Leadership & Organization Development JournalA cross-sectional study of the relationships between organizational justices and OCB:Roles of organizational identification and psychological contractsByoung Kwon Choi Hyoung Koo Moon Wook Ko Kyoung Min Kim

Article information:To cite this document:Byoung Kwon Choi Hyoung Koo Moon Wook Ko Kyoung Min Kim , (2014),"A cross-sectional study of therelationships between organizational justices and OCB", Leadership & Organization Development Journal,Vol. 35 Iss 6 pp. 530 - 554Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0103

Downloaded on: 20 December 2014, At: 13:13 (PT)References: this document contains references to 75 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 194 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Millissa F.Y. Cheung, (2013),"The mediating role of perceived organizational support in the effects ofinterpersonal and informational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors", Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 Iss 6 pp. 551-572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2011-0114Hakan Erkutlu, (2011),"The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship betweenorganizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors", Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 6 pp. 532-554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111161058Piyali Ghosh, Alka Rai, Apsha Sinha, (2014),"Organizational justice and employee engagement:Exploring the linkage in public sector banks in India", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 628-652 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2013-0148

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540409 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

A cross-sectional study of therelationships between

organizational justices and OCBRoles of organizational identification and

psychological contractsByoung Kwon Choi

Division of Business Administration, College of Business,Sangmyung University, Seoul, South Korea

Hyoung Koo MoonBusiness School, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

Wook KoCulture Team, LG Electronics, Pyeongtaek, South Korea, and

Kyoung Min KimBusiness School, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the mediating effect of organizational identification (OI)in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), andalso to examine the moderating effects of transactional and relational contracts in the relationshipbetween OI and OCB.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from employees working for ten companiesin South Korea. The participants were asked with a self-reported survey, and 284 questionnaires wereused in the analyses.Findings – Among the three types of organizational justice, the effects of distributive and interactionaljustice on OCB were mediated by OI. The authors also found that the positive relationship betweenOI and OCB was stronger for both a low level of transactional and a high level of relational contract.In addition, the moderated mediation analyses confirmed that the indirect relationships betweendistributive, interactional justice and OCB through OI were valid for both high and low level oftransactional contract, and only for low level of relational contract.Practical implications – To facilitate employees’ OCB, organizations have to pay adequate attentionto distributive justice which is rather neglected, and also must understand what types of psychologicalcontract employees have.Originality/value – This study intensively explored the internal mechanism as to how the differenttypes of organizational justice lead to OCB by identifying the mediating effect of OI and moderatingroles of psychological contracts.

Keywords Organizational justice, Psychological contract, Organizational identification,Organizational citizenship behaviour

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionOrganizational justice has drawn a great deal of attention from researchers in the fieldof organizational behavior in the last 40 years. Organizational justice is defined as theemployees’ perception of fairness in the organization such as whether they are fairlyrewarded in exchange for their contributions and whether they are fairly treated

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Received 29 August 2012Revised 15 January 201325 March 2013Accepted 25 March 2013

Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol. 35 No. 6, 2014pp. 530-554r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739DOI 10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0103

530

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

procedurally as well as interpersonally (Greenberg, 1990). Employees’ perceptionof fairness with respect to outcome, procedure and interaction can strongly influencetheir favorable attitudes and behaviors toward the organization. Indeed, recentmeta-analysis on the effects of organizational justice has revealed that organizationaljustice, such as distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, are positively relatedto employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust in organization, andjob performance (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001).

Among the consequences of organizational justice, organizational citizenshipbehavior (OCB) has been a hot research topic (Karriker and Williams, 2009). OCB is avoluntary employee behavior for the organization’s effectiveness, which goes beyondformal duties or roles (Organ, 1990). Many previous researchers, to a large extent,explain employees’ OCB in the aspect of a social exchange relationship (Organ, 1988).That is, if employees have a high quality of social exchange relationship with theirorganization which is characterized by mutual trust and reciprocity, they are morelikely to voluntarily demonstrate behavior beyond their formal roles (Van Dyne et al.,1994). In line with the rationale for OCB, organizational justice also operates in thecontext of the exchange relationship between employees and the organization, becauseemployees’ perception of justice is influenced by how their exchange with organizationis fair. Likewise, considering that the social exchange relationship is an importantcommon cornerstone explaining organizational justice and OCB, research on thoserelationships have flourished (Aryee et al., 2002; Fassina et al., 2008; Karriker andWilliams, 2009; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002).

We acknowledge prior studies’ findings on the relationship between organizationaljustice and OCB in the theoretical and empirical aspects; however, there are alsosome limitations.

First, it would be more desirable to design a research model including three typesof organizational justice to fully understand the dynamics of organizational justice(Colquitt et al., 2001; Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006). However, when previous studieshave examined the relationships between organizational justice and OCB, they haveconducted studies with only two types of justice; for instance, distributive and proceduraljustice (Ang et al., 2003: Konovsky and Pugh, 1994), and procedural and interactionaljustice (Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002). Hence, in this study, we willinclude the three types of organizational justice as antecedents of OCB.

Second, it is necessary to identify a variety of mediators between organizationaljustice and OCB to explain why organizational justice facilitates OCB (Rego and Cunha,2010). Until now, a few mediators have been explored such as perceived organizationalsupport (Moorman et al., 1998), trust (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Masterson et al.,2000), and leader-member exchange (Karriker and Williams, 2009). In this study,we propose that organizational identification (OI) would mediate the relationshipbetween organizational justice and OCB. In fact, Lavelle et al. (2007) already proposedthat employees’ perception on distributive, procedural, and interactional justicewould affect OI, and in turn influence OCB. However, there has been little empiricalresearch on the mediating effect of OI, with just a few exceptions (e.g. Olkkonen andLipponen, 2006).

As a related issue of OI, even though some studies have considered the roleof OI, previous studies have separately examined either the relationship betweenorganizational justice and OI (De Cremer et al., 2006; Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006;Rego and Cunha, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2009) or between OI and OCB (Riketta, 2005;Van Dick et al., 2006). That is, there have been few attempts that explore the influence

531

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of organizational justice on OI as well as OCB by considering them simultaneously.As a result, how OI mediates the influence of organizational justice on OCB is notfully explored. Thus, the integrative studies including both organizational justicesas antecedent and OI as mediator will be helpful to deepen our understanding of thecomplex relationships between organizational justices and OCB.

Third, there is a lack of attention on the moderating factors which would influencethe effect of OI on OCB. Given that OCB is, by definition, individuals’ voluntarybehavior, whether they engage in OCB can be affected by various conditions (Van Dyneet al., 1994). In this regard, in this study, we expect that the relationship betweenOI and OCB would be different according to which level of psychological contractsthe employees have. Psychological contracts refer to sets of beliefs individuals holdregarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement betweenemployees and their organization (Rousseau, 1989; Rousseau and Parks, 1993).Specifically, although employees identify with the organization, if they have a hightransactional contract, which is based on their economic relationship, they would notactively engage in OCB. In contrast, if employees have a high relational contract, whichlies in the social exchange relationship, they would show more OCB.

To summarize, our study has three purposes. The first purpose is to test the mediatingeffect of OI in the influence of organizational justice on OCB by simultaneouslyconsidering three types of organizational justice, OI, and OCB. Second, using socialexchange and social identity theory, we hypothesize the moderating roles ofboth transactional and relational contracts in the relationship between OI and OCB.Finally, by integrating the first and second research purpose, we test whether theindirect relationship through OI is conditional at different levels of the two types ofpsychological contract.

2. Theoretical backgrounds and hypotheses developmentThe relationship between organizational justice and OIThe social exchange relationship between organizations and employees play a fundamentalrole in determining what attitudes employees have or which type of behaviors theydemonstrate (Blau, 1964; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). For instance, if employees have ahigh quality social exchange relationship with the organization which is characterized bymutual trust, reciprocity, and unconditional commitment, they are likely to be engaged in amore positive attitude and favorable behavior toward their organization (Van Dyne et al.,1994). Accordingly, a high quality of social exchange can be expected to lead to OI.

