Ambrose & Kulik 1989 JBP the Influence of Social Comparisons on Perceptions of Procedural Fairness

8/6/2019 Ambrose & Kulik 1989 JBP the Influence of Social Comparisons on Perceptions of Procedural Fairness

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ambrose-kulik-1989-jbp-the-influence-of-social-comparisons-on-perceptions 1/10

J O U R N A L O F B U S I N E S S A N D P S Y C H O L O G Y

Volume 4, No. 1, Fall 1989

T H E I N F L U E N C E O F S O C I A LC O M P A R I S O N S O N P E R C E P T I O N S

O F P R O C E D U R A L F A I R N E S S

M a u r e e n L . A m b r o s e

University of Iowa

C a r o l T . K u l i k

Carnegie M ellon University

Recently, organizational researchers have discussed the importance

of considering the influence of procedures on individuals' responses to

organizational outcomes. Research in this area (Folger, 1986; Green-

berg, 1987; Sheppard, 1984) is generally consistent with the findings of

Thibaut and Walker (1975), that the perceived fairness of a procedure,especially control over the process, affects individuals' satisfaction with

thei r outcomes. However, resea rcher s have not considered the organiza-

tional impact of social information on perceptions of procedural fairness.

Yet, a large body of research (See Mowday (1987) for a review) has gen-

erally demonstrated the importance of social comparisons in determin-

ing the perceived fairness of outcomes.

While no empirical research in organizational procedural fairness

addresses the use of social comparisons, Folger's (1986) theory of refer-

ent cognitions provides a framework for analyzing individuals' reactions

to procedures and their subsequent outcomes. Referent cognitions the-ory suggests that when individuals receive unfavorable outcomes but

can imagine that had they been allowed input to the procedure, they

could have received a favorable outcome, they will be most dissatisfied.

Folger's work in this area has dealt with individuals' imagination of a

different state (essentially a self-imagined referent), but a simila r com-

parison may occur with a social comparison--a referent other. Analo-

gous to Folger's self-imagined referent, the individual may feel most dis-

satisfied when he or she has low process control and receives an

unfavorable outcome, while a comparative referent has high process

control and receives a favorable outcome. The referent serves to provide

the individual with the range of possibilities available for the procedure

and the outcome.

129 9 1989 Human Sciences Press



130 JOURN AL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

W h i l e t h e m o s t i n t e n s e d i s s a t is f a c t i o n s h o u l d a r i s e f r o m a d is c re p -a n c y b e t w e e n s e l f a n d r e f e r e n t f o r b o t h p r o c e d u r e a n d o u t c o m e , a si m i -

l a r d i f f e re n c e i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e o u t c o m e s h o u l d o c c u r w h e n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l ' s a n d t h e r e f e r e n t ' s o u t c o m e s a r e t h e s a m e , b u t t h e r e f e r e n t

h a s g r e a t e r p r o c e s s c o n tr o l t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l . I f t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e -

t w e e n t h e p r o c e d u r e s i n f l u e n c e s r e a c t i o n s t o t h e o u t c o m e , s a t i s f a c t i o n

w i t h t h e s a m e o u t c o m e s s h o u l d b e l e ss w h e n l o w o w n p r o c e s s c o n t ro l i s

m a t c h e d w i t h h i g h r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s c o n tr o l. F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n b o t h t h e

i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e r e f e r e n t r e c e i v e u n f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s , a n d t h e i n d i-

v i d u a l h a s l o w p r o c e s s c o n t r o l w h i l e t h e r e f e r e n t h a s h i g h p r o c e ss co n -

t r ol , t h e i n d i v i d u a l s h o u l d b e l e s s s a t is f i e d w i t h h i s o r h e r o u t c o m e t h a n

i f b o t h h a d h i g h p r o c e s s c o n t r o l.

