SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015, 43(9), 1429–1440
© Society for Personality Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.9.1429
DO THE COMPENSATORY EFFECTS OF OUTCOME AND
PROCEDURE ON POLICY ACCEPTANCE DEPEND ON TRUST
IN AUTHORITY?
XUAN-NA WU
Capital Normal University
XUE WU
Chinese Academy of Sciences and
University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
Previous researchers have shown that procedural justice and outcome favorability interact to
influence people’s beliefs and behaviors. When an outcome is unfavorable, people tend to
respond more positively to policies with fair procedures. We conducted 2 studies to explore
the influence of trust in authority on process-by-outcome interaction in public administration
in China. In each study, there was a different public policy setting, and different designs and
participants (i.e., a scenario tested with Chinese university students in Study 1 and a survey
conducted with residents of a city in China in Study 2). The convergent results showed that
the interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability was moderated by trust
in authority. When the level of trust was high, the interaction effect was significant, and a fair
procedure attenuated the negative effect of an unfavorable outcome. However, when there was
little trust, the interaction was absent. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords: procedural justice, outcome favorability, trust in authority, acceptance of public
policy, process-by-outcome interaction, voice.
In organizations and society at large, it is considered easier to implement
changes with positive rather than negative outcomes. However, changes with
negative implications can be made more acceptable by being procedurally fair
Xuan-Na Wu, Beijing Key Laboratory of Learning and Cognition, Department of Psychology,
Capital Normal University; Xue Wu, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and
University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
This study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (71401113).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Xuan-Na Wu, Beijing Key Laboratory
of Learning and Cognition, Department of Psychology, Capital Normal University, No. 105
Xisanhuan Beilu, Haidian, Beijing 100048, People’s Republic of China. Email: wuxuanna@126.
com
1429
1430
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
(see e.g., Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,
2005). Specifically, the effect of procedural justice on policy acceptance, such as
the opportunity for people to voice their opinion on the policy, is stronger when
the outcome is unfavorable than when it is favorable (Brockner & Wiesenfeld,
1996). Voice is an opportunity to express opinions in decision making and
represents an important element of many decision-making processes (Folger,
1977). The process-by-outcome interaction pattern is known as the compensatory
effect of procedural justice (Kwong & Leung, 2002). As shown in Figure 1,
procedural justice has no effect when the outcome is favorable but is very
effective when the outcome is unfavorable. Brockner and Wiesenfeld reported
finding that policy acceptance is the lowest when both outcome favorability is
poor and procedural justice is low.
7
6
APP
5
4
3
2
High OF
Low OF
1
0
No voice
Voice
Procedural justice
Figure 1. Interaction of procedural justice and outcome favorability.
Note. APP = acceptance of public policy; OF = outcome favorability.
The robust process-by-outcome interaction effect, which was originally
demonstrated by Folger, Rosenfield, and Robinson (1983), has since been
examined by other researchers (e.g., Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996), and was
cited by Colquitt and colleagues (2005) in their overview of the organizational
justice literature. However, this robust interaction effect has not been replicated
in several studies (e.g., Dipboye & Pontbriand, 1981), and Lind (2001) stated
that the conclusion of Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) that procedural justice
effects are stronger when outcomes are negative was too general and that, in his
opinion, procedural justice effects often occurred with equal potency regardless
of the favorability of the outcomes involved, and may depend on other contextual
variables.
Researchers have shown that some variables dictate the process-byoutcome interaction pattern, for example, individual attributes of the recipients
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
1431
(Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Bagger, & Baldwin, 2008), and the relationship
between recipients and organizational decision makers (Kwong & Leung,
2002). To my knowledge—with the exception of Lin, Che, and Leung (2009),
who focused on attributes of decision makers—few researchers have examined
whether or not the attributes of the authority dictate the process-by-outcome
interaction. I have continued this line of work from the people-perception
perspective, with a different variable, namely, trust in authority.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Trust in Authority
Trust in authority is one of the most important variables on which academics
and practitioners have focused in the fields of organizational and administrative
management (e.g., van Dijke & Verboon, 2010). It refers to a belief held by
organizational members about the authority enacting a procedure, namely, that
the authority shares the members’ fundamental values and will protect their
interests (Tyler & Huo, 2002).
Previous researchers have investigated the effect of trust on people’s beliefs
and behaviors (e.g., Bianchi et al., 2015; Sato & Ohnuma, 2013). Trust affects
cooperative behavior in various contexts, including organizations and societies
(De Cremer & Tyler, 2007), and when people have trust in the authority this
enhances their support for public policy (Chanley, Rudolph, & Rahn, 2000). In
this study, we explored the moderating effect of trust in authority on the processby-outcome interaction. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Trust in authority will have a positive influence on people’s
acceptance of public policy in China.