OI is defined as the perceived oneness with an organization and the experience ofthe organization’s success or failures as one’s own (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 103).In other words, OI reflects employees’ feeling of psychological inclusion or belongingto their organization (Walumbwa et al., 2009). OI is primarily the employees’ evaluativejudgment on the organization which employees are associated with (Blader and Tyler,2009). OI has been well recognized to have two components – pride and respect (Tyler,1999; Tyler et al., 1996). Pride refers to the employees’ evaluation that their organizationhas a high level of status compared to other organizations, and respect reflects theemployees’ belief that they are respected within the organization (Tyler et al., 1996).In fact, many previous studies have validated that OI is composed of pride and respect(e.g. Boezeman and Ellemers, 2008; Tyler and Blader, 2001, 2002, 2003; Sousa and Vala,2001). According to Blader and Tyler (2009), “pride refers to evaluations of standing ofone’s group [y] and refers to evaluations by people of their standing and acceptancewithin their group (p. 448).”

532

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Organizational justice can be an antecedent of OI (e.g. Olkkonen and Lipponen,2006; Tyler and Blader, 2003). Organizations which have fair procedures and disseminaterelevant information can provide messages which lead employees to think of theirorganizations as having high status and respecting themselves as valuable groupmembers (Tyler and Blader, 2003). As a result, employees have a motivation to beassociated with and/or identify with the organizations because they can feel self-worthor self-esteem by having membership in the organization (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Lindand Tyler, 1988). In summary, organizational justice in terms of distribution, procedure,and treatment causes employees to favorably evaluate their organization’s status andto feel that they are respected.

In addition, when considering that organizational justice and OI are primarilyrelated to employees’ cognition, it is also reasonable to examine the influence oforganizational justices on OI. Organizational justice represents employees’ perceptionof the degree to which the organization is fair and/or just by their cognitive appraisal ofthe exchange relationship between employees and the organization. OI also signifiesthe degree of connection on organizational goals or attributes which are formedby employees’ cognitive appraisal of whether they strive to identify or not (De Cremeret al., 2006). Thus, we can expect that organizational justice can be a predictor affectingOI. The more detailed rationales for the relationship between each type of organizationaljustice and OI are as following.

First, employees’ perception of distributive justice, which is an assessment of thefairness of rewards such as pay, can affect their OI (Lavelle et al., 2007). Distributivejustice involves employee assessments of the fairness of rewards and inducementsreceived in exchange for their contributions at work (Greenberg, 1990). If theorganization provides a fair and reasonable reward to employees in accordance to theircontributions, employees feel that their organization is reliable and that theirrelationship is based on mutual commitment. Accordingly, employees perceivingdistributive justice may have a strong desire to maintain membership with the currentorganization.

Second, employees’ perception of procedural justice is likely to affect their OI.Procedural justice is defined as the employees’ assessments of the extent to whichthe organization’s decisions or procedures are fair and just (Niehoff and Moorman,1993). Many researchers on procedural justice strongly argue that, if organizationsimplement decisions fairly and consistently with unbiased procedures, employeesfeel that their organization is legitimate, reliable, and trustworthy (Brockner andWiesenfeld, 1996; De Cremer et al., 2006; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler and Lind, 1992).Therefore, employees may have a strong sense of pride in working for theirorganization and a need to identify with their organization. Moreover, social identitytheories (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Blader, 2007; Tyler and Blader, 2001) proposed thatorganizations with high levels of procedural justice can convey the symbolic meaningto employees that they are very valued and respected in the organization, and in turnthey will have OI.

Lastly, interactional justice is also important for employees to evaluate the socialexchange relationship with the organization. Interactional justice, which is theperception of the quality of the interpersonal treatment received in the organization(Bies and Moag, 1986), is mainly related to the quality of treatment such as howemployees are treated with respect and dignity as a human-being. If employeesperceive a high level of interactional justice, they will think that the organization treatsthem with respect; therefore, they will have affective attachment to their organization

533

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(Conlon, 1993; Masterson et al., 2000). Taken together, we suggest the followinghypotheses:

H1. Employees’ perception on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice willbe positively related to their OI.

The mediating effect of OIThe rationale for the mediating effect of OI lies on the social exchange theory.Social exchange theory proposes that individuals receiving valuable outcome fromothers tend to give something in turn, since mutual reciprocity is important formaintaining their good relationship (Organ, 1990). It is expected that, when employeesare fairly rewarded, which is valuable for their interest and/or self-identity, they arelikely to reciprocate for the organization.

In fact, the positive influences of distributive, procedural, and interactional justiceon OCB has been well examined in previous theoretical as well as empirical studies(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Fuchs, 2011; Konovsky andPugh, 1994; Skarlicki and Latham, 1996). For instance, with regard to distributivejustice, if the organization fairly rewards employees, employees will think that theyhave a high-quality social relationship with the organization, and then they are willingto put priority on the interests of the organization rather than their own (Lind andTyler, 1988). Moreover, group value model (Tyler and Lind, 1992) suggests that fairtreatment and decision making by the organization provide the following for theemployees: the feeling that they are respected in the organization, and the feeling thatthey take pride in membership (Tyler and Lind, 1992). These feelings of respect andpride lead to employees’ favorable behavior toward the organization, such as OCB(Tyler and Blader, 2001; Tyler et al., 1996), and also motivate them to be directed towardaltruistic behaviors for the organization in return for a high quality of treatment(Skarlicki and Latham, 1996).

On the other hand, the positive influence of OI on OCB has been investigated byconceptual (Ashforth et al., 2008; Kramer, 1993) as well as some empirical studies(Dutton et al., 1994; Riketta, 2005; Van Dick et al., 2006). For instance, in terms ofthe conceptual argument, Dutton et al. (1994) proposed that the stronger employees’OI, the more frequent their cooperative behavior, since strong OI causes a feelingof belongingness and of obligation of reciprocity. Kramer (1993) also argued that OImakes group-based trust, and thus induces cooperative behavior. In terms of empiricalfindings, OI was shown to be positively related to OCB. For instance, Van Dick et al.(2006) examined that OI was positively related to OCB. Riketta’s (2005) meta-analysisalso revealed that OI had a positive relationship with a wide range of work-relatedbehaviors such as OCB.

Through integrating the above two fields of research, we can make the hypotheseson the mediating effect of OI between organizational justice and OCB. According tosocial identity theory (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1979),individuals tend to find their social identity (which means who I am) in terms of thesocial relationship with their organization (Ellemers et al., 2004; Olkkonen and Lipponen,2006). That is, a certain portion of individuals’ self-concept is formed by theirmembership in the organization toward which they feel emotional attachment (Tajfeland Turner, 1979). Here, the important information for employees to find their socialidentity and to assess self-categorization can be the degree to which they are fairlyrewarded and respectfully treated in their current organization (Sousa and Vala, 2001;

534

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Tyler and Blader, 2003). That is, if employees work for an organization that provides fairrewards, implements just procedure, and treats employees with respect, these typesof organizational justice can help the employee find their self-concept and decide whetherthey identify with the current organization or not. Moreover, employees who identifywith the organization through finding their own social identity will perceive theorganization’s interest as their own (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Ellemers et al., 2004;Van Knippenberg, 2000), and accordingly they will be motivated to voluntarily behavefor the benefit of the organization’s performance (Van Dick et al., 2006).

In sum, when employees perceive a high level of distributive, procedural, andinteractional justice, they will have a strong OI through their social identity process,and then will show voluntary behavior for the organization such as OCB in return forfair reward and treatment:

H2. OI will mediate the relationship between distributive, procedural, and interactionaljustice and OCB.