T h i s s t u d y e x a m i n e s h o w s o ci al c o m p a r i s o n s i n f lu e n c e e v a l u a t i o n s

o f p r o c e d u r e s a n d o u t c o m e s . P a r t i c i p a n t s a r e t o l d t h e y w i ll b e a ll o w e d t o

p r o v i d e i n p u t t o a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n ( h ig h p r o c e s s c o n t r o l) o r n o t

( lo w p r o c e s s co n t ro l ) a n d a r e g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o c e d u r e t o

w h i c h a r e f e r e n t w a s s u b j e c t ( h ig h o r lo w p r o c e ss c o nt ro l ). T h e y a r e t h e n

p r o v i d e d w i t h e i t h e r a f a v o r a b l e o r u n f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e a n d g i v e n i n -

f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e r e f e r e n t ' s o u t c o m e ( f a v o r a b l e or u n f a v o r a b l e ) . S e v -

e r a l h y p o t h e s e s a r e e x a m i n e d :

1 . A m a i n e f f e c t f o r o w n o u t c o m e o n o u t c o m e s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d f a i r-

n e s s i s e x p ec t e d . I n d i v i d u a l s w h o r e c e i v e f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s a r e

e x p e c t e d t o p e r c e i v e t h e o u t c o m e a s m o r e f a i r a n d m o r e s a t i s f y -

i n g t h a n i n d i v i d u a l s w h o r e c e i v e u n f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s .

2 . A m a i n e f f e c t f o r o w n p r o c e s s c o n t ro l o n p r o c e s s a n d o u t c o m e

s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d f a i r n e s s i s e x p e c t e d . I n d i v i d u a l s w i h h i g h p r o -

c e s s c o n t r o l a r e e x p e c t e d t o p e rc e i v e t h e p r o c e d u r e a s m o r e f a i r

a n d m o r e s a t i s f y i n g a n d t o b e m o r e s a t is f i e d w i t h t h e i r o u t c o m e

t h a n t h o s e w i t h l o w p ro c e s s co n tr o l.

3 . A n i n t e r a c t i o n o f o w n a n d r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s c o n t r o l f o r p r o c e s s

a n d o u t c o m e s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d f a i r n e s s i s e x p e c t e d . I n d i v i d u a l s

w h o e x p e r i e n c e l o w p r o c es s c o n tr o l w h e n t h e r e f e r e n t e x p e r i -

e n c e s h i g h p r o c e s s c o n t r o l a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e l e s s s a t i s f i e d w i t h

t h e i r o u t c o m e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s a n d p e r c e i v e t h e o u t c o m e a n d

p r o c e d u r e t o b e l e s s f a i r t h a n t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e r e f e r e n t s

e x p e r i e n c e t h e s a m e o r l e s s p r o c e s s c o n t r o l .

4 . S u b j e c t s w h o e x p e r i e n c e l o w p r o c e s s c o n t ro l a n d r e c e i v e u n f a v o r -

a b l e o u t c o m e s w h i l e t h e i r r e f e r e n t s h a v e h i g h p r o c e s s c o n t ro l

a n d r e c e i v e f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s w i l l r e p o r t l o w e r l e v e l s o f j o b s a t -

i s fa c ti o n , b e m o r e l i k e ly t o w a n t t o l e a v e t h e jo b , a n d b e l e s s

w i l l i n g to c o m m i t a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o w o r k t h a n o t h e r s u b j e c ts .



MAUR EEN L. AMBROSE AND CAROL T. KULIK 131

M E T H O D

S u b j e c t s

1 05 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a te d i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t f o r e x-

t r a c o u r s e c r e d i t. T h e s t u d y w a s a 2 ( o w n p r o c e s s c o n t ro l : h ig h / l o w ) x 2

( r e f e r e n t p r o c e s s c o n t ro l : h i g h / l o w x 2 ( o w n o u t c o m e : f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r -

a b l e ) x 2 ( r e f e r e n t o u t c o m e : f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r a b l e ) f a c t o r i a l d e s ig n .