The Role of Trust in Authority in the Compensatory Effect of Procedural
Justice
With regard to the relationship between trust in authority and the process-byoutcome interaction, Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and Martin (1997) showed
that it was not procedural justice per se, but the degree of trust elicited by
procedural justice that interacted with outcome favorability to affect people’s
beliefs and behaviors. In daily life, people have often developed trust or distrust
in authority in their interacting with that authority, and the level of trust can affect
the subsequent procedural justice perception, attitudes, and behaviors of those
people (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007). When there is trust in authority, this may
moderate the interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability.
Researchers of the procedural fairness–trust relationship have recognized
that trust can moderate fairness effects (Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson,
2005). When people have a high level of trust in authority, procedural justice is
operative. Conversely, when people distrust authority, procedural justice is only
1432
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
an impression management strategy and will lose its positive effect. For example,
people in authority sometimes try to create the impression of being procedurally
fair (i.e., “I listen but I do not consider what you say”). This strategy may possibly
have positive consequences in the short term but, eventually, will lead to negative
consequences. When the person in authority is not trusted, people realize that
their capacity to use voice is simply an impression management tactic, and the
opinions that they offer will be seen as not being meaningful, and consequently,
there will not be a positive effect from the procedure (Cremer & Tyler, 2007).
Although researchers (see e.g., Cremer & Tyler, 2007) have demonstrated that
trust in authority enhances the effect of procedural justice, to our knowledge, no
studies have been conducted in which the researchers have examined whether or
not the compensatory effect of procedural justice is dictated by trust in authority.
In this study, we explored the impact of trust in authority on the compensatory
effect of procedural justice in the field of public administration. We tested a
three-way interaction of trust in authority, procedural justice, and outcome
favorability on people’s acceptance of public policy, in which trust in authority
would enhance the compensatory effect of procedural justice. Thus, we proposed
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: There will be a three-way interaction effect among trust in
authority, procedural justice, and outcome favorability on people’s acceptance
of public policy.
Hypothesis 2b: When trust in authority is high, the interaction between
procedural justice and outcome favorability will be significant, and procedural
justice will attenuate the negative effect of unfavorable outcomes.
Hypothesis 2c: When trust in authority is low, the interaction between procedural
justice and outcome favorability will disappear.
We examined the three-way interaction in two studies, using an experimental
design in Study 1 and conducting a survey in Study 2. In Study 1, a scenario
involving a subway fare policy was actually an experimental test of the causal
effects of the independent variables: trust in authority, procedural justice, and
outcome favorability. To make up for the deficiency of external validity of
Study 1, in Study 2 we examined the hypotheses in a real policymaking setting
involving a traffic restriction policy in Beijing. The manipulation of procedural
justice was achieved by allowing or not allowing participants to have voice in
the decision procedure. A procedure where the participants have, or do not have,
the opportunity of voice is perceived as fair (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). This
manipulation is common in experimental designs.
Study 1
Method
Participants and design. The voluntary participants comprised 180
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
1433
undergraduate students at a large university in Beijing, China, who were paid
20 RMB (US$3.19) for their participation. They were randomly assigned to a 2
(trust in authority: high vs. low) × 2 (procedural justice: voice vs. no voice) × 2
(outcome favorability: high vs. low) between-subjects design.
Procedure. Participants were asked to respond to questions about a scenario
and imagine that they were the target character in the vignette. They read the
following: “You are a resident in City A. The subway is your requisite mode of
transportation every day. Because of the increasing pressure by the department
operating the subway, the local administration plans to increase subway fares to
relieve the operating pressure.” Participants then read more information about the
three independent variables on the following pages.
Manipulation of trust in authority. Prior researchers have suggested that
ability, motivation, and trustworthiness are the most important dimensions of
trust in administrative authority (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007). We manipulated
trust in authority as follows: In the high-trust condition, participants read
that Administration A was a reliable administration, in which the people in
authority were concerned about the interests of the people in the community
when formulating public policy, and had sufficient work and administrative
capacity to satisfy the public. In the low-trust condition, participants were
told that Administration A was an unreliable administration, in which the
people in authority were not concerned about the interests of the people in the
community when formulating public policy, and did not have sufficient work and
administrative capacity to satisfy the public.
Manipulation of procedural justice. In the voice condition, participants were
told that the people in the administrative authority provided citizens with multiple
opportunities to voice their opinions. In the no-voice condition, participants were
told that the people in the administrative authority did not provide citizens with
any opportunity to voice their opinions.
