The Effects of Perceived Procedural Justice on Conflict Management between Spouses, and the Mediating Role of Dyadic Adjustment

Abstract

In this study, we examined the role that perceived procedural justice (PPJ) plays in the conflict management behaviors that intimate spouses adopt and endorse. In this context, PPJ has been defined as the degree to which one perceives that his or her spouse makes decisions fairly, considerately, and in a participatory manner. To test the impact of perceived procedural justice on conflict resolution behavior, we applied the dual‐concern model of conflict management style. In an experiment in which participants read fictional scenarios and predicted spouses’ responses, we found that perceptions of strong PPJ enhanced the prediction of integrating (problem solving), compromising, and, to a lesser degree, obliging behavior. Perceived procedural justice also caused a reduction in avoidance behavior, but no effect we found on dominating (competing) behavior. In a following correlational study, we also found that PPJ positively correlated to enhanced integrating, compromising, and obliging behaviors, and these correlations were partially or fully mediated by the degree of “dyadic adjustment,” which is a measure of relationship health. In addition, in this second study, we found no correlation between perceived procedural justice and dominating or avoiding behavior. In both studies, participants either predicted or chose collaborative behaviors more than non‐collaborative ones. We conclude that the perception that one's partner is behaving in a procedurally just way can enhance active and egalitarian collaboration in marriage and other intimate partner relationships, but that the absence of PPJ does not seem to encourage active non‐collaboration, particularly not highly self‐centered dominating behavior.

Perceived procedural justice and conflict management in intimate relationships: The moderating effects of anxious attachment and personal power.

“…The role of PPJ in alleviating spousal conflict, or encouraging spouses to resolve it in more collaborative ways, has recently been demonstrated (Kluwer et al, 2009; Van Erp et al, 2011). In our former studies (Peleg-Koriat et al, 2017), spouse’s PPJ enhanced collaborative styles (integrating, compromising, and obliging). However, human behavior tends to vary, with disposition or contextual factors (Mischel, 1968), and psychological research advances by exploring the moderators of general tendencies.…”

“…In couples’ therapy that involves instruction of new cognitions and behaviors, it is worth developing spouses’ awareness and skills regarding procedural justice. Past research suggests that if they can learn to handle mutual decision-making with higher neutrality, trust, respect, and in a more participatory style, they will gain higher collaboration and strengthen dyadic adjustment (Peleg-Koriat et al, 2017). The findings of the current study, which call for replication to solidify them, suggest to therapists that their clients would likely differ in how sensitive they would be to procedural justice, and how they would interpret it.…”

“…Given these correlations and following past recommendations (Tyler, 1997), we computed a mean PPJ score based on all subquestionnaires’ items (α = .93). Although the differentiation of PPJ dimensions is therefore questionable, past research did demonstrate that together they test a sense of procedural justice, and that they correlate as expected with procedural justice manipulations and with expected outcomes of procedural justice (Nelson et al, 2014; Peleg-Koriat et al, 2017; Tyler & Blader, 2000).…”

“…Their perceptions of caring and respectful interpersonal treatment by the expatriate employee tended to reduce personal conflict for both spouses. We lately conducted two studies associating PPJ with conflict management styles in married and cohabiting couples (Peleg-Koriat, Nelson, & Ben-Ari, 2017). In our studies, participants who perceived their spouses as procedurally just—impartial, caring, respectful, and participatory during mutual decision-making—were more likely to predict or report an inclination for collaborative styles: integrating, compromising, and obliging, and a somewhat lower inclination for avoiding.…”