S t i m u l u s M a t e r ia l s a n d P r o c ed u r e

S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a c o m p u t e r - b a s e d s i m u l a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e y

a s s u m e d t h e r o le o f a n a d v e r t i s i n g a c c o u n t m a n a g e r f o r a b o o k p u b -

l is h e r . T h e c o m p u t e r p r e s e n t e d t h e m w i t h a s e r ie s o f m e m o s , l et te rs ~

a n d m e s s a g e s t o r e ad . T h e r e f e r e n t w a s i n t ro d u c e d t h r o u g h a m e m o

f r o m a c o - w o r k e r (P a t ). T h e l a s t m e m o w a s a r e q u e s t f r o m t h e i r " b o s s"

a s k i n g t h e m t o w o r k o n t h e w e e k e n d t o g e n e r a t e n e w a d v e r t i s i n g s t r a t-

e g i e s f o r o n e t y p e o f b o o k ( e .g ., h e a l t h a n d f i tn e s s ) . T h i s r e q u e s t c o n -

f l i c te d w i t h a s o c i a l c o m m i t m e n t ( e. g. , s a i li n g ) p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d i n

t h e m e s s a g e s . S u b j e c t s w e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o in d i c a t e t h e n u m b e r o f h o u r s

t h e y w e r e w i l l i n g to w o r k o n t h e w e e k e n d . T h e y w e r e t h e n i n s t r u c t e d t ot y p e t h e i r a d v e r t i s i n g i d e a s in t o t h e c o m p u t e r . T h e y w e r e to l d t h a t t h e

n u m b e r o f h o u r s t h e y a l lo c a t ed w o u l d d e t e r m i n e t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e t h e

c o m p u t e r a l l o w e d t h e m t o b r a i n s t o r m ( a c t u a ll y , no t i m e l i m i t w a s s et ).

W h e n t h e y h a d e x h a u s t e d t h e i r i d ea s , t h e y c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e s tu d y .

T h i s s e q u e n c e o f m e m o s , t i m e a l l oc a t io n , a n d b r a i n s t o r m i n g o c-

c u r r e d f o u r t i m e s d u r i n g t h e s e s s io n . T h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f p r o c e s s c o n-

t r o l o c c u r re d d u r i n g t h e t h i r d s e q u e n c e . D u r i n g t h e t h i r d s e t o f m e m o s ,

s u b j e c t s w e r e i n f o r m e d t h e i r e x p e n s e r e c o r d s w o u l d b e s u b j e c t e d t o a n

i n t e r n a l a u d i t . S u b j e c t s in t h e h i g h p r o c e s s c o n t ro l c o n d i ti o n w e r e t o l d

t h e y w o u l d b e a ll o w e d t o h a v e i n p u t i n to t h e p r o c e s s. T h e y w e r e t o l dt h e y w o u l d m e e t w i t h t h e a u d i t o r t o p r o v i d e t h e r e l e v a n t r e c o r d s, a n

e x p l a n a t i o n o f e x p e n s e s , a n d a n y o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y f e l t w a s i m p o r -

t a n t . S u b j e c t s i n t h e l o w p r o c e ss c o n t ro l c o n d i t io n w e r e i n f o r m e d t h e y

w o u l d h a v e n o in p u t . I n t h is c a s e , s u b je c t s w e r e i n f o r m e d t h e a u d i t o r

w o u l d p ic k u p t h e r e c o r d s a n d r e c e i p t s f o r t h e a u d i t , b u t n o i n p u t f r o m

t h e s u b j e c t w a s a l l o w e d . B o t h m e m o s a l s o i n f o r m e d t h e s u b j e c t s i f t h i s

p r o c e d u r e w a s t h e s a m e a s p a s t p r o c e d u r e s ( h i g h o w n c o n t ro l / h ig h r e fe r -

e n t c o n t r o l ; lo w o w n c o n t r o l /l o w r e f e r e n t c o n t r o l) o r h a d c h a n g e d ( h i g h

o w n c o n t r o l /l o w r e f e r e n t c o n t r o l ; l o w o w n c o n t r o l / h i g h r e f e r e n t c o n t ro l ) .

R e f e r e n t p r o c e s s c o n t ro l w a s e x p l i c i tl y m a n i p u l a t e d b y a m e m o f r o m

" P a t " i n d i c a t i n g h e / s h e h a d b e e n s u b j e c t e d to a n a u d i t p r e v i o u s l y a n d




a l l o w e d i n p u t ( h i g h p r o c e s s c o n t ro l ) o r a l l o w e d n o i n p u t ( lo w p r o c e s sc o n t r o l ) .

