Processes of Organizational Justice Insights into the perception and enactment of justice

Constanze Eib

©Constanze Eib, Stockholm University 2015 Cover Photo: ©taxedo.com, 2015 ISBN 978-91-7649-098-3 Printed in Sweden by Holmbergs, Malmö 2015 Distributor: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University

Abstract

Well-being at work is of major public interest, and justice at the workplace

can be a key factor contributing to employees and managers feeling well.

Research has found direct relationships between organizational justice

perceptions and work and health outcomes. With research on the justice–

health link still emerging, this thesis examines the moderating and mediating

processes for the effects of justice perceptions on work outcomes and

especially health outcomes. As little is known about those who enact justice,

the antecedents and consequences of justice enactment are also studied. In

Study I, the relationships between organizational justice and work and health

outcomes were in focus, as the moderating role of job characteristics was

investigated utilizing the demand–control(–support) model. Organizational

justice and job characteristics were associated with work and health outcomes

within and across time. The multiplicative effects showed that the

organizational justice effects were stronger when perceived job demands were

high, job control was low or social support was low. Study II examined the

processes through which justice perceptions translate into health outcomes.

Building on the allostatic load model, mental preoccupation with work was

found to be a relevant mediator of the justice–health relationship, with locus

of control moderating the mediated relationships. Study III focused on the

actor perspective. Investigating predictions based on the deontic model of

justice and ego-depletion theory, moral regard and justice self-efficacy

predicted justice enactment positively, and justice enactment had positive

effects on feeling professionally recognized but also negative health

consequences for the actors themselves. This thesis contributes to advancing

the emergent justice–health research stream by providing insights into the

processes underlying these aspects, and by incorporating this stream into the

actor perspective.

Keywords: organizational justice, overall justice, fairness, justice enactment,

well-being, health, Demand-Control-Support, allostatic load, entrepreneurs,

owner-managers, deontic justice, ego depletion

Acknowledgments

There are many people I want to thank for believing in me, thinking of me,

spending time with me, supporting me, helping me, and being there for me

during the time of my PhD.

Everything started with my family. Vielen Dank an Mutti, Papa, Christian,

Tante Sylvi, Onkel Reinhold, Franziska, Robert, Ronald, Jane, Ramona, und

alle Verwandten, die mich seit jeher unterstützt haben.

The next important step was my time at Heidelberg University. I want to thank

all the faculty, and in particular Prof Monika Sieverding, for letting me take

my first research steps in courses and as a research assistant, and for conveying

to me what research is about and for instilling my interest in psychology. Also,

I want to thank all my friends from Heidelberg: Maria, Eva, Irka, Matthias,

Nicolai, Sebastian, Susi, Ilka, Bernhard, Miri, Kay, Cornelia, and all the

others. You made my life there a home.

An important experience for me was also my time at SHL, thank you

Sebastian, Kai and Christiane in particular and also the whole former team.

A special thanks also goes to Almuth McDowall, Gail Kinman, Mark

Saunders, and my friend Céline, for supporting me during my short time at

Surrey University.

My time at Stockholm University started with Magnus Sverke. Sweden taught

me a lot but I learned a lot more through you. Thank you for offering to

supervise me and for walking me through the PhD. Together with my other

supervisor, Claudia Bernhard-Oettel, who kindly took over as main

supervisor, I had a great supervision team and I want to thank you for helping

me get my PhD, for always being there when I needed you, for giving me as

much autonomy as I wished, for not backing down when I had my ups and

downs during all the things that happened during my PhD time, for always

encouraging me, and also for being my culture translator. I will always be

grateful and consider you as role models for my own students. Particularly,

the amount of time, and effort, and thought you put into your comments on

the kappa is laudable. Thank you for always being on my side, letting me

shape my PhD time and nudging me in the right direction.

A special thank goes to my co-authors Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Victoria

Blom, Katharina Näswall, Guillaume Soenen, and Olivier Torres. I hope we

work together on great papers to come.

A particular thanks goes to my external reviewer Kerstin Ekberg, my internal

reviewer Johnny Hellgren for their helpful suggestions and their thoughts on

my work. I also want to thank David Speeckaert for his thorough and

thoughtful proofreading work on this thesis.

I further want to express gratitude to all the people at the Department of

Psychology, Stockholm University, and in particular to the Division of Work

and Organizational Psychology and the Stockholm Stress Center. Particular

thanks go to the people involved with discussing my work: Constanze

Leineweber, Erik Berntson, Helena Falkenberg, and Petra Lindfors. Also I

want to thank Gunnar Aronsson, Anders Sjöberg, Monika Karlsson, Henrik

Dunér, Camilla Nelson, Torun Lindholm, Pehr Granqvist, Niklas Hansen,

Maria Öhrstedt, Constanze Köhninger, Aleksandra Bujacz, Marta Sousa-

Ribeiro Larsson, Malin Mattson, Marie Gustafsson Sendén, Malena Ivarsson,

Artin Arshamian, Aram Seddigh, Roberto Riva, Kristina Langhammer,

Fredrik Jönsson, Ann-Charlotte Smedler, and especially Lena Låstad (thank

you for the word cloud idea!) and Veit Kubik for all their help, laughs, and

friendship.

During my PhD time, I spent a lot of time learning from incredible people.

Thank you Thierry Nadisic for inviting me to EM Lyon Business School in

France, introducing me to MBA teaching, building a collaboration with Jan-

Willem van Prooijen, and introducing me to so many great researchers and

good people. I also want to express gratitude to the organizers and participants

of the Workshop on Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics; it has been

the most enjoyable time during my PhD – getting to know the people behind

the names on the publications I read and cite, learning what they are doing,

and getting feedback on my own work.

I also want to thank Guillaume Soenen for giving me the opportunity to work

with you, and for believing in me. You are a great source of inspiration,

knowledge, insight, guidance, kindness, and I want to thank you for always

supporting and helping me.

I want to thank all the people at EM Lyon for letting me teach my own

organizational behavior class, and the people in the black box who welcomed

me during my stay. Also, I want to thank Marshall Schminke, Maureen

Ambrose, and Gary Latham for all their help and support and encouragement.

Thank you.

During my PhD time, I had the pleasure of getting to know many people from

all over the world. I want to thank Lisa Henrich, Steffi Siegert, Isabel Auer,

Kalle, Filip, the grit sports group, Rachel Elands, the German group in

Stockholm, Annie Varnum and Phil Tully, Maryam Ziaei, and all of the others.

And thank you to all of my friends who were there for me even though it

seemed I was always at a different place.

There are many more people who have shaped my journey, and I want to thank

all of you. Four years have passed, and I am incredibly grateful to all of you.

My next step is waiting, and I hope you will all accompany me. Danke für

alles, tack för allt, merci pour tout.

List of Studies

The present doctoral thesis is based on the following studies:

I. Eib, C., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Näswall, K., & Sverke, M. (in

press). The interaction between organizational justice and job

characteristics: Associations with work attitudes and employee

health cross-sectionally and over time. Economic and Industrial

Democracy. doi: 10.1177/0143831X14525060.

Reprinted with permission (© Sage Publications Ltd)

II. Eib, C., von Thiele Schwarz, U., & Blom, V. (in press). Don’t Let

It Get to You! A Moderated Mediated Approach to the

(In)Justice–Health Relationship. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology.

Reprinted with permission (© American Psychological

Association)

III. Soenen, G., Eib, C., & Torres, O. (submitted). Justice Enactment

and Well-Being: A Test among SME Owner-Managers.

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 From work outcomes to health outcomes ......................................... 2 Processes of organizational justice effects ....................................... 3 From perceived justice to enacted justice ......................................... 5 General aim ...................................................................................... 6

The nature of organizational justice ................................................. 7 Dimensions of organizational justice ............................................... 7 Overall justice ................................................................................... 8 Importance of organizational justice .............................................. 10

Consequences of organizational justice .......................................... 12 Theories on the effects of organizational justice on work .............. 12 Theories on the effects of organizational justice on health ............ 15 Empirical evidence for the effects of organizational justice on work and health ......................................................................... 16

Processes of organizational justice perceptions ............................. 19 Moderators of justice effects .......................................................... 20

Situational moderators ............................................................... 20 Job characteristics as moderators ........................................... 21

Personality moderators ............................................................... 23 Locus of control as moderator ............................................... 24

Mediators of justice effects ............................................................ 25 Mental preoccupation as a mediator .......................................... 28

Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 29

Justice enactment .............................................................................. 31 Nature of justice enactment ............................................................ 32 Antecedents of justice enactment ................................................... 33 Consequences of justice enactment ................................................ 35 Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 38

Summary of studies .......................................................................... 39 Study I ............................................................................................ 39

Background ................................................................................ 39 Aim and hypotheses ................................................................... 40

Data ............................................................................................ 40 Measures .................................................................................... 41 Analysis ...................................................................................... 41 Results and conclusions ............................................................. 41

Study II ........................................................................................... 45 Background ................................................................................ 45 Aim and hypotheses ................................................................... 45 Data ............................................................................................ 46 Measures .................................................................................... 46 Analysis ...................................................................................... 46 Results and conclusions ............................................................. 47

Study III .......................................................................................... 50 Background ................................................................................ 50 Aim and hypotheses ................................................................... 50 Data ............................................................................................ 50 Measures .................................................................................... 51 Analysis ...................................................................................... 51 Results and conclusions ............................................................. 51

Discussion .......................................................................................... 55 Discussion of the findings .............................................................. 55

Job characteristics as moderators of organizational justice effects ......................................................................................... 55 The importance of mental preoccupation with work and locus of control for the justice–health process ........................... 57 Antecedents and consequences of justice enactment ................. 59

Methodological considerations ....................................................... 61 Theoretical implications and future research ................................. 64

Justice in relation to work and health outcomes ........................ 64 Moderators of the effects of organizational justice .................... 65 Mediators of the justice–health relationship .............................. 66 Justice enactment ....................................................................... 68 Nature of justice ......................................................................... 70 Organizational justice from a stress perspective ........................ 72

Practical implications ..................................................................... 74 Conclusions .................................................................................... 76

References .......................................................................................... 78

1

Introduction

People want to be treated fairly. Fairness gives people a sense of control over

future outcomes (Adams, 1965; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and of being valued

and respected by members of their social group (Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler

& Lind, 1992). Many people regard it as important that they live in a world

that adheres to rules of justice (Folger, 1998). It is a concept that even children

learn early in life (Ambrose, 2002) and that is fundamental to human behavior.

Fairness is also relevant at the workplace (Ambrose, 2002). Employees

want to be treated fairly by their supervisors, by other representatives of their

organization, and by their colleagues. Managers want to be treated fairly by

their superiors and subordinates. Fair treatment at the workplace is essential

to effectively working together (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007). In

contrast, unfair treatment, such as preferential treatment or disrespectful

communication, undermines work relationships and the fulfillment of

individuals’ psychological needs, and may encourage employees to engage in

behavior that is harmful to the organization, such as withdrawal, absenteeism

or sabotage (Ambrose, 2002; Cropanzano et al., 2007). The concept of fairness

at work is referred to as organizational justice and the terms justice and

fairness as well as injustice and unfairness are commonly used

interchangeably (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Greenberg, 2010;

Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013).