The moderating effect of psychological contractWe argue that, although OI positively influences OCB, its strength of influence may beaffected by the psychological contract which employees have. Employees with OI mayvoluntarily accept the organization’s norms which guide the employees’ behavior(Blader and Tyler, 2009). Generally, an organization’s norms contain values which theorganization emphasizes to employees, and accordingly those values serve to motivateemployees to demonstrate behavior that is desirable and/or favorable for the organization(Tyler and Blader, 2003). However, although employees’ identification with theorganization may lead to employees’ internalization of the organizational norms, it maybe dependent on their psychological contract, because the interpretation of theorganizational norms can be different according to which type of psychologicalcontract they have.

Psychological contracts are sets of beliefs employees have regarding the terms andconditions of the reciprocal exchange agreement between organizations and employees(Robinson, 1996; Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Rousseau, 1989). Unlike the formalcontract, a psychological contract is the employee’s perception of what contributionemployees have to make for the organization and what the organization should providefor the employees in return for their contribution (Epitropaki, 2013; Robinson et al.,1994). Psychological contracts are usually distinctly transactional and relationalin nature.

First, a transactional contract is basically based on the economic or instrumentalexchange relationship between the employees and employers (Herriot and Pemberton,1996; McDonald and Makin, 2000). Therefore, employees with a transactionalpsychological contract might have a very short-term-based reciprocity norm (George,2009; Robinson and Morrison, 1995), and thus they would have a narrow scope ofobligations for the organization, such as focussing on compensation, guaranteeof employment, formal work roles, and making contributions commensurate withthe reward from the organization. Those obligations comprise the contents of socialnorms for those who have a transactional contract. Their social norms regardingobligations are focussed on economic exchanges. These norms are requiring lessemotional commitment and loyalty from employees in exchange for a narrow span ofobligations from the employer. Employees are expected to focus their own workduties and invest their specialties already existing in the domain of their own job.

535

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Second, employees with a relational contract have broad and comprehensive socialnorms, since a relational contract is basically characterized by collectivistic human natureand emotional attachment to organizations (Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Rousseau andParks, 1993). Therefore, employees with a high level relational contract might think thatjob security, good workplace relationships, interesting and challenging work, and a broadrange of developmental opportunities is the organization’s obligations to the employees.Thus, relational contracts emphasize a sense of community, and employees are expectedto invest in the organization in the form of voluntary citizenship behavior.

Considering these characteristics of transactional and relational psychologicalcontracts, we suggest that high level of OI is not necessarily associated with OCBperformance to the same extent among all employees, and the strength of the relationshipbetween OI and OCB would differ significantly in accordance to an employee’spsychological contract type, because their perceived social norms regarding obligationscould be different. That is, although employees internalize the organization’s socialnorms or values through identifying with their organization, if employees with a highlevel transactional contract are less likely to regard the OCB as an obligation totheir organizations, since they have norms or values based on a narrow and economicexchange. In contrast, if employees have a relational contract, they are more likely to beengaged in extra-role behaviors which are not formally enforced by organization, sincethey would have reciprocity norms and values concerning the exchange relationship withthe organizations. Hence, we hypothesize:

H3a. The positive relationship between OI and OCB will be moderated bytransactional contracts, such that the positive relationship is stronger whenthe transactional contract is low than high.

H3b. The positive relationship between OI and OCB will be moderated by relationalcontracts, such that the positive relationship is stronger when the relationalcontract is high than low.

The overall modelsThe final hypotheses are drawn by integrating the relationships predicted in H1, H2,and H3a and H3b. We expect that the mediated relationship between distributive,procedural, and interactional justice and OCB through OI is likely to be conditionalaccording to the different levels of employees’ psychological contracts. As we mentionedabove, employees’ perception of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice wouldhave a positive influence on their OCB (H1), and the effects of organizational justice onOCB would be mediated by OI (H2). Additionally, as we showed in H3a and H3b, theindirectly mediated relationship between organizational justice and OCB via OI may bedifferent at a level of both transactional and relational contract. Therefore, as shown inFigure 1, we propose an overall moderated mediation model as follows:

H4a. Transactional contracts will moderate the mediated relationships between,distributive, procedural, and interactional justice with OCB via OI, such that themediated relationships will be valid for employees with a low transactional contract.

H4b. Relational contracts will moderate the mediated relationships between,distributive, procedural, and interactional justice with OCB via OI, such thatthe mediated relationships will be valid for employees with a high relationalcontract.

536

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

3. MethodSample and procedureThe hypotheses were tested using survey data collected from employees working forten companies in South Korea. Human Resource Department managers in each workgroup served as the contact for our research. Using contact information obtained fromthe Human Resource managers, we sent the survey questionnaires with a cover letterexplaining the purpose of the survey to respondents through an e-mail. To ensureconfidentiality, all responses from the employees were transmitted to the first authordirectly by instructing them to return the responded survey to the author’s e-mailaddress.

The industries of these companies are diverse, including areas such asinformational technology service, manufacturing, research institute, finance, andpublic service. Out of the distributed 340 questionnaires, 284 were returned, with atotal response rate of 83.5 percent. In total, 74.6 percent of the respondents were male,and 85.5 percent had been educated to the college level or above. The mean of age andtenure were 31.95 years (SD¼ 6.39) and 67.55 months (SD¼ 63.11), respectively.

MeasuresAll variables were measured by self-reported questionnaires from employees. Everyitem was assessed by a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree).

Organizational justice. Three types of organizational justice were assessed. First,distributive justice was measured using five-item scale developed by Tyler (1994)which assesses the fairness of outcome received (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.844). Sample itemswere, “How favorable was the outcome relative to what you expected prior to theexperience?,” “How favorable was the outcome to you?,” and “How favorable wasthe outcome relative to what other people receive in a similar situation?” Second, weassessed procedural justice and interactional justice using five items developed byNiehoff and Moorman (1993). Procedural justice reflects the degree to which jobdecisions included mechanisms that ensured the gathering of accurate and unbiasedinformation, employee voice, and an appeals process (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.869). Sampleitems were, “My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heardbefore job decisions are made,” “To make job decisions, my general manager collectsaccurate and complete information,” and “Employees are allowed to challenge orappeal job decisions made by the general manager.” Third, interactional justice wasmeasured using five items assessing the degree to which employees felt their needswere considered in, and adequate explanations were made for job decisions(Cronbach’s a¼ 0.939). Sample items were, “When decisions are made about my job,

OrganizationalIdentification

OrganizationalCitizenshipBehavior

DistributiveJustice

ProceduralJustice

InteractionalJustice

TransactionalContract

RelationalContract

Figure 1.The research model

537

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

the general manager treats me with respect and dignity,” “When decisions are madeabout my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs,” “Concerningdecisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of thedecisions with me,” and “When making decisions about my job, the general manageroffers explanations that make sense to me.”

OI. OI was assessed by using the measure developed by Tyler (1999), which iscomprised of two dimensions. One is the respect reflecting the degree of politeness andtreatment with dignity (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.913). In other words, respect refers to employees’evaluation of their status within the organization in terms of being just and/or fairlytreated by their organization (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Tyler and Blader, 2001). Sampleitems are “My organization respects my work-related ideas,” “My organization valueswhat I contribute at work,” “My organization respects the work I do,” “My organizationappreciates my unique contributions on the job,” and “My organization approves of howI do my job.” The other is the pride in organizational membership (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.938).Pride means employee’s judgments about the status of the organization where he/sheworks (Blader and Tyler, 2009; Mael and Ashforth, 1992) and feeling the organization’sprestige because they are members of a high status organization (Tyler and Blader, 2001).Sample items were, “I feel proud to be working where I am,” “I talk up where I work tomy friends as a good place to work,” “I agree with what my organization stands for,” and“I find that my values and the values where I work are very similar.” Respect and pridewere measured by seven and eight items, respectively. The scores of respect andpride were aggregated into total score of OI.

Psychological contract. We assessed the psychological contract by using the measureof Robinson et al. (1994) which has two types of psychological contract. Relationalcontracts were measured by four items assessing to what extent they believed theiremployer was obligated to provide them with training, long-term job security, careerdevelopment, and support with personal problems (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.873).Transactional contracts were measured by three items assessing to what extent theybelieved their employer was obligated to provide them with rapid advancement, highpay, and pay based on current levels of performance (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.755).