T h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f o u t c o m e o c c u rr e d d u r in g t h e l a s t s e q u e n c e o f

m e m o s . S u b j e c t s i n t h e f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e c o n d i t i o n w e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t

t h e y h a d p a s s e d t h e a u d i t " w i t h f ly i n g c o lo r s" a n d r e c e i v e d a m e m o o f

p r a i s e f r o m t h e i r b o s s . S u b j e c t s in t h e u n f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e c o n d i ti o n

w e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be p u t o n p ro b a t io n , t h e i r e x p e n s e s

c l o s el y m o n i t o r e d , a n d r e c e i v e d a m e m o o f d i s a p p o i n t m e n t f r o m t h e i r

b o s s. D u r i n g t h i s s e q u e n c e o f m e m o s , " P a t " a l s o p r o v id e s f e e d b a c k a b o u t

t h e o u t c o m e h e / sh e e x p e r i e n c e d , e i t h e r f a v o r a b l e o r u n f a v o r a b l e , a n d i ts

c o n s e q u e n c e s .

A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h e f i n a l b r a i n s t o r m i n g t a s k , s u b j e c t s r e s p o n d e d

t o a s e r ie s o f q u e s t i o n s . S u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h e a m o u n t o f c o n t r o l (1 =

v e r y l i tt l e; 7 -- a g r e a t d e a l ) t h e y h a d i n t h e a u d i t p r o c e d u r e , e v a l u a t e d

t h e f a i r n e s s ( 1 = v e r y u n f a i r ; 7 = v e r y fa i r) o f t h e a u d i t p r o c e d u r e a n d

i t s r e s u l t s , r a t e d h o w s a t i s f i e d t h e y w e r e w i t h b o t h t h e a u d i t p r o c e d u r e

a n d i t s o u t c o m e s ( 1 = v e r y d i s s a t i s f i e d ; 7 = v e r y s a t i s f ie d ) , i n d i c a t e d

t h e i r o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c ti o n w i t h t h e a c c o u n t m a n a g e r jo b (1 = v e r y d i s s at -

i s fi e d ; 7 = v e r y s a t is f i e d ), a n d t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e y w o u l d q u i t t h e

j o b i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e ( 1 = v e r y l i k e l y ; 7 = v e r y u n l i k e l y ) . A f t e r a n -

s w e r i n g t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , s u b j e c ts p r o v i d e d d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n a n d

w e r e d e b r i e f e d .

R E S U L T S

S u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e d e g r e e o f c o n t ro l t h e y h a d o v e r t h e a u d i t

p r o c e d u r e w a s i n v e s t i g a t e d u s i n g a 2 ( F a v o r a b l e or U n f a v o r a b l e O w n

O u t c o m e ) x 2 ( H i g h o r L o w C o n t r o l ) x 2 ( F a v o r a b l e o r U n f a v o r -

a b l e R e f e r e n t O u t c o m e ) x 2 ( H i g h o r L o w R e f e r e n t C o n t ro l ) A N O V A .

O n l y t h e a n t i c i p a t e d m a i n e f fe c t f o r O w n C o n t r o l w a s s i g n i f ic a n t( F l, s9 = 6 . 1 2 , p < . 05 ), i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d g r e a t e r c o n t r o l

i n t h e H i g h C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n (X = 2 . 19 ) t h a n i n t h e L o w C o n t r o l c o n d i -

t i on (X = 1 .56 ) .

I n o r d e r t o a d d r e s s t h e f i r s t t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s , a 2 ( F a v o r a b l e o r

U n f a v o r a b l e O w n O u t c o m e ) x 2 ( H i g h o r L o w C o n t r o l) x 2 ( F a v o r a b l e

o r U n f a v o r a b l e R e f e r e n t O u t c o m e ) x 2 ( H i g h o r L o w R e f e r e n t C o n t ro l )

M A N O V A w a s c o n d u c t e d o n t h e s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o t h e f o u r q u e s -

t i o n s a s s e s s i n g p e r c e i v e d f a i r n e s s o f t h e a u d i t p r o c e d u r e a n d o u t c o m e s ,

a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e a u d i t p r o c e d u r e s a n d o u t c o m e s . R e s u l t s i n d i -

c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t s f o r o w n o u t c o m e (F 4.s 6 = 4 1 . 4 1 , p < . 0 01 ) ,

r e f e r e n t o u t c o m e ( F 4,s ~ = 3 . 1 2 , p < . 05 ), a n d o w n c o n t r o l (F 4,s 6 = 2 . 4 5 ,

p < .0 5 ). T h e r e w e r e n o s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s .