Work can fulfill needs and interests, create a sense of satisfaction,

engagement, and meaningfulness, and can foster productivity, well-being, and

health (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Jahoda, 1982). On the

other hand, work can also be stressful, trigger intentions to leave the

organization, and be a potential source of mental and physical illnesses

(Greenberg, 2010; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). In fact, stress is ubiquitous in

organizations and has far-ranging economical and practical implications.

Research examining the results of several large surveys shows that 26% to

40% of the surveyed individuals (depending on the survey) reported their

work to be stressful (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,

1999). In 2005, 46% of the Swedish workforce believed that their employment

constituted a risk to their health (European Foundation, 2009). Stress at work

has reached epidemic proportion as indicated by the large number of people

being affected and the intensity of the adverse consequences (Quick, Cooper,

Nelson, Quick, & Gavin, 2003). The World Health Organization (WHO, 1986,

2008) considers workplace stressors to be a major occupational health

2

concern. Working people typically spend the majority of their waking hours

at work. Mental health problems and work-related diseases are considered to

be the primary causes for sickness absence, low productivity, and early

retirement (see WHO, 2008). Also, reports show that businesses,

governments, and society at large spend trillions on work-related diseases and

injuries (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2011),

sickness absence (Black & Drost, 2011), mental illnesses (Bloom et al., 2011),

and on the consequences of stress (Hoel, Sparks, & Cooper, 2001).

Therefore, understanding and predicting work attitudes and behaviors as

well as health outcomes and well-being in general is an important focus of

organizational psychology and management research. Studies have provided

evidence that positive work attitudes have measurable organizational

consequences, such as increased profit and customer loyalty (Harter, Schmidt,

& Hayes, 2002). Also, good physical health has been found to be related to

increased productivity (Donald et al., 2005). A number of researchers have

estimated the costs of sickness absence and illnesses due to work stress to be

large (see Dewa, Corbiere, Duran, & Hensel, 2012). Many employers have

adopted the view that reducing work-related illnesses will ultimately improve

their financial performance. There is some empirical evidence supporting this

view (Jex & Crossley, 2005). In recent years the view on well-being at work

has shifted from regarding work-related stress as a business cost to viewing

well-being and employee health as a business benefit (Gibbs & Burnett, 2011).

Research on organizational justice has shown that fairness perceptions at

work may affect individuals’ work attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt, Conlon,

Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Recent evidence also suggests that fairness

perceptions at work may also affect individuals’ private lives and influence

their health (Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012). In light of the effects that

organizational justice has been found to have on these outcomes in previous

studies, it is important to try to further our understanding of why and under

which circumstances organizational justice perceptions predict work and

health outcomes. Although a wide span of outcomes are of potential study

interest in the area of organizational justice, the main focus in this thesis is on

work as well as on non-work outcomes such as mental and physical health. In

addition to examining the processes occurring when employees are treated

fairly or unfairly at their workplace, it is also important to consider the

individuals who act justly. In the area of organizational justice research, little

is known about when authority figures such as managers treat employees with

a greater or lesser degree of fairness, why they do so, and what the

consequences of enacting justice are for themselves.

From work outcomes to health outcomes

The World Health Organization defines health as a “state of complete

physical, mental and social well-being” (WHO, 1946, p. 100). The concept of

3

well-being is considered a multidimensional construct which includes a

person’s subjective perception regarding satisfaction in life and other areas,

such as work (Diener, 2000). Within organizational psychology, positive work

attitudes and work behaviors and mental and physical health form the

multidimensional concept of well-being (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff,

2003; Robertson & Cooper, 2011).The spheres of work and health are often

interlinked for individuals. Someone who suffers from stress at work is more

likely to be dissatisfied at work, may reduce his or her work effort, and may

think about leaving the organization (Kern, Waters, Adler, & White, 2014).

Most of the research in the literature on organizational justice has focused

on the work-related consequences of employees’ fairness perceptions

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a). Empirical research shows that employees

who feel fairly treated by their employer tend to be more satisfied with their

job, are more engaged in their work, and typically find it easier to identify

with their organization. They are inclined to trust the organization they work

for, and they receive better performance ratings from their supervisors

(Ambrose, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001;

Colquitt et al., 2013). When employees perceive fairness, levels of

involvement and helping behaviors increase (Ambrose, Schminke, & Mayer,

2013). On the other hand, perceptions of unfairness can trigger negative

emotions such as anger, contempt, and sadness. Individuals who feel unfairly

treated tend to be more absent from work, and have a stronger wish to leave

the organization. They may retaliate against the person they regard as being

accountable for the unfairness by, for instance, engaging in sabotage or other

destructive behaviors (Ambrose, 2002; Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009).

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, an emergent stream of

research has considered the role of fairness perceptions at work as a

psychosocial predictor of health (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Vahtera, 2002;

Greenberg, 2010). There is increasing evidence that perceptions of fairness at

work relate to individuals’ mental and physical health (Robbins et al., 2012).

However, the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and

health outcomes are not well understood yet. This thesis tries to build on

efforts to increase the range of outcomes studied in relation to organizational

justice by looking beyond just work outcomes and focusing on other non-work

and health outcomes.

Processes of organizational justice effects

Researchers on organizational justice have concluded that the focus on direct

relationships between organizational justice perceptions and employees’ work

outcomes is receding (Ambrose et al., 2013). Instead, different processes

through which organizational justice perceptions are related to work outcomes

are of more interest. This view can also be adopted for the new perspective of

relating organizational justice perceptions to health and non-work outcomes;

4

to understand the relationships between justice at work and individuals’ health

outcomes the specific processes need to be investigated. Although the

literature relating organizational justice perceptions to employees’ non-work

and health outcomes has made great advances in the recent years, the

circumstances under which it occurs and the reasons why organizational

justice perceptions relate to non-work and health outcomes remain largely

unknown.

One way to better understand the relationships between fairness

perceptions at work and individual consequences is to investigate when the

relationships are stronger or weaker by examining the conditions under which

the justice perceptions do and do not predict the outcomes. In the justice

literature, personality factors such as self-esteem and agreeableness as well as

contextual factors such as organizational structure have been investigated as

factors that can modify or moderate the relationship between justice

perceptions and work outcomes (see Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005).

However, there are factors at work that differ for individuals within the same

organization. One of these is the work environment, which may refer to the

physical work environment, including, for example, workstation design and

the availability of light and air. It can also refer to the psychological work

environment, which is characterized by how employees perceive their work,

what is demanded of them, and what is available to them to make the

fulfillment of these demands possible (J. V. Johnson & Hall, 1988; Karasek,

1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The psychological work environment is an

important predictor for employees’ workplace attitudes, behaviors, and health

outcomes and their well-being in general (de Lange et al., 2009; de Lange,

Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003; Häusser, Mojzisch, Niesel, &

Schulz-Hardt, 2010; van der Doef & Maes, 1998, 1999). It is therefore

important to understand to what extent organizational justice interacts with

factors in the work environment in shaping individuals’ work and health

outcomes. This can be achieved by examining whether the fairness

perceptions of an organization have the same effect on individuals’ well-being

regardless of how the work environment is perceived.

Another way to study the processes underlying the relationships between

organizational justice perceptions and work and health outcomes is to try to

understand what happens “inside” the individual when justice at work is

perceived and, in particular, the processes through which this perception

transforms into individual reactions. In 1998, Hagedoorn, Buunk, and van de

Vliert portrayed the relationship between justice and outcomes as a black box.

For understanding the steps between justice perceptions and work-related

attitudes and behaviors, research made advancements in opening this black

box, but not enough with regard to outcomes outside of work. While there are

theories that try to elucidate the intermediate processes in how fairness

perceptions increase individuals’ helping behaviors, cooperation, and

withdrawal behaviors (see Blader & Tyler, 2005; Moorman & Byrne, 2005),

it is less clear how fairness perceptions as a workplace appraisal can affect

5

individuals’ health outcomes. Different accounts have been proposed (Ford &

Huang, 2014; Greenberg, 2010) and the few empirical studies available have

looked either at the responsiveness of the organization to the work–family

interface of its employees (Judge & Colquitt, 2004) or at sleep as a mediating

factor of the justice–health relationship (Elovainio, Kivimäki, Vahtera,

Keltikangas-Järvinen, & Virtanen, 2003). More cognitive approaches have

been neglected. Furthermore, it seems likely that individuals differ in their

appraisals of what happened to them and in their reactions towards perceived

(un)fairness. Further research is needed in order to increase our understanding

of what transmits justice experiences at work to individuals’ health.

From perceived justice to enacted justice

Most organizational justice research has been on employees’ perceptions of

justice at work. What is lacking is an examination of the individuals who are

the source of the justice, authority figures such as managers. It may be that

people have an inner moral compass that makes them feel good not only when

they are treated fairly but also when they effect or enact justice. Conversely,

it may be that enacting justice is difficult and costly in certain situations or in

regard to certain employees.

Little is known about the individuals who bring about justice perceptions.

Recently, researchers have suggested a shift in focus from the “receiver”

perspective of organizational justice, which looks at employees’ perceptions

of being fairly treated, to an “actor” perspective of justice (Scott, Colquitt, &

Paddock, 2009; Scott, Garza, Conlon, & Kim, 2014). By including an

examination of the actor, greater insight into the antecedents and

consequences of organizational justice is possible. The actor perspective

focuses on the motives, reasons, and consequences of justice enactment with

regard to the actors, that is, the managers who enact fairness. Fair behavior

can be motivated by stable characteristics of the actor such as concern for

others or moral obligation (Brebels, De Cremer, Van Dijke, & Van Hiel, 2011;

Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). The actors may also behave fairly to attain goals,

for instance, researchers have looked at cognitive or affective motives that can

contribute to applying justice rules or not (Scott et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2014).

According to much of the literature on organizational justice, managers

should be encouraged to behave fairly towards their workers as it may benefit

the organization to have employees who perceive fair treatment. However,

recent evidence suggests that adhering to justice rules may deplete

psychological resources (R. E. Johnson, Lanaj, & Barnes, 2014). It is likely

that certain managers are more highly motivated and find it easier to engage

in just behavior than others. Little is known about whether behaving fairly is

good for the managers themselves. The present thesis broadens our knowledge

of antecedents and consequences of justice by taking into account the actors

who enact justice at the workplace.

6

General aim

This thesis seeks to contribute to the emerging stream of research on

organizational justice, focusing on work, non-work, and health outcomes in a

number of ways. First, processes that link organizational justice perceptions

to work attitudes, work behaviors, and mental and physical health outcomes

are studied. Second, this thesis combines the justice–well-being research

stream with the new development of studying justice actors and justice

enactment. The overall aim of the thesis is to contribute to a better

understanding of the processes of organizational justice in predicting the work

and health outcomes of both receivers and actors. This is supported by the

three complementing studies of this thesis.

