What constitutes fairness in work settings?

A four-component model of procedural justice

Steven L. Blader*, Tom R. Tyler

Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Abstract

Despite a recent surge in research on procedural justice in organizational contexts, little work has

systematically investigated how employees define procedural justice. In other words, relatively little

has been done to establish a clear awareness of what employees consider when making their

procedural justice evaluations. This lack of attention to construct definition is problematic, since it

prevents an understanding of what underlies employees’ fairness evaluations and leaves several

issues regarding the definition and conceptualization of procedural justice unresolved. To address

these issues, this article describes the four-component model of procedural justice [Blader, S. L., &

Tyler, T. R. (in press). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a

‘‘fair’’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000).

Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia,

PA: Psychology Press.], which posits four components that are believed to underlie overall

procedural justice evaluations. The model differentiates between both justice type (decision making,

quality of treatment) and justice source (formal, informal) in developing these components. Research

supporting the four-component conceptualization is discussed and the utility of this approach for

procedural justice research is reviewed.

D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fairness; Four-component model; Procedural justice

1053-4822/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00101-8

* Corresponding author. Management Department, Stern School of Business, New York University, 40 West

4th Street, Room 7-18, New York, NY 10012, USA.

E-mail address: sblader@stern.nyu.edu (S.L. Blader).

www.HRmanagementreview.com

Human Resource Management Review

13 (2003) 107–126

1. Advancing the conceptualization of procedural justice: what constitutes fairness in

work settings?

For the last 10 years, organizational justice research has been a prosperous undertaking.

Originating with research in the legal and social psychological domains, the ideas of social

justice—and procedural justice in particular—have found a secure home in organizational

research. The popularity of the idea of organizational justice continues to surge. For instance,

a literature search for the keyword ‘organizational justice’ identified 63 entries on organ-

izational justice in 2000 and 2001, but only 7 over the equivalent 2-year period of 1990–

1991.1

What have been the fruits of this research? The majority of it has demonstrated the

importance of justice—and procedural justice in particular—for predicting important organ-

izational outcomes. The sheer variety of outcomes with which fair procedures have been

associated is one of the most compelling testaments to its importance. For instance,

procedural justice has been found to be an important predictor of commitment to work

organizations (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995), the

effort which employees put into doing their required duties (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991;

Lee, 1995), the likelihood that employees will stay with their organizations (Schaubroeck,

May, & Brown, 1994; Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995), the acceptance of

and compliance with organizational rules (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Sparks, Bottoms, &

Hay, 1996), and the extent to which employees engage in extra role activities on behalf of

their organizations (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991). Furthermore, this is only a

sampling of the demonstrated outcomes of procedural fairness. An even broader set of

organizational outcomes has also been shown to relate to fairness evaluations (e.g., see Tyler

& Blader, 2000).

The success organizational researchers have had in identifying the correlates of procedural

fairness has earned the construct a place as one of the most potent influences on

organizational attitudes and behaviors. Despite this prominence, relatively few recent efforts

have been targeted at developing a deeper understanding of the components of procedural

justice, or towards resolving many of the issues that have been raised concerning its

definition. In other words, relatively little attention has been turned toward identifying the

criteria that employees use to judge the fairness of their work organizations. These conceptual

ambiguities stifle the practical and theoretical advancement of organizational justice (Cro-

panzano & Prehar, 1999), since we know that procedural justice matters, but we do not have a

clear understanding of what it is. Further, without a deep understanding of what employees

consider in evaluating procedural fairness in their work places, human resource professionals

and other organizational agents may be at a loss in designing effective interventions that

capitalize on the positive consequences of justice.

In this article, we address the meaning of procedural justice by presenting a new

conceptual framework of the components of procedural justice—one that incorporates

1 This literature search was conducted using the PSYCINFO database.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126108

considerations of both type of justice (justice of decision-making processes, justice of

treatment) and source of justice (organizational rules, specific organizational authorities).

Together, these two distinctions form the four-component model of procedural justice (Blader

& Tyler, in press; Tyler & Blader, 2000). In presenting this model, we integrate the findings of

prior research on the meaning of procedural justice, discuss the relevance of our framework

for addressing outstanding issues regarding the conceptualization of procedural justice, and

review the relevance of the four-component model for actual human resource and manage-

ment practices in work organizations.

2. The development of research on organizational justice

2.1. Early organizational justice research

While a comprehensive presentation of the history of procedural justice is beyond the

scope of this article, a brief review of this development is useful for understanding the current

status of the construct and the four-component model. The precursor to procedural justice

research was work on distributive justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of outcomes.

The central finding of this work is that people exhibit an increased willingness to accept

outcomes that they perceive as fair, even if those outcomes do not provide them with

everything they want (Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997).

The focus on fair outcomes, while a dominant approach for many years, was found to have

limited utility. First, since people tend to exaggerate the importance of their own contributions

(Tyler et al., 1997), providing everyone with outcomes that they perceive as fair is

problematic. Second, concerns about outcomes (e.g., pay and promotion) have not actually

been found to be the key concerns people have in their organizational interactions. For

instance, Messick, Bloom, Boldizar and Samuelson (1985) asked people to list unfair

behaviors that others had enacted. They found that amongst respondents’ foremost concerns

was treatment with consideration and politeness. Mikula, Petri and Tanzer (1990) replicated

this finding and showed that treatment in interpersonal interactions and encounters is a central

component of the injustices people reported. Thus, although outcomes were the starting point

of organizational justice research, problems with that approach prompted researchers to

refocus their efforts.