OCB. We assessed OCB using a measure developed by Organ (1988), which iscomprised of five dimensions (e.g. altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue,sportsmanship). Among the five dimensions, we used three dimensions, such ascourtesy, civic virtue, sportsmanship. Since the main interests of this study is therelationship between employees’ perception on organizational justice and OCB andcitizenship behavior for the organization (OCB-O), and altruism and conscientiousnessare considered as citizenship behavior for individual (OCB-I) (e.g. Fassina et al., 2008;Masterson et al., 2000), they were excluded. Following the practice of prior studies(LePine et al., 2002), all scores of the items were aggregated into a single OCB score(Cronbach’s a¼ 0.745).

Control variables. We controlled some demographic variables, such as gender, age,tenure, and education, which might be related to OI and OCB. Age and tenure were self-reported in year and month, respectively. Gender (1¼ female, 0¼male) and educationlevel (0¼ below college, 1¼ college or above) were dummy-coded.

4. ResultsDiscriminant and convergent validityConfirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine the validity ofconstructs in our study through using AMOS 5.0. We evaluated the goodness of each

538

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

model by determining whether the values of the comparative fit index (CFI) andTucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 40.90 and the value of the root-mean-squared error ofapproximation (RMSEA) was lower than 0.08 (Lance and Vandenberg, 2002).Additionally, because the w2 goodness-of-fit index is statistically sensitive to samplesize, we also evaluated the ratio of w2 to degrees of freedom (w2/df) as adjunctdiscrepancy-based fit (Carmines and McIver, 1981). The acceptable ratio of w2/df is inthe range of 2-3.

First, we performed confirmatory first-order and second-order factor analyses totest whether each construct had both discriminant and convergent validity (Rindskopfand Rose, 1988). For distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, the threefirst-order factor model plus one second-order factor yielded good goodness-of-fitindexes (w2(df)¼ 308.1(101), po0.001, w2/df¼ 3.05, CFI¼ 0.928, TLI¼ 0.903,RMSEA¼ 0.089) and all first-order factor loaded significantly onto their respectivesecond-order factor (coefficients a’s were 0.724, 0.943, and 0.896, respectively). Next,for transactional and relational contracts, two first-order factor model plus onesecond-order factor yielded good goodness-of-fit indexes (w2(df)¼ 3.0(1), po0.001, w2/df¼ 3.0, CFI¼ 0.996, TLI¼ 0.962, RMSEA¼ 0.088) and the coefficients a’s were 0.753and 0.949, respectively. For OI comprised of pride and respect, two first-order factormodel plus one second-order factor yielded a good goodness-of-fit indexes(w2(df)¼ 203.2(89), po0.001, w2/df¼ 2.283, CFI¼ 0.957, TLI¼ 0.942, RMSEA¼0.071) and the coefficients a’s 0.683 and 0.985, respectively. Finally, for OCB which iscomposed of civic virtue, sportsmanship, and courtesy, three first-order factor modelplus one second-order factor yielded a good goodness-of-fit indexes (w2(df)¼ 79.1(24),po0.001, w2/df¼ 3.296, CFI¼ 0.914, TLI¼ 0.839, RMSEA¼ 0.095) and the coefficientsa’s were 0.218, 0.729, and 0.458, respectively.

Second, another CFA test was conducted to examine whether our overall constructsfit the data. The results indicated that fit indexes for the ten-factor model (three typesof organizational justice – distributive, procedural, and interactional; two dimensionsof OI – respect and membership; two types of psychological contract – transactionaland relational; three dimensions of OCB – courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue)fell within an acceptable range (w2(df)¼ 1,569.8(857), w2/df¼ 1.83, CFI¼ 0.902,TLI¼ 0.887, RMSEA¼ 0.057) and yielded a better goodness of fit index than anyother model.

Third, a cross-sectional research design of the present study may cause a commonmethod bias, because all variables were obtained from a single source and alsomeasured by a self-reported questionnaire (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In this regard, weconducted a single-common-method-factor approach to justify that a common-methodbias was not serious in our study (Chang et al., 2010). The purpose of this test is topartition the variance of the response to a focal measure into trait, method, and randomerror components, thereby examining whether the estimated parameters in theten-factor model were significantly changed after adding a common method factor.The result of this test showed that the common method factor model did improve thegoodness-of-fit index (w2(df)¼ 1,382.1(813), CFI¼ 0.922, TLI¼ 0.905, RMSEA¼ 0.052)comparing to the ten-factor model without a common method factor model, with asignificant change of chi-square of 189 (Ddf¼ 44, po0.001). However, all items of eachmeasure in the common method factor model still remained above 0.60 even aftercontrolling the effects of the common method factor and the values of most items’factor loading on common method were below than 0.20. In addition, the commonmethod factor accounted for only a small portion (1.6 percent) of the total variance,

539

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

which is far less than the amount of method variance (25 percent) observed byWilliams et al. (1989). Taken together, we can conclude that common method bias maynot be a serious problem.

Descriptive analysisTable I shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation matrix ofvariables. As expected, the correlations among distributive, procedural, interactionaljustice, and OI were high and strong, and the correlations among the psychologicalcontracts and other variables were relatively low and weak.

Statistical strategies for analysesTo test our hypotheses, we used three statistical procedures. First, to test the maineffects of organizational justices (H1) and the mediating effect of OI (H2), we conducteda hierarchical multiple mediated regression analysis following the three-stepprocedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to Baron and Kenny(1986), for OI to play the role of mediator, three conditions must be meet: (condition 1)the three types of organizational justice (independent variables) are related to the OCB(dependent variable), (condition 2) the three organizational justice are related to the OI(mediator) and (condition 3) the relationships between the three organizational justiceand OCB disappear (full mediation model) or the strength of the relationships arereduced (partial mediation model), when OI is added to the model as a mediator.

Second, we followed the procedures suggested by Muller et al. (2005) to test ourmoderated mediation model. Specifically, this statistical procedure was used toestimate the conditional indirect effects of distributive, procedural, and interactionaljustice on OCB through the OI at different levels of the transactional and relationalcontract.

According to Muller et al. (2005, pp. 855-856), three multiple regression equationsare estimated to test the moderated mediation model. In Equation (1), dependentvariable (Y) is regressed on an independent variable (X), a moderator (Mo), and theirinteraction(X �Mo). In Equation (2), the mediator (Me) is regressed on the independentvariables (X), moderator (Mo), and their interaction(X �Mo). Lastly Equation (3), boththe mediator’s effect on the dependent variable and the residual effect of theindependent variable on the outcome after controlling for the mediator are allowed tobe moderated in Equation (3):

Y ¼ b10 þ b11X þ b12Moþ b13X �Moþ e1 ð1Þ

Me ¼ b20 þ b21X þ b22Moþ b23X �Moþ e2 ð2Þ

Y ¼ b30 þ b31X þ b32Moþ b33X �Moþ b34Meþ b35Me �Moþ e3 ð3Þ

To demonstrate the moderated mediation, the following three conditions (a, b, and c)should be considered. For the first condition (a), in Equation (1), the effect of theindependent variable on the dependent variable (b11) is significant, while the effect ofinteraction (b13) is not, because the overall effect of the independent variable on theoutcome does not depend on the moderator. In Equations (2) and (3), both (or either) ofthe following second (b) and third conditions (c) should be met: (b) both the interactioneffect between the independent variable and the moderator on the mediator (b23) in

540

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Mea

nS

D1.

Gen

der

2.A

ge

3.E

du

cati

on4.

Ten

ure

5.D

J6.

PJ

7.IJ

8.O

I9.

TP

C10

.R

PC

1.G

end

er0.

250.

432.

Ag

e31

.96

6.40

�0.

340*

**3.

Ed

uca

tion

0.83

0.03

�0.