The first aim is to examine factors that modify the strength of the

relationships between organizational justice perceptions and individuals’

work and health outcomes. For this, the psychological work environment is

considered a moderating factor for the relationship between organizational

justice perceptions and individual outcomes. Study I investigates the

combined contribution of employees’ organizational justice perceptions and

their perceived psychological work environment in predicting work attitudes,

work behaviors, and mental and physical health.

The second aim of this thesis is to investigate the processes of the

relationships between organizational justice perceptions and non-work

outcomes. This involves looking more specifically into the mediating

processes that are triggered when perceiving unfairness, while also taking into

consideration the fact that individuals differ in their cognitive processes.

Accordingly, Study II investigates the cognitive processes of the relationship

between employees’ organizational justice perceptions and their mental

health.

The third aim of the thesis is to expand our knowledge on the link between

organizational justice and outcomes for those who enact justice. For this, the

individual consequences that justice enactment may have for the actors

themselves are investigated. Therefore, Study III investigates factors that

increase the likelihood of enacting fairness and whether behaving fairly is

beneficial for the health of the actors.

7

The nature of organizational justice

In an attempt to define the field of organizational justice research, Byrne and

Cropanzano (2001) stated that “at its most general level, organizational justice

is an area of psychological inquiry that focuses on perceptions of fairness in

the workplace” (p. 4). Early on, justice was studied as a topic within

criminological and social psychology until a chapter by Folger and Greenberg

in 1985 created a bridge between the studies of justice and organizational

settings. The term ‘organizational justice’ was coined by Greenberg (1987) to

give a name to the construct of studying justice perceptions at the workplace.

Justice perceptions can stem from various sources, such as the employer or

organization in general, the supervisor, and colleagues (Cropanzano, Byrne,

et al., 2001). Also, it can stem from a single event, such as a performance

review, or from a broader entity, such as an organization. Although there has

been recent debate about the potential conceptual differences between justice

and injustice (Cojuharenco & Patient, 2013), and between justice and fairness

(Goldman & Cropanzano, 2014), the terms (in)justice and (un)fairness are

typically used synonymously in the organizational justice literature (Cohen-

Charash & Spector, 2001; Greenberg, 2010; Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013).

Justice is often considered when studying positive work outcomes, whereas

injustice is more often the focus in the emergent body of literature on the

health consequences of organizational justice. However, most common is still

to refer to the field and the concepts as organizational justice. To describe the

nature of organizational justice, it is important to go through the history of

how the construct developed. This includes both the traditional facet approach

of organizational justice and the newer development of considering overall

justice. Furthermore, three aspects regarding why justice is important to

people are discussed.

Dimensions of organizational justice

Organizational justice research started with a focus on the fairness of the

allocation of outcomes, which is termed distributive justice. Different theories

evolved around this concept, the most well-known of which is equity theory

(Adams, 1965). The basic tenet of equity theory is that individuals perceive

an outcome as fair when it matches the extent of their contributions (in relation

to others’ or their own earlier contributions). For instance, when a co-worker

8

with the same educational background receives more pay than oneself for the

same work, one is likely to perceive the situation as unfair. In this example,

the equity rule was violated. Other rules for allocations exist, concerning

distributing according to need and allocating the same outcomes to all

(Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976).

Another key facet of justice, procedural justice, was advanced by two

research groups around the same time. One research group, led by Thibaut and

Walker (1975), showed, in studies on dispute resolution, that when defendants

were able to voice their points of view during the decision-making process

(i.e., a specific type of process control), they perceived the outcome to be fairer

than when their voice was denied. The second research group, led by

Leventhal (1980; Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980), suggested that individuals

are not only interested in rewards, punishments, and outcomes but also in how

the outcomes are arrived at. Even when an outcome is just, individuals can

perceive injustice when the outcomes are achieved through an unfair

procedure. Leventhal (1980) proposed six rules for a fair process: that

decisions are based on accurate information, are correctable, representative of

all parties involved, free of bias, and ethical, and that the allocation process is

consistent for different individuals and over time.

The next step in the development of the field was the introduction of

interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993b). Bies and

colleagues asserted that individuals’ fairness perceptions were not only shaped

by outcome allocations and decision-making processes but also by their

interactions with organizational representatives. Interactional justice can be

divided into interpersonal and informational justice, each composed of two

justice rules (Greenberg, 1993b). Interpersonal justice is characterized by

sincere and respectful treatment with appropriate language, while

informational justice depends on receiving truthful, candid information and

adequate justifications (Bies & Moag, 1986).

Today, many researchers choose to examine one or more of the justice

facets (Colquitt, 2001), but there is also a trend of considering overall justice,

which is a global assessment of the fairness of the organization.

Overall justice

Several ideas concerning general fairness have been proposed. For instance,

Lind (2001a, 2001b) suggested that individuals combine their justice

experiences into an overall fairness perception. This is proposed to be an

automatic process that uses available justice information to form a heuristic-

like fairness impression which then serves as a lens through which events and

experiences are understood (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b; Lind, 2001a,

2001b; see also Nicklin, McNall, Cerasoli, Strahan, & Cavanaugh, 2014).

Various groups of researchers have argued along similar lines for the

importance of considering global assessments of justice as opposed to

9

particular facets, claiming that individuals form a holistic judgment of fairness

(Greenberg, 2001a), that victims of injustice react to the general experience of

injustice (Shapiro, 2001), and that individuals apprehend the fairness of an

event as a Gestalt (Tornblom & Vermunt, 1999). But this movement only

started gaining momentum in 2009 when Ambrose and Schminke developed

a measure for overall justice.

In contrast to the different facets of justice, overall justice refers to a global

assessment of the fairness of an organization. Just as justice facets can pertain

to different sources, such as an organization or a supervisor, overall justice

can also pertain to different sources (Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2014).

However, most often overall justice is considered in relation to the

organization. Also, overall justice is most often considered as pertaining to an

entity such as an organization. Justice facets may pertain to entities or to

specific events, such as whether an organization adheres to justice rules during

a layoff process. Essentially, overall justice concerns fairness in terms of the

global subjective perception of how an organization allocates its resources and

treats its employees, whereas justice dimensions refer to whether an

organization adheres to justice rules (Goldman & Cropanzano, 2014).

Overall justice has been studied increasingly because of several theoretical

and practical reasons (e.g. Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke,

2009b; Barclay, Whiteside, & Aquino, 2014; Greenberg, 2001a; Hauenstein,

McGonigle, & Flinder, 2001; Holtz & Harold, 2009; Lind, 2001b). Because

overall justice pertains to entity judgments, it is considered to be more stable.

Also, it has been argued that overall justice reflects more accurately (and

parsimoniously) how employees experience fairness at their workplace

(Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b; Holtz & Harold,

2009). Based on concerns that constructs of similar specificity enhance

predictions (Cronbach, 1970; Cronbach & Gleser, 1965), overall justice may

allow stronger predictions than specific justice facets when outcome variables

are global in nature (e.g., job satisfaction, job performance). Overall justice

may better match the level of specificity or generality of usually broad

employee outcomes that often are of interest in organizational psychology and

management research. It is argued that overall justice provides the most

accurate and complete picture of how individuals appraise fairness at their

workplace and captures those aspects that are critical in driving behavior

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b; Jones & Martens, 2009; Lind, 2001a, 2001b;

Tornblom & Vermunt, 1999). In line with these conceptual arguments,

empirical evidence indicates that overall justice is a better predictor of overall

job satisfaction than specific justice dimensions (Ambrose & Schminke,

2009b; Jones & Martens, 2009). Also, scholars claim that a focus on overall

justice may be beneficial for accumulating a body of research with comparable

results and that it can be measured more economically than the justice facets,

which should therefore encourage researchers to integrate it with other

domains (Ambrose & Arnaud, 2005; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005).

10

Overall justice may have advantages over justice facets when the goal is to

predict broad outcomes. However, for smaller organizations with flatter

managerial hierarchies, facets of justice may also be important to consider for

specific outcome variables and when the finer mechanisms of who does what

are of interest. Fairness heuristics theory (Lind, 2001a; Lind & van den Bos,

2002) postulates that general impressions of justice are relatively stable and

may only change when justice-relevant information is drastically inconsistent

with the general impression. It has also been shown that entity justice and

event justice may interact in shaping outcomes (Choi, 2008). Both approaches

have their merits and this thesis takes advantage of them. Overall justice is

preferred to predict broad outcomes such as health. Accordingly, employees

were asked to directly indicate their overall impression of the fairness of their

employer. By also asking the actors about what behaviors they engaged in,

justice facets were taken into account as well.

Importance of organizational justice

There are multiple accounts for why justice at work matters to individuals

(Ambrose, 2002; Crawshaw, Cropanzano, Bell, & Nadisic, 2013;

Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Greenberg, 2001a). The literature

distinguishes between three aspects concerning justice motives: instrumental,

relational, and deontic (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Cropanzano, Rupp,

Mohler, & Schminke, 2001; Fortin, 2008). These three aspects (also called

content theories, Cropanzano et al., 2001a) are not exclusive of one another;

some argue, in fact, that individuals are interested in receiving justice from

instrumental, relational, and deontic considerations (Cropanzano, Rupp, et al.,

2001).

Instrumental models propose that individuals care about fairness for

reasons of self-interest. Fairness is considered to be a means to an end, an end

in the form of personal, economic gains or losses (Cropanzano, Rupp, et al.,

2001). Thibaut and Walker (1975) suggest that controlling part of the process

creates the perception of a fair process, which is valued because it increases

the likelihood of attaining desired outcomes. Accordingly, employees may,

for example, prefer organizations that fairly distribute promotions, pay, and

resources – since they would want to receive these benefits in the future.

Relational models postulate that individuals are interested in fairness

because of identity concerns. Individuals derive dignity and self-esteem from

receiving fairness from a group of colleagues or an organization, which

satisfies their need for inclusion and belonging (Blader & Tyler, 2005;

Cropanzano, Rupp, et al., 2001). Relational models emphasize that individuals

want to be appreciated, respected, and included in valued social groups.

Fairness perceptions, and procedural justice in particular, help individuals

interpret their standing and respect in a group.

11

Deontic models propose that justice is a fundamental need and drive of

people to respect human worth and dignity. Deontic models suggest that

individuals have an intrinsic desire to live in an ethical social system. The

moral virtues model of Folger (1998, 2001) suggests that individuals care

about fairness because it is the right thing to do. When confronted with

injustice, individuals are not only motivated to act out of instrumental and

relational concerns but also out of deontic concerns. For instance, deontic

models suggest that experiencing an injustice, such as witnessing a colleague

getting harassed, would trigger strongly felt emotions such as moral outrage,

or “deontic anger,” that would in turn prompt behaviors such as retaliating

against the organization.

Although each of these justice motives emphasizes a different aspect of

justice, they all presume that justice is important to individuals in general and

at work. Justice matters to individuals because it fulfills some kind of need

that is explicated in these motives (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). Most

likely, several of these explanations add important information on why justice

matters, but their relative importance may depend on the person and context

(e.g., see De Cremer & Alberts, 2004; De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van

Dijke, & Bos, 2004; van Prooijen, 2009). Justice theories that explain how

individuals form justice perceptions and how justice affects individuals’

subsequent attitudes and behavior can pertain to more than one of these

aspects. Today, these three aspects of why justice matters to individuals are

mainly used in order to describe into what category a specific justice theory

falls. Lately, these aspects have also been used to derive predictions of the

moderators of justice effects (for instance, see De Cremer & Alberts, 2004;

De Cremer et al., 2004; van Prooijen, 2009) and the antecedents of justice

enactment (Scott et al., 2009).