2.2. Control model

Thibaut and Walker (1975) pioneered the following wave of justice research. Their

concern was with the perceived fairness of procedures. They found that assessments of

how fairly decisions are made are an important determinant of reactions to the outcomes of

those processes. In other words, they found that people accept outcomes that may be less than

what they wanted because they regard the process that led to those outcomes as fair.

Subsequent research has confirmed the importance of these procedural assessments, inde-

pendent of any relation they may have with outcomes.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 109

To explain their findings, Thibaut and Walker (1975) proposed that people’s concern

with regard to fair decision making is the amount of control that procedures allow them

over the outcome, with the ultimate goal that the outcomes be fair. Since decision (i.e., full

or complete) control over outcomes is not often possible in the legal settings they examined

(nor is it possible in work organizations or other hierarchical settings), people instead opt

for indirect means of exercising control over outcomes. For instance, they may seek

opportunities to present their side (‘‘voice’’) and other indirect means of influencing

decision making (termed ‘‘process control’’). This approach has been termed the control

model of procedural justice, and it emphasizes the extent to which procedures allow

influence over outcomes.

A critical characteristic of the control model is that it retains the outcome-oriented focus of

distributive justice research, while shifting attention to decision-making processes. The

procedural justice elements supported by the control model are clearly outcome-focused,

whether directly (e.g., ‘‘How much are you able to influence the outcomes you experience at

work?’’) or indirectly (e.g., ‘‘How much of an opportunity are you given to express your

views before decisions are made?’’). From a control model perspective, managers and human

resource professionals should focus on the extent to which employees perceive themselves to

have a role in determining the outcomes they experience. For instance, providing employees

an opportunity to explain their work performance prior to making pay and promotion

decisions should increase perceptions of procedural justice.

In addition to its focus on outcomes, the control model has an exclusive focus on the

formal elements of decision-making processes that lead to those outcomes. That is, it

emphasizes the formal, structural aspects of the decision-making process (Tyler & Bies,

1990). The control model dominated procedural justice research for many years, as it was the

first theoretical approach to combine the development of a conceptual framework with an

empirical program of research on procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988).

As the number of procedural justice studies has expanded, however, many researchers

have questioned the underlying assumptions of the Thibaut and Walker model. More

specifically, the exclusive focus on outcomes and decision making was thought to neglect

other major concerns that people have with procedures. In response, Lind and Tyler

(1988) developed the ‘‘group value’’ model of procedural justice, which they extended to

apply to the case of hierarchical settings in the ‘‘relational’’ model of authority (Tyler &

Lind, 1992).

2.3. The group value model

The group value model and the relational model stress the relational importance of

procedures. Central to this approach is the idea that work organizations (and other groups)

are more than sources of money and other material outcomes. People also construct their

identities based on the groups to which they belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). How people

think and feel about themselves is related to their groups and how their groups function. As

such, the group value model emphasizes the role of fair procedures in these identity-relevant

judgments (Lind & Tyler, 1988). When employees experience fairness, they feel good about

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126110

both themselves and their work organizations. Fairness communicates to employees that the

group values them, and makes them feel good about being part of the group.

The consequence of this perspective is that fairness is evaluated in relational terms (i.e.,

people use criteria that provide them with cues regarding their relationship with the group).

Procedures are sources of information for deciphering one’s status within the group as well as

the status of the group. So the primary concern is not with the material outcomes one can

garner from the group, but with the role the group plays in shaping one’s identity. The three

primary relational criteria that have been identified and examined by research are status

recognition (treatment with dignity), trust in the motives of authorities, and neutrality (Tyler,

1989; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Note that these criteria are unrelated to outcomes:

respectful treatment, neutrality, and trust in the motives of authorities are not clearly linked to

one getting material outcomes that one desires. Rather, they each speak to the nature of the

relationship between the employee and the work organization.

Consider the example mentioned earlier of a performance review. A control model

approach would predict that employees evaluate their performance review process in terms

of how much opportunity is provided for them to speak, thereby allowing them to explain

(and perhaps justify) their performance. This opportunity might be valued because it allows

them to influence the outcome of that review (i.e., they may get a raise, which they regard as

more fair than what they would have gotten had they not spoken for themselves). On the other

hand, the group value model predicts that employees judge the performance review process in

terms of what it conveys about the relationship between them and their work organization.

For instance, employees may focus on whether their boss took their performance review

seriously, whether they were treated with respect during the review, and whether the

evaluation of their performance was unbiased. All of these criteria can potentially provide

information about the organization and how they (the employees) are regarded by the

organization. So the control and group value models of procedural justice emphasize a

different set of concerns with procedures and, consequently, they predict a different set of

criteria employees may use for evaluating procedures. This makes distinguishing between

them important for attempts by both researchers and practitioners to understand how

employees judge fairness.

A note may be in order regarding our use of the term ‘outcomes.’ We have labeled the

control model as outcome-focused and the group value model as relationally focused. The

outcomes we refer to in reference to the control model are primarily material and economic in

nature. Some may claim that both the control and the group value model are outcome-

oriented models, but that they differ in the nature of the outcomes they focus on. In the case of

the control model, the outcomes are material in nature; in the case of the group value model,

they are information regarding one’s identity (i.e., relational information). Consistent with

this approach, several social exchange theorists have also emphasized noneconomic con-

ceptions of resources (Foa & Foa, 1974; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). There are two important

points to consider regarding this perspective. First, considering outcomes in noneconomic

terms does not negate the distinction between the control and group value models; rather,

their distinction would then clarify the nature of the resources that people focus on when

evaluating procedures. Second, it is our perspective, which we detail more fully elsewhere

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 111

(Tyler & Blader, 2000), that caution should be taken in stretching the concept of outcomes to

encompass all desires and drives that employees (and people more generally) may possess. To

define outcomes so broadly as to encompass all possible motives and goals leads to an

irrefutable theory, does not specify the factors that guide behavior, and is not informative

about what motivates employees.