277*

**0.

240*

**4.

Ten

ure

67.5

563

.12�

0.14

9*0.

721*

**�

0.00

25.

DJ

4.44

0.86

�0.

193*

*0.

318*

**0.

102

0.30

7***

6.P

J4.

491.

08�

0.17

4**

0.18

5**

0.02

20.

156*

0.59

3***

7.IJ

4.63

1.04

�0.

173*

*0.

190*

*0.

051

0.17

4**

0.59

8***

0.76

7***

8.O

I4.

460.

87�

0.24

2***

0.20

8***

0.00

00.

161*

0.55

2***

0.55

4***

0.61

1***

9.T

PC

5.40

1.20

0.03

80.

061

0.17

6**

0.02

40.

151*

0.10

50.

117

0.15

4*10

.R

PC

5.10

1.15

�0.

010.

001

0.07

4�

0.02

30.

225*

**0.

177*

*0.

172*

*0.

260*

**0.

701*

**11

.O

CB

4.66

0.71

�0.

058

0.18

8**

0.04

90.

171*

*0.

552*

**0.

520*

**0.

529*

**0.

519*

**0.

158*

0.19

8***

Note

s:

DJ,

dis

trib

uti

ve

just

ice;

PJ,

pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

e;IC

,in

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice;

TP

C,

tran

sact

ion

alp

sych

olog

ical

con

trac

t;R

PC

,re

lati

onal

psy

chol

ogic

alco

ntr

act;

OI,

org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

tifi

cati

on;

OC

B,

org

aniz

atio

nal

citi

zen

ship

beh

avio

r.S

ign

ific

ance

at*po

0.05

;**

po0.

01;

***po

0.00

1

Table I.Means, standard

deviations, andcorrelations

541

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Equation (2) and the effect of the mediator on the dependent variable (b34) in Equation(3) are significant and/or (c) both the effect of the independent variable on the mediator(b21) in Equation (2) and the interaction effect between the mediator and the moderatoron the outcome (b35) in Equation (3) are significant. When the second condition (b) ismet, it indicates that the moderator operates in the predictor-mediator linkage. Whenthe third condition (c) is the case, this represents that the moderator works in therelationship between mediator and dependent variable. In sum, a conditional indirecteffect (moderated mediation) can be evidenced when the first condition (a) is met andboth (or either) the second and/or third conditions (b and c) are fulfilled.

In the process of this kind of analysis, we mean-centered any variable used asa component of the interaction term for the moderated mediation model to avoidmulticollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991).

Results of testing hypothesesTable II showed the overall results of our analyses. First, H1 and H2 was tested byusing three-step procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). As to H1 whichpredicting that the positive influences of the three types of organizational justice on OI,the results of Model 7 show that distributive (b¼ 0.274, po0.001) and interactionaljustice (b¼ 0.354, po0.001) were positively related to OI (DR2¼ 0.329, po0.001),while the effect of procedural justice (b¼ 0.095, ns) on OI was not significant. Thus, H1was partially supported for distributive and interactional justice.

As to H2 which expects the mediating effect of OI in the relationship betweenorganizational justice and OCB, the results of the regression Model 1 show thatdistributive (b¼ 0.326, po0.001) and interactional justice (b¼ 0.179, po0.05) weresignificant for OCB (DR2¼ 0.329, po0.001). In addition, the results including OIas a mediator in Model 2 show that the effect of distributive justice (b¼ 0.254,po0.001) was reduced and the effect of interactional justice (b¼ 0.087, ns)disappeared, while the effect of OI on OCB was still significant (b¼ 0.261,po0.001), and the increase of explained variance was also significant (DR2¼ 0.037,po0.001). These results mean that OI partially mediated the relationship betweendistributive justice and OCB, and fully mediated the relationship between interactionaljustice and OCB. Thus, H2 was partially supported.

Second, Table II also shows the results of testing the moderated mediation model.As to the first condition (a), as shown in Model 1, while the effects of distributive(b¼ 0.326, po0.001), procedural (b¼ 0.187, po0.05), and interactional justice(b¼ 0.179, po0.05) were significant for OCB, the results of Models 4-6 showed thatthe interactions of distributive (b¼�0.033, ns, for transactional and b¼ 0.100, ns, forrelational, DR2¼ 0.006, ns), procedural (b¼ 0.010, ns, for transactional and b¼ 0.090,ns, for relational, DR2¼ 0.010, ns), and two types of psychological contracts were notsignificant for OCB. These findings met the first condition for the moderated mediationmodel.

Concerning the second condition (b), when OI was a dependent variable, the resultsof Models 9-11 show that two types of psychological contracts did not have significantinteractional effects with distributive (b¼ 0.089, ns, for transactional and b¼ 0.034,ns, for relational, DR2¼ 0.013, ns), procedural (b¼ 0.020, ns, for transactional andb¼ 0.077, ns, for relational, DR2¼ 0.009, ns), and interactional justice (b¼ 0.042, ns,for transactional and b¼ 0.046, ns, for relational, DR2¼ 0.006, ns). These resultsshow that the second condition (b) for the moderated mediation model was notconfirmed. Moreover, these findings also imply that the positive relationships between

542

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

OC

BO

IO

CB

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Mod

el4

(DJ)

Mod

el5

(PJ)

Mod

el6

(IJ)

Mod

el7

Mod

el8

Mod

el9

(DJ)

Mod

el10

(PJ)

Mod

el11

(IJ)

Mod

el12

(DJ)

Mod

el13

(PJ)

Mod

el14

(IJ)

Con

trol

vari

abl

es

Gen

der

0.02

60.

153*

0.02

60.

097

0.09

20.

096�

0.21

1**�

0.21

1**�

0.13

0*�

0.14

2**�

0.14

1*0.

145*

0.13

6*0.

136*

Ag

e0.

219*

0.10

80.

219*

0.09

90.

101

0.10

40.

104

0.10

4�

0.01

2�

0.01

6�

0.01

10.

109

0.10

80.

116

Ed

uca

tion

�0.

013

0.01

5�

0.01

3�

0.00

9�

0.00

7�

0.00

9�

0.08

5�

0.08

5�

0.06

9�

0.08

0�

0.08

00.

015

0.01

20.

012

Ten

ure

0.02

3�

0.04

90.

023

�0.

035

�0.

032

�0.

039

0.06

80.

068

0.02

20.

025

0.02

1�

0.04

1�

0.03

2�

0.04

5

DR

20.

051*

0.05

1*0.

051*

0.05

1*0.

051*

0.08

1***

0.08

5***

0.08

5***

0.08

5***

0.08

5***

0.05

1*0.

051*

0.05

1*

Indep

enden

tva

riabl

es

DJ

0.32

6***

0.25

4***

0.32

6***

0.31

7***

0.31

9***

0.31

9***

0.27

4***

0.27

4***

0.22

1***

0.25

6***

0.24

8***

0.27

3***

0.28

5*0.

282*

**

PJ

0.18

7*0.

162

0.18

7*0.

188*

0.18

5*0.

185*

0.09

50.

095

0.10

40.

083

0.08

80.

158

0.15

30.

164*

IJ0.

179*

0.08

70.

179*

0.17

2*0.

059*

0.16

80.

354*

**0.

354*

**0.

347*

**0.

338*

**0.

334*

**0.

086

0.09

30.

077

DR

20.

329*

**0.

329*

**0.

329*

**0.

329*

**0.

329*

**0.

372*

**0.

372*

**0.

372*

**0.

372*

**0.

372*

**0.

329*

**0.

329*

**0.

329*

**

Mod

erat

ing

vari

abl

es

TP

C0.

013

0.01

10.

026

0.01

6�

0.01

9�

0.01

8�

0.01

7�

0.01

70.

015

0.04

00.

004

RP

C0.

030

0.04

60.

029

0.04

00.

145*

0.16

5*0.

153*

0.16

2*�

0.00

4�

0.03

20.

002

DR

20.

002

0.00

20.

002

0.01

6*0.

016*

0.01

6*0.

