore, in order to adequately test our hypotheses
we felt it necessary to create comparison groups for each discrete emotion following the coding
scheme of Berkman’s (1971) Psychological Wellbeing scale. To be considered happy,
participants had to rate feeling happy a 3 (somewhat) or greater and rate feeling angry or
resentful less than a 3. To be considered angry, participants had to rate feeling angry a 3 or
greater and happy or proud less than a 3. To be considered proud, participants had to rate pride
equal to or greater than a 3, and resentful or angry less than 3. And finally, to be considered
resentful, participants had to rate feeling resentful a 3 or greater and happy or proud less than 3.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the four comparison groups, happy, angry,
Fairness and Emotions 10
proud, and resentful. We anticipated that significant effects would be difficult to detect because
we did not create extreme differences in emotional states. Therefore, we interpreted effects to be
statistically significant when their p-values reached .10 or less.
Happy compared to angry. Results of independent sample t-tests reveal that happy
participants (M=3.49, SD=1.05) rated distributive justice higher than angry participants (M=2.59,
SD=1.10, t(409)=3.11, p<.01); happy participants (M=3.45, SD=.70) rated procedural justice
significantly higher than angry participants (M=3.04, SD=.74, t(410)=2.12, p<.05); and happy
participants (M=4.23, SD=.75) rated interactional justice higher than angry participants (M=3.65,
SD=1.00, t(409)=2.12, p<.10), thus supporting hypotheses 1a, b, and c.
Happy compared to resentful. Happy participants (M=3.49, SD=1.05) rated distributive
justice higher than resentful participants (M=2.35, SD=.88, t(407)=3.67, p<.01); happy
participants (M=3.45, SD=.70) rated procedural justice significantly higher than resentful
participants (M=2.94, SD=.70, t(408)=2.45, p<.01); and happy participants (M=4.23, SD=.75)
rated interactional justice higher than resentful participants (M=3.65, SD=1.00, t(407)=2.59,
p<.05), thus supporting hypotheses 2a, b, and c.
Proud compared to angry. Results of independent sample t-tests reveal that participants
who felt proud (M=3.51, SD=1.04) rated distributive justice higher than angry participants
(M=2.59, SD=1.10, t(338)=3.23, p<.01); proud participants (M=3.46, SD=.70) rated procedural
justice significantly higher than angry participants (M=3.04, SD=.73, t(339)=2.17, p<.05); and
proud participants (M=4.22, SD=.79) rated interactional justice significantly higher than angry
participants (M=3.65, SD=1.00, t(338)=2.61, p<.10), thus supporting hypotheses 3a, b, c.
Proud compared to resentful. Participants who felt proud (M=3.51, SD=1.04) rated
distributive justice higher than participants feeling resentful (M=2.35, SD=.88, t(336)=3.79,
Fairness and Emotions 11
p<.01); proud participants (M=3.46, SD=.70) rated procedural justice significantly higher than
resentful participants (M=2.94, SD=.70, t(337)=2.50, p<.05); and proud participants (M=4.22,
SD=.79) rated interactional justice significantly higher than resentful participants (M=3.65,
SD=1.00, t(336)=2.44, p<.05), thus supporting hypotheses 4a, b, and c.
Discussion
The purpose of our basic study was to take a first look at whether naturally occurring
discrete emotions had an effect on perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice. The results of this study show that individuals who rated feeling happy or proud tended
to rate the three forms of fairness significantly higher than those who reported feeling angry or
resentful. Although we cannot conclude from this one study that individuals who are in a
negative mood will perceive a generally fair situation as unfair, our data do suggest that
individuals’ mood might serve as an evaluative lens through which fairness judgments are made.
Future research might further test the extent to which this lens influences judgments (e.g., can
individuals be so mad that they perceive even fair situations as unfair?), as well as whether or not
generalized statements about the fairness of a situation can even be made (e.g., are there
situations most people would interpret as fair or unfair?). Experimental research is needed to
adequately test these sorts of questions.
We feel that the observed effect of discrete emotions on justice perceptions might be
caused by a number of phenomena. First, as suggested by Clark and Fiske (1982) individuals in
positive moods tend to retrieve information and memories that are positive. Therefore in
reflecting back on the procedures, outcomes, and interpersonal treatment received in class, our
happy students may have recalled only positive events upon which to base their judgments. Such
an effect is consistent with other research showing that individuals reliably make mood-
Fairness and Emotions 12
congruent judgments (e.g., Mayer, 2001; Mayer et al., 1992). Second, individuals in a happy
emotional state may only have replied based on their current emotional state and not given much
consideration to the study at hand ((Bless et al., 1990; Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz et al., 1987).
Since we did not assess level of involvement or attention to the task, we cannot tell if individuals
were taking it seriously or not. Perhaps future research can tease this apart.
Although preliminary, the results of this basic study lead us to wonder if it might be
possible to manipulate fairness perceptions by creating an artificially positive emotional climate
and then present less than favorable decisions or procedures. In this scenario perhaps individuals
may then perceive the procedures more favorably than they might have otherwise. Additional
research is necessary to test this specific hypothesis. Given the results of Weiss et al. (1999)
showing the effect of fairness and unfairness on discrete emotions, combined with our study
findings, researchers might consider the possibility that fairness serves as an attenuator or
amplifier. That is, perhaps fairness increases (amplifier) and/or decreases (attenuator) the input.
In this manner, fair processes and treatment may alter the effects of pre-established emotions
such as anger, thus resulting in a less upset angry emotion as an outcome.
