P1: GDP

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2001 (
C
2002)
A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between
Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice:
Implications for Justice Research
Neil M. A. Hauenstein,
1,4
Tim McGonigle,
2
and Sharon W. Flinder
3
Although there are many studies that utilize the constructs of procedural and distributive
justice, this research tends to ignore the implications of the bivariate relationship between
the two constructs. The stronger the relationship between the two constructs, the more
problematic ignoring this relationship becomes. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted
to estimate the relationship between procedural and distributive justice. We also conducted
an initial assessment of extent to which the relationship between procedural and distributive
justice was context sensitive. Finally, a series of methodological moderators was evaluated.
Results indicated that the relationship between procedural and distributive justice is strong
( =.64) across all studies. However, this relationship was moderated by research context,
and even within research context, there was substantial evidence of variability. The results
of the meta-analysis were discussed in terms of implications for theory, research methods,
and construct measurement in justice research.
KEY WORDS: procedural justice; distributive justice; fairness; measuring justice.
INTRODUCTION
Perceptions of organizational justice have received extensive attention in recent years
(for reviews, see Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997) with
two primary constructs, procedural justice and distributive justice receiving the greatest
research attention. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the distribution
of outcomes whereas procedural justice is dened as the perceived fairness of procedures
used in decision making about the distribution of outcomes. Over the years, procedural and
distributive justice have been studied in a broad array of contexts, including personnel selec-
tion (Gilliland, 1993, 1994; Smither et al., 1993), drug testing (Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991), conict resolution (Karambayya & Brett, 1989), leadership perceptions (Tyler &
1
Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
2
Caliber Associates, Fairfax, Virginia.
3
The Performance Center, Arlington, Virginia.
4
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
24061; e-mail: nhauen@vt.edu.
39
0892-7545/01/0300-0039/0 C
2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
40 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
Caine, 1981), layoffs (Greenberg, 1989, 1990a), performance appraisal (Greenberg, 1986),
and promotion (Greenberg, 1988). Additionally, organizational justice has been linked to
a host of organizationally relevant variables, such as organizational citizenship behavior
(Moorman, 1991), employee theft (Greenberg, 1990a, 1993a), organizational commitment
(Tyler, 1991), and turnover (Dailey & Kirk, 1992).
Despite the attention focused on these justice constructs, fundamental issues about the
strength of the relationship between procedural and distributive justice and the implications
of this relationship need to be addressed. In particular, we seek to determine the strength of
this relationship and the extent to which it changes in magnitude as the research situation
changes (i.e., contextual sensitivity). We also investigate the extent to which the procedural
distributive justice relationship is affected by potential method and measurement artifacts.
To address these issues, we meta-analyzed studies reporting correlations between procedural
and distributive justice, examined research context as a moderator, and also assessed series
of research artifacts that may inuence the magnitude of the distributive/procedural justice
relationship.
The Strength of the Procedural/Distributive Justice Relationship
Typically, researchers have conceptualized the various forms of organizational justice
as orthogonal. For example, Greenberg (1987, 1993b) proposed a taxonomy containing four
independent classes of organizational justice. Similarly, Tyler (1994) compared six separate
models of organizational justice, treating procedural and distributive justice as uncorrelated
in each. However, these treatments of organizational justice as independent constructs are
more likely for explanatory clarity and analytical simplicity than afrmations about the
orthogonal nature of the two constructs.
It is clear that justice researchers currently view procedural and distributive justice as
correlated variables (Cropanzano &Ambrose, 2001; Sweeney &McFarlin, 1997). However,
researchers rarelyaddress the theoretical or methodological implications of this relationship.
Perhaps because organizational justice is viewed as a context sensitive variable (Greenberg,
1990a,b, 1993c, 2001), researchers are not compelled to address the proceduraldistributive
justice relationship more directly. Why deal with the proceduraldistributive justice rela-
tionship in one context if it is likely to change in the next context? However, even if the
relationship is dynamic, if it is generally strong and positive, then there are several im-
plications for conducting justice research that need to be considered more explicitly. A
meta-analysis of the proceduraldistributive justice relationship is used to focus attention
on the issue of the strength of this relationship, but more importantly, to turn attention to
the fundamental methodological issues raised by this relationship.
Research Context and the Procedural/Distributive Justice Relationship
For the sake of completeness, we included any justice study that reported a procedural
distributive justice correlation in the meta-analysis. However, there are two fundamental
research contexts in the justice literature. First, predominantly in the organizational be-
havior literature, there are reward allocation studies where decisions are made that involve
monetary or nonmonetary (i.e., selection, promotion, benets) outcomes. Second, the social
psychologyliterature contains a larger proportionof dispute resolutionstudies. These studies
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 41
typically involve justice dilemmas based on interactions with legal ofcials (i.e., police
ofcers, judges) or other individuals (i.e., family members) in nonworkplace contexts.
The differences between reward allocation and dispute resolution research afford an
opportunity to detect a contextual moderator of the proceduraldistributive justice relation-
ship. Compared to reward allocation studies, the protocol in dispute resolution studies is
typically less congnitively demanding and the distributive fairness of the outcome is more
salient.
Reward allocation studies are more cognitively demanding than dispute resolution
studies because participants are typically actors rendering justice assessments about their
own treatment in the study. In contrast, participants in dispute resolution studies are typ-
ically observers, rendering justice perceptions about the treatment of someone else. A
second reason that reward allocation studies are more cognitively demanding is that the
social comparison process is more complex than in dispute resolution studies. More infor-
mation relevant to the social comparison process is present in reward allocation studies. For
example, the actor in a reward allocation study is provided information about his/her input
and outcomes as well as normative information about the inputs and outcomes of the rele-
vant comparison group. In contrast, the observer in the typical dispute resolution scenario
(e.g., Poythress et al., 1993) renders judgments about a criminal defendant (characterized
as either truly guilty or truly innocent) who is found to be either guilty or innocent of the
accused crime. Finally, the salience of the distributive justice of the outcome in dispute
resolution studies is typically higher than in reward allocation studies. In dispute resolution
studies, the primary determinant of distributive justice is the match or mismatch between
the defendants true guilt/innocence and the verdict. In contrast to the fair versus unfair na-
ture of outcomes in dispute resolution studies, the distributive justice perception in reward
allocation studies is not as clear-cut in terms of fairness of the outcomes.
The low demand of being an observer coupled with the salience of the determinants
of distributive justice likely leads participants to see procedural and distributive justice as
highly related in dispute resolution studies. In contrast, reward allocation is more demanding
because the participant is actively engaged in doing a task and the greater complexity of
the social comparison process will likely result in a weaker proceduraldistributive justice
relationship. As a result, we expected the proceduraldistributive justice relationship to be
stronger in the dispute resolution research than in the reward allocation research.
The issue of research context also provides an angle to another potential insight con-
cerning the extent to which the relationship between distributive and procedural justice
varies as a function of the context. Justice research generally views the determinants of
both distributive and procedural justice to be context sensitive (Greenberg, 1990a,b, 1993c).
However, the fact that the determinants of justice are sensitive to context does not neces-
sarily imply that the relationship between the justice constructs is also context sensitive.
That is, the given aspects of a situation may increase or decrease perceptions of distributive
fairness and procedural fairness, but it does not necessarily follow that those aspects of the
situation affect the magnitude of the correlation between distributive and procedural justice.
If there is little residual variance (once sampling error is accounted for) in the distri-
bution of correlations within each research context, then it suggests that the relationship
between distributive and procedural justice is fairly stable, regardless the extent to which
the perceptions of justice are affected by the situation. In contrast, within each research
context, if there is a great deal of residual variation unaccounted for in the distribution of
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