2.4. Comparing the group value and control models

This discussion of the control and group value models raises (at least) one clear question:

Which theory is supported by the data? In other words, do employees care about procedures

for material or identity-related reasons? Research comparing the two approaches has

generally supported the identity-based perspective of the group value model (e.g., Bies,

Martin, & Brockner, 1993; Tyler, 1989, 1994; Tyler et al., 1996). This is not to say that the

control model has not also received empirical support, since it clearly has (e.g., Alexander &

Ruderman, 1987; Lind, Kurtz, Musante, Walker, & Thibaut, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1978).

However, several studies have examined whether the control model’s participation effects can

be attributed to value-expressive motivations (i.e., relational), as opposed to instrumental

motivations. The results of these studies support the notion that participation effects are, at

least in large part, due to their value-expressive nature (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998;

Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Tyler, 1987; Tyler & Blader, 2000). In other words, control is

important to the degree that it influences assessments of one’s relationship with the

organization, but has little outcome-related influence on procedural justice judgments of its

own once those relational considerations are considered.

The value-expressive nature of participation effects indicates that the fairness of

decision-making processes is one important concern of employees. That is, the explanatory

power of the group value model does not negate the concern with decision making

advocated by the control model, but rather shifts what is believed to underlie that concern

to relational issues. Further, research findings in support of the group value model advocate

the addition of another cluster of employee concerns—that of quality of treatment. Both the

quality of treatment and the nature of decision-making processes convey information about

one’s standing in the organization and about the overall quality of the organization. As

such, both the quality of treatment and the nature of decision-making processes influence

general evaluations of procedural justice. Employees who are subject to unfair treatment

will likely think poorly of the group and of their status in the group; the same is true of

experiences with unfair decision making.

These many years of research have led to important developments in our understanding of

why the fairness of organizational procedures matters. Employees demonstrate a concern with

their relationship to their work organizations because that relationship affects how they feel

about themselves. Further, they appear to evaluate that relationship with regard to the ways

decisions are made and how they are treated by the organization. This conceptual

categorization of concerns, while not an explicit part of either the control or group value

model, is implicitly indicated by both and is central to the four-component model of

procedural justice.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126112

3. The four-component model

3.1. Two dimensions of procedural justice

The control and group value models both provide a theoretical explanation for why

procedural justice matters. As such, they provide insight into understanding the psychology

of justice. Based on the premises of that research and other past work on procedural justice,

the four-component model develops a taxonomy for the types of criteria used by individuals

to assess the fairness of procedures and experiences. In other words, rather than focusing on

why people care about justice, the four-component model sets forth to describe what the

domains of procedural justice concerns will be in most contexts. It therefore extends

procedural justice research in a different direction, by considering more explicitly what the

areas of concern will be with regard to the fairness of organizational procedures.

The four-component model’s first distinction is between the classes of concerns that are

evaluated in justice terms; we refer to this as the different ‘types’ of justice. We distilled those

types of justice concerns in Section 2 and established that they are an outgrowth of research

on the control and group value models. We will briefly review and expand on that discussion,

and will then present the second dimension of procedural concerns—the source of experi-

ences in work organizations.

3.1.1. Types of justice

The first type of justice concern is with regard to how decisions are made. Neutrality, for

instance, represents those concerns in the group value model, and these concerns were also

central to the control model of procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Employees likely

have additional concerns over how decisions are made, such as whether they are made

carefully, are done in a consistent manner, etc. The idea that decision making represents one

constellation of concerns employees have with the fairness of organizational procedures is

typically well accepted. Much of formal organizational procedure is devoted to determining

the ways in which decisions are to be made, whether those decisions relate to the distribution

of resources, sanctions, rewards, or work load. When decisions are made in an unbiased, fair

manner at work, employees gain a sense that they are valued members of the organization and

are not susceptible to capricious or unbalanced decision making. It also conveys to employees

that the organization is well functioning and of high status.

The second type of justice concern regards quality of treatment. In the group value model,

this is reflected by status recognition (i.e., treatment with dignity and concern for rights). The

idea that treatment is important to fairness evaluations is also reflected in the work by

Messick et al. (1985) and Mikula et al. (1990), as well as research on interactional justice

(Bies & Moag, 1986). Even earlier, Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry (1980) cited ethicality as an

important criterion of procedural fairness; ethicality is conceptually similar to the idea of

quality of treatment. A focus on quality of treatment in procedural justice research is not

suggested by an outcome-oriented understanding of why procedures matter, and so it was

excluded in procedural justice research that stressed outcomes. More recently, however, the

idea that treatment issues are important to employees’ fairness perceptions of their work

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 113

organizations has been widely embraced by researchers. When employees are treated fairly at

work, their sense of themselves as employees and as a people is improved. Fair treatment

promotes a sense of inclusion in the group and importance to the group.

As we have discussed, both decision making and quality of treatment concerns are

important for relational, and not material, reasons. Employees are believed to care about both

sets of concerns because of the information value that they hold about their relationship with

the work organization. It is worth noting that while others have suggested distinctions that

may appear similar, they are in fact rather different from the type of justice distinction put

forth by the four-component model. For instance, Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) differ-

entiated between structural and interpersonal aspects of procedural justice: structural refer to

those aspects of procedures that cause outcomes, while interpersonal aspects emerge in

association with, and often after, decisions. Greenberg (1993) made a similar distinction

between structural and social determinants of procedural (and distributive) justice. His

structural determinants refer to the context that leads to decisions, while the social

determinants refer to the interpersonal treatment that is experienced in association with a

decision.