M A U R E E N L . A M B R O S E A N D C A R O L T . K U L I K 1 3 3

Hypothes is 1 predicted th at the favor ability of the subjects' outcomewould influence both outcome satisfaction and outcomes fairness. Exam-

ination of the univa riate tests associated with the MANOVA indicates

that outcome favorability influenced both outcome satisfaction (F1,89

= 159.83, p < .001) an d outcome fairness (Fl,s9 = 88.61, p < .001). In

suppor t of Hypo thes is 1, subjects who received a positive outcome were

more satisfied (:~ = 5.47) than subjects who received a negative out-

come (:~ = 2.10 and 2.86, respectively).

Although it was not predicted, own outcome also had a significant

effect on procedural fairness (Fl,s~ = 12.77, p < .001) and satisfaction

wi th the procedure (F!~s9 = 3.98, p < .05). Subjec ts perceived the pro-

cedure as more fair (X = 3.83) and more satisfying (X = 4.72) when

they received positive outcomes than when they received negative out-

comes (X = 2.86 and 3.94, respectively).

Hypothes is 2 predicted tha t process control would influence the per-

ceived fairnes s of the procedure and outcomes, and satisfaction with the

procedure and outcomes. An ex amin atio n of the un iva ria te tests associ-

ated with the MANOVA indicates partial support for this hypothesis.

Subjects described the procedure as more fair when they had high pro-

cedural control (:~ = 5.00) than when they had low procedural control

(X = 4.28), Fl,s9 = 7.19, p < .01. No signific ant un ivar ia te effects were

found for the influence of own control on outcome satisfaction or out-come fairness.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that own control would interact with refer-

ent control to influen ce perceptions of fairnes s an d satisfaction. Since no

significant interactions were found, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

The ma in effect for refe rent outcome th at emerged in the M ANOVA

had not been predicted. An ex aminatio n of the univar iate tests indicates

that referent outcome had a significant influence on outcome fairness

(Fl,s9 = 5.89, p < .05). Subjects described their own outcome as more

unfair when the referent's outcome was negative (X = 3.87) than when

it was positive (:~ = 4.54).The final hypothesis predicted that subjects' job satisfaction, inten-

tion to quit, and willingness to commit time to the task would be a

functio n of thei r own and the r eferen t's procedural control and out-

comes. To investigate this hypothesis two analyses were performed.

First, a 2 (Favo rable or Unfa vorable Own Outcomes) • 2 (High or Low

Control) • 2 (Favorab le or Unfavor able Refer ent Outcome) • 2 (High

or Low Referent Control) MANOVA was conducted on the job satisfac-

tion and intention to quit measures. The predicted 4-way interaction

was nonsignificant. However, there was a marginally significant main

effect for own outcome (F2,s4 = 2.73, p = .07) and a si gn ifi can t own out-

come • ref ere nt control inte rac tion (F2,s4 = 4.03, p < .05). Exam ina -

tion of the univa riate tests associated with the outcome main effect indi-



13 4 J O U R N A L O F B U S I N E S S A N D P S Y C H O L O G Y

cates that subjects were less likely to want to quit when they hadreceived positive outcomes (:~ = 4.41) th an when the y received negati ve

outcomes (X = 3.78), Fl,s5 = 4.16, p < .05. There was also an effect of

own outcome on job sati sfact ion (FI,s5 = 3.98, p < .05) such th a t sub-

jects who had received positive outcomes were more satisfied (X = 4.33)

th an those who had received negati ve outcomes (X = 3.79).

Exami natio n of the univ aria te tests for the own outcome x

referent control interaction identified significant interactions for inten-

tion to quit (Fl,s5 = 7.79, p < .01) and job satisfaction (Fl,s5 = 3.47,

p < 05). The intention to quit means are shown in Table 1. Subjects

were most likely to quit when their outcomes were unfavorable and the

refe rent h ad low control. The same pa tte rn of mean s occurred for sub-

jects' ra tin g of their job satisfaction. Subjects were least satis fied

(:~ = 3.42) when they received unfavorable outcomes and the referent

had low control (unfavorable outcomes, high referent Control: X = 4.20;

favorable outcomes, h igh ref ere nt control: X = 4.15; favorabl e out-

comes, low referent control: X = 4.52).