42 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
correlations, then it suggests that the magnitude of the relationship between distributive
justice and procedural justice is context sensitive, just as the underlying determinants of
justice perceptions are also context sensitive.
Tosummarize, we were interestedinresearchcontext as a moderator of the distributive
procedural justice relationship for two reasons. First, relative to reward allocation studies,
we expected the relationship to be stronger in dispute resolution research because of the
lower cognitive demands in terms of the social comparison process and because of the
salience of the determinants of distributive justice. Second, the extent to which variance in
the distributions of correlations remains unaccounted for within research context suggests
that the distributiveprocedural justice relationshipis as context sensitive as the determinants
of both distributive and procedural justice.
Method Artifacts
Although a positive relationship was expected between proceduraldistributive jus-
tice, we also suspected that methodological differences among studies might moderate the
relationship. Therefore, we examined four potential method moderators: the scale used
to measure procedural justice; the scale used to measure distributive justice; the publica-
tion status of the study (i.e., published vs. unpublished); and the research design (i.e., true
experiments vs. quasiexperiments/correlational studies).
Greenberg (1993c) has noted that measurement is a major impediment to theoretical
progress in organizational justice research. One reason for the lack of measurement stan-
dardization in organizational justice research is the context-sensitive issue (Cropanzano
&Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 1990b, 1993c, 2001). Therefore, ad hoc measures are given
deference because they allowquestions to be tailored to the varied situations in which justice
has been examined (Greenberg, 1990b). As a result, the difculty of integrating the results of
studies relying on ad hoc measures has impeded researchers ability to empirically examine
the context sensitivity of organizational justice as well as to integrate the results of studies
fromdisparate contexts. Greenberg (1993c) has suggested that different operationalizations
could lead to different relationships between procedural and distributive justice. Therefore,
we examined the extent to which different measures of procedural and distributive justice
moderated the proceduraldistributive justice relationship. Because of the exploratory na-
ture of this examination, we had no specic predictions regarding the moderating effect of
construct operationalization on the proceduraldistributive justice relationship.
Research has historically ignored the relationship between procedural and distribu-
tive justice. However, reviewers and editors may, implicitly or explicitly, be aware of the
interpretation problems associated with correlated predictors (e.g., multicollinearity) or cri-
teria (e.g., criterion equivalence) and may reject manuscripts based on a perceived lack
of independence between procedural justice and distributive justice. Therefore, publication
status (published vs. unpublished) was examined to investigate whether unpublished studies
reported a stronger relationship between the two constructs.
Finally, because of the ability of researchers to independently manipulate and
control perceptions of specic justice dimensions in experimental studies, it is likely
that the relationship between procedural and distributive justice is weaker in experi-
mental than quasiexperimental/correlational studies. Therefore, the impact of research
design (true experiment vs. quasiexperiment/correlation) was examined to determine if
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 43
experimental studies produced a lower proceduraldistributive justice relationship than
quasiexperimental/correlational studies.
Overview
To summarize, we expected to nd a positive relationship between procedural and
distributive justice. However, it is useful to knowthe magnitude of this relationship because
it will serve to focus research on the theoretical and methodological complexities of inter-
preting correlated variables. We also assessed the consistency of the proceduraldistributive
justice relationship across the two major research contexts in order to estimate the extent to
which the proceduraldistributive justice relationship is context sensitive. Finally, we ex-
amined four potential research artifacts of the proceduraldistributive justice relationship,
including different operationalizations of both procedural and distributive justive, unpub-
lished studies versus published studies, and in quasiexperiments/correlational studies versus
true experiments.
To examine the relationship between procedural and distributive justice and to deter-
mine if this relationship is moderated by any of the variables we identied, we conducted
a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a research process that involves (1) systematically sum-
marizing existing research ndings concerning a given relationship and (2) correcting the
summarized ndings for common statistical shortcomings (e.g., predictor unreliability, cri-
terion unreliability, range restriction). As a result of this process, the meta-analysis process
produces a careful estimate of the true relationship between two constructs. In addition,
meta-analysis allows researchers to examine potential moderators of the true relationship
that may be difcult to manipulate within a single study (e.g., research context). Hunter and
Schmidt (1990) provide a thorough discussion of the conceptual and statistical logic behind
meta-analysis and also discuss the advantages and disadvantages to meta-analytic research.
Although meta-analysis allows researchers to examine relationships across a potentially
large number of studies, a common criticism of meta-analysis is that the studies included
in the analysis may very greatly, particularly in quality and context. However, it is also
possible to examine variables of this type as moderators of the relationship (cf., Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990).
METHOD
Literature Search
Five separate literature searches were undertaken to locate appropriate studies for in-
clusion in the meta-analysis. The earliest discussion of procedural justice (as conceptually
distinct from distributive justice) is Thibaut and Walker (1975). Therefore, as a preliminary
step, we searched PsycLIT and the Social Sciences Citation Index for studies conducted
after 1975 that included the keywords procedural justice, distributive justice, procedural
fairness, and distributive fairness. Second, recent volumes of seven journals (Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Law and Society Review, Academy of Management Journal,
Personnel Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) were
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
44 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
hand-searched for relevant articles. These journals were selected because they contributed
at least two studies during the previous search.
To identify unpublished manuscripts, a variety of methods were employed. First, the
Dissertation Abstracts International electronic index was searched using the same key-
words. Second, requests for unpublished manuscripts/data were sent to 14 researchers
identied as active in organizational justice research. Finally, we examined the reference
sections of all previously identied manuscripts for additional studies.
Criteria for Inclusion
The primary criterion for inclusion in the current meta-analysis was that the study
reported a correlation between a measure of procedural justice and a measure of distributive
justice. For the purposes of the current study, although interactional justice was considered
a subcomponent of procedural justice (cf., Greenberg, 1993b), no correlations between
interactional and distributive justive were included in the current analyses. Although the
majority of organizational justice studies measure both procedural and distributive justice, a
smaller proportion reported the observed correlation between the two constructs. Therefore,
many studies of organizational justice were excluded fromthe current analysis. On the basis
of this criterion, we included 94 correlations from 63 of the approximately 300 studies
identied.
Moderator Variables
Five study characteristics were coded as potential moderators of the relationship be-
tween procedural and distributive justice. The ve moderator variables were: (1) research
context (dispute resolution vs. reward allocation), (2) the procedural justice measure used,
(3) the distributive justice measure used, (4) publication status (published vs. unpublished),
and (5) research design (true experiment vs. quasiexperiment/correlational). The second au-
thor coded the studies for each moderator variable. Two other research assistants coded mod-
erators for 12 different studies. All interrater agreement correlations were greater than .90,
suggesting that the studies were reliably coded for the moderator variables.
Procedural and distributive justice scale moderators were categorized as follows. Four
procedural justice scales (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1986; Leventhal, 1980;
Moorman, 1991) and four distributive justice scales (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg,
1986; Moorman, 1991; Price & Mueller, 1986) were identied. Studies were coded as
employing one of these scales if they either explicitly used items from these listed sources
or cited one of these sources in the development of their own measure. The remaining scales
were categorized as self-developed.
RESULTS
Relationship Between Procedural and Distributive Justice
For the overall meta-analyses and the moderator meta-analysis, corrections were made
for unreliability of both procedural and distributive measures, and sampling error. The cor-
rection for unreliability required an estimate of the typical internal consistency of procedural
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 45
Table I. Meta-Analysis Examining the Correlation Between Procedural and Distributive Justice and Possible
Moderators
Analysis K N
s
N r
w
Adj. CI
95