These alternative models differ from the type of justice dimensions of the four-component

model in several ways. First, the decision making and quality of treatment clusters of the four-

component model are broader than their related constructs in these other models. For

instance, Greenberg (1993) narrowly defines the social determinant of procedural justice as

providing employees with information regarding the procedure. There is no question that this

concept, which he terms informational justice (Greenberg, 1993), is related to procedural

justice perceptions; information about how decisions are made is certainly likely to affect

procedural fairness perceptions. However, the set of quality of treatment concerns supported

by the four-component model recognizes a more extensive set of treatment (or social)

concerns that may also affect procedural justice evaluations, such as whether one’s rights are

respected in dealings with the organization. So one difference between the types of justice in

the four-component model and previous approaches is the scope of concerns considered.

Furthermore, Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) and Greenberg (1993) each describes

justice types that are actually different from one another along two dimensions. That is,

the distinction those researchers draw can be characterized along two dimensions: (1) the type

of justice (i.e., aspects of procedures that cause outcomes vs. those that are associated with

outcomes) and (2) the origin of justice and how it is disbursed (from the rules or from

particular agents of the organization). Since each approach differs along both of these

dimensions, each therefore confounds the two dimensions. The four-component model teases

these two distinctions apart by distinguishing between both justice type (decision making and

quality of treatment) as well as justice source.

3.1.2. Source of justice

The distinction between decision making and quality of treatment is based on the content

of procedural justice evaluations. The other distinction that the four-component model draws

is in the source of the procedural experience. Source reflects the origins of the experiences

that shape employees’ procedural justice evaluations.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126114

There are two central sources from which overall procedural fairness evaluations are

drawn. On one hand, there are the formal, official rules and procedures of the organization.

We will refer to these as the formal bases of procedural justice. On the other hand, there are

the experiences people have with the specific group authorities who manage their work lives

(e.g., their bosses, the heads of their department, etc.); we will refer to these as informal bases

of procedural justice. Formal bases are structural in nature (i.e., codified) and are likely to be

constant across time, situation, and people. Work organizations are slow to change official

policies and do so infrequently. Further, at least theoretically, official policies are applicable

throughout the organization and not on an idiosyncratic basis. Informal bases, on the other

hand, are more dynamic and unique. They are likely to vary a great deal, depending on the

perceiver (i.e., the employee), the organizational agent (i.e., their boss), as well as the

particular relationship that develops between them (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Our

model specifies that formal and informal sources of justice have a distinct influence on

employees’ overall procedural justice evaluations. In other words, employees differentiate

between these sources and each has a separate influence on overall judgments of the fairness

of organizational procedures.

Most research on procedural justice has neglected to explicitly recognize the joint

influence of formal and informal sources of procedural justice (for exceptions, see Blader

& Tyler, 1999; Byrne, 1999; Cobb, Vest, & Hills, 1997; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998;

Masterson, Bartol, & Moye, 2000; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), focusing

instead on the formal sources of people’s experiences. This approach may be insufficient,

however, since informal sources can be important proximal determinants of the fairness that

employees encounter. Although some research has measured procedural justice as originating

in informal sources, and have found effects for that operationalization of procedural justice

(e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), this research did not investigate source as an independent

variable nor did it particularly distinguish itself for this shift in source.

Other research more clearly indicates the value of source as an independent dimension. For

example, a study by Cobb et al. (1997) investigated whether workers see formal policies and

procedures or the actions of their supervisors as the source most responsible for the

procedural fairness they experience in their performance evaluations. They found that

employees attribute the fairness they experience jointly and distinctly to these two sources.

Masterson et al. (2000) also examined the role of source in justice perceptions. Specifically,

they tested to see whether the consequences of justice were related to the perceived source of

justice. Their results support such a congruence between source and outcome of justice, and

further elaborate on that relationship by showing that it is mediated by source-relevant social

exchange processes. These empirical studies confirm that employees distinguish between

sources of justice.

The importance of considering source in organizational justice research is corroborated by

other emerging research as well (Blader & Tyler, 1999; Byrne, 1999). Additionally, recent

conceptual approaches have begun to emphasize the perceived responsibility of formal and

informal sources in judgments of injustice (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Further, the

interactional justice literature also tentatively suggests the importance of justice source,

although we will consider this point in depth later in this article. Collectively, these findings

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 115

suggest the value of developing a framework that includes both formal and informal sources

as separate influences. Still, there remains a dearth of published research examining this

question.

Interestingly, research on other organizational constructs supports distinguishing between

evaluation of supervisors and organizational policies and rules. For instance, Becker, Billings,

Eveleth, and Gilbert (1996) provide evidence that employees distinguish between commit-

ment to supervisors or the organization, and actually find a differential impact of these two

foci of commitment on job performance. Likewise, in a study of university employees,

Hutchinson (1997) finds that people distinguish between perceived organizational and

supervisory support, confirming the findings of other research on this construct (Kottke &

Sharafinski, 1988). The formal/informal distinction has also been emphasized in the

organizational citizenship behavior literature (Williams & Andersen, 1991).