In a second analy sis addre ssing Hypoth esis 4, a 2 (Favorable or Un-

favorable Own Outcome) x 2 (High or Low Control) x 2 (Favorable or

Unfavorable Referent Outcome)• 2 (High or Low Referent Con-

trol) x 4 (Book) repea ted me asur es ANOVA was conducted on the nu m-

ber of weeke nd hour s subjects said they were willing to spend genera t-ing advertising strategies. Since the audit procedure was introduced

during the third book account, and the results reported during the

fourth book account, subjects could respond to unfai r tre atm en t by limit-

ing the hours they were willing to work. Two main effects emerged.

T A B L E 1

M e a n I n t e n t i o n t o Q u i t a s a F u n c t i o n o f O w n O u t c o m e a n d

R e f e r e n t C o n t r o l

Own Ou~ome

Referent Control Favorable Unfavorable

High 4.00 4.25

(n = 27) (n = 24)

Low 4.81 3.32

(n = 27) (n = 25)

Note: 1 = v e r y l i k e l y to q u i t ; 7 = v e r y u n l i k e l y t o q u i t.



MAUREEN L. AMBROSE AND CAROL T. KULIK !35

Fir st, there was a m ai n effect for book (F3,267 = 49.10, p < .001) suchthat subjects were willing to invest fewer hours after the first account

(~[ = 6.39, 3.36, 2.61, 3.24 for each of the four books). Second, ther e was

a signifi can t ma in effect for control (Fl,s9 = 4.18, p < .05) such tha t sub-

jects who had low control were willing to invest more hours (:~ = 4.32)

than subjects who had high control (:~ = 3.48).

There were also two significant interactions. First, a significant

book X own outcome int erac tio n (F3,267 = 2.81, p < .05) ind ica ted th at

subjects who received a negative outcome committed more hours after

the audi t resu lts were an nou nce d (:~ = 5.96, 3.53, 2.73, 3.78 for the four

books) than subjects who received positive outcomes (:~ = 6.80, 3.20,

2.50, 2.72 for the four books). This effect may reflect an effort on the

par t of the negative-ou tcome subjects to impress their supervisor aft er

their poor performance on the audit.

Final ly, there was a book X own outcome X referent control interac-

tio n (F3,267 = 4.45, p < .01). The me an s for thi s in te ract ion are dis-

played in Table 2. In contr ast to the r esults obtained for job satisfaction

and intention to quit, subjects who had received favorable outcomes but

had a referent with low process control were willing to invest fewer

hours on the four th account than other subjects.

T A B L E 2

M e a n H o u r s W i ll in g t o W o r k a s a F u n c t i o n o f B o o k ,

O w n O u t c o m e a n d R e f e r e n t C o n t r o l

Referent Control

Own Outcome

Favorable Unfavorable

High

Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 4

5.74

2.81

2.26

2.81

(n = 27)

6.96

4.04

2.64

3.56

(n = 25)

Low

Book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Book 4

7.85

3.59

2.74

2.63(n = 27)

5.00

3.04

2.81

4.00(n = 26)




D I S C U S S I O N

T h i s s t u d y w a s d e s i g n e d t o e x a m i n e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s o c ia l c o m p a r i -

s o n s o n e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o c e d u r e s a n d o u t c o m e s . W e e x p e c t e d to r e p l ic a t e

t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s e f f e c t s ( m a i n e f f e c t s f o r p r o c e s s co n -

t r o l o n e v a l u a t i o n s o f p r o c e d u r e s a n d o u t c o m e s ), a s w e l l a s fi n d a n i n t e r -

a c t i o n o f r e f e r e n t c o n t ro l a n d o w n c o n t r o l o n o u t c o m e a n d p r o c e s s ev a l -

u a t i o n s . T h e r e w a s p a r t i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e h y p o t h e s e s , a s w e l l a s s o m e

u n e x p e c t e d f i n d i n g s .