016*

0.00

20.

002

0.00

2

Inte

ract

ionalva

riabl

es

DJ�

TP

C�

0.03

30.

089

0.07

8

DJ�

RP

C0.

100

0.03

4�

0.04

2

DR

2

PJ�

TP

C0.

010

0.02

70.

201*

PJ�

RP

C0.

090

0.07

7�

0.12

8

DR

2

IJ�

TP

C0.

014

0.04

20.

138

IJ�

RP

C0.

040

0.04

6�

0.12

7

DR

20.

006

0.01

00.

002

0.01

30.

009

0.00

60.

006

0.01

00.

002

(con

tinu

ed)

Table II.Results of hierarchical

multiple regressionfor the moderated

mediation model

543

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

OC

BO

IO

CB

Mod

el1

Mod

el2

Mod

el3

Mod

el4

(DJ)

Mod

el5

(PJ)

Mod

el6

(IJ)

Mod

el7

Mod

el8

Mod

el9

(DJ)

Mod

el10

(PJ)

Mod

el11

(IJ)

Mod

el12

(DJ)

Mod

el13

(PJ)

Mod

el14

(IJ)

Med

iati

ng

vari

able

OI

0.26

1***

0.25

4***

0.23

4***

0.23

5***

DR

20.

037*

**0.

033*

**0.

032*

**0.

034*

**

Inte

ract

ionalva

riabl

es

OI�

TP

C�

0.22

9*�

0.28

8**�

0.29

1**

OI�

RP

C0.

232*

0.27

2**

0.30

0**

DR

20.

016*

0.02

6**

0.02

4**

Ov

eral

lR

20.

362*

**0.

397*

**0.

382*

**0.

388*

**0.

392*

**0.

384*

**0.

441*

**0.

473*

**0.

487*

**0.

483*

**0.

454*

**0.

436*

**0.

415*

**0.

442*

**

Ov

eral

lF

-

val

ue

20.4

3720

.767

15.8

6213

.178

13.4

2212

.996

28.0

2723

.081

19.7

3019

.440

19.1

7512

.500

13.1

8412

.780

Note

s:

Sig

nif

ican

ceat

*po

0.05

;**

po

0.01

;**

*po

0.00

1

Table II.

544

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

organizational justice and OI would not be moderated by the transactional or relationalcontract.

However, the third condition (c) was met. The results of the regression Model 7show that, while distributive (b¼ 0.274, po0.001) and interactional justice (b¼ 0.354,po0.001) were positively related to OI (DR2¼ 0.372, po0.001), procedural justice(b¼ 0.095, ns) was not significantly related to OCB. In addition, the results ofModels 12 and 14 show that, when an independent variable is distributive justice,the interactions between the OI and psychological contracts (b¼�0.229, po0.05,for transactional and b¼ 0.232, po0.05, for relational DR2¼ 0.016, po0.05) weresignificant. When an independent variable is interactional justice, the interactionsbetween OI and psychological contracts (b¼�0.291, po0.01, for transactionaland b¼ 0.300, po0.01, for relational DR2¼ 0.024, po0.01) were also significant.These results mean that the third condition (c) for the moderated mediation model wassatisfied. These findings imply that the moderating effects of psychological contractsfunctioned in the relationships between OI and OCB, as depicted in Figure 1.

To precisely grasp the interaction pattern between OI and psychological contracts,plots of the interactive effects were drawn for employees with high (1 SD above mean)and low (1 SD below mean) transactional contract levels (Figure 2(a)) and relational

5.5

5.25

5.0

4.5

4.25

4.0Low (–1 SD) High (+1 SD)

High (+1 SD)

Low (−1 SD)

Organizational Identification

Relational Contract

4.75

Slope=0.730, p<0.001

Slope=0.495, p<0.001

5.5

5.25

5.0

4.5

4.25

4.0Low (−1 SD) High (+1 SD)

Organizational Identification

Transactional Contract

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

itize

nshi

pB

ehav

ior

Org

aniz

atio

nal C

itize

nshi

pB

ehav

ior

4.75

High (+1 SD)

Low (−1 SD)

Slope=0.540, p<0.001

Slope=0.360, ns

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.The plots for moderating

effects of transactionaland relational contract

545

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

contract levels (Figure 2(b)). Simple slopes analyses were performed to test the strengthof the slopes (Aiken and West, 1991). Figure 2 shows the patterns of the moderatingeffects of transactional and relational contracts. First, for transactional contracts(Figure 2(a)), employees with lower level of transactional contracts (simpleslope¼ 0.540, t¼ 3.684, po0.001) have a more positive and steeper slope of the effectof OI on organizational citizenship than employees with high level of transactionalcontracts (simple slope¼ 0.360, t¼ 2.006, ns). Concerning relational contracts(Figure 2(b)), the positive effect of OI on OCB is stronger for employees with a highlevel of relational contract (simple slope¼ 0.730, t¼ 5.651, po0.001) than with a low levelof relational contract (simple slope¼ 0.495, t¼ 2.789, po0.001). Therefore, H3a and H3bwere supported.

Taken together, the first condition (a) and the third condition (c) for moderatedmediation model were met, while the second condition (b) was not satisfied. To furthervalidate these moderated mediation relationships, we examined the differences inmagnitude of the indirect effects across varying levels in psychological contracts.The bootstrap methods with five thousand subsamples were performed using SPSSMacro (Preacher et al., 2007). As shown in the upper half of Table III, normal-theorytests revealed that, for transactional contracts, the conditional indirect effect ofdistributive justice on OCB via OI was significant in both low (indirect effect¼ 0.066,po0.05) and high (indirect effect¼ 0.051, po0.05) transactional contract. The indirecteffect of interactional justice was also significant in both low (indirect effect¼ 0.071,po0.01) and high (indirect effect¼ 0.055, po0.05) transactional contracts. Theseresults did not meet H4a which expected the mediating effect of OI in the relationshipbetween organizational justice and OCB would be valid only for employees with lowlevel of transactional contract. Thus, H4a was not supported.

However, as expected in H4b, the conditional indirect effects of distributive (indirecteffect¼ 0.065, po0.01) and interactional justice (indirect effect¼ 0.071, po0.01)on OCB via OI were significant only for high relational contracts. Thus, H4b wassupported in the case of distributive and interactional justices.

Distributive justice Interactional justiceIndirect effect SE z Indirect effect SE z

Transactional contractConditional indirect effect with normal test

Low(�1 SD) 0.066 0.026 2.528* 0.071 0.027 2.600**High(þ 1 SD) 0.051 0.022 2.298* 0.055 0.023 2.354*

Conditional indirect effect with bootstrappingLow(�1 SD) 0.066 0.028 2.305* 0.070 0.027 2.592**High(þ 1 SD) 0.053 0.024 2.193* 0.056 0.023 2.401*

Relational contractConditional indirect effect with normal test

Low(�1 SD) 0.043 0.023 1.834 0.046 0.025 1.864High(þ 1 SD) 0.065 0.023 2.746** 0.071 0.025 2.837**

Conditional indirect effect with bootstrappingLow(�1 SD) 0.038 0.025 1.519 0.042 0.026 1.603High(þ 1 SD) 0.067 0.026 2.559* 0.072 0.024 2.921**

Notes: Bootstrapping n¼ 5,000. Significance at *po0.05; **po0.01

Table III.Test of conditionalindirect effects ofdistributive andinteractional justice onOCB throughorganizationalidentification acrosslevels of transactionaland relational contracts

546

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

5. DiscussionUsing social exchange and social identity theory (e.g. Tajfel and Turner, 1979), weverified OI as a mediating variable explaining why organizational justice positivelyaffects OCB, and found psychological contracts as a moderating variable affectingthe relationship between OI and OCB. The results of this study can be summarizedas follows. First of all, OI mediated the effects of distributive and interactionaljustice on OCB. We also found that the positive influence of OI on OCB was stronger forlow transactional and high relational contracts. Lastly, the indirect effect of distributiveand interactional justice on OCB through OI was only valid for high relationalcontracts.