The finding emerging from this research is that employees’ experiences in work

organizations may be shaped by two parallel, but distinct, levels of experience: formal and

informal. In other words, the conceptualization of the organizational experience may be best

understood as a duality of levels of experience. This distinction is useful both in the

measurement and conceptualization of the procedural justice construct as well as in the

prediction of organizational outcomes associated with procedural justice. For instance, Byrne

(1999) found an association between source of justice and level of organizational outcome. In

general, formal influences may better predict outcomes that are more closely related to the

stable, structural aspects of organizations. Informal influences, on the other hand, likely relate

to outcomes that are more a function of proximal experiences.

Anecdotal evidence also supports the formal and informal distinction. It is common to

hear complaints regarding the work place cluster around either one’s organization or one’s

supervisor. For instance, an employee respondent to a survey we recently conducted wrote

that:

[The company] is a unique and ground-breaking company that offers a wealth of job

opportunities. However, the company needs to make a concerted effort to make sure

that its managers are competent, qualified and fair. . . For me, it is [the company] that

attracts me—not my team, and I believe that is a direct consequence of the supervisors

and managers that I am exposed to.

So this employee respondent appears disappointed in the specific individuals for whom he/

she works, but has very positive feelings towards the organization. We suspect that these

differential reactions are more common than research attention to this topic would suggest.

The implications of this for human resource professionals and researchers are substantial,

since they focus attention towards two potential sources of employee discontent.

3.2. The overall model

The distinction between formal and informal sources of fairness is orthogonal to the earlier

distinction between the quality of decision making and the quality of treatment. Together,

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126116

these dimensions identify four separate bases on which people make their overall procedural

fairness evaluations. The typology of these four components of procedural justice is shown in

Table 1.

Formal decision making refers to the aspects of a group that have traditionally been the

focus of procedural justice research—the fairness of the procedures prescribed by the rules of

the organization for making decisions about allocations, for resolving conflicts, etc. The

informal quality of treatment focuses on people’s treatment during their personal experiences

with agents of the organization, such as their supervisor. While our framework is based on the

accumulated research on procedural justice, particularly with regard to the decision making/

quality of treatment distinction, the remaining two cells of our model (formal quality of

treatment and informal decision making) represent concepts that have not been explicitly

distinguished in the procedural justice literature. As such, we will elaborate on those two

bases of procedural justice evaluations to emphasize their value in organizational contexts.

Formal quality of treatment refers to the role that the rules of the organization play in

determining how fairly employees are treated. For example, many companies specify codes

of conduct that indicate how employees are to be treated while at work (e.g., rules prohibiting

behavior that may be regarded as sexual harassment, rules forbidding discrimination based on

gender, race, etc.). These rules are analogous to the rights bestowed upon citizens of the US

by the Bill of Rights. Organizations also adopt policies that formally stipulate that the

company should keep employees informed of the reasons underlying decisions—another

important aspect of treatment (‘justification’). These formal rules regarding treatment are

unrelated to the outcomes employees receive, but are nonetheless critical to their organiza-

tional experiences.

Informal decision making refers to those aspects of decision-making processes that

originate with particular agents of the organization. There are at least two routes by which

organizational authorities may influence fairness via decision making. First, authorities

influence the quality of decision making as they make decisions regarding the implementation

of formal rules and procedures. The actual implementation of these rules may or may not alter

their original level of fairness; they may either enhance or hurt the level of fairness of the

rules, depending on the particular situation. For instance, Tyler (1990) found that people who

have little respect for the formal law can, nonetheless, feel very good about the way a police

officer in their neighborhood resolves local problems. The same may be true in the work

place, where the impact of unfair corporate procedures can be alleviated by fairness on the

part of supervisors or bosses.

Table 1

The four-component model of procedural justice

Procedural element Source

Rules of the group

(formal)

Actions of the supervisor

(informal)

Quality of decision-making

processes

Formal quality of decision

making

Informal quality of decision

making

Quality of treatment Formal quality of treatment Informal quality of treatment

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 117

Second, the formal rules of the organization regarding decision making cannot completely

specify the decision-making procedures for all possible situations. Rather, authorities

sometimes make decisions without any prescribed group rules to follow. This is the essence

of discretionary decision making, and most authorities have at least some degree of such

discretion. For example, supervisors often make decisions regarding the distribution of work.

Rarely are there organizational rules indicating how such specific decisions are to be made.

Further, the importance of this discretionary decision making is likely to increase as

employees continue to become more ‘empowered’ by their work organizations, which is

often operationalized as expanding the latitude of discretionary decision making. So, informal

decision making may affect fairness through the way in which formal rules are implemented

and through decisions that are made by group authorities when there are no formal rules to

guide them.

We do not claim that the four components of our model are independent of one another, but

merely that they evidence divergent validity. It is obvious that supervisors must work, to some

extent, within the parameters of the organization’s rules and processes. Formal elements set

boundaries around what informal agents may do, in terms of both treatment and decision

making. Further, research shows that employees often hold organizations accountable for the

actions of their bosses (Rousseau, 1995). On the other hand, organizational rules are likely to

be interpreted through the prism of their implementation. Nevertheless, while there may be an

empirical correlation between the components, perceptions will be sufficiently distinct as to

separately evaluate these components. Future research should investigate the interrelationship

of the four components, such as the direction of causal influences they may exert on one

another.