Manipulation of outcome favorability. In the outcome high favorability
condition, participants were told that subway fares would not be increased and
the original fares were maintained. In the outcome low favorability condition,
participants were told that subway fares would be increased up to double the
original amount.
Measures. The participants were then asked to respond to questions in a brief
survey. Each question was rated on a 7-point scale (to assess trust in authority,
1 = distrust very much and 7 = trust very much; to assess procedural justice, 1 =
very unfair and 7 = very fair; to assess outcome favorability, 1 = very unfavorable
and 7 = very favorable; to assess acceptance of public policy, 1 = very dissatisfied
and 7 = very satisfied). Manipulation checks were made. To assess whether or not
the participants were involved in the scenario, we asked them “Do the officials
of Administration A seek for public views before they enact the subway fare
1434
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
policy?” To assess trust in authority, we asked participants to what extent they
trusted Administration A; to assess procedural justice, we asked participants to
what extent they perceived the public policymaking procedure as fair; to assess
outcome favorability, we asked participants to what extent the outcome was
favorable to them. Acceptance of public policy was measured with three items
adapted from those used by Leung, Tong, and Lind (2007) in their study. A
sample item is “Are you satisfied with the policy for the subway fare?”
Data analysis. We performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of participants’
responses to the questionnaire.
Results
Manipulation checks. As predicted, the results of the manipulation checks
were significant. Participants in the high-trust condition felt that they had
more trust in authority than did those in the low-trust condition (Mhigh = 5.06;
Mlow = 2.30), F(1, 172) = 285.05, p < .001, 2 = .62. Participants in the voice
condition made more favorable assessments of procedural justice than did those
in the no-voice condition (Mvoice = 4.77; Mno voice = 2.27), F(1, 172) = 182.52, p
< .001, 2 = .52. Participants in the high favorability outcome condition made
more favorable assessments of outcome favorability than did those in the low
favorability outcome condition (Mhigh = 5.13; Mlow = 2.08), F(1, 172) = 327.32,
p < .001, 2 = .66.
Hypotheses testing. Results of the ANOVA showed that the main effects of the
three independent variables were positive and significant. Supporting Hypothesis
1, acceptance of public policy was greater when trust in authority was higher,
F(1, 172) = 13.13, p < .001, 2 = .07, when the outcome was more favorable
for the participants, F(1, 172) = 193.02, p < .001, 2 = .53, and when perception
of procedural justice was relatively high, F(1, 172) = 16.98, p < .001, 2 = .09.
However, it is most important to note that there was a three-way interaction,
F(1, 172) = 6.35, p < .05, 2 = .04 (see Figure 2), which supports Hypothesis 2a,
and the pattern depicted in the left graph was commonly reported by participants;
that is, when their trust in authority was high, procedural justice interacted with
outcome favorability. This supports Hypothesis 2b. A different pattern is depicted
in the right graph; when trust in authority was low, the process-by-outcome
interaction disappeared, and this supports Hypothesis 2c.
To decompose the three-way interaction, we performed simple interaction
effect analyses and simple main effect analyses. In the top graph in Figure 2,
the process-by-outcome interaction was significant, F(1, 172) = 5.48, p < .05,
2 = .06, indicating that a strong perception of procedural justice can attenuate
the negative effect of an unfavorable outcome. Analysis of simple main effects
showed that the perception of procedural justice had a significant positive effect
only when outcome was not very favorable, F(1, 172) = 14.68, p < .001, 2 =
1435
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
.26. This significant positive effect did not occur when the outcome was very
favorable, F(1, 172) = 2.08, ns, 2 = .05. In the lower graph in Figure 2, the
process-by-outcome interaction was not significant, F(1, 172) = 1.54, ns, 2 =
.02. Only the main effect of outcome favorability was significant, F(1, 172) =
95.24, p < .001, 2 = .53.
Trust in authority
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
APP
APP
High
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
Low
0
No voice
Voice
No voice
High OF
Voice
Low OF
Figure 2. Interaction of trust in authority, procedural justice, and outcome favorability (Study 1).
Note. APP = acceptance of public policy; OF = outcome favorability.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 supported our hypotheses. Nevertheless, there are two
limitations. First, although scenarios are often used in studies on procedural
justice, their effectiveness depends on people using their imagination, as with
behavioral results based on experiments and survey results based on real
experiences. Thus, to remedy this limitation the three-way interaction study
should be replicated in a real-life setting. Second, the participants were full-time
undergraduate students, who lack both life experience and interaction with
administration authorities. Therefore, to add to the robustness of our findings, our
hypotheses should be examined with a sample of working adults.