12

Consequences of organizational justice

In the previous chapter, the focus was on defining organizational justice and

clarifying why it is important. This chapter focuses on the consequences of

organizational justice perceptions. Most of the research in the literature on

organizational justice has focused on the work-related consequences of

employees’ fairness perceptions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a; Crawshaw et

al., 2013). Other consequences, such as health outcomes, are increasingly

being studied (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Vahtera, 2002). This chapter aims at

providing an overview of both the theory and empirical evidence regarding

organizational justice effects, with a focus on work-related and health-related

outcomes. Theories on work and health outcomes will be discussed separately.

The theories most directly concern work outcomes but can also be adopted to

explain health outcomes Since there is no consensus on a single theory (Fortin,

2008), the chapter focuses on several major theories in the justice area. Some

of the theories primarily relate to a specific justice facet, and most of the

empirical studies investigate justice facets. Where possible, theoretical

accounts and evidence from empirical studies on overall justice are

mentioned. The theories on justice effects are also explained in relation to the

three justice motives introduced in the previous chapter wherever possible.

Theories on the effects of organizational justice on

work

Organizational justice perceptions have been related to a broad variety of

work-related attitudes and behaviors. There are multiple theories that assert

that organizational justice perceptions have consequences, and most of them

make direct predictions for work-related outcomes. These theories (also called

process theories, Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001) may also be useful for

explaining other consequences of organizational justice, such as health

outcomes. Before going into how these theories may be informative for the

justice–health link, the most important justice theories are reviewed below.

Social exchange theories provide the most widely accepted explanation of

justice effects (Colquitt et al., 2013). These theories (in particular Blau, 1964)

emphasize the reciprocal relationship between, for instance, employee and

employer in their exchange of resources. Perceived fairness from the employer

gives rise to feelings of trust, commitment, and obligation towards the

13

employer, which leads to the perceived fairness being reciprocated through,

for example, better job performance, helping behaviors, and positive work

attitudes (Colquitt et al., 2005). According to social exchange theories, and

particularly the theory by Blau (1964), which is most often referred to in this

area, justice affects individuals largely because of reasons of self-interest, as

it is presumed that they increase their efforts in the belief that the reciprocation

will increase the likelihood of receiving fair treatment in the future. In theory,

perceived justice from the employer can be based on procedures, attention, or

interpersonal treatment, but social exchange theories often focus on the

allocation of pay, bonuses, or promotions (i.e., distributive justice).

In contrast to social exchange theories, with their focus on an instrumental

interest in justice, other theories highlight the relational aspect when

explaining fairness reactions, postulating that employees engage in positive

work behaviors because it supports the welfare of the group and reinforces

their own relative status within the group they identify with (see Moorman &

Byrne, 2005). The group value model (Tyler, 1989), the relational model of

authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), and the group engagement model (Tyler &

Blader, 2000, 2003) all build on one another. According to these theories, fair

treatment (particularly procedural treatment) communicates to individuals that

they are considered valued members of their organization, which leads to

respect towards and pride in the organization, and strong identification with

it. Individuals are intrinsically motivated to see the organization excel as the

organization is part of their own self-concept. Therefore, the success of the

organization can contribute to a positive social identity (Blader & Tyler,

2005). As a consequence, it is suggested that individuals work harder for the

success of the organization and engage in extra-role behaviors (e.g.,

volunteering, working extra hours).

In contrast to the theories mentioned so far, fairness heuristics theory (Lind,

2001a) and its successor, the uncertainty management model (van den Bos,

2001; van den Bos & Lind, 2002), do not focus on specific justice facets but

instead on general justice perceptions. The basis of fairness heuristics theory

(Lind, 2001a) is that employees in an organization experience a social

dilemma over whether they can trust that their employer will not exploit them,

for example, with regard to being compensated for their work efforts or being

accepted as a member of a working group. The uncertainty management

model (van den Bos, 2001; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) posits that the

uncertainty of not knowing whether to trust someone is unsettling to

individuals and motivates them to search for information to overcome that

uncertainty. One way to remove the uncertainty involved in the social

dilemma is through seeking input about fairness, which can serve as a heuristic

device for deciding not only whether to trust the organization and its

representatives but also what behaviors to expect from them. It has been

postulated that overall perceptions of fairness are used as a surrogate for

interpersonal trust (Lind, 2001a). It is argued that in uncertain circumstances,

individuals look for available justice information in order to form an

14

impression of whether they can trust their counterpart, for instance, their

organization (van den Bos, 2001; van den Bos & Lind, 2002). When the

impression is positive, according to the uncertainty management model, the

trust in the employer’s fairness will have positive effects in the form of

positive affective reactions to procedures, and greater receptiveness to

organizational changes (van den Bos, 2001; van den Bos & Lind, 2002).

Fairness heuristics theory and the uncertainty management model also

contribute to the discussion on how justice perceptions are formed.

Specifically, these theories suggest that justice perceptions are formed through

relatively automatic processes. While for instance equity theory assumes a

justice perception is formed by carefully weighing comparable inputs and

outputs against each other (Adams, 1965), fairness heuristics theory assumes

that once developed, fairness perceptions are relatively stable heuristics that

guide behavior.

Whereas the previously reviewed theories build on either the instrumental

or relational aspects of why individuals care about justice, these cannot

account for the fact that some individuals accept negative outcomes for

themselves in order to correct injustices that have happened to others (Turillo,

Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). This can be explained by the moral

virtues or deontic model proposed by Folger (1998, 2001). The deontic model

posits that individuals want to be part of an organization that they regard as

respecting their moral beliefs. Conversely, they are inclined to disassociate

themselves from an organization that does not demonstrate a concern for the

issues that are central to their sense of morality. When they perceive the

organization to be unfair, they are likely to engage in withdrawal, absenteeism

or retaliatory behavior against the organization. Similarly, fairness theory

(Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) also focuses on unfair events and evaluations of

injustice. When individuals detect an unfair event that threatens a person’s

well-being, they make a determination about who is accountable for it. As a

result of perceiving injustice at the workplace, for instance, an employee may

not only get angry but is also more likely to engage in uncooperative and

retaliatory behavior. These two theories pertaining to the deontic aspect of

justice motives do not make predictions concerning specific justice facets but

about general impressions of fairness.

In an effort to explain why organizational justice would stimulate

cooperation, Blader and Tyler (2005), after reviewing these (and other) major

justice theories, asked: “Which one is right?” (p. 345). Some of these theories

and models are more explicit in giving precise arguments for justice effects

than others, and almost all theories make predictions about very specific work

outcomes. Blader and Tyler (2005) concluded that “little work has been done

to date on integrating these theories” (p. 346). Some researchers say that in

order to explain how justice perceptions shape work attitudes and work

behaviors, these theories can be utilized together, with explanations from one

theory coexisting with those from another (Blader & Tyler, 2005). Others,

however, argue that different justice theories have fundamental differences in

15

how the justice formation process works and differ fundamentally in what

fairness means (Lind, 2001b). Still others argue that whether a specific theory

is more suitable than another may depend on boundary conditions and the

context being studied (Fortin, 2008). Social exchange theories are very broad

and allow making predictions that organizational justice perceptions may

affect very different work attitudes and behaviors. This may be the reason why

it is seen as the predominant theoretical account (Colquitt et al., 2013).

However, the other theories are specifically formulated around justice.

Fairness heuristics theory and the uncertainty model presume that justice

affects outcomes through trusting the employer and are therefore sufficiently

general to account for a variety of different outcomes.

Theories on the effects of organizational justice on

health

The concept that justice perceptions at work would also influence non-work

outcomes such as health outcomes is not recent but is still in its early stages.

In equity theory, Adams (1965) claimed that those who believe they are paid

less in comparison to comparable workers feel angry and distressed. These

ideas were not taken further until Vermunt and Steensma (2001) suggested

that perceptions of not being treated fairly (injustice) is a stressor that

undermines individuals’ psychological and physical functioning, as it

constitutes a threat to the coping capacities of individuals. Most scholars who

investigate the health outcomes of organizational justice focus on the lack of

perceived justice and argue that injustice is a stressor (Robbins et al., 2012).

Apart from Vermunt and Steensma (2001), the theories that relate

organizational justice to work-related consequences can also partly be drawn

upon to explain its relationship with health outcomes (Ford & Huang, 2014;

Greenberg, 2010).

Drawing upon theories of social exchange (Blau, 1964; Colquitt et al.,

2013) and fairness heuristics and the uncertainty management model (Lind,

2001a; van den Bos, 2001; van den Bos & Lind, 2002), it can be argued that

injustice decreases trust in management and gives employees the

apprehension that the future behavior of organizational representatives will be

unpredictable, since justice principles are not followed. Conversely, based on

social exchange theories, positive organizational justice perceptions may

generate trust and an impression of predictability about organizational

representatives’ future behaviors. Similarly, based on fairness heuristics

theory and the uncertainty management model, one may argue that having

positive organizational justice perceptions indicates that an employee has trust

in the organization and its future endeavors. This may motivate employees to

stay with their current employer, which conserves energy and resources.

16

By using relational models (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992), it

may be argued that injustice indicates to employees that they are not valued

by their organization, which decreases employees’ self-worth and self-esteem.

Conversely, feeling a sense of belonging to a working group or to an

organization that appreciates its employees may elicit positive emotions at

work which may spill over into private life and enhance life satisfaction.

Furthermore, the deontic model (Folger, 1998, 2001; Folger &

Cropanzano, 2010) can also be used to explain how perceptions of immoral

acts by the employer or supervisor may be stressful to employees. Injustice

can elicit “moral emotions” like anger, disgust or contempt, which may elicit

a physical overactivation and impaired recovery, while disgust and contempt

in particular may trigger withdrawal behavior (see Ford & Huang, 2014).

Positive organizational justice perceptions, instead, may trigger positive

emotions, and working for an organization that shares the same values as the

employee may even help fulfill the need for meaningful existence

(Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001), which may in turn also affect individuals’

health.

There have also been some attempts to relate organizational justice to

health outcomes by turning to theories that are not often applied in the

organizational justice field. Colquitt et al. (2013) suggested looking more into

the literature on emotion when relating organizational justice to outcomes

other than work-related outcomes. Greenberg (2010) and Robbins et al. (2012)

both made use of stress and health theories to explain the effects of

organizational justice on health. Ford and Huang (2014) conclude, “To make

the case that injustice is truly the cause of correlated health problems, we must

explain why injustice would lead to health problems and, more importantly,

why reducing organizational injustice would improve employee health“ (p.

37). While the justice–health link is an emerging perspective, more theoretical

accounts are needed to better understand the pathways between organizational

justice and non-work outcomes such as health. But before turning to the

specific processes that link organizational justice to outcomes such as health,

the empirical evidence on justice effects is reviewed.