We feel that a particularly important strength of this study comes from the fact that we
examined naturally occurring (as opposed to induced) emotions. Since fairness research has
shown that individuals form perceptions of justice about a situation or event (see Cropanzano,
Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), we chose not to confound our study by presenting a situation
that might artificially catalyze particular emotions. However, within this strength there is also
weakness. That is, by not manipulating the situation, the lack of variance in emotion may have
limited our ability to find strong effects. However, given that we had no control over the
Fairness and Emotions 13
situations participants may have encountered just prior to coming into the laboratory, we are
unable to know if the observed emotional variance was an under- or over-estimate.
Despite these limitations, we believe that this first examination of whether emotions play
a role in perceptions of justice is an important one. If anything, our results suggest that justice
researchers should pay more attention to the antecedents of organizational justice. Justice
researchers have thoroughly and consistently demonstrated the robust effects that fairness
perceptions have on key organizational behaviors and attitudes; it is time to more broadly
consider the effect that emotions, personality, or other constructs may have on the formation of
fairness perceptions themselves.
Fairness and Emotions 14
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In
B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berkman, P.L. (1971). Life stress and psychological well-being: A replication of Langner’s
analysis in the midtown Manhattan study. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 12, 35-
45.
Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive
response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 331-345.
Bower, G. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148.
Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2000, April). To which source do I attribute this fairness?
Differential effects of multi-foci justice on organizational work behaviors. Presented at
the 15
th
annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
New Orleans, LA.
Clark, M.S., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.). (1982). Affect and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, L.H., Towbes, L.C., & Flocco, R. (1988). Effects of induced mood on self-reported life
events and perceived and received social support. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 669-674.
Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Fairness and Emotions 15
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.317-372). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as
the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel
systems. In K. M. Rowland, & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 3, pp.141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection
system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.
Isen, A.M., Shalker, T., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in
memory and behavior: A cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
36, 1-12.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
698-707.
Fairness and Emotions 16
Korsgaard, M.A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Procedural justice in performance evaluation: The role
of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions.
Journal of Management, 21, 657-669.
Leventhal , G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S.
Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchanges: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal , G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation
preferences. In G. Milkula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). Framing of attribute information before and after consuming
the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S.L., Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A topology
and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 76, 149-188.
Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. (1997). The impact of formal and interactional procedures on
organizational outcomes. Paper presented at the 12
th
annual conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Lois, MO.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotion, intelligence, and emotional intelligence. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.), The
handbook of affect and social cognition. (pp. 410-432). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fairness and Emotions 17
Mayer, J.D., Gaschke, Y.N., Braverman, D.L., & Evans, T.W. (1992). Mood-congruent
judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119-132.
Moore, B.S., & Isen, A. M. (1990). Affect and social behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
O’Malley, M.N., & Davies, D.K. (1984). Equity and affect: The effects of relative performance
and moods on resource allocation. Basic and Applied Psychology,5, 273-282.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships
in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information. In R. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook
of motivation and cognition. (Vol.2, pp.527-561). New York, NY: Guilford.
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Kommer, D., & Wagner, D. (1987). Soccer, rooms, and the quality of
your life: Mood effects on judgments of satisfaction with life in general and with specific
domains. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 69-79.
Sinclair, R.C. (1988). Mood, categorization breadth, and performance appraisal: The effects of
order of information acquisition and affective state on halo, accuracy, information
retrieval and evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42,
22-46.
Sinclair, R.C., & Mark, M.M. (1992). The influence of mood state on judgment and action:
Effects on persuasion, categorization, social justice, person perception, and judgmental
Fairness and Emotions 18
accuracy. In L.L. Martin (Ed.), The Construction of Social Judgments. (pp.165-191).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G. P. (996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161-169.
Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G.P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase
citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50,617-
633.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H.A.M., & Lind, E.A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness?
The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493-
1503.
Vinokur, A., Schul, Y., & Caplan, R.D. (1987). Determinants of perceived social support:
Interpersonal transactions, personal outlook, and transient affective states. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1137-1145.
Wayne, S. J, Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H, & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment
and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete
emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794.
Fairness and Emotions 19
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations Among Variables, and Reliability Estimates (N=504)
Variable
M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Happy
3.60 .82 --
2 Proud 3.00 1.07 .42** --
3 Angry 1.54 .77 -.44** -.10* --
4 Resentful 1.56 .91 -.31** -.09 .43** --
5 Procedural Justice
3.43 .70 .00 .08 -.08 -.08 (.75)
6 Interactional Justice
4.20 .77 .06 .06 -.10* -.14** .54** (.91)
7 Distributive Justice
3.46 1.04 .06 .10* -.10* -.09* .38** .38** (.87)
Note.
*p < .05; **p < .01; alpha reliability coefficients shown on diagonal.
Fairness and Emotions 20
Table 2
Means And Standard Deviations for Participants Feeling Happy, Proud, Angry, and Resentful
Positive Emotions Negative Emotions
Happy
(N = 397)
Proud
(N = 326)
Angry
(N =14)
Resentful
(N = 12)
Dependent Variables
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Distributive Justice 3.48 1.05 3.51 1.04 2.59 1.10 2.35 .89
Procedural Justice 3.44 .70 3.46 .70 3.04 .74 2.94 .70
Interactional Justice 4.23 .75 4.22 .79 3.65 1.00 3.65 1.00