Contrary to our hypotheses, two unexpected results were found. The first is thatprocedural justice was not positively associated to OI, whereas distributive justicehad the strongest influence on both OI and OCB. Considering the previous argument(Tyler and Blader, 2003) and empirical findings (De Cremer et al., 2006; Olkkonenand Lipponen, 2006; Tepper and Taylor, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2009) that found thepositive effects of procedural justice on OCB, and that found those effects to be strongerthan distributive justice, our results are somewhat surprising. Two reasons can beinferred. One may be related to the recent change of the South Korean managementenvironment. As we noted earlier, most South Korean organizations recently haveadopted Western-style management practices, such as promotion and pay in accordanceto individual contribution. Accordingly, there is a possibility that South Koreanemployees might put more emphasis on the distributional issues rather than proceduralissues. Therefore, when considering distributive, procedural, and interactional justice,distributive justice might be the strongest predictor of OI.

The other reason, paradoxically, is likely to be associated to the culturalcharacteristics of South Korea where interpersonal relationships are very important inshaping exchange relationships. Similar to the Fassina et al. (2008)’s system-dominancemodel, South Korean employees might tend to perceive justice in the process of interactingwith their leader rather than in the organization’s procedure. McFarlin and Sweeney (2001,p. 86) argued that “formal procedures may be less important for employees in collectivist,high power distance cultures. In such cultures, obeying a paternalistic leader may bemore crucial than following specific procedures.” Thus, contrary to western society, anorganization’s procedure might be less influential to employees’ perception of justicethan how their leader treats them fairly.

The second unexpected finding is that, regardless of the level of the transactionalcontract, distributive and interactional justice had indirect effects on OCB through OI.This result has several implications. The first is that the influence of organizationaljustice on OI could be much greater than we generally expect. Generally, it could beeasily expected that if employees have a high level transactional contract, they wouldbe less likely to identify themselves with the organization. However, our resultsuggests that the perception of justice has a very strong impact on the identificationof even those who have high level transactional contracts with the organization.The second implication is that, once people identify themselves with the organization,the group norm begins to have powerful effects on the individuals’ behavior, makingthe specific social norms for transactional contracts ineffective. In particular, Asianculture tends to value conformity to group norms and collective harmony, especiallycompared to western culture (Sue and Sue, 2003). As a result, specific norms or valuesconditioned to transactional contracts might become invalid under the powerfulcollectivistic organizational values.

547

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Theoretical implicationsThis study has a theoretical contribution to the body of research regarding therelationships among organizational justice, OI, and OCB. First, using social exchange(Organ, 1990) and social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982), this study more intensivelyexplored the internal complex mechanism as to why distributive, procedural, andinteractional justice positively relate to OI and OCB. In particular, given that organizationaljustice, OI, and OCB have common characteristics which operate in the context ofexchange relationships between organizations and employees, the use of social exchangeand social identity theory as rationales for our arguments are appropriate.

Second, contrary to previous and prevailing empirical findings on the weak and/ornon-significant influence of distributive justice (e.g. Bhal, 2006; Blader, 2007; Konovskyand Pugh, 1994; Olkkonen and Lipponen, 2006), we found that distributive justice maybe useful for forming employees’ identification with the organization. This resultmeans that a study integrating various types of organizational justice is important inexamining the influence of organizational justice on employee’s attitudes or behaviorssuch as OI.

Third, we found the significant roles of employees’ psychological contracts in therelationship between OI and OCB. Until now, OI has been regarded to drive employeesto engage in greater behavioral extra-efforts toward their organization (Haslam andEllemers, 2005; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). However, our study shows that thisrelationship could be influenced by the type and strength of psychological contracts,because employees with different norms and values depending on their psychologicalcontract could have significantly different ways to express their identity in theorganization. Especially, when employees had a high level of transactional psychologicalcontract, even though they had a high level OI, they did not show OCB. This means thatOI may not always lead to OCB, and also the positive influence of OI on OCB may bedifferent according to types of psychological contract.

Practical implicationsIn practical terms, our study provides some important implications to organizationalpractices. The first implication is that organizations have to pay adequate attentionto make employees perceive distributive justice by providing fair treatment andreasonable rewards, such as pay or promotion. Although previous empirical studies(e.g. Blader, 2007) found that procedural or interactional justice is a stronger predictorrather than distributive justice of employee-level consequences, our study shows thatdistributive justice has a bigger and more positive influence on employees’ OI as wellas OCB. Even though this kind of exchange is based on the economic or monetaryexchange relationship between organizations and employees, organizations shouldkeep in mind that fair and just economic exchange can be effective for increasingemployees’ positive attitudes or behaviors toward organizations. Therefore, besidesboth the enactment of fair organizational procedures, it is also important fororganizations to provide just rewards to employees in return for their performance andcontributions.

Second, our study implies that organizational justice can be especially critical fororganizations where employees have a transactional contract. As our results demonstrate,regardless of the level of employees’ transactional contract, when employees perceivedistributive and interactional justice, they identify with the organization, and thus engagein OCB. This means that, even though employees have a short-term based economicexchange relationship with their organization, if organizations fairly treat them in terms

548

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

of distribution and interaction, then their OI and OCB can be increased. Considering thisresult, organizations must understand what types of psychological contracts employeeshave. One of the alternatives for this can be a periodic survey to examine whatemployees think the organization should provide for them, and what contribution theythink they should make for the organization. This kind of survey can be helpful fororganizations to evaluate the overall characteristics of the exchange relationship betweenthe organization and employees, and to prepare appropriate actions.

Limitation and future researchWe acknowledge some limitations of this study and suggest some directions forfuture research. The first limitation of this study rests in its cross-sectional nature.We conducted a cross-sectional study with data collected at one point. Although ourtheoretical framework provides justifications for the temporal ordering of the variablesin our model, the cross-sectional design does not allow a firm causal inference to bedrawn (Chang et al., 2010). For instance, OI can be a predictor of organizational justice.That is to say, when employees have a strong pride or emotional commitment to theirorganization, they might perceive the reward and/or treatment received from theorganization as fair. In this regard, we cannot completely rule out this reserve relationshipbecause of the cross-sectional design of this study. Accordingly, we strongly recommendthat future study with longitudinal design is needed to prove the causality oforganizational justice and OI.

Second, as the issue related to cross-sectional design of our study, there may be thepossibility of common method bias, since data for all our focal variables were collectedby self-reported questionnaires (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Common method bias mightinflate the relationships that we have found in the present study. Even though wejustified that our data may not have a critical problem in terms of common method biasthrough methodological procedure (e.g. single-common-method factor approach), thisstatistical remedy is not enough. Therefore, future researchers should collect data frommultiple sources. For instance, whereas organizational justice and OI were assessed byemployees, their OCB and psychological contract can be acquired from co-workersor supervisors.

Third, we measured psychological contracts with employers’ obligations (i.e. whatobligation do you think that your organization has for employees). Some researchersproposed that the psychological contracts can be measured in two perspectives;employers’ and employees’ obligations (e.g. Robinson et al., 1994). In this study, wedid not measure employees’ obligations (i.e. what obligation do you think you havefor organizations). Accordingly, our results can be different from results with thepsychological contract measured using employees’ obligations. Thus, in the future, it isnecessary to examine whether our results hold for studies with psychological contractsmeasured in terms of employers’ obligations. In addition, it will be interesting tocompare how the moderating effects of psychological contracts will differ dependingon the perspective of employers’ or employees’ obligation.