Empirical evidence for the effects of organizational

justice on work and health

The reviewed theories assert that employees’ organizational justice

perceptions may be related to their work attitudes and behaviors as well as to

non-work and health outcomes. Several meta-analyses on the work-related

consequences of organizational justice reveal that organizational justice is

related to a number of relevant work attitudes and behaviors (Barsky &

Kaplan, 2007; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt

et al., 2013; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Hauenstein et al., 2001; Rupp

17

et al., 2014; Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson, 2003; Viswesvaran & Ones,

2002). The recent meta-analysis by Colquitt and colleagues (2013) reviewed

a total of 493 independent samples from studies that appeared between 1999

and 2010. According to the typology of effect sizes for relationships by Cohen,

Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), a correlation of .10 can be interpreted as

weak, .30 as moderate, and .50 as strong. Using this typology, Colquitt et al.

(2013) found the different justice facets to be strongly intercorrelated. Further,

on average, justice perceptions had a strong association with organizational

commitment, perceived organizational support, and the quality of the

relationship between supervisor and employee. Organizational justice had

moderately strong associations with organizational citizenship behaviors, and

counterproductive work behaviors and weak to moderately strong associations

with task performance. The results also revealed that organizational justice

had a moderately strong association with positive affect and negative affect.

In an earlier meta-analysis from 2001, Colquitt and colleagues reviewed 183

studies that appeared between 1975 and 1999 and summarized the effects of

justice on different types of outcomes. The results show that the dimensions

of justice have strong associations with job satisfaction and withdrawal

behavior such as absenteeism and turnover. In a recent meta-analysis (Rupp

et al., 2014), it was revealed that compared to the individual predictability of

the various justice facets, the combination of them had stronger associations

with outcomes such as job satisfaction, affective commitment to the

organization, and perceived organizational support.

In the only meta-analysis available that summarizes the empirical

relationships between the various facets of organizational justice and health

outcomes, Robbins et al. (2012) reviewed 83 studies that appeared between

1991 and 2009. Organizational injustice was found to have moderately strong

associations with burnout, negative emotional states, and perceived stress;

weak to moderately strong associations with mental health; and weak

associations with health problems and absenteeism. The association between

unfairness and health behaviors was the weakest. The authors noted that

including all justice facets consistently improved predictions as compared to

predictions based only on one justice dimension. It may be that overall justice

is a better predictor of health than individual justice dimensions, as would be

predicted based on concerns that constructs of similar generality enhance

predictions (see Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b).

Overall, there is an ample amount of evidence showing that organizational

justice perceptions are related to relevant work attitudes and behaviors.

However, most of the current research on work-related outcomes has

investigated the relationships in a cross-sectional manner. One of the

exceptions is the study by Hausknecht, Sturman, and Roberson (2011), which

showed that over the course of one year an improvement in justice perceptions

was related to more favorable employee attitudes concerning job satisfaction,

commitment, and intention to stay. Other longitudinal studies (often based on

small sample sizes) have found less consistent evidence for the relationship

18

between fairness perceptions and work attitudes, which suggests that the

effects of organizational justice may depend on the time lag between the

measurement of organizational justice and the outcomes, with effects being

stronger for shorter time periods (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003; Michel,

Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010). In contrast to research focusing on work

outcomes, most of the studies that link justice to health-related outcomes are

longitudinal. A recent review focused on prospective studies conducted

between 1990 and 2010 that explored the relationship between organizational

justice and mental health (Ndjaboué, Brisson, & Vézina, 2012). Most of these

studies were based either on the Whitehall data on British civil servants or on

hospital staff data from Finland. The majority of the studies showed that

organizational justice was related to mental health over time even when taking

into consideration other job stressors. While most longitudinal studies have

provided support for the hypothesized causal precedence of organizational

justice on outcomes, there are a few exceptions (e.g., Lang et al., 2011; Ybema

& van den Bos, 2010).

Organizational justice research has reached a point where there is enough

evidence to strongly suggest that fairness is important to individuals at work

(Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). Furthermore, there is an emerging body of

research providing evidence that organizational justice may have more far-

reaching consequences for non-work outcomes such as health and well-being.

The reviewed justice theories may to some extent also be useful for

understanding health outcomes since organizational justice brings about

satisfaction via trust, positive emotions, and a sense of group belonging and

of meaningfulness at work, which are outcomes that may strengthen

employees’ well-being. However, research on the justice–health link is still

emerging and not much is known about what exactly it is that causes these

paths from justice to health (or work outcomes). More theoretical

understanding and empirical evidence is needed to shed more light on the

mechanisms behind why and in what ways organizational justice may affect

work attitudes and work behaviors as well as well-being and health. In order

to take a closer look at the finer mechanisms, it is relevant to focus on the

specific aspects that may be involved in linking organizational justice to its

outcomes.

19

Processes of organizational justice perceptions

From the previous chapters it has become evident that employees’ justice

perceptions are important for their work attitudes, work behaviors, well-being,

and health. Both theoretical accounts and empirical studies were reviewed that

indicate that employees who feel fairly treated also tend to feel more satisfied

at work, are more engaged, and have better health. The current focus of the

research is less on the direct relationships between organizational justice

perceptions and employee outcomes (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Ambrose

et al., 2013) and more on the different processes by which organizational

justice perceptions are related to work and health outcomes. As the attention

to justice–health relationships is still emerging, less is known about its specific

processes than is known about the processes behind justice–work

relationships.

Individuals possess different characteristics that could influence how they

perceive justice information and how much it influences them in their attitudes

and behaviors at work. Along with individual differences, situational factors

may also serve as boundary conditions or amplifying factors for justice effects.

Employees’ jobs have specific characteristics as they work within the specific

environment of their organization. The characteristics of the environment may

influence the effects of justice perceptions. Therefore, one way to study

processes is to investigate the conditions under which justice perceptions have

stronger or weaker effects, i.e., the moderating factors.

Another way to shed light on the processes underlying organizational

justice perceptions is by investigating how individuals react to such justice

perceptions. This approach examines the mediating factors in order to open

the black box containing the mechanisms linking justice perceptions and

outcomes (Hagedoorn, Buunk, & Van de Vliert, 1998). While it has been

noted that social exchange theories are most often drawn upon for predicting

and explaining justice effects (Colquitt et al., 2013), Colquitt (2008)

concludes, “it does seem clear that an expansion of mediators for justice

effects would be useful” (p. 19). It may be that more specific mechanisms

need to be studied in order to delineate the steps between organizational justice

perceptions and specific work and health outcomes.

20

Moderators of justice effects

A great deal of the attention of organizational justice scholars has been

directed towards showing that the various justice facets interact with one

another. One of the most well-known findings in the organizational justice

literature is the fair process effect, which holds that individuals are more

satisfied with a decision or outcome when they perceive that it is a product of

a fair procedure (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Folger, Rosenfield, Grove, &

Corkran, 1979; Van Den Bos, Wilke, Lind, & Vermunt, 1998). Procedural

justice has stronger effects on employee outcomes such as performance and

commitment when distributive justice is low. People also judge a process as

less fair when the outcome is unfavorable (fair outcome effect) and a

procedure that led to an unfavorable outcome as more fair when an adequate

explanation was provided (Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Fortin, 2008). Building on

the idea that justice facets interact with one another, Cropanzano et al. (2001)

suggested investigating other moderators, besides justice facets, in order to

better understand justice effects.

In the meta-analyses on the consequences of organizational justice

perceptions on work and health outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001; Robbins et

al., 2012), substantial differences between individual studies were found,

which suggests that there seems to be other factors moderating the

relationships between organizational justice and outcomes. These factors

could perhaps relate to the individuals under study, insofar as concerning their

individual differences such as their personality, or relate to the circumstances

in which justice operates, a perspective that highlights the situation

(Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005). This is in line with the interactional

psychology perspective, in which behavior is determined by both individual

differences and situational factors (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006;

Mischel, 1973). All in all, there are indications that the moderating factors

between organizational justice perceptions and outcomes can relate to

personal and situational characteristics.

Situational moderators

Considering that situational variables may be relevant for justice effects, these

effects may depend on particular circumstances in an organization, since

organizations can differ in their culture and structure as well as in the level of

perceived job insecurity and identification with the organization among

employees. A number of studies have shown that factors such as

organizational culture (Erdogan, Liden, & Kraimer, 2006) and structure

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2003), identification with the organization (De

Cremer, 2005), and job insecurity (Kausto, Elo, Lipponen, & Elovainio, 2005)

moderate justice effects. For instance, Ambrose and Schminke (2003) showed

that procedural justice had a stronger impact on organizational support in

21

traditional organizations with high levels of hierarchy and bureaucracy,

whereas interactional justice was more important for predicting supervisory

trust in decentralized organizations with flat hierarchies. In one of the few

studies to predict health outcomes of employees, Kausto et al. (2005) reported

that organizational justice had stronger effects on emotional exhaustion and

stress reactions when job uncertainty was perceived. Apart from situational

factors that are on the organizational level, the interactions and relationships

between employees and their supervisors and workgroups also shape the

strength of justice–outcome relationships. When an employee is unsure about

the trustworthiness of the supervisor, perceiving fairness at work has been

found to have a greater impact on, for example, commitment and willingness

to stay in the organization (Jones & Martens, 2009). Similarly, research has

found that the increased turnover intentions that often result from perceiving

unfair treatment can be buffered if employees have an established trust in their

supervisors (Bal, de Lange, Ybema, Jansen, & van der Velde, 2011). Scholars

have also looked into leader prototypicality (Lipponen, Koivisto, & Olkkonen,

2005) and status (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004; Diekmann, Sondak, &

Barsness, 2007).

Most research on the situational factors that affect justice–outcome

relationships has been done on work outcomes. Scholars have also shown

impressive results on the predictability of psychological health by

organizational justice (Ndjaboué et al., 2012), which led to the conclusion that

justice is a “new psychosocial predictor of health” (Elovainio, Kivimäki, &

Vahtera, 2002, p. 105). Situational factors such as the work environment have

often been studied as predictors of employee health and well-being (Karasek

& Theorell, 1990). Therefore, it might be relevant to investigate the

combination of the work environment with organizational justice.

Job characteristics as moderators

One of the most widely studied theories for predicting employee

psychological health is the demand–control(–support) (DCS) model by

Karasek and colleagues (J. V. Johnson & Hall, 1988; J. V. Johnson, Hall, &

Theorell, 1989; Karasek & Theorell, 1990), which states that the work

environment is a fundamental factor for predicting employees’ well-being. It

has been suggested that the work environment may have a moderating effect

on the associations between justice appraisals and work and health outcomes

(e.g., Fujishiro & Heaney, 2009; Haar & Spell, 2009). Scholars have looked

at the impact of the work environment on the effects of organizational justice

on work and health with a particular focus on the role of job control (Haar &

Spell, 2009; Rousseau, Salek, Aubé, & Morin, 2009). Job control is an integral

part of the psychological work environment that has been formalized in the

DCS model. This model has emerged from the demand–control model by

Karasek and Theorell (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). According

to the demand–control model, the psychological work environment can be

22

characterized by job demands and job control. Job demands include work

overload, time pressure, and difficult tasks. Job control relates to one’s degree

of autonomy regarding task performance methods and work time management

as well as to the opportunities to apply one’s skills.