It is predicted that all four of the components will have an influence on employees’ overall

procedural justice judgments. In other words, we predict that employees will distinguish

between: (1) formal and informal bases of procedural justice and (2) the quality of decision

making and the quality of the treatment they experience as members of the group. It is also

likely that there exist interactive effects from positive or negative evaluations of the levels of

the source and type dimensions (i.e., positive formal evaluations may have some compens-

atory effect for negative informal evaluations). We further expect that no one of the four

components outlined will dominate procedural fairness judgments. That is, each will be

important and, given the research to date, there is little reason to predict that any one

component will be significantly more important than the other in determining overall

procedural evaluations. For instance, if a supervisor tends to be unfair in his/her decisions,

employees may still recognize the group’s rules as fair. As such, an overall fairness judgment

in such a situation will be intermediate in nature. The empirical work we have conducted thus

far on the four-component model confirms these predictions (Blader & Tyler, in press; Tyler

& Blader, 2000).

While all four components are expected to influence overall procedural justice evaluations,

they may show differential relationships to various outcomes. For instance, if an employee

regards his/her supervisor’s decision making (or treatment) to be unfair, he/she may not abide

by decisions that the supervisor makes, but may still show a commitment to the organization.

This is the pattern of results Byrne (1999) found for the outcomes associated with different

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126118

sources of justice (cf. Masterson et al., 2000). Organizational rules that allow discriminatory

treatment may lead employees to quit more than a particular supervisor who discriminates

against employees, depending on the ease with which one can transfer jobs within the

company. The framework of the four-component model of procedural justice allows for more

precise identification of problem areas within organizations with regard to procedural

fairness, and for better prediction of the consequences of those problems. Consequently, it

should hopefully foster more targeted efforts at change directed at these problem areas.

4. Integration of the four-component model into organizational justice research

4.1. Interactional justice and the four-component model

In outlining and describing the four-component model of procedural justice, we have

focused on the development of procedural justice research, but have deferred addressing the

more complicated issue of how the four-component model relates to interactional justice. The

reason that this issue is more complicated is that researchers have yet to reach consensus on

the relationship between procedural and interactional justice. The four-component model,

however, can be a useful tool for addressing this unresolved question.

Interactional justice refers to the quality of treatment experienced by individuals in their

interpersonal interactions with group authorities, particularly as those authorities enact formal

procedures (Bies & Moag, 1986). For instance, employees usually deal with supervisors who

are responsible for implementing the formal rules of the organization. As they enact the

organization’s procedures, supervisors may treat their employees politely and deal with them

in a friendly manner, or they can be rude and create difficult interpersonal relations. When

employees are treated disrespectfully, interactional injustice is said to have occurred.

Evidence for the importance of these interactional aspects of justice abounds in that

literature. For example, one compelling demonstration of these effects is that by Greenberg

(1994), who examined reactions to a work site smoking ban as a function of the explanation

given and the interpersonal sensitivity with which the pay cuts were communicated. He found

that thorough and sensitive explanations increased acceptance of the ban, showing that

positive treatment can foster compliance with organizational rules on the part of employees

without any change in the formal decision or the process underlying it. Other research works

have linked interactional justice effects to employee absence (Gellatly, 1995), decreased

turnover intentions (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), extra role behavior (Moorman, 1991),

and affective commitment (Barling & Phillips, 1993).

Clearly, the way in which organizational agents implement procedures is important in

determining reactions to, and the consequences of, those procedures. We made this point

earlier in our discussion of informal sources of justice. Less clear, however, is how to

conceptually incorporate those effects into models of procedural and interactional justice. The

literature is marked by instances of confusion with empirically measuring and distinguishing

interactional and procedural justice. Mansour-Cole and Scott (1998) used a measure of

procedural justice that included both procedural and interactional elements. They found the

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 119

factor loadings of their items to only partially follow the expected pattern in distinguishing

between procedural and interactional justice, with many items crossloading onto both factors,

prompting them to create a single procedural justice scale. Colquitt (1999) identifies several

studies in which measures of one construct actually contained items measuring the other

construct. For instance, Moorman’s (1991) scale of interactional justice includes items

assessing aspects of a supervisor’s decision making, while his procedural justice scale

includes items that are more representative of interactional concerns. Since Moorman’s scales

were supported by factor analyses, there may also be empirical issues to mete out in

establishing the distinction between these constructs. Such confusion in construct measure-

ment makes attribution of effects difficult and, as Barling and Phillips (1993) point out, many

of the findings attributed to interactional justice may actually be more directly related to

procedural justice.

Not only are the concepts of procedural and interactional justice confounded in their

empirical measurement, but also in studies that attempt to manipulate these constructs as

independent variables. For instance, Greenberg (1990) conducted a field study examining

employee theft in reaction to a pay cut. The overt purpose of his study was to investigate the

effects of interpersonal sensitivity and justification, both of which are interactional criteria, on

reactions to the pay cut. However, employees in his adequate-explanation condition were

provided with more opportunity for voice than those in the inadequate-information condition,

thereby confounding the possible effects of a procedural justice element, value-expressive

voice, with those of his criteria of interest.

These empirical and methodological problems correspond with theoretical disagreement

regarding the association between procedural and interactional justice (Bobocel & Holmvall,

1999). Some have advocated conceptualizing interactional justice as subsumed by procedural

justice (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Moorman, 1991;

Tyler & Bies, 1990) while others have regarded them as distinct justice constructs,

distinguishable from each other just as distributive and procedural justice are differentiated

(Barling & Phillips, 1993; Bies, 2001; Cropanzano & Prehar, 1999; Leung, Chiu, & Au,

1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Owing to its focus on the components of procedural justice

evaluations, the four-component model provides a framework for addressing this debate in

the research literature.

Part of the confusion in relating interactional and procedural justice appears to be in

describing how they differ from each other. Interactional justice focuses on both issues of

treatment and on the role of supervisors in organizational justice; as such, it is conceptually

analogous to informal quality of treatment. Traditional procedural justice, on the other hand,

is conceptually similar to formal decision making. From the four-component model

perspective, then, interactional justice is subsumed as a subcomponent of procedural justice.