2
r

2
res
%
2
Overall 94 63 32,864 .529 .637 .361.911 .0228 .0197 6.46
Research context
Reward allocation 55 35 20,298 .496 .586 .288.885 .0257 .0232 5.99
Dispute resolution 39 28 12,566 .581 .721 .529.913 .0136 .0096 10.04
Procedural justice scale
Folger & Konovsky 9 6 2,660 .539 .627 .310.945 .0286 .0263 5.95
Greenberg 7 5 4,129 .503 .615 .499.730 .0050 .0035 18.85
Moorman 3 2 792 .560 .609 .566.652 .0029 .0005 60.85
Leventhal 3 2 1,291 .494 .564 .139.989 .0486 .0470 2.73
Self-developed 72 48 23,992 .533 .653 .370.936 .0242 .0208 6.36
Distributive justice scale
Folger & Konovsky 6 4 1,824 .583 .663 .571.754 .0042 .0021 33.93
Greenberg 3 2 792 .560 .609 .563.652 .0029 .0005 60.85
Moorman 7 6 3,921 .449 .513 .290.735 .0144 .0130 7.88
Price & Mueller 3 3 576 .260 .311 .040.582 .0238 .0191 19.02
Self-developed 75 48 25,751 .542 .669 .394.944 .0229 .0197 6.33
Publication status
Published 51 39 15,515 .535 .654 .329.979 .0307 .0276 5.46
Unpublished 43 24 17,349 .524 .618 .398.837 .0156 .0125 8.57
Research design
Experimental 20 16 3,798 .552 .704 .427.981 .0269 .0200 9.46
Quasiexperimental/ 74 47 29,006 .526 .629 .355.903 .0221 .0195 6.02
correlational
Note. K = number of correlations; N
s
= number of studies; N = total number of participants; r
w
= uncorrected
weighted mean; Adj. = estimated population correlation; CI
95
= lower and upper bounds of 95% condence
interval;
2
r
= observed population variance;
2
res
= residual variance; %
2
= percentage of variance accounted
for by sampling error.
and distributive justice scales. We collected 66 internal consistency reliability coefcients
reported for procedural justice scales and distributive justice scales. The average reliability
for both types of justice scales was .91; therefore, this was the value used to correct for
unreliability for both procedural and distributive justice. Results for all analyses are reported
in Table I.
Observed correlations between procedural and distributive justice ranged from .500
to .840, with the majority of rs falling between .300 and .790. Across all studies, the
estimated population value for the proceduraldistributive justice relationship was .637,
with .361 and .911 the lower- and upper-bounds of the 95%condence interval, respectively
(see Table I). To evaluate population homogeneity, we employed three decision rules. First,
as suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (1990), we examined the 75% rule. If less than 75%
of the variance in the distribution of correlations can be explained as sampling error or
unreliability in the procedural justice or distributive justice measures (i.e., if more than 25%
of the population variance remains after correcting for sampling error and unreliability), the
presence of moderators is likely. Because only 6.46%of the variance in the correlations was
accounted for by sampling error, we concluded that moderators were likely to be present.
Other indicators of moderation (cf., Hunter &Schmidt, 1990) were that the residual standard
deviation (.197) was greater than 25% of the population correlation (.159) and a signicant
chi-square value of 1692.63 was obtained ( p < .001, 93 df ). Thus, as expected the overall
meta-analysis indicates a strong positive correlation between procedural and distributive
justice, but with substantial unexplained variance in the distribution of correlations.
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
46 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
Moderator Analyses
A series of meta-analyses were performed to detect moderators. To classify as a mod-
erator, two criteria must be met: the estimated population correlations across the levels of
the moderator must differ and the average residual variance within subsets must be less
than the population residual variance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Table I also presents the
results of the moderator analyses.
Research Context
For the initial assessment of the context specicity of the distributiveprocedural jus-
tice relationship, we performed two separate meta-analyses for studies involving reward
allocation (K = 55) and dispute resolution (K = 39) contexts. As expected, the mean
correlation for reward allocation studies (r = .586) was lower than for dispute resolution
studies (r = .721). Because the average residual variance of the subgroups (.0164) was less
than the total residual variance of the population (.0197), research context was classied
as a moderator. Although research context was a moderator, within both research contexts,
there still remained a large amount of residual variation after correcting for sampling error,
suggesting that other moderators were unaccounted for. However, the lower boundaries
of the 95% condence interval for the estimated population correlations for both research
contexts were greater than zero (.288 for reward allocation and .529 for dispute resolution).
Procedural Justice Measures
Across all 63 studies, four types of procedural justice scales were identied as being
used more than once (see above). Unfortunately, most studies did not explicitly use an exist-
ing procedural justice scale or cite an existing scale that was modied for the research. Con-
sequently, the procedural justice scales were categorized as follows: Folger and Konovsky
(1989; K = 9); Greenberg (1986; K = 7); Moorman (1991; K = 3); and Leventhal (1980;
K = 3). The remaining correlations (K = 72) were coded as employing self-developed
scales because they either cited no specic source for their scale or used scales that were
not cited by any other authors. Mean correlations ranged from.564 (Leventhal) to .653 (self-
developed). Additionally, the average residual variance for procedural justice scale (.0196)
was slightly lower than the total residual variance for the population (.0197), indicating
weak evidence of a possible moderating effect. However, the small range of differences
in the magnitude of the estimated population correlations, the wide range of K sizes, and
the large number of scales categorized as self-developed, the conclusion that moderation is
present should be viewed as tentative.
Distributive Justice Measures
The identied distributive justice scales were categorized as follows: Folger and
Konovsky (1989; K = 6); Greenberg (1986; K = 3); Moorman (1991; K = 7); and Price
and Mueller (1986; K = 3). The remaining scales (K = 75) were coded as self-developed,
using the criteria outlined above. Mean correlations ranged from .311 (Price & Mueller)
to .669 (self-developed). Further, the average residual variance of distributive justice scale
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 47
(.0109) is less than the total residual variance for the population (.0197) suggesting that the
operationalization of distributive justice also moderates the correlation between procedural
