روند عادلانه بازبینی: اثر متفاوت عدالت تعاملی و رویه در حضور اطلاعات مقایسه اجتماعی

Abstract The competing views of fairness theory (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998 and Folger and Cropanzano, 2001) and fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) were tested by studying the effects of interactional (IJ), procedural (PJ), and distributive justice (knowledge of others’ outcomes [OO]) upon evaluations of outcome fairness and customer satisfaction. The participants, 369 undergraduates, were randomly allocated to scenario-based experimental conditions. A 2 (IJ) × 2 (PJ) × 4 (OO) MANOVA and stepdown analyses provided evidence of “fair process” across all levels of distributive justice for outcome fairness (p<.001) and satisfaction (p<.001), but only in relation to the effects of interactional justice. No such effects were found for procedural justice. Implications for the development of justice theory are discussed.

Conclusion Our research offers important insights into justice concerns within service organizations. Evidence was found to support fairness theory’s proposition that interactional justice is a potent factor in reactions to unfairness. The results also suggested that in service recovery settings, interactional and procedural justice may function differently, lending support for the theoretical differentiation of these two justice dimensions. Our research demonstrates that within a service recovery context, fair process effects are evident despite the presence of social comparison equity information. These findings indicate that fairness heuristic theory’s claim that procedural justice is largely irrelevant when others’ outcomes are known does not generalize to this context. The importance of dignified and respectful treatment of customers by service organizations is also apparent.