In addition to describing the relationship between interactional and procedural justice, a

four-component model approach also highlights the considerations that should be addressed

in integrating interactional and procedural justice research. Interactional justice differs from

traditional procedural justice in both the source of the experience and in the nature of the

experience considered; that is, they differ with regard to both justice source and justice type.

Many that have addressed the distinction between procedural and interactional justice have

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126120

confounded these two differences in their theorizing. For instance, some have used evidence

of interactional effects as support for the importance of supervisors and other specific agents

of the organization while others have described those same effects as support for the

importance of treatment considerations (see Cropanzano & Byrne, 1999; Malatesta & Byrne,

1997; Masterson et al., 2000). The four-component model highlights that either conclusion is

premature until the two distinctions are separated.

Developing a better understanding of where interactional justice fits in the realm of

organizational justice is not only a concern for organizational researchers. The question of

construct definition is also important for organizational practitioners, who need to understand

the focus of employees’ concerns. Interactional justice was originally defined as treatment

that is experienced during the enactment of formal group procedures. This limit on treatment

associated with the enactment of procedures develops from its origins as the enactment of

procedural justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). However, evaluation of treatment that is associated

with organizational processes is likely to be drawn from a broader spectrum of experiences

and interactions than merely those that occur as formal procedures are enacted. Indeed, if a

genuine recognition of the social side of fairness is to be embraced (Greenberg, 1993; Lind &

Tyler, 1988), then the range of experiences from which we draw must be expanded. For

instance, if an employee’s boss is rude and disrespectful to them in an informal meeting of

their work group, or even at the company picnic, they are likely to view that experience, and

their boss, as unfair, just as they would if the boss treated them that way during a performance

evaluation. Further, their overall assessments of fairness are likely to be a function of all these

experiences. Put simply, the scope of interactional concerns in organizational justice should

not be restricted solely to the enactment of formal rules and procedures.

Others have also recognized that the territory of treatment covered by interactional justice

requires expansion. Mikula et al. (1990) called for attention to treatment that includes all types

of interactions and encounters, and Bies (2001) further elaborates on the importance of this

proposal. For instance, Donovan, Drasgow, andMunson (1998) suggest that treatment relevant

to fairness evaluations can occur outside the enactment of procedures and policies. However,

these researchers regard fair treatment as an organizational climate variable. It is our view that

these fairness perceptions should also be considered in light of employees’ individual differ-

ences and the unique nature of employees’ relationships with their organizations and its

authorities. Disagreement between coworkers in their fairness perceptions is not necessarily a

function of unreliability in measurement. Rather, those differences may represent true differ-

ences in the fairness that people experience as a result of the unique relationship each employee

may have with the organization and with the supervisor (i.e., Kenny, 1994).

In sum, then, the four-component model incorporates interactional justice as a component

of procedural justice. Furthermore, it expands on the spirit underlying interactional justice

research. It does so by extending the treatment-related considerations that are thought to

influence the organizational experience of group members. Likewise, the inclusion of

informal sources of both treatment and decision making broadens the role of informal

organizational agents, such as supervisors, who are so critical to interactional justice. In other

words, the ideas of interactional justice have a strong presence within the four-component

model.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 121

4.2. Two types of procedural justice or two justice constructs?

While we draw the distinction between treatment and decision making, we do not regard it

to be at the same level as that between procedural and distributive justice. Our primary reason

for the level at which we draw this division lies in the roots both decision making and

treatment have in relational concerns. We reviewed those connections earlier in this article.

Both aspects of procedural justice convey important status information. Each component is

important for relational reasons; each serves as a source of status information and, thus, each

shapes identity. Further, they have both been shown to be unrelated to outcomes.

On the other hand, we advocate their separation at some level because they represent

different conceptual clusters of concerns, are empirically distinguishable, and have different

patterns on various outcome measures (Blader & Tyler, in press; Tyler & Blader, 2000).

Decision making exerts a causal influence on outcomes, while treatment is more associated

with one’s overall organizational experience. So while they may possess similar psycho-

logical underpinnings, they are, at the same time, different on some level. This conclusion is

consistent with that of Bobocel and Holmvall (1999), who review whether procedural and

interactional justice are different from each other and conclude that such a distinction, while

possible at some level, is unlikely to be at the same basic level as the distinction between

procedural and distributive justice.

4.3. Summary

To summarize, we have argued that there are two primary dimensions along which the

criterion of fair procedures can be categorized: justice type and justice source. While these

components represent a reframing of previous research, they also represent something new.

Their originality lies in their level of generality. Thinking in terms of these more general

constructs can be highly useful. Since the framework is derived from the major findings of

research over the last 20 years and can accommodate those findings, it establishes an

important structure for resolving some of the debates and unanswered questions that remain

regarding the definition and criterion of procedural justice.

Our goal in setting out abstract components of procedural justice—the quality of decision

making and the quality of treatment—is to separate these two basic conceptual categories

from particular elements of procedures. Indeed, we regard one of the primary advantages of

those conceptual components to be their generic nature. They represent two clusters of

concerns that are considered in individuals’ evaluations of experiences, without specifying

the particular elements of those clusters. In different settings, and for different people, the

issues that define the quality of decision making and the quality of treatment may vary. While

certain elements of justice may be universal across different environments and people, others

may be more sensitive to the specific type of work organization or population being assessed.

