The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or not they were granted or denied voice in a decision-making process. Results consistently revealed that the effects of voice versus no-voice on fairness-based perceptions, emotions, and behavioral intentions were significantly more pronounced for individuals with proself orientations than for individuals with prosocial orientations. These findings were extended in Study 4, a field study in which perceived procedural justice was a stronger predictor of satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors among proselfs than among prosocials. These findings suggest that procedural justice effects can be accounted for by self-oriented motives or needs, rather than prosocial motives that are often conceptualized as being associated with justice. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. People care deeply about justice. This is evidenced by people’s strong reactions to social situations that they perceive to be fair or unfair: People tend to display great appreciation when they have the feeling that ‘‘justice was done”, but when people believe that injustice has prevailed they display aversive reactions such as anger, fear, and disgust (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). One justice concern that people have pertains to outcome distributions: People want to receive fair outcomes (e.g., in proportion to the work they have conducted and/or in comparison to other people). This justice conceptualization is commonly referred to as distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). A related but different justice concern that people have pertains to the procedures that are used for reaching decisions: People want authorities to use fair decision-making procedures. This justice conceptualization is commonly referred to as procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; for overviews, see Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). The distinction between distributive and procedural justice is important, because classic work of Thibaut and Walker (1975) suggests that people’s justice concerns indeed involve questions about both outcomes and procedures (see also Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). Both distributive and procedural justice have been studied extensively by social psychologists who examined social influences on people’s justice evaluations (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). However, relatively little research attention has been devoted to personality variables that predict people’s justice judgments (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006). In the case of distributive justice, an exception to this observation can be made for social value orientation, defined as preferences for particular distributions of outcomes for self and others (Messick & McClintock, 1968; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997). Generally, a three-category typology of social value orientation is advanced, distinguishing among prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations. Prosocials are defined in terms of enhancing collective outcomes and equality in outcomes between themselves and others; individualists are defined in terms of enhancing outcomes for self with no or very little regard for other’s outcomes; and competitors are defined in terms of enhancing relative advantage over others. Thus, the distinction between social value orientations is multidimensional, and research indeed revealed that a prosocial orientation is associated with greater tendencies to enhance both collective outcomes and equality in outcomes than individualistic and competitive orientations (Van Lange, 1999). Furthermore, indi0022-1031/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.006 * Corresponding author. Fax: +31 20 5988921. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.-W. van Prooijen). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 1303–1315