H y p o t h e s i s 1 , t h a t o w n o u t c o m e f a v o r a b i l i t y w o u l d i n f l u e n c e p e r -

c e p t i o n s o f o u t c o m e f a i r n e s s a n d s a t is f a c ti o n , w a s s u p p o r t e d . H o w e v e r ,

t h e r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e f e r e n t o u t c o m e in f l u e n c e s p e r c e p t io n s

o f o u t c o m e f ai r n e s s. P a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d t h e o u t c o m e a s l e ss fa i r w h e n

t h e r e f e r e n t ' s o u t c o m e w a s n e g a t i v e t h a n w h e n t h e r e f e r e n t' s o u t c o m e

w a s f a v o r a b l e . I t m a y b e t h a t s u b j e c ts i d e n t if y w i t h t h e r e f e r e n t , v i c ar i-

o u s l y e x p e r i e n c i n g u n f a i r n e s s w h e n t h e r e f e r e n t ' s o u t c o m e is n e g a t i v e .

H y p o t h e s i s 2 p r e d i c t e d t h a t c o n t r o l o v e r t h e p r o c e s s w o u l d le a d i n -

d i v i d u a l s t o b e m o r e s a t i s fi e d w i t h b o t h t h e p r o c e d u r e a n d t h e o u t c o m e .

T h i s h y p o t h e s i s w a s p a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d . I n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e h i g h p r o c es s

c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n w e r e m o r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e t h a n t h o s e

w i t h l o w p r o c e s s c o n t ro l . N o s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t w a s f o u n d f o r o u t c o m e

s a t is f a c ti o n . H o w e v e r , o u t c o m e f a v o r a b i l i t y i n f lu e n c e d p e r c e p t i o n s o fp r o c e d u r a l f a i r n e s s a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h e t r a d i t i o n a l p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e r e s u lt s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s r e -

l ie d o n c u e s f r o m t h e o u t c o m e t o g u i d e th e i r j u d g m e n t s a b o u t th e p r o -

c e s s. T h i s r e s u l t i s s i m i l a r t o r e c e n t f i n d i n g s b y G u z z o , W a g n e r ,

M a g u i r e , H e r r , a n d H a w l e y ( 19 8 6) w h o s h o w e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ' k n o w l -

e d g e o f g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e ( f a v o r a b le o r u n f a v o r a b l e ) i n f l u e n c e d r a t i n g s

o f t h e f a v o r a b i l i t y o f t h e g r o u p p r o c e s s b y w h i c h t h e o u t c o m e w a s

r e a c h e d . T h e n o v e l t y o f t h e a u d i t p r o c e s s in t h i s s t u d y m a y h a v e l e d

s u b j e c t s t o r e l y o n t h e i r o w n o u t c o m e f a v o r a b i l i t y t o g u i d e p r o c e d u r a l

r a t i n g s .W e p r e d i c t e d ( H y p o t h e s i s 3) t h a t o w n c o n t r o l a n d r e f e r e n t c o n t r o l

w o u l d i n t e r a c t t o a f f ec t e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e a n d o u t c o m e . H o w -

e v e r , n o s ig n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r p r o c e d u r a l o r o u t c o m e s a t i s f a c t i o n

o r fa i r n e s s w e r e f o u n d .

F i n a l l y , t h e r e s u l t s o n i n t e n t i o n t o q u i t a n d jo b s a t is f a c t i o n w i t h

r e g a r d t o H y p o t h e s i s 4 i l l u s t r a t e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n .

T h e s e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t l e a r n i n g a re f e r e n t h a s l o w p r o c e s s c o n t ro l

e x a g g e r a t e s r e a c t i o n s t o o n e 's o w n o u t c o m e s . I n d i v i d u a l s a r e m o s t s a t i s-

f ie d w i t h t h e j o b in g e n e r a l a n d l e a s t l i k e l y t o w a n t t o q u it w h e n t h e y

r e c e i v e f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s a n d t h e i r r e f e r e n t h a s l o w p r o c e s s c o n tr o l.

