The psychological mechanisms of the effects of procedural justice climate on individual attitudes and behaviors

Abstract

This dissertation explores the underlying mechanisms through which procedural justice climate influences individual attitudes and behaviors. This research topic is important because it contributes not only to the theories of organizational climate, but also to justice theories. Three models, namely the relational model, the security model, and the affective model, were proposed to explain the psychological dynamics of the effects of procedural justice climate. Based on social identity theory and the group-value model of procedural justice at the individual level, the relational model claims that procedural justice climate not only fosters identification with the source of justice (i.e., the organization) through perceived organizational benevolence and integrity, but also influences identification with the recipient work unit of justice via judgment about the status of the work unit (i.e., collective respect). These two forms of identification mediate the effects of procedural justice climate on organization-oriented and work unitoriented employee outcomes respectively. From the perspective of uncertainty management, the security model argues that procedural justice climate provides reliable information to help people reduce uncertainty about important issues in the working environment and improve job security, which in turn influences a variety of individual outcomes. Finally, the affective model focuses on the mediating role of the affective system. In addition, as an initial attempt to integrate the three models, I compare the relative importance of the three models in mediating the influence of procedural justice climate on individual outcomes. Two studies employing different dependent variables were conducted to test my hypotheses. The results supported the mediating effects of the two forms of identification (identification with the organization and identification with the work unit), job security, and individual affect on the relationship between procedural justice climate and individual attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, the relational model, security model, and affective model were all supported. In addition, as expected, the relational model was found to be most operative for general cooperative behaviors including following rules (i.e., compliance and in-role performance), helping the group (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior, OCB), and staying in the group (i.e., intention to leave (reversed)). Furthermore, identification with the work unit was more important for work unitoriented outcomes (i.e., work unit-oriented OCB and intention to leave the work unit), and identification with the organization was more important for organization-oriented outcomes (i.e., organization-oriented OCB and intention to leave the organization). With regard to general outcomes without a specific focus (i.e., compliance, performance, and sportsmanship), the predictive power of identification with the work unit was stronger than that of identification with the organization, according to the concepts of psychological distance and relative potency in Lewin’s (1951) field theory. The affective model had relatively less predictive power than the relational model, and had additional value only when predicting affect-relevant outcomes including job satisfaction and intention to leave. The security model was particularly important for risk-taking behaviors including knowledge sharing and innovative behavior.