Study 2
We conducted Study 2 to replicate the results of Study 1 in a real-life setting in
a different context. The context involved the traffic restriction policy put in place
after the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. We explored how citizens’ acceptance
of the policy of driving a vehicle only on 6 days a week was affected by their
1436
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
perceptions of trust in the Beijing administration, procedural justice, and the
outcome favorability of the policy.
Method
Participants and procedure. After a number of Beijing residents had been
randomly approached in public areas of the city, 370 people (48.6% men and
51.4% women) were successfully interviewed for the survey, with an acceptance
rate of 74%. With regard to their ages, 23.8% were younger than 30 years,
41.1% were aged between 30 and 39 and 35.1% were older than 39 years. With
regard to education, for 21.9% their highest qualification was junior middle
school education, and 78.1% had either a high school, college, or postgraduate
qualification.
Measures. The participants were asked to fill in a survey (procedural justice:
1 = very unfair to 7 = very fair; degree of voice: 1 = absolutely not and 7 =
absolutely yes; outcome favorability: 1 = do not benefit very much and 7 =
benefit a great deal). Trust in authority was assessed with four items covering
the same dimensions as in Study 1. A sample item is “Do you trust the local
administration to try to do beneficial things in the interests of the majority of
people?” Cronbach’s alpha for the four-item scale was .83. Procedural justice was
measured using five items, several of which pertained to the degree of voice that
participants perceived they had (Lind & Tyler, 1988). A sample item is “Did the
officials of the administration seek public views before they enacted the traffic
restriction policy?” A sample of other items with high face validity is “Is the
procedure used by the local administration to make the traffic restriction policy
fair?” Cronbach’s alpha for the five-item scale was .85. Outcome favorability
was measured with three items based on the outcome favorability measure used
by Lin et al. (2009). A sample item is “Do people like you benefit from the traffic
restriction policy?” Cronbach’s alpha for the three-item scale was .83.
Dependent and control variables. Acceptance of public policy was measured
using three items adapted from the items used by Leung et al. (2007). A sample
item is “Are you satisfied with the traffic restriction policy?” Cronbach’s alpha
for the three-item scale was .88. Three control variables (knowledge of the
procedure, knowledge of the outcome, and traffic attitude) were also tested.
Data analysis. We used hierarchical regression to analyze the data and test the
hypotheses, and followed the procedure set out by Aiken and West (1991).
Results and Discussion
Summary statistics (means, standard deviations, correlations, and alpha
coefficients) are shown in Table 1.
1437
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Alpha Coefficients of Study Variables
(Study 2)
Variables
Trust
PJ
OF
APP
M
SD
Trust
PJ
3.51
3.55
3.96
3.98
1.14
1.02
1.36
1.38
.83
.15**
.34***
.35***
.85
.46***
.47***
OF
APP
.83
.62***
.88
Note. N = 370. PJ = procedural justice; OF = outcome favorability; APP = acceptance of public policy.
Coefficient alphas appear on the diagonal. ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Hypotheses testing. After the three main effects were entered, all the two-way
interactions were entered and, finally, the three-way interaction was entered
in the model. There was a positive main effect for trust in authority ( = .20),
t(366) = 3.92, p < .001, supporting Hypothesis 1. It is most important that the
key three-way interaction between trust, procedure, and outcome emerged (ΔR2
= .009), ΔF(1, 362) = 5.94, p < .05, ( = -.07), t(362) = -2.44, p < .05, supporting
Hypothesis 2a, and the interaction was similar to that in Study 1. Following the
procedure set out by Aiken and West (1991), we examined the subsequent simple
interactions and simple main effects. In the top graph of Figure 3, there was an
interaction between procedural justice and outcome favorability ( = -.16), t(362)
= -2.02, p < .05, supporting Hypothesis 2b. Procedural justice had a positive
Trust in authority
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
APP
APP
High
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
Low
0
No voice
Voice
No voice
Voice
Procedural justice
High OF
Low OF
Figure 3. Interaction of trust in authority, procedural justice, and outcome favorability (Study 2).
Note. APP = acceptance of public policy; OF = outcome favorability.
1438
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
impact on acceptance of public policy when the outcome was unfavorable
( = .77), t(362) = 3.92, p < .05, but not when the outcome was favorable. In
the lower graph of Figure 3, there was no interaction between procedural justice
and outcome favorability ( = .03), t(362) = .33, p > .10, supporting Hypothesis
2c. The main effect of procedural justice ( = .14), t(362) = .98, p > .10, was
nonsignificant. There was a positive main effect for outcome favorability ( =
.71), t(362) = 7.71, p < .001.