H o w e v e r , t h e m o s t n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n s o c c u r w h e n i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v e

u n f a v o r a b l e o u t c o m e s a n d t h e i r r e f e r e n t h a s l o w p r o c e s s c o n tr o l. O n e



MAUREEN L. AMBROSE AND CAROL T. KULIK 137

possibility is that subjects use the referent to infer the fairness of thesystem. When individuals receive favorable outcomes in a system

known to treat people unfairly (i.e., low referent process control) they

are relieved to receive positive outcomes. Receiving unfavorable out-

comes in a system that treats people unfairly, however, results in an

intensified negative reaction. Contrary to our prediction that individ-

uals would respond directly to interpersonal comparisons, this explana-

tion suggests that individuals may be using comparisons as systemic

indicators of procedural unfairness.

The results concerning subjects' willingness to commit to extra

hours working on an account are consistent with a systemic explana-

tion. Subjects committed the most time after t hey received unfavorable

outcomes and the referent had low control. If these individuals perceive

the system to be unfair, they may be par ticular ly concerned about alle-

viating the negative impression conveyed by their supervisor in the

memo that followed the audit. On the other hand, subjects with favor-

able outcomes and low referent control committed the fewest hours to

the final account. Having expressed the least interest in quitting and

the highest job satisfaction, they may feel most comfortable with their

current level of effort.

Several comments about the study itself should be considered in

interpreting these results. First, this study dealt with intangible out-comes--praise or reprimand. The procedural fairness literature has tra-

ditionally dealt with tangible outcomes. While one would expect the dy-

namics to be similar, intangible outcomes may be evaluated differently

than tangib le outcomes. Second, the operationalization of control in this

study was weak. During the experimental session subjects were in-

formed they would be allowed to have input to the audit, but they never

actually provided the auditor with information. While this manipula-

tion may have been substantial enough to elicit differences in fairness

and control ratings, subjects may not tr uly have felt that they had con-

trol. Thus, when individuals in high process control conditions receivedunfavorable outcomes, they may not have experienced enough control to

have it influence their evaluations. Similarly, this weak manipulation

may have blurred the experienced difference of control between the low

and high conditions. Future research should involve subjects mere ac-

tively in the procedure and the outcome.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experi-

mental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299) New York: Academic.Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H.W. Bierhoff,

R.L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum.



1 38 J O U R N A L O F B U S I N E S S A N D P S Y CH O L O G Y

Gr e e n be r g , J . ( 1987). A t a x ono m y o f o r ga n iz a t io na l j u s t i c e t he o r i e s . A c a d e m y o f M a n a ge -me nt Rev iew, 12(1), 9 - 2 2 .Guz z o , R . A . , W a gne r , D . B . , M a gu i r e , E . , He r r , B . & Ha w le y , C . ( 1986) . I m p l i c i t t he o r i e s

a n d t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f g r o u p p r o c e s s a n d p e r f o rm a n c e . Organizat ional Per formanceand H um an Decis ion Processes , 37, 2 7 9 - 2 9 5 .

L ind , E . A . , Kur t z , S . , M usa n te , L . , Wa lke r , L . , & Th iba u t , J . W. ( 1980) . P r oc e dur e a ndou tc om e e f f e ct s on r e a c t ion s to a d jud ic a t e d r e so lu t io n o f c on f li c t s o f i n t e r e s t . J o u r n a lof Personal i ty an d S oc ial Psychology , 39, 6 4 3 - 6 5 3 .

M ow da y , R .T . ( 1987). E qu i ty the o r y p r e d ic t ion s o f be ha v io r i n o r g a n iz a t ions . I n R . M .S te e r s & L . W. P or t e r ( Eds . ) , Motivation and Work Behav ior (4 th ed , pp . 89-110) . N ewY o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l.

S he p pa r d , B . H . ( 1984). Th i r d pa r ty c on f l ic t i n t e r ve n t ion : A p r oc e d ur a l f r a m e wor k . I n B . M .S t a w & L . L . C u m m i n g s ( E d s. ), Rese arch in organizational behavior, (Vol . 6 , pp . 141-190) , Gr e e nw ic h , C T: JA I P r e s s .

Th iba u t , J . & Wa lke r , L . ( 1975) . Pro cedu ral just ice: A psychological analysis. H i l l s d a l e ,N J : E r l b a u m .

Documents

Ambrose & Kulik 1989 JBP the Influence of Social Comparisons on Perceptions of Procedural Fairness