Lastly, there may be a generalizability issue. Since we collected data fromSouth Korean companies, our results might reflect the situational characteristics ofSouth Korea. Hence, we have a question as to whether the present findings can beapplied to studies with samples from other nations. For instance, as noted, SouthKorean has been regarded to have a culture based on relational characteristics betweenemployees and organizations which are based on mutual respect and trust (Hofstede,1980). However, recently, many Korean organizations have adopted Western-style

549

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

management practices emphasizing short-term based economic exchangerelationships. Accordingly, it may be possible that the influences of relational contractand transactional contract co-exist. For instance, the results that both distributive andinteractional justice were positively related to OI, and the indirect mediated effect ofOI in the relationship between organizational justice and OCB was valid for both low andhigh transactional contracts may be related to the current situational characteristicsof South Korea. Hence, future research with samples from different nations is necessary todetermine whether our results would hold in other contexts.

References

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Begley, T.M. (2003), “The employment relationships of foreign workersversus local employees: a filed study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,performance, and OCB”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 561-583.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship betweenorganizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 33, pp. 267-286.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-40.

Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, S.H. (2008), “Identification in organizations: an examinationof four fundamental questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 325-374.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Bhal, K.T. (2006), “LMX-citizenship behavior relationship: justice as a mediator”, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 106-117.

Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, inLewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiations inOrganizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.

Blader, S.L. (2007), “What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomesinfluence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty”, Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 986-994.

Blader, S.L. and Tyler, T.R. (2009), “Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkagesbetween social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 445-464.

Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Boezeman, E.J. and Ellemers, A.N. (2008), “Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizationalcommitment”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 159-172.

Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), “An integrative framework for explaining reactions todecisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 189-208.

Carmines, E. and McIver, J. (1981), “Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis ofcovariance structures”, in Bohrnstedt, G. and Borgatta, E. (Eds), Social Measurement:Current Issues, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 61-73.

Chang, S.J., van Witteloostuijn, A. and Eden, L. (2010), “Common method variance ininternational business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 171-184.

550

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.

Colquitt, J., Conlon, E., Wesson, M., Porter, C. and Ng, K. (2001), “Justice at the millennium:a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 86 No. 33, pp. 425-445.

Conlon, D.E. (1993), “Some tests of the self-interest and group value models of procedural justice:evidence from and organizational appeal procedure”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1109-1124.

De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M. and Bos, A.R. (2006), “Leader’s procedural justice affectingidentification and trust”, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 27No. 7, pp. 554-565.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-263.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D. and Haslam, S.A. (2004), “Motivating individuals and groups at work:a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 29 No. 33, pp. 459-478.

Epitropaki, O. (2013), “A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach andorganizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership:testing a moderated-mediated model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 65-86.

Fassina, N.E., Jones, D.A. and Uggerslev, K.L. (2008), “Meta-analytic tests of relationshipsbetween organizational justice and citizenship behavior: testing agent-system andshared variance models”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6,pp. 805-828.

Fuchs, S. (2011), “The impact of manager and top management identification on the relationshipbetween perceived organizational justice and change-oriented behavior”, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 555-583.

George, C. (2009), The Psychological Contract: Managing and Developing Professional Groups,McGraw Hill, Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire.

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of Management,Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.

Haslam, S.A. and Ellemers, N. (2005), “Social identity in industrial and organizationalpsychology: concepts, controversies and contributions”, International Review of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 39-118.

Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1996), “Contracting careers”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 6,pp. 759-790.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Karriker, J.H. and Williams, M.L. (2009), “Organizational justice and organizational citizenshipbehavior: a mediated multifoci model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,pp. 112-135.

Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 656-669.

Kramer, R.M. (1993), “Cooperation and organizational identification”, in Murnighan, J.K. (Ed.),The Social Psychology of Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 244-268.

Lance, C.E. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2002), “Confirmatory factor analysis”, in Drasgow, F. andSchmitt, N. (Eds), Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA, pp. 221-254.

551

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E. and Brockner, J. (2007), “Taking a multifoci approach to the study ofjustice, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: the target similarity model”,Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 841-866.

LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizationalcitizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65.

Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York, NY.

McDonald, D.J. and Makin, P.J. (2000), “The psychological contract, organizational commitmentand job satisfaction of temporary staff”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 84-91.

McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (2001), “Cross-cultural applications of organizational justice”, inCropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 67-95.

Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of thereformulated model of organizational”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 103-124.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis-Mcclear, K., Goldman, B.M. and Tylor, S.M. (2000), “Integrating justiceand social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on workrelationships”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.

Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational supportmediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenshipbehavior?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-357.

Muller, D., Judd, C.D. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005), “When moderation is mediated and mediation ismoderated”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 66, pp. 852-863.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.

Olkkonen, M.E. and Lipponen, J. (2006), “Relationships between organizational justice,identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 202-215.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, inCummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-72.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biasesin behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses:theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1,pp. 185-227.

Rego, A. and Cunha, M.P. (2010), “Organizational justice and citizenship behaviors: a study in thePortuguese cultural context”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 59 No. 3,pp. 404-430.

Riketta, M. (2005), “Organizational identification: a meta-analysis”, Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 358-384.

Rindskopf, D. and Rose, T. (1988), “Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-orderfactor analysis”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 51-67.

552

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 574-599.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (1995), “Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect ofunfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-298.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Changing obligation and thepsychological contract: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37No. 1, pp. 137-152.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139.

Rousseau, D.M. and Parks, J.M. (1993), “The contracts of individuals and organizations”, inCummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-43.

Rupp, D.E. and Cropanzano, R. (2002), “The mediating effects of social exchange relationships inpredicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 925-946.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1996), “Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union:a test of organizational justice theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2,pp. 161-169.

Sousa, F.H. and Vala, J. (2001), “Relational justice in organizations: the group-value model andsupport for change”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 99-121.

Sue, D.W. and Sue, D. (2003), Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, Wiley,New York, NY.

Tajfel, H. (1982), “Social psychology of intergroup relations”, in Rosenzweig, M.R. and Porter,L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 1-39.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. andWorschel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey,CA, pp. 33-47.

Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), “Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97-105.

Tyler, T.R. (1994), “Psychological models of the justice motive: the antecedents of distributivejustice and procedural justice”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5,pp. 850-863.

Tyler, T.R. (1999), “Why people cooperate with organizations: an identity-based perspective”, inSutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-246.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2001), “Identity and cooperative behavior in groups”, GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 207-226.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2002), “Autonomous vs comparative status: must we be better thanothers to feel good about ourselves?”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 813-838.

Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2003), “The group engagement model: procedural justice, socialidentity, and cooperative behavior”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 349-361.

Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY,pp. 115-191.

553

Roles of OI andpsychological

contracts

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P. and Smith, H. (1996), “Understanding why the justice of group proceduresmatters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 913-930.

Van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. and Wieseke, J. (2006), “Identity and the extra mile:relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenshipbehaviour”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-301.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.

Van Knippenberg, D. (2000), “Work motivation and performance: a social identity perspective”,Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49 No. 33, pp. 357-371.

Walumbwa, F.O., Cropanzano, R. and Hartnell, C.A. (2009), “Organizational justice, voluntarylearning behavior, and job performance: a test of the mediating effects of identification andleader-member exchange”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1103-1226.

Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reportedaffect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74No. 3, pp. 462-468.

About the authors

Assistant Professor Byoung Kwon Choi earned a PhD in Organizational Behavior at the KoreaUniversity. He is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business, Division of BusinessAdministration at the Sangmyung University. His research interests include organizationaljustice, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational identification, and feedback-seekingbehavior. Assistant Professor Byoung Kwon Choi is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: jrpfeffer@smu.ac.kr

Professor Hyoung Koo Moon earned a PhD in Organizational Behavior at the University ofMinnesota. He is a Professor in the Department of Business Administration at the Korea University.His research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, organizational justice, trust, andethical behavior.

Dr Wook Ko earned a PhD in Organizational Behavior at the Korea University. He works inthe corporate culture group at LG Electronics. His research interests include group-levelorganizational citizenship behavior and justice climate.

Kyoung Min Kim earned a PhD in Organizational Behavior at the Korea University.Her research interests include psychological contract, sense making process, and organizationalcitizenship behavior.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

554

LODJ35,6

Dow

nloa

ded

by M

AH

IDO

L U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y A

t 13:

13 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

(PT

)