General Discussion
Evidence that supported the predicted three-way interaction was provided in
each study. It is important that similar results emerged in both the experimental
and field studies, with the strengths and weakness of each study compensating
each other.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The findings in this study contribute to the theory and practice of social justice
by extending research on the process-by-outcome interaction. On a theoretical
level, we have extended procedural justice research to the field of public
administration, especially in regard to policy acceptance by the public. Previous
justice researchers have often conducted their studies in the field of organizational
management. For example, when McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) surveyed 675
employees at a bank, they found that procedural justice in allocating outcomes
had a positive effect on the employees’ organizational commitment, pay level
satisfaction, and job satisfaction. Our results demonstrate when procedure and
outcome can interact, and show that trust is necessary for this interaction. In
the absence of trust, policy acceptance is driven solely by outcome favorability.
Therefore, administrators should build trust in the government and its policies,
because it is trust that generates the compensatory effect of procedural justice. In
this paper, we have addressed the theory behind the process of how trust relates
to the process-by-outcome interaction. Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and Martin
(1997) showed that trust could mediate the process-by-outcome interaction,
in that it was not procedural justice itself, but the degree of trust elicited by
procedural justice that interacted with outcome favorability to influence people’s
beliefs and behaviors. Our results showed that trust in authority moderated,
rather than mediated, the process-by-outcome interaction. The effects of trust in
this interaction were, thus, different from those previously reported, and it will
be necessary to explore further when and how the moderating or the mediating
role of trust in authority on the process-by-outcome interaction operates. On a
practical level, the results demonstrate to those in authority in organizations or
administrations that either a fair procedure or a favorable outcome can elicit a
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
1439
positive reaction by the general public to an authority’s decision, when the public
has trust in authority. Furthermore, when people do not have trust in those in
authority, the combination of a fair procedure and a favorable outcome can still
elicit a positive public reaction to an authority’s decision.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are several limitations in this study. First, we focused on only one
element of procedural justice, namely, voice. It is necessary to test these
hypotheses in experiments using a different manipulation of procedural justice,
such as whether the decision made by those in authority is based on biased or
accurate information. Second, the dependent variable was acceptance of public
policy, which is intentional or attitudinal, rather than behavioral. Behavioral
measures should be incorporated in future research so that the evidence will
be more robust. Finally, as we conducted this study in a city in China, there is
no certainty that the three-way interaction would operate in the same way in a
different culture. It is necessary to replicate the study in Western cultural settings
to make a comparison. An examination of the dynamics underlying these results
is also a productive topic for future research. For example, research could be
conducted to establish how cognitive trust and affective trust moderate the
process–outcome interaction.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bianchi, E. C., Brockner, J., van den Bos, K., Seifert, M., Moon, H., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer,
D. (2015). Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship
between outcome fairness and procedural fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
41, 19–34. http://doi.org/44t
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583. http://
doi.org/b98zwg
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.
http://doi.org/bwfp73
Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust
in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239–256. http://doi.org/
dv546n
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A
historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D. E., Bagger, J., & Baldwin, A. (2008). How regulatory focus
impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 36–51. http://doi.org/bwkk9d
1440
TRUST IN AUTHORITY AND POLICY ACCEPTANCE
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on
cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639–649. http://doi.org/fb9zv4
Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee reactions to performance
appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 248–251. http://doi.org/
c82x6q
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement
on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119. http://
doi.org/bxk6x4
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural
justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 268–273. http://doi.org/fj795t
Kwong, J. Y. Y., & Leung, K. (2002). A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice
and outcome favorability: Importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 87, 278–299. http://doi.org/bgq86m
Leung, K., Tong, K.-K., & Lind, E. A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects
of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 476–489. http://doi.org/c9jjdd
Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2005). What is the role of trust in organizational
justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp.
247–272). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lin, X.-W., Che, H.-S., & Leung, K. (2009). The role of leader morality in the interaction effect
of procedural justice and outcome favorability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39,
1536–1561. http://doi.org/ckbwft
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational
relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp.
56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum
Press.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice
as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. The Academy of
Management Journal, 35, 626–637. http://doi.org/dkjmsr
Sato, K., & Ohnuma, S. (2013). Influences of involvement and interest over determinants of trust
in authority in public decision-making. The Japanese Society of Social Psychology, 29, 94–103.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police
and courts. New York: Sage.
van Dijke, M., & Verboon, P. (2010). Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural
fairness effects on tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 80–91. http://doi.org/
fwzfpj
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.