Generally, high levels of job demands are predicted to influence well-being

negatively as it requires effort to meet demands, which subsequently creates a

higher need for recovery (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). When job demands are

high, it may be difficult for individuals to meet desired outcomes, manage the

demands in time, and produce adequate quality (Fernet, Austin, Trépanier, &

Dussault, 2013). Job control is theorized to have positive effects on work and

health, as having autonomy over one’s job facilitates achievement and

stimulates developing skills at work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Social

support at work is also argued to have positive effects on work and health, as

it refers to, for instance, receiving help with work tasks or having someone

that listens to one’s problems (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000). Research

has indicated that certain job characteristics affect well-being over time, as job

demands have been found to be negatively related to work, well-being, and

health outcomes, and job control and social support positively related to these

outcomes (de Jonge & Kompier, 1997; Häusser et al., 2010; van der Doef &

Maes, 1999). However, the combined effect of job control buffering the

negative effects of high job demands has not received much support (Häusser

et al., 2010), especially in longitudinal and high-quality studies (de Lange et

al., 2003).

There are multiple reasons why the work environment and, more

specifically, job characteristics may be important moderators of

organizational justice effects. Both organizational justice and certain job

characteristics (job demands, job control, and social support) are important for

individuals’ well-being, and both facilitate fulfilling basic psychological

needs (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van den Broeck,

Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). Not being able to manage high job

demands may threaten the fulfillment of competency needs; job control may

satisfy individuals’ needs for autonomy by enabling self-organization and

individual decision-making; and social support can also be argued to relate to

a fundamental need, the need to belong and affiliate (Deci & Ryan, 2000). A

lack of job control can mean that individuals do not know what will happen

from day to day because the planning is done elsewhere. Also, it may make

individuals uncertain about whether organizational representatives believe

that they can do the job on their own. A lack of social support may also be

threatening and create feelings of uncertainty about one’s standing in the

social group of the organization. In a work situation characterized by such

uncertainties, according to the uncertainty management model (van den Bos

& Lind, 2002), justice perceptions would have stronger effects than in a work

situation that is less uncertain.

23

There are a small number of studies that have integrated organizational

justice with the DCS model. Most of the studies looking at interactions

between organizational justice and DCS components have investigated

procedural and interactional justice facets, the control component of the DCS

model, and have studied either work attitudes such as job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and turnover intention or mental and physical

health outcomes such as psychological distress and sickness absence. For

instance, Haar and Spell (2009) showed that the impact of justice perceptions

on job satisfaction and turnover intentions was stronger for those perceiving

low job control. Moreover, Elovainio et al. (2005) reported that uncertainty

conditions, such as low work time control and negative changes at the

workplace, aggravated the effects of low procedural and interactional justice

perceptions on sickness absence (for women). Rousseau et al. (2009) found

that the justice effects on psychological distress were stronger when social

support was low. One study reported that the predicted positive effects of

justice perceptions on reduced work–family conflict could not be found when

job demands were perceived as high (Heponiemi, Elovainio, Pekkarinen,

Sinervo, & Kouvonen, 2008). However, there are also a number of studies

which did not find interactive effects (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Helkama, 2001;

Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Heponiemi et al., 2008; Rousseau et al., 2009)

or whose findings were dissimilar to those of other studies (Chen, Zhang,

Leung, & Zhou, 2010).

Previous investigations on the combined role of organizational justice and

job characteristics have looked at specific justice facets. But as suggested

earlier, overall justice has a number of advantages over specific justice facets.

Results may be more conclusive when the breadth of the justice construct is

matched with the generality of outcomes. Another aspect is the type of

outcome variable being investigated. Studies have thus far investigated either

work or health outcomes, not both at the same time. Including both would be

advantageous by enabling a better understanding of the moderating effects of

individual and situational factors on both the traditionally studied work

outcomes as well as the health outcomes that have been gaining interest. Also,

most of the previous studies have looked at the interaction effects in a cross-

sectional manner, which limits the conclusions that can be made about

potential effects over time.

Personality moderators

Individuals differ in how treatment by organizational representatives is

perceived, how justice judgments are construed as the basis of these

perceptions, and in their affective, behavioral, and cognitive reactions to these

justice judgments (Colquitt et al., 2006). Individual differences can, for

example, concern sensitivity for justice concerns, deliberate rumination about

justice information or the likelihood of behavioral reactions, and having these

24

characteristics could increase the effects of organizational justice on, for

instance, behavioral reactions such as performance or retaliatory actions

(Colquitt et al., 2006). In a study by Schmitt and Dörfel (1999), for those with

a high degree of sensitivity to seeing things unfairly, psychosomatic well-

being was more strongly impaired by perceived unfairness at work than for

people with less sensitivity to justice (Schmitt & Dörfel, 1999). Others have

also shown that justice-specific individual characteristics regarding justice

sensitivity (Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005), risk aversion (Colquitt et

al., 2006), value orientation (van Olffen & de Cremer, 2007; van Prooijen et

al., 2008), and moral identity (Greenbaum, Mawritz, Mayer, & Priesemuth,

2013; see also Scott & Colquitt, 2007) affect justice effects. However, the

degree to which individuals perceive fairness or unfairness and their

likelihood of reacting to it can depend on other personality characteristics,

such as agreeableness (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999) and self-esteem

(Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, & Bartel, 2007). These more general

personality traits may be relevant because inter-individual differences also

influence how situations are appraised. One individual difference

phenomenon that influences how a stressor is appraised is locus of control,

which may be a relevant factor for justice effects.

Locus of control as moderator

Locus of control refers to individuals’ beliefs about whether they control

events and happenings or if it is in the hands of fate or luck (Rotter, 1966).

Internals, that is, people with an internal locus of control, attribute events to

their skills, effort, perseverance, and other internal factors, whereas externals

attribute events to fate, chance or luck (Aubé, Rousseau, & Morin, 2007;

Spector, 1982). Having an internal locus of control has been shown to be

positively related to better problem-solving behavior, more initiation of social

contact, and better job-related mental and physical well-being (Fusilier,

Ganster, & Mayes, 1987; Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006; Spector, 1982).

Employees with an internal locus of control generally are more proactive in

problematic situations, appraise stressors as more manageable, and feel more

often in control (Ng et al., 2006). Internals also are more likely to attribute

negative organizational events to their own actions rather than to the

untrustworthiness of their organizational representatives (Aubé et al., 2007).

As a result, internals may react less strongly to injustice, thanks to their

inward-turning cognition, while externals will react more strongly as they

already feel less powerful. Externals, on the other hand, feel more often out of

control, which is likely to increase the stressful nature of a situation (Spector

& O'Connell, 1994). Also, it is suggested that externals are more socially-

oriented and more prone to anxiety (Spector, 1982). An early study on

procedural justice investigated the trait locus of control but did not test for its

moderating effects on attitudes or behaviors (Sweeney, McFarlin, & Cotton,

25

1991). Therefore, in terms of personality variables, locus of control may be of

interest to study in relation to justice–outcome relationships.

Mediators of justice effects

Alongside a moderation framework that sets up the conditions under which

organizational justice may have stronger or weaker effects, it is also

conceivable that organizational justice may influence a number of factors

related to the work situation or to the individual at work, and these factors in

turn influence the outcomes, which may explain how organizational justice

has an effect on the outcomes.

Multiple justice theories propose several potential mediators for the

relationship between organizational justice and work attitudes and behaviors.

Social exchange theories (Blau, 1964) suggest that positive justice perceptions

at work create trust towards management, which is argued to increase effort

and work performance. Consistent with this, Aryee et al. (2002) showed that

trust partly mediated the relationships between organizational justice facets

and work outcomes regarding job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

turnover intentions, and job performance.

Also, the uncertainty management model (van den Bos, 2001; van den Bos

& Lind, 2002) proposes that trust may be a mediator of justice effects but

makes a different argument. According to social exchange theories, trust

facilitates mutual obligation and deepens the connection with the other person

in the exchange relationship, whereas, in the uncertainty management model,

trust conveys a sense of comfort against all kinds of uncertainty. An

interesting study was conducted by Colquitt and colleagues (2012) where they

tested which trust perspective best explained the nature of the mediator in the

relationship between organizational justice and job performance. For this, they

differentiated between cognition-based trust, a kind of confidence in the

credibility, reputation, and professionalism of the counterpart, and affect-

based trust, including how much care, concern, and understanding supervisor

and employee have for each other. The results showed that the impact of

organizational justice facets on job performance was mediated by trust, with

cognition-based trust having an impact on uncertainty, and affect-based trust

having an impact on perceiving obligations.

The group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003) posits that the

experiencing of positive procedural justice can inform employees’ identity by

imparting a sense of being valued and included, which is theorized to create

stronger identification and engagement with the organization. This was also

supported in a study by Blader and Tyler (2009) which showed that social

identities mediated the relationship between procedural justice and

employees’ extra-role behaviors.

26

Fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), a theory pertaining to the

deontic approach, suggests that strong emotions may be elicited by perceiving

injustice at work, which subsequently translates into retaliatory behavior such

as sabotage. Barclay et al. and other scholars (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh,

2005; Murphy & Tyler, 2008; Spencer & Rupp, 2009) found that anger and

hostility that individuals experienced during a layoff mediated the relationship

between interactionally unfair treatment and retaliation for example, in the

form of legal action.

This shows that there is some knowledge of the potential mechanisms

linking organizational justice perceptions to different work outcomes. In sum,

there are several justice theories that propose different mediators for the

effects of organizational justice, including trust, identity-related factors, and

emotions. There is also some evidence that these factors play a mediating role

in the relationship between justice and work outcomes.

In contrast to the theoretical approaches and empirical evidence available

regarding the mechanisms of justice and work-related outcomes, when it

comes to non-work outcomes, there is little theory to guide the search for

mediators. It may be that mediators linking organizational justice to

commitment and performance can also play a role in predicting well-being

and health. For such outcomes, one typically investigates injustice as a stressor

(Vermunt & Steensma, 2001), which can make it useful to turn to theories

outside of the organizational justice field when searching for mediators.

Consistent with justice theories, Ford and Huang (2014) suggest that threat

appraisals, threats to self-esteem, and unpleasant moral emotions translate

organizational unfairness into impaired employee health and well-being. The

authors did not make use of justice theories in their arguments but the three

mediators they propose can easily be mapped onto justice theories (uncertainty

management model, group engagement model, and deontic models). Robbins

et al. (2012) built a conceptual model based on their meta-analysis of justice–

health findings which asserts that perceived stress, health behaviors, and

immune functioning are mediating factors between justice and absence due to

health problems. They utilized the effort–reward imbalance model (Siegrist,

1996), which suggests that strain results when level of effort is not

compensated by appropriate rewards, as well as the hedonic treadmill theory

(Brickman & Campbell, 1971), which holds that individuals have lower well-

being when they perceive that the rewards and treatment they receive are not

as good as those of their counterparts. For healthy behaviors, the authors rely

on the tension reduction hypothesis (Conger, 1956), which suggests that

individuals engage in unhealthy behaviors as a way to cope with stressors. For

physiological symptoms that appear due to injustice, they argue that injustice

creates stress which impedes immune functioning. Taking into account the

mediators proposed based on justice theories and the mediators with a more

physiological focus, Greenberg (2010) suggested that negative emotions and

27

unhealthy behaviors mediate the relationship between justice and mental and

physical illnesses.

In terms of empirical evidence, studies aimed at testing mediators in the

justice–health link are rare. Further, they do not always directly build on the

mediators mentioned above. Elovainio and colleagues (Elovainio et al., 2003)

tested whether indicators of prolonged negative states that are elicited by

perceiving injustice at work would mediate the relationships between

organizational justice facets and health. They found that employees who

perceived procedural and interactional injustice at work had more sleep

problems, which in turn had a negative impact on their health. The authors

also tested the mediating role of unhealthy behaviors but were not able to

support it. Judge and Colquitt (2004) argued, based on equity theory (Adams,

1965) and the uncertainty management model, that injustice at work would be

stressful, and that fair organizations would be more responsive to work–family

issues. In the subsequent mediation analysis, they showed that employees who

perceived their organization to be (procedurally and interpersonally) fair had

less interference between work and family demands, which was related to

lower perceived stress. Whiteside and Barclay (2013) were the first to study a

process through which overall justice relates to well-being. Specifically, they

argued that a lack of overall justice constitutes a risk for the fulfillment of the

psychological needs for control and meaningfulness (see Cropanzano, Byrne,

et al., 2001). Based on two stress theories, the conservation of resources model

(Hobfoll, 1989) and job demands–resources model (Bakker & Demerouti,

2007), the authors suggested that as a result of a lack of psychological need

fulfillment, employees may have feelings of resignation and uselessness,

which may trigger behaviors for dealing with these feelings and conserving

energy. Unfortunately, Whiteside and Barclay (2013) did not test need

fulfillment directly. However, they were able to confirm their predictions that

a lack of overall justice was related to employees feeling that their views were

not heard and to their not coming forward with ideas, suggestions or critique,

which was positively related to emotional exhaustion and psychological and

physical withdrawal.

This short review of the theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence for

the justice–outcome link, and especially the justice–health link, shows that

different theories have been used to propose a variety of different mediators,

and that evidence on the intermediate processes is still limited. The range of

suggested mediators include cognitive mediators such as threat appraisals and

the need for control; identity-related mediators such as threats to self-esteem

and the need for meaningfulness; emotional mediators; and biological

mediators such as stress, immune functioning, healthy behaviors, and sleep

problems. The mechanism put forward by Judge and Colquitt (2004), work–

family conflict, may relate more to a contextual mediator than a process

elicited within an individual. In order to better understand what mechanisms

mediate the justice–health link, further theoretical accounts as well as

28

empirical studies are needed that also take into consideration time intervals,

since mediators related to the immune system, for instance, may have an

influence that does not emerge after some time, whereas emotional mediators

may be prompted more immediately.

An interesting perspective on potential mediators was suggested by

Colquitt et al. (2005). They speculate that mediators between justice

perceptions and employee outcomes may differ depending on the kind of

justice judgments under consideration. When perceptions of justice are based

on a discrete event, such as a performance review or a lay-off process,

emotional mediators such as affective states and emotions may constitute

mechanisms that lead to specific outcomes. For instance, an unfair

performance appraisal may elicit anger which is followed by verbal

retaliation. However, when perceptions of justice relate to the whole

organization, across various situations, cognitive mediators may be more

relevant. For instance, the perception of working for an unfair organization

may trigger more monitoring and suspicious thinking, which can lead to

voluntary turnover. This perspective that the relevance of cognitive and

emotional mediators depends on the type of justice focused on as well as on

whether long-term or short-term outcomes are being investigated may guide

future theory and empirical investigations on the mediators between justice

and its outcomes. Following this approach, when it comes to overall justice,

cognitive mediators may be of more relevance than emotional mediators,

particularly when the prediction of long-term outcomes is in focus.

Mental preoccupation as a mediator

When considering the role of cognitive mediators in the justice–health link in

both the short- and long-term, the allostatic load model can be useful. This

model provides an interesting framework for studying cognitive mediators in

the relationship between organizational justice perceptions and health

outcomes. The allostatic load model (McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman,

1999) has emerged as the predominate theoretical perspective regarding the

mechanisms behind how stressors can lead to strain; this model bridges the

gap between biomedical models of stress and stress theories typically found

in psychology or management research (see Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Ganzel,

Morris, & Wethington, 2010). The allostatic load model posits that social

stress, for example, injustice at work, elicits various bodily functions in order

to adapt to the stressor. However, dealing with stressors takes a toll (‘wear and

tear’) on the body, particularly when exposure to a stressor is prolonged,

repeated or chronic (McEwen, 2008). This can result in allostatic load which

constitutes a risk for negative health consequences (Juster, McEwen, &

Lupien, 2010) in terms of changes in immune functioning and blood pressure

as well as in emotional systems in the brain which are associated with mental

health disorders such as depression (see Ganzel et al., 2010). The model

29

argues that it is not exposure to a stressor per se that constitutes a health risk

but the cognitive processes involved that prolong the mental representation of

a stressor (Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005; Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).

Accordingly, it is the cognitive processes that mediate the relationship

between stressors and strain.

Mental preoccupation with work is a cognitive state characterized by on-

going thoughts about work, and it prolongs the physiological activation of a

stressor, which, in turn, leads to allostatic load. Empirical studies have found

that mental preoccupation with work impairs sleep and recovery (Kudielka,

Von Känel, Gander, & Fischer, 2004; von Thiele Schwarz, 2011) and is

related to indicators of cardiovascular diseases (Vrijkotte, van Doornen, & de

Geus, 2004). Injustice is likely to be one of the stressors that can mentally

occupy an employee (Siegrist, 1996; von Thiele Schwarz, 2011). Evidence

suggests (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Gilliland, 2008) that injustice

experiences tend to remain on the minds of individuals for a long time, which

prolongs its role as a stressor. For those who have overall injustice

perceptions, the continued experiences of unfair treatment will constitute an

ongoing stressor. Results of several studies indicate that organizational justice

may affect health due to its prolonged nature and repeated exposure (Elovainio

et al., 2010; Elovainio, Leino-Arjas, Vahtera, & Kivimäki, 2006). The

allostatic load model would help to explain why cognitive mediators and,

particularly, mental preoccupation with work may constitute a mechanism

through which organizational justice perceptions translate into employee

health.

When investigating overall justice as a general fairness perception that the

employee has towards his/her organization across situations and time, it has

been suggested that cognitive mediators might be useful. In terms of cognitive

mediators of the relationship between organizational justice and non-work

outcomes regarding, for example, health, the allostatic load model can be used

to make predictions specifically for the potential cognitive mediator of mental

preoccupation at work. Also, this model posits that individual differences may

play a role in the mechanisms, a perspective that has not been advanced

sufficiently in relation to studying the justice–outcome link. It is possible that

mediating processes of justice–outcome relationships may differ among

individuals. Therefore, to better understand the processes underlying the

relationship between organizational justice and outcomes regarding work and

health, studies should utilize a combination of moderators and mediators.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, many different moderators, pertaining to an individual or

situational perspective, of the effects of organizational justice perceptions on

30

a variety of different work and health outcomes have been proposed and

investigated. In this thesis, job characteristics are investigated as moderators

of the effects of organizational justice perceptions on work attitudes, work

behaviors, and mental and physical health. Besides moderating processes, the

role of mediators in explaining how justice perceptions shape various

employee outcomes is also examined. Various mechanisms have been

proposed that are derived from justice theories or from theories related to

stress and health. Multiple types of mediators, including work- and health-

related as well as cognitive and emotional, can be found in the literature but

many have received little empirical attention. While building on past research,

this thesis focuses on a single mechanism, investigating mental preoccupation

with work as a mediator of health-related outcomes. Furthermore, although

moderators and mediators are presented separately, a better understanding of

the processes underlying the effects of organizational justice perceptions is

more likely to be reached when both types of processes, moderating and

mediating, are considered. It may well be that the mediating roles of some

factors for the effects of organizational justice depend on personality and

situational variables. This thesis adopts the approach of combining the

mediator of mental preoccupation with work and the personality concept of

locus of control in a moderated mediation model.

31

Justice enactment

Justice research has made much advancement in understanding the

perspective of employees. The literature has most often been concerned with

how employees form justice perceptions and how these perceptions, in turn,

shape their work attitudes and behaviors (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a;

Fortin, 2008). When employees perceive fair treatment by their supervisor and

other organizational representatives, they report less stress, greater

satisfaction with their work, and better health and well-being in general

(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Vermunt & Steensma,

2003). It has also been shown that the justice perceptions that supervisors form

based on the treatment they receive from higher-level managers affect the

justice perceptions and work attitudes and behaviors of the employees

(Ambrose et al., 2013). In an intervention study, it was found that training

managers in organizational justice principles increased the fairness

perceptions of subordinates and also increased their voluntary helping

behaviors (see also Greenberg, 2006; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). This shows

that fairness is positive for many reasons, for employees and the organization.

Also, it reveals that it is possible to train managers in justice principles and

that this has measurable positive effects on employees.

Therefore, managers should be advised to treat employees fairly. However,

some of the central players in this process, the authority figures who enact

fairness, also called actors, are often overlooked (Ambrose & Schminke,

2009a; Scott et al., 2009). It is important to know what motivates fair behavior

by managers, as it may be shaped by certain individual characteristics or by

more external factors in the environment (see Masterson, Byrne, & Mao,

2005). Recently, the actor perspective (Scott et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2014)

has emerged, which is concerned with the justice behaviors of authority

figures. Research using this approach has focused on the antecedents of justice

enactment. However, there is a huge gap in knowledge about whether

behaving fairly is good for the actors themselves. Indeed, there is some

indication that the consequences of behaving according to justice principles

may even be negative for actors (R. E. Johnson et al., 2014), which may

undermine the value of recommending fair behavior to managers.

32

Nature of justice enactment

In line with traditional justice research, the conceptualization of justice

enactment comprises justice facets, such that actors can behave according to

distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice rules

(Colquitt, 2001; Scott et al., 2009). The justice rules form the basis of the

justice dimensions (Adams, 1965; Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993b;

Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Behaving according to justice

rules can include allocating pay and rewards according to employees’ input

(distributive justice), providing all employees with opportunities to voice their

opinions (procedural justice), treating employees with sincerity and respect

(interpersonal justice), and providing accurate and adequate explanations for

decisions and procedures (informational justice) (Colquitt, 2001; Scott et al.,

2009). Conceptually, ‘overall justice enactment’ may also exist but it has not

yet received any research attention.

The challenge involved in behaving fairly may not be obvious at first. After

all, people are intrinsically motivated to be fair (Lerner, 1980, 1981). Enacting

some of the justice rules is common behavior, such as not making improper

remarks about employees, although even this type of behavior happens at

workplaces (Bies & Moag, 1986). In a downsizing process, for example, it

may be difficult to treat everyone fairly. Even in a regular work situation,

employees may have different expectations or needs. Such varying demands

from employees are a challenge even for managers who try hard to treat

everyone alike or with equal dignity.

There is evidence that other professionals have difficulties adhering to

justice rules. One aspect of behaving procedurally fairly is to be consistent

over time and when applying rules to different people. It has been found that

judges in the US sentenced transgressors who committed morally severe acts

more harshly after the 9/11 terror attacks than before (Stein, Steinley, &

Cropanzano, 2011). Others have noted that people’s motivation to behave

fairly is less likely to extend to those not considered part of their group, and

individuals develop self-serving biases which distort their justice and

deservingness judgments (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2001). All this suggests that

behaving fairly may not be easy. When it comes to being a manager, there are

a variety of reasons why behaving fairly can be difficult.

In one of the first theoretical articles to explain why managers do not

behave fairly despite the obvious benefits of doing so, Folger and Skarlicki

(2001) list a number of difficulties that managers may encounter that limit

their capacity and willingness to behave fairly. This includes the threats of

being criticized, of being the one to blame, and of embarrassing oneself, which

may be especially important for managers who are insecure about their

legitimacy (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998, 2001). Communicating bad news or

making tough decisions may worsen managers’ mood, may put a strain on the

quality of relationships with employees, is likely to affect evaluations

negatively, and may threaten the conceptions that managers have of

33

themselves as caring and moral individuals (Patient & Skarlicki, 2005). All

this may instill a wish to avoid and escape from the situation, making it more

likely that managers will not communicate with interpersonal sensitivity

(Folger & Skarlicki, 1998). Relatedly, managers may have a short-sighted

vision, where they only see the adversity of the task and not the negative

effects of behaving unfairly in the long run. To be able to communicate

negative news with interpersonal sensitivity requires both skill and effort from

managers (Molinsky & Margolis, 2005). The task of informing employees

about negative developments, for instance, may be psychologically taxing,

which decreases the capacity of the manager to focus on the employee

(Molinsky & Margolis, 2005). Therefore, the internal reactions to the task of

behaving fairly may influence a manager’s motivation and ability to adhere to

justice principles.

In highly hierarchical organizations, a manager may not have much

discretion over how to allocate resources or which decision-making processes

are enforced (Scott et al., 2009). However, in flat organizations, and

particularly in small enterprises, managers may have more leeway to decide

not only how to act in their interactions with employees but also which rules

are set into place. That is, while a manager may almost always have the

discretion to adhere to, or violate, rules of interactional justice, rules of

allocation and process require a high level of discretion that not all managers

may possess (Scott et al., 2009). Other challenges are whether the efforts of a

manager are recognized and whether the views on justice behavior are shared

by employee and manager. But, even for the actor him/herself, behaving fairly

may entail difficulties.

Antecedents of justice enactment

Considering the potential difficulty involved in justice enactment, it is

understandable that, compared to others, some managers may be more likely

to behave according to justice principles and may find it easier to follow

justice rules. For predicting justice enactment behavior, it is important to

differentiate between individual factors and situational factors (Masterson et

al., 2005).

Regarding situational characteristics as antecedents of justice enactment,

organizational factors, managerial factors, and subordinate factors can be

differentiated (Masterson et al., 2005). In terms of organizational factors, the

organizational structure and climate (justice climate, team or individual

orientation) and organizational size have been proposed to impact the justice

enactment of authority figures (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a; Masterson et

al., 2005). For instance, it has been suggested that due to the higher levels of

bureaucracy and politics in larger organizations, managers may have fewer

personal communication options that guarantee timely and individualized

explanations and, instead, may have to rely more on regulations and formal

34

procedures, which may hinder employees from having a positive interactional

justice experience (Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000). Regarding

managerial factors, it has been argued that the social position of the manager

matters for justice enactment. Blader and Chen (2012) reasoned that high

status leaders, those with high prestige and respect in the eyes of others, focus

on the needs of their followers to maintain their high status and, as a result,

behave more fairly. High power leaders, those with a high degree of control

over critical resources, however, aim to maintain their rank and are less likely

to be other-oriented and behave fairly. Related to this, Scott et al. (2009)

proposed that cognitive and affective motives influence managers’ justice

enactment behavior. They argued that a manager may behave according to

justice rules, for example, to establish compliance or to create and maintain a

desired identity of being a fair or tough manager. Also, they reason that

managers high in positive affect would act more prosocial and other-oriented,

whereas being high in negative affect would increase their likelihood of being

self-focused and engaged in discriminatory acts. In regard to subordinate

factors that may influence the justice enactment of managers, many scholars

have looked at employee characteristics. Empirical studies show that fairness

enactment is stimulated by subordinate assertiveness (Korsgaard, Roberson,

& Rymph, 1998), employee charisma (Scott, Colquitt, & Zapata-Phelan,

2007), and through employees expressing certain psychological needs such as

the need to belong or control processes as perceived by the supervisor

(Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer, 2012; Cornelis, Van Hiel, De Cremer, &

Mayer, 2013; Hoogervorst, De Cremer, & van Dijke, 2013).

With regard to the stable individual factors of actors that influence justice

enactment, most research on the prediction of who will behave according to

justice principles and under what circumstances has utilized morality-related

concepts. In terms of managerial characteristics, according to the deontic

model of justice (Folger, 1998, 2001), individuals who place importance on

being moral should be more likely to behave fairly. Behaving unfairly would

violate standards of moral behavior, which includes principles of fair

treatment (Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). Individuals differ in the extent to which

moral values represent a core aspect of their being (Aquino & Reed, 2002).

For people with a high moral regard, justice is an end in itself and is dominant

in guiding behavior. The individual differences of managers regarding

morality-related concepts have been investigated by justice scholars and

include moral identity (Brebels et al., 2011) and moral development (Patient

& Skarlicki, 2010). Also, it has been suggested that those with a high degree

of empathy extend their moral concern to others more freely, at least to those

who they think deserve fairness (Folger & Skarlicki, 2001; Patient &

Skarlicki, 2010). Studies confirm that empathy also serves as an antecedent of

fair behavior by managers (Blader & Chen, 2012; Cornelis et al., 2013; Patient

& Skarlicki, 2010).

In a conceptual model of fair behavior in organizations (Ambrose &

Schminke, 2009a), it is proposed that managers who are sensitive to justice

35

issues around them may be more apt to promote fairness at the workplace.

Also, managers who put a greater emphasis on being fair than on other

competing goals may be more likely to enact justice. Even when they have the

intention to behave according to justice principles, actors need the will and

perseverance to enact it. It is likely that people with higher moral regard are

more attentive to justice issues, and as it is a part of their self-concept, it may

be more salient and influential in shaping behavior. It has been maintained

that the morality trait may capture an individual’s willingness to behave fairly

(Colquitt et al., 2006). For all these reasons, moral regard is likely to be an

important individual characteristic in predicting justice enactment.

Apart from being aware of justice aspects in specific situations and being

willing to behave fairly, there is another vital component to behaving fairly:

the belief that one is capable of doing so, which Ambrose and Schminke

(2009a) term justice self-efficacy. Justice self-efficacy reflects individuals’

beliefs that they can act upon their intentions to behave fairly. It is suggested

that individuals who are confident and believe in their competence are more

likely to act upon their fairness intentions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a). It

has been shown that individuals develop self-efficacy beliefs about very

specific tasks (Bandura, 1977). Perceived efficacy influences the choice of

behaviors, such that individuals get involved in activities that they judge

themselves capable of performing (Bandura, 1977). Ambrose and Schminke

(2009a) note that empirical research has yet to examine the concept of justice

self-efficacy. They draw on intervention studies showing that managers may

behave more fairly after justice training (Greenberg, 2006; Skarlicki &

Latham, 1996), and suggest that one reason for these effects may have been

that the managers became more confident in their ability to behave fairly. This

confidence may also facilitate justice enactment by encouraging managers to

fairly deal with difficult situations that they might have otherwise avoided

(Folger & Skarlicki, 2001).

Based on the deontic model of justice (Folger, 1998, 2001), when managers

have a moral regard towards their employees, it is more likely that justice

principles will guide their behavior when interacting with them. As justice

enactment may be depleting to managers’ energies (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,

Muraven, & Tice, 1998; R. E. Johnson et al., 2014), individuals with a high

level of justice self-efficacy may regard justice enactment as an easier task

than individuals with lower levels of justice self-efficacy.

Consequences of justice enactment

While there are many advantages when subordinates perceive being fairly

treated, the question is whether justice enactment is also positive for the actors

themselves. The deontic model of justice (Folger, 1998, 2001) posits that

fairness is a moral virtue and enacting it a moral obligation. Abiding by

socially-shared moral obligations, in turn, should increase actors’ standing in

36

society, positive interactions with people, and positive emotions (e.g., pride).

Also, in positive psychology, acting according to moral virtues is seen as

contributing to happiness and well-being (Martin, 2007). Therefore, according

to the deontic model, justice enactment should have positive consequences for

the actors themselves.

However, justice enactment may not always be easy, as managers have to

not only suppress their biases in order to not favor some employees over others

but also monitor and regulate their emotions and actions in interpersonal

contexts. Enacting justice, in other words, may require effort, which depletes

the energies of managers. Ego-depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998;

Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007) assumes there is a limited pool of regulatory

resources for controlling oneself, which can get depleted. Individuals have a

certain amount of resources for inhibiting, modifying or overriding impulses,

emotions, and motivational processes. Controlling and regulating oneself,

entails costs on the individual, which can manifest itself as exhaustion and a

state of ego depletion (Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010). Ego-

depleted individuals have difficulties with self-control tasks such as vigilance

tasks or refraining from eating unhealthy food, smoking, drinking alcohol or

gambling (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). As a result, managers may engage

in more unhealthy and less healthy behaviors. Therefore, justice enactment

may have negative health-related consequences for the actors.

The only empirical article on the consequences of justice enactment for

actors (R. E. Johnson et al., 2014) made use of ego-depletion theory. In their

study, Johnson et al. (2014) investigated procedural justice and interpersonal

justice. Procedural justice enactment was argued to exert depleting effects

because following rules and norms drains regulatory resources (Muraven &

Baumeister, 2000; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Also, it was argued

that managers innately like power and authority but in order to act according

to procedural justice rules, they have to relinquish some of their power to

provide subordinates with more control and autonomy. With interpersonal

justice, more behavior control is needed when communicating with less-liked

subordinates than with more-liked subordinates when it revolves around

respect and propriety. Also, behaving according to interpersonal justice rules,

such as showing respect, is very common and should therefore be more natural

to apply. Furthermore, Johnson et al. (2014) argued that interpersonal justice

may trigger positive affect in subordinates, which elicits positive emotions in

actors and fosters positive social interactions. Also, Johnson et al. (2014)

argued based on Bies (2001) that interpersonal justice elicits stronger

emotions than other facets of justice. Therefore, the authors argued that the

depleting effect of interpersonal justice enactment is less than that of

procedