The influence of general beliefs on the formation of justice expectations

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper was to investigate the influence of applicants' justice beliefs (i.e. belief in a just world and belief in tests) on justice expectations with respect to a forthcoming application for the job of prison guard. Further, it aims to study the moderating role of direct experiences on the relationship between beliefs and justice expectations.Design/methodology/approachA written survey was administered to 803 applicants, just before the start of the selection procedure. Data were self‐reported and collected at one point in time.FindingsSignificant positive relationships were found between both beliefs (i.e. belief in a just world and belief in tests) on procedural and distributive justice expectations. Moreover, the relationship between belief in tests and both types of justice expectations was stronger among experienced applicants. Conversely, the relationship between belief in a just world and distributive justice expectations was stronger among inexperienced applicants. This moderation was not found with respect to procedural justice expectations.Originality/valueInsight into how justice expectations are formed in selection contexts, and consequently, how organizations can influence these expectations, is largely missing. Bell, Ryan, and Wiechmann provided a conceptual model on antecedents of justice expectations but its theoretical underpinning is rather weak and not well‐understood. Construal level theory was used in this study as a theoretical basis to predict how applicants might form justice expectations with respect to future selection procedures.

Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”

“…Results support predictions, with justice expectations found to be important determinants of test-taking motivation, test efficacy, and perceptions of justice (Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006;Chapman, Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003;Derous et al, 2004;Schreurs, Derous, Proost, & De Witte, 2010). More recently, Geenen, Proost, Schreurs, et al (2012) conducted a study to examine the source of justice expectations. Consistent with the aforementioned models (Bell et al, 2004;Derous et al, 2004), justice beliefs were significantly related to procedural and distributive justice expectations.…”

“…The hiring expectations of applicants and their investment in the selection process have been cited as likely to affect applicant reactions, although until recently this has received little attention. Geenen, Proost, Schreurs, et al (2012) found that the test-taking experience can enhance the relationship between belief in tests and justice expectations. Similarly, Reeder, Powers, Ryan, and Gibby (2012) found that job familiarity and prior success affected applicants' face validity perceptions of a test.…”

Bridging corporate social responsibility and compassion at work

“…Drawing upon social exchange theory (SET) that focuses on the reciprocation process of the perceived mutual obligation between employees and their organizations, employees are found to direct their acts of reciprocity to the degree to which they perceive their organization to be committed to them (Eisenberger et al, 1986). In this context, employees who experience distributive justice are more likely to commit themselves to their organization since they perceive that they are receiving sufficient return on their invested resources (Mattila and Patterson, 2004;Geenen et al, 2012). From a SET perspective, employees' perceptions that their efforts at work are fairly reciprocated by the organization in terms of adequate compensation lead to further affective commitment to their organization (He and Brown, 2013).…”

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Making Human Resource Management Decisions on Fairness: A Case of Resume Screening

“…Applicants' subsequent attitudes, intentions, and behaviors are significantly and meaningfully influenced by their responses throughout the selection process. According to certain research, an applicant's unfavorable response could set off a chain reaction of unfavorable events that could include decreased organizational attitudes (like low organizational attractiveness), unwanted behaviors or behavioral intentions (like referral and litigation intentions) [17], and even an impact on the applicant's actual acceptance of a job offer as opposed to just the expected acceptance [18]. In addition, negative reactions can also shorten an applicant's attention span [19], which might result in poor performance during the interview.…”