What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness

Holmvall, Camilla M.; Bobocel, D. Ramona

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.09.001

Cited by 58 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The basic principle of the group engagement model is that the manner in which a group makes the person think and feel about himself/herself (in other words, how the group treats the individual group member) affects the individual's behavioral effort toward the group's collective interest (Blader and Tyler 2009;Tyler and Blader 2003). People feel more respect and self-esteem from a group when they believe that the group values and appreciates them, hence they are more likely to construct their social identity with reference to their group membership (Tyler and Blader 2003), and develop a salient relational and interdependent self-construal (Holmvall and Bobocel 2008;Sedikides et al 2008).…”

Section: Procedural Justice and The Group Engagement Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace procedural justice is an important motivator for employee work attitude and performance. This research examines how procedural justice affects employee engagement. We developed three propositions. First, based on the group engagement model, we hypothesized that procedural justice enhances employee engagement through employee organizational identification. Second, employees with stronger moral identity centrality are more likely to be engaged in their jobs. Third, procedural justice compensates for the effect of moral identity centrality on employee engagement. Specifically, when procedural justice is higher, employee moral identity centrality plays a less significant role in employee engagement; whilst when procedural justice is lower, the effect of moral identity centrality on employee engagement is stronger. Research findings based on an employee survey in a leading financial service organization provide support for the above propositions.

show abstract

Section: Procedural Justice and The Group Engagement Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, people's fairness reasoning is influenced more strongly by variations in interactional treatment when (a) social identity needs are particularly strong (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992, Study 1;Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996;Platow & von Knippenberg, 2001;Wenzel, 2000), (b) perceivers are of low rather than high status (Chen, Brockner, & Greenberg, 2003), (c) status concerns are primed (van Prooijen, van den Bos, & Wilke, 2002), and (d) people are high rather than low in interdependent self-construal and interdependent self-construal is primed (Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, & Skarlicki, 2000;Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008).…”

Section: Homo Socialismentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

Skitka

2009

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer's classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the ''lost and found'' box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.Keywords Justice Á Fairness Á Morality Á Symbolic interaction Forays into studying the psychology of fairness over the last 70 or so years have yielded dozens of theories and thousands of empirical studies. The goal of this review is to selectively rummage through the last several decades of theory and research to explore where we have been, re-examine issues and ideas we may have forgotten or neglected to sufficiently follow-up or apply forward, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future.

show abstract

“…Jehn & Bezrukova (2010) reported that a strong workgroup identity decreased the likelihood that the activated faultlines led to coalition formation and conflicts. Conducting experimental studies, Holmvall & Bobocel (2008) reported that when individuals have an interdependent self-construal (that is, base their identity on their relationships with other people) they are likely to react positively to the negative outcomes which resulted from a procedural fairness issue. And the opposite was true for the people who construed their identity as independent; that is, they negatively reacted to such outcomes.…”

Section: The Consequences Of Identity At the Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distinction refers to whether an individual defines/conceptualizes his-or her "self" in relation to, and intertwined with, other people or does so in isolation and unique separation from others (Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008). When individuals intrinsically prospect an identity, they define themselves based on their own assessment of their attributes, values, skills, abilities, and belief systems.…”

Section: Identity Rewardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When individuals intrinsically prospect an identity, they define themselves based on their own assessment of their attributes, values, skills, abilities, and belief systems. Therefore, IPI is basically a function of independent self-construal (Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008;Singelis, 1994). On the other hand, in the case of SCI, the definition of self is the function of roles, relationships, and affinities with others (individuals or social units) -i.e., interdependent self-construal.…”

Section: Identity Rewardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A discourse on entrepreneurial identity : three essays.

Poudel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness

Cited by 58 publications

References 58 publications

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality

Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

A discourse on entrepreneurial identity : three essays.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About