The same may be true of the elements associated with different sources of justice. That is, the

criteria that define fairness for each source may vary across different contexts and across

people. The four-component model distills the general findings of procedural justice research

to facilitate a clearer understanding of what aspects of procedural justice people generally

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126122

care about. In keeping with this level of generality, it leaves open the particular items of

concern in specific contexts. We feel that the categories it identifies provide a tent within

which the concerns found across settings and people can all comfortably fit.

The four-component approach also highlights the variety of issues that should be

considered by human resource practitioners and management. For instance, efforts at change

in organizations should be undertaken with attention to both formal and informal sources of

experience. It would be insufficient to merely change organizational rules without also

specifically changing behavior on the part of supervisors and management. Further,

sensitivity to both how decisions are made and how employees are treated is also important.

In addition to highlighting the comprehensive nature of fairness evaluations, the four-

component framework also encourages interventions that are more precisely targeted at

those areas most in need of attention in particular work contexts.

5. Conclusion

The four-component model represents a considerable broadening of the conceptualiza-

tion of procedural justice from that which grew out of the work of Thibaut and Walker.

It is worth asking, then, whether this approach still captures the essence of procedural

justice. In other words, is there still a ‘procedure’ in procedural justice, if we consider

factors such as quality of treatment and sources such as supervisors? We believe there is,

but that this view requires broadly defining what is meant by ‘procedures.’ Procedures

can refer to official rules of how things are done, how decisions are made, etc. That

represents the traditional view. Alternatively, a more inclusive understanding of proce-

dures can comprise all processes and interactions that occur in the context of organiza-

tional life. If the significance of procedures lies in the notion that they capture how

things are done at an organization and how the organization functions, then this second

definition seems most applicable. We believe that this more wide-ranging understanding

of procedures—which encompasses how things are done at an organization and how the

organization functions—is appropriate.

The true basis for what constitutes procedural justice, of course, is what people

actually think about when deciding if an experience (or organization) is fair. In other

words, what do they consider when deciding if a company is run fairly and makes

decisions in fair ways? What are the bases for their evaluations of fairness? This is,

essentially, an empirical question. As such, the validity of our framework can only be

shown by testing it in various organizations. It is only through replication and empirical

research that these questions can be addressed. We propose the four-component model as

a strong starting point for that investigation.

References

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior.

Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 123

Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: an exploratory

study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649–656.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment:

implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 464–482.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: the sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.),

Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118), Lexington, MA: New Lexington Press.

Bies, R. J., Martin, C. L., & Brockner, J. (1993). Just laid off, but still a ‘‘good citizen’’: only if the process is fair.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 227–248.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B.

Sheppard, & B. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations, vol. 1 (pp. 43–55). Green-

wich, CT: JAI Press.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (1999). Whence comes justice? A consideration of the sources of procedural justice.

New York University (unpublished manuscript).

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (in press). A four component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a

‘‘fair’’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Bobocel, R., & Holmvall, C. (June 1999). Are interactional and procedural justice different? Framing the debate.

Paper presented at The international round table: innovations in organizational justice research, Nice, France.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). The interactive impact of procedural and outcome fairness on reactions

to a decision. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.

Byrne, Z. S. (1999). How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organizational

outcomes? Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychol-

ogy, Atlanta, GA.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and

employee reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615–633.

Cobb, A. T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. (1997). Who delivers justice?: Source perceptions of procedural fairness.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1021–1040.

Colquitt, J. (1999). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Paper

presented at the Academy of Management annual convention, Chicago, IL.

Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (1999). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. In

M. VanVugt, M. Snyder, T. R. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Cooperation in modern society: promoting the welfare

of communities, states, and organizations (pp. 142–161), London: Routledge.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the maze. In

C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology,

vol. 12 (pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.

Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional

justice. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683–692.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise

decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.

Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causal model. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469–485.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,

561–568.

Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of organizational

justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: approaching fairness in human resource manage-

ment (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126124

Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, 288–297.

Hutchinson, S. (1997). Perceived organizational support: further evidence of construct validity. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 57, 1025–1034.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: a social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance

with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502–526.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of

employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698–707.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 656–669.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust

in strategic decision making teams: the role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

60–84.

Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educa-

tional and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079.

Lee, C. (1995). Prosocial organizational behaviors: the roles of workplace justice, achievement striving, and pay

satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 197–206.

Leung, K., Chiu, W., & Au, Y. (1993). Sympathy and support for industrial actions: a justice analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 781–787.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In G.

Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on

reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,

643–653.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Malatesta, R. M., & Byrne, Z. S. (1997). The impact of formal and interactional justice on organizational

outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

St. Louis, MO.

Mansour-Cole, D. M., & Scott, S. G. (1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: the influence of source, leader-

relations, and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51, 25–53.

Masterson, S. S., Bartol, K. M., & Moye, N. A. (2000). Interactional and procedural justice: type versus source of

fairness. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

New Orleans, LA.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: the

differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43,

738–748.

Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480–500.

Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust. European Journal of Social Psychology,

20, 133–149.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agree-

ments. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to

economic hardship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455–460.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126 125

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the role of distributive, procedural and

interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

Sparks, R., Bottoms, A., & Hay, W. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S.

Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel (Ed.), The

psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.

Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due process in performance

appraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495–523.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.

Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale.

Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,

850–863.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Interpersonal aspects of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social

psychology in business settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity and behavioral

engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder:

Westview.

Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, vol. 25 (pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member

exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

Williams, L. J., & Andersen, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of

organizational citizenship behavior and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

S.L. Blader, T.R. Tyler / Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003) 107–126126