and distributive justice. Although large differences in K sizes were again observed, the ev-
idence for a moderating effect of operationalization is somewhat more compelling than for
distributive justice. Both the range of correlations and the reduction in residual variance are
larger than for procedural justice. For example, the Price and Mueller (1986) scale appears
to produce a consistently smaller proceduraldistributive justice correlation than the other
scales. However, examination of the items on the Price and Mueller scale did not indicate
any obvious reason for the weaker relationship. Given the small number of studies, this
nding may be attributable to another moderator present within studies using the Price and
Mueller distributive justice scale.
In general, there is some evidence for the moderating effects of operationalization,
but these results should be viewed cautiously. Nonetheless, across the analyses examining
the moderating role of the operational denition on the proceduraldistributive justice rela-
tionship it is interesting that scales in the self-developed category resulted in the strongest
relationship between procedural and distributive justice. This may indicate that ad hoc scales
have poorer discriminant validity than more established measures of justice.
Publication Status
To examine the moderating effects of publication status, separate meta-analyses were
conducted on published (K = 51) and unpublished (K = 43) studies. The mean correlation
was slightly higher for published studies (r = .654) than for unpublished studies (r = .618),
satisfying the rst moderator criterion. However, because the average residual variance of
the subgroups (.0200) was slightly greater than the total residual variance of the population
(.0197), publication status was not considered a moderator.
Research Design
Separate meta-analyses were conducted for true experiments (K = 20) and
quasiexperiments/correlational studies (K = 74). The mean correlation was lower in
quasiexperimental/correlational studies (r = .629) than in experiments (r = .704) but the
average residual variance for subgroups (.0198) was marginally greater than the total resid-
ual variance of the population (.0197). Therefore, research design also failed to qualify as
a moderator.
DISCUSSION
As expected, the meta-analysis indicated that the relationship between procedural
and distributive justice is strong ( = .64). This relationship was moderated by research
context, with dispute resolution research having a stronger proceduraldistributive justice
relationship ( = .72) than reward allocation ( = .59). However, a large amount of resid-
ual variance remained even when research context was accounted for, supporting that the
relationship between procedural and distributive justice, like the determinants of justice,
is sensitive to the research context. It is impossible to interpret the current ndings within
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
48 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
narrower contexts (e.g., promotion decisions vs. policy decisions; legal decisions vs. in-
terpersonal decisions). However, even if the relationship varies in strength within these
narrower contexts, it appears unlikely that procedural and distributive justice are indepen-
dent in any context.
Finally, the proceduraldistributive justice relationship did not appear to be overly
sensitive to obvious methodological moderators. Publication status and research design did
not moderate the proceduraldistributive justice relationship. The operational denition of
justice showedevidence of moderation, especiallymeasures of distributive justice. However,
the evidence for the moderating effects of measurement scales is tentative given that most
studies used self-developed justice scales.
IMPLICATIONS FOR JUSTICE RESEARCH
In terms of justice context issues, current theories are postulating a simpler view of
justice that focuses on general fairness perceptions as opposed to specic forms of justice.
Linds Fairness Heuristic Theory postulates that general fairness perceptions are used
as a heuristic from which perceptions of more specic forms of justice (e.g. procedural
or distributive justice) are generated, and from which people determine their behavioral
intentions (see Lind, 2001, p. 70, Fig. 2.1). Similarly, Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001,
p. 120) suggest that both procedural justice perceptions and distributive justice perceptions
are, in some sense, derived from individuals expectations about outcomes, which at times
tend to be economic and at other times socioemotional. As such, the distinction between
procedural justice and distributive justice (and interactional justice for that matter) is more
semantic than real (also see Cropanzano et al., 2001). Our results clearly suggest that in the
typical social psychology research project, where participants evaluate the justice afforded
others in legal or domestic situations, these simpler views of justice may be more valid than
theories that postulate subcomponents of justice.
Our results also have implications for three more aspects of justice research: studies
that use justice to predict other criteria, studies that use justice constructs in explanatory
research (i.e., where procedural and distributive justice are used as exogenous or endogenous
variables), and measuring the justice constructs.
Prediction Research
A popular trend is to use procedural and distributive justice as predictors of organi-
zational outcomes (e.g., Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999). Procedural and distributive justice
are used to predict overall justice perceptions, job satisfaction, employee theft, turnover in-
tentions, organizational citizenship, etc. (for review, see Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997).
The authors typically study justice as a predictor because of its theoretical relevance to
the criterion. As such, conclusions usually discuss the theoretical role of a single justice
construct in determining the criterion in question. Given that procedural and distributive
justice share meaningful common variation with each other, they are also likely to cap-
ture common variation in outcomes. As such, the interpretation of the contribution of one
form of justice, independent from the other, likely overestimates its relationship with the
criterion (cf., Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). However, statistically controlling one form
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 49
of justice while examining the relationship between the other form of justice and some
outcome will likely underestimate the contribution being made by the justice construct
under investigation. Thus, when the goal of research is to examine the variance explained
by a justice construct, it appears that the predictive research may be better served by using
overall perceptions of organizational justice (i.e., a composite of the subcomponents of
justice) as the predictor variable. This strategy avoids the intractable problem of accurately
assigning criterion variance to either form of justice, but still allows the researcher to speak
about the importance of justice in a meaningful way. This stragtegy is consistent with newer
models of justice that focus more on overall fairness perceptions than the predictive power
of specic forms of justice (e.g., Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001; Lind, 2001).
Justice Constructs in Explanatory Research
Justice constructs are used as independent variables in experimental research, and
experimental research has been recommended as a method for better understanding the
independent effects of procedural and distributive justice (Greenberg, 1993c). In an exper-
iment, researchers attempt to manipulate justice perceptions orthogonally and then assess
the effects of these manipulations on relevant outcome variables. However, the results of
the meta-analysis make it clear that it will be difcult to achieve psychological indepen-
dence, regardless the researchers intent. Although research design (i.e., experiments versus
quasiexperiments/correlational studies) was not found to be a moderator variable, nonethe-
less, the proceduraldistributive justice relationship was strong for experiments. As such, it
is incumbent upon the experimental researcher to demonstrate that the justice perceptions
of participants are independent of each other as intended by the manipulation (also see
Van den Bos et al., 1997, for other problems in manipulating justice perceptions).
Several justice perspectives propose an interactive causal effect of procedural and
distributive justice. For example, Folgers (1986a,b) referent cognitions theory (RCT) sug-
gests that maximally negative reactions to a decision will occur when both procedural and
distributive justice are lowbecause individuals can easily construct alternative, positive out-
comes. Conversely, as perceptions of procedural, distributive justice, or both become more
positive, alternative outcomes are more difcult to conceive. Another interactive perspective
is Brockner and Wiesenfelds position that procedural and distributive justice both impact
perceptions of organizational justice to a greater extent when the other is low (Brockner &
Wiesenfeld, 1996). That is, the effects of procedural (distributive) justice on overall percep-
tions of justice are moderated by the level of distributive (procedural) justice. Several other
authors also have discussed the interactive relationships between procedural and distributive
justice as well (e.g., Koper & Vermunt, 1988; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).
The implications for research that assumes an interactive effect of procedural and
distributive justice are more theoretical than methodological. For example, Folger and
Martin (1986) argue that the procedural and distributive justice interact such that both are
perceived to be unfair, there is a maximally negative reaction to the outcome. The correlation
between procedural and distributive justice indicates that negative reactions to outcomes are
likely if either formof justice is perceived to be unfair. As such, any discussion of interactive
effects of procedural and distributive justice should take into account the implications of
the bivariate relationship when addressing theoretical predictions accorded the interaction
effect, and the practical implications of the most likely patterns of interaction.
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
50 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
Justice research has used procedural and distributive justice less frequently as endoge-
nous variables than exogenous variables. However, there have been studies that attempt
to identify factors that lead to perceptions of fairness in individuals (for a review, see
Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). One of the more interesting questions in this domain is
the extent to which antecedent conditions affect both procedural and distributive justice
perceptions (i.e., crossover effects). For example, high outcomes, an antecedent condition
theoretically related to distributive justice, also has been shown to affect perceptions of
procedural justice (Flinder & Hauenstein, 1996; Van den Bos et al., 1997). Any attempt to
establish a crossover effect must recognize that the effect of the antecedent variable may be
affecting one component of justice indirectly through the other form of justice. For exam-
ple, Flinder and Hauenstein (1996) found that the effect of outcomes on procedural justice
was not a true crossover effect because the relationship was fully mediated by distributive
justice perceptions.
Finally, studies have also examined procedural and distributive justice as mediators by
simultaneously modeling the antecedents and consequences of procedural and distributive
justice (e.g., Tyler, 1994). In this context, the failure to accurately model the relationship
between procedural and distributive justice again limits understanding of organizational
justice when indirect effects are not assessed. More importantly, if the relationship be-
tween procedural and distributive justice is nonrecursive then the misspecication of the
proceduraldistributive justice relationship affects the interpretation of causal paths.
Although justice research predominantly uses procedural and distributive justice as
predictors or exogenous variables, understanding of organizational justice may be facili-
tated if greater emphasis is placed on understanding the causal antecedents of procedural
and distributive justice. Given the strong relationship between procedural and distributive
justice, and the distinct possibility of a nonrecursive relationship between the two, the great-
est clarity may come fromcausal modeling research that utilizes procedural and distributive
justice as mediators.
Measuring Justice Constructs
Although we found evidence that the operational denitions of justice (i.e., the scales
used) moderate the proceduraldistributive justice relationship, one of the most important
nding of this study is the preponderance of ad hoc scales used in organizational justice
research. This strong preference for ad hoc measures again reinforces the call for greater
standardization of measures in justice research. Greenberg (1990b, 1993a, 1996, 2001) and
Gilliland and Honig (1994), noting organizational justice researchers predilection toward
using ad hoc measures of justice, have suggested the need for a standardized measure of
organizational justice so that cross-study comparisons can more easily be made. Greenberg
(1993a) posits that it may be possible to develop universal, generally accepted item stems
that adequately capture justice concepts. Once these item stems are developed, researchers
can adapt them to specic contexts, producing what Greenberg (1993a, p. 255) refers to as
the customized application of a standardized measure.
Furthermore, it is likely that there is some ination in our estimates of the population
correlations due to measurement contamination. The ndings that proceduraldistributive
justice relationships were strongest when self-developed scales were used may be indicative
of poor measurement development. From a review of items collected in the course of this
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 51
study, it is evident that construct confusion is present in the measurement of organizational
justice. For example, several ad hoc scales use global justice items (e.g., How fair was the
interview?) to measure either procedural or distributive justice. The use of these broadband
items will naturally inate estimate of the correlation between procedural and distributive
justice.
For measurement issues regarding procedural and distributive justice, the research
direction is clear: there is a strong need for basic measurement research in justice research.
The context sensitivity of justice constructs makes psychometric research more challenging,
but also more necessary. Unfortunately, this is an area of research that will struggle with the
basic measurement dilemma that good items (i.e., items that load on one justice construct,
but not the other) may be rare. One strategy that may represent an improvement is to measure
distributive justice more consistently with the theoretical propositions of equity theory.
Researchers rarely measure participant perceptions of inputs and outcomes as separate
constructs that together represent distributive justice. Instead, distributive justice typically
is measured directly and sometimes, distributive justice is based solely on perceptions of
outcomes, with no regards for inputs at all.
In conclusion, the theoretical and methodological implications associated with the in-
herent relationship between procedural and distributive justice are too frequently ignored.
The results of the meta-analysis indicate the relationship, although dynamic, is quite ro-
bust. As such, we make the following recommendations for continued justice research
(see Table II). First, researchers should give greater consideration to models of justice
that consider general fairness perceptions to be the central causal mechanism, instead of
models that focus on specic subcomponents of justice. The magnitude of the procedural
distributive justice relationship as examined in this study provides support for the idea that
perceptions of specic forms of justice may emanate from a perception of more general
Table II. Research Recommendations Resulting From a Strong ProceduralDistributive Justice Correlation
Type of recommendation Recommendation
Guidelines for using general
measures of justice
Consider models of justice in which general fairness perceptions
are the central causal mechanism
When using justice constructs as predictors, consider using overall
justice as a predictor rather than individual components of justice
Guidelines for using component
measures of justice
When using component measures of justice, always report
correlations between justice components
When using justice constructs as independent variables, provide
results of pilot studies, manipulation checks, or both indicating
the effectiveness of the manipulation
When examining the interactive effects of justice components,
recognize the implications of the proceduraldistributive justice
relationship for both theory and practice
When examining justice components as mediators, explicitly model
the correlation between justice components and consider the
possibility of a nonrecursive relationship
Guidelines for creating justice
measures
Develop standardized measures of organizational justice to facilitate
cross-study comparisons and theory development
Avoid using broadband items. Such items will likely contaminate the
measurement of each construct
When measuring distributive justice, consider measuring perceptions
of inputs and outcomes rather than measuring distributive justice
directly
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
52 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
justice. Further, research using justice constructs as predictors should consider using overall
justice as the predictor instead of interpreting the relationship between individual compo-
nents of justice and the criterion.
If a researcher, however, is interested in a specic subcomponent of justice, then it is
advisable to measure all relevant forms of justice, not just the subcomponent of interest. For
example, experimenters using different subcomponents of justice as independent variables
should recognize the difculty of achieving psychological independence, and should always
provide results of pilot studies, manipulation checks, or both to indicate the effectiveness of
the manipulation. Further, researchers examining the interactive effects of justice subcom-
ponents should recognize the implications of the proceduraldistributive justice relationship
for both theory and practice. For example, any attempt to identify antecedent crossover ef-
fects on justice perceptions should include an investigation of the indirect effects of one form
of justice on the other. Similarly, more research is needed on the mediating role of justice
constructs. Mediation studies should explicitly model the correlation between procedural
and distributive justice and consider the possibility of a nonrecursive relationship.
Finally, given the large number of studies that relied on ad hoc measures of justice,
we make several recommendations about the measurement of organizational justice. There
is a critical need for basic psychometric research on measures of justice. First, we suggest
that researchers should avoid broadband items. Such items will likely correlate with both
procedural and distributive justice, contaminating the measurement of each construct and
thereby masking any unique effects of the individual constructs. Second, when measuring
distributive justice, researchers should consider measuring perceptions of inputs and out-
comes rather than measuring distributive justice directly. Finally, we reiterate researchers
previous calls (e.g., Gilliland &Honig, 1994; Greenberg, 1993a) for standardized measures
of organizational justice to facilitate cross-study comparisons and theory development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Kevin Bradley, Steven Burnkrant, Shanan Gibson, Kevin Keller,
Dan LeBreton, and Jean-Anne Schmidt for comments on earlier drafts. We also thank
Cynthia Fisher and Amy Kenworthy-Uren for comments on a later version. Portions of this
paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.

Aquino, K. (1995). Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice and organizational
citizenship. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 2131.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1993). Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes
of disciplinary events. Social Justice Research, 6, 3967.

Bennett, R. J. (1991). Taking the Sting Out of the Whip: The Effects of the Magnitude of the Punishment and of
the Consistency of its Allocation on Attitudes, Retaliation and the Future Inclination to Behave Unethically.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Bies, R. J., Martin, C. L., & Brockner, J. (1993). Just laid off, but still a good citizen? Only if the process is
fair. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 227238.

Bobocel, D. R., Agar, S. E., Meyer, J. P., & Irving, P. G. (1996, April). Managerial accounts and fairness per-
ceptions in third-party conict resolution: Differentiating the effects of shifting responsibility and providing
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 53
a justication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, San Diego, CA.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: The
interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189208.

Bruning, N. S., Keup, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1996, April). Justice perceptions and outcomes in a restructured
organization: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Chapdelaine, A. (1993). Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice and Overall Satisfaction in Interpersonal Rela-
tionships. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Clemmer, E. C. (1988). The Role of Fairness in Customer Satisfaction With Services. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Colquitt, J. A., & Chertoff, J. M. (1996, April). Explaining injustice: The interactive effects of explanation and
outcome on fairness perceptions and task motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Conlon, D. F. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice: Evidence from
an organizational appeal procedure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 11091124.

Conlon, D. F., & Fasolo, P. M. (1990). Inuence of speed of third-party intervention and outcome on negotiator
and constituent fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 833846.

Conlon, D. E., & Ross, W. H. (1993). The effects of partisan third parties on negotiator behavior and outcome
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 280290.

Crant, M. J., & Bateman, T. S. (1989). A model of employee responses to drug-testing programs. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 173190.
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think.
In Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social
entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164209.
Cropanzano, R., &Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In Cooper,
C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12.
New York: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999). Using social exchance theory to distinguish procedural from interac-
tional justice. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistic relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85113.

Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and
intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305317.

Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee evaluations
of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Business, 15, 623638.

Davis, E. (1992). The Effects of Managed Health Care Systems on Employee Benet Selection, Affective and
Behavioral Outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Dougherty, R. H. (1990). Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Relation to Organizational and
Functional Role. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Boston, MA.

Flinder, S. W. (1994). Distributive and Procedural Justice: Effects of Outcomes, Inputs and Procedures. Unpub-
lished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Flinder, S. W., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (1996, April). Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego,
CA.
Folger, R. (1986a). A referent cognitions theory of relative deprivation. In Olson, J. M., Herman, C. P., & Zanna,
M. P. (Eds.), Social Comparison and Relative Deprivation: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 4, 355. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (1986b). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., &
Greenberg, J. (Eds.), Justice in Social Relations, 145162. New York: Plenum.

Folger, R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 2, 7990.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115130.
Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice
effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 531546.

Fryxell, G. F., & Gordon, M. F. (1989). Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of satisfaction with
union and management. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 851866.

Gilliland, S. W. (1992). The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
54 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceivedfairness of selectionsystems: Anorganizational justice perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 18, 694734.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 691701.

Gilliland, S. W., & Beckstein, B. A. (1996). Procedural and distributive justice in the editorial review process.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 669691.
Gilliland, S. W., & Honig, H. (1994). Development of the selection fairness survey. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.

Gilliland, S. W., & Troth, M. A. (1996). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Selection System Justice.
Unpublished manuscript.

Gordon, M. F., & Bowlby, R. I. (1988). Propositions about grievance settlements: Finally, consultation with
grievants. Personnel Psychology, 41, 107123.

Gordon, M. E., & Fryxell, G. E. (1989). Voluntariness of association as a moderator of the importance of
procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 9931009.
Greenberg, J. (1986). Differential intolerance for inequity from organizational and individual agents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 16, 191196.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 922.
Greenberg, J. (1988). The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen,
R. L., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.), Justice in Social Relations, 337351. New York: Plenum.
Greenberg, J. (1989). Cognitive reevaluation of outcomes in response to underpayment inequity. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 174184.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 561568.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399
432.
Greenberg, J. (1993a). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions
to underpayment equity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81103.
Greenberg, J. (1993b). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commentary on the state of the scence. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 249256.
Greenberg, J. (1993c). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice.
In Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 288297.
Greenberg, J. (1996). The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J. (2001). The seven loose can(n)ons of organizational justice. In Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R.
(Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hattrup, K. E. (1992). Afrmative Action in Organizational Hiring: Self-Regulation and Fairness Processes in
Beneciary Reactions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of Meta-Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jones, F. F. (1991). The Inuence of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Employee Knowledge of the
Compensation System on Compensation System Acceptance, Turnover Intentions and Job Performance.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Jordan, K. P. (1993). Perceptions of Procedural Fairness as a Function of the Freedom to Voice and the Position
Power of the Target. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Joy, V. L., & Witt, I. A. (1992). Delay of gratication as a moderator of the procedural justice-distributive justice
relationship. Group and Organization Management, 17, 297308.

Karambayya, R., &Brett, J. M. (1989). Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and perceptions of fairness.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 687704.

Karambayya, R., Brett, J. M., & Lytle, A. (1992). Effects of formal authority and experience on third-party roles,
outcomes, and perceptions of fairness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 426438.

Kim, W. C., &Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes and subsidiary top management compliance
with multinationals corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502526.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of
employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 689707.

Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts and benets level on victims
layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 630650.

Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects of procedural and distributive justice
on employee attitudes. Special Issue: Procedural justice. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17,
1524.
Koper, G., & Vermunt, R. (1988). The effects of procedural aspects and outcome salience on procedural fairness
judgments. Social Justice Research, 2, 289301.
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
Justice Meta-Analysis 55

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., &Steenkamp, J. B. F. M. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers.
Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 5465.

Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (1996, April). The effects of gender in organizational justice perception. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in
social relationships. In Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., & Willis, R. (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory
and Research. New York: Plenum.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations.
In Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for
adjudicative conict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Conict Resolution, 22, 318341.

Lissak, R. I. (1983). Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures. Unpublished Doctoral Disser-
tation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. H. (1995). A eld study of distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 99114.

Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants reactions to cognitive
ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715738.

Martin, C. L. (1987). Distributive and Procedural Justice: Effects on Satisfaction and Commitment. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

McEnrue, M. P. (1989). The perceived fairness of managerial promotion practices. Human Relations, 42, 815827.

McFarlin; D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with
personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 3, 626637.

Minton, J. W. (1988). Justice, Satisfaction and Loyalty: Employee Withdrawal and Voice in the Din of Inequity.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Moorman, R. H. (1990). The Role of Cognition and Disposition as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors: A Study of Personality and Perceived Fairness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do
fairness perceptions inuence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845855.

Niehoff, B. P., &Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527556.

Orpen, C. (1994). The effect of organizational commitment onthe relationshipbetweenprocedural anddistributive

justice. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 135136.

Otto, C. A. (1993). The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Employee Loyalty, Employee
Commitment and Employee Perceptions of Organizational Justice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Poythress, N. G., Schumacher, J., Wiener, R., & Murrin, M. (1993). Procedural justice judgments of alternative
procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 16391658.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Marsheld, MA: Pitman.

Rahman, M. (1992). The Effect of a Constrained Resource on Individual Performance, Performance Effort
and Feelings Toward the Task and Decision-Makers: The Intervention of Equity. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.

Rasinski, K. A. (1987a). Outcomes, Fairness and Values as Predictors of Political Responses of Government
Allocation Policies: A Field Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL.

Rasinski, K. A. (1987b). Whats fair is fairor is it? Value differences underlying public views about social
justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201211.

Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Economic justice, political behavior and American political values. Social Justice Re-
search, 2, 6179.

Ratcliff, S. L. (1991). An Examination of Workplace Justice, Attitudes and Behavior: The Case of Layoffs.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Scarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and
interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434443.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalized
outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219247.
Sheppard, B. H., &Lewicki, R. J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness. Social Justice Research,
1, 161176.

Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. F., Perlman, K., &Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection
procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 4976.

Suh, Y. (1992). Instrumental and Noninstrumental Voice Effects on Perceptions of Procedural Justice in a
Performance Appraisal. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE.
P1: GDP
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal [jerrj] pp386-errj-367688 February 13, 2002 11:29 Style le version Nov. 19th, 1999
56 Hauenstein, McGonigle, and Flinder
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 8398.

Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers evaluations of the ends and the means: An examination of
four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
55, 2340.

Tepper, B. J., &Braun, C. K. (1995). Does the experience of organizational justice mitigate the invasion of privacy
engendered by random drug testing? An empirical investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16,
211225.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law
and Society Review, 18, 5174.

Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of
four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333344.

Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures.
Law and Society Review, 22, 103135.

Tyler, T. R. (1991). Using procedures to justify outcomes: Testing the viability of a procedural justice strategy
for managing conict and allocating resources in work organizations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
12, 259279.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850863.
Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributive and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal
leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 643665.

Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police en-
counters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281292.

Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & McGraw, K. (1985). The inuence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of
political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 700725.
Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends
more on what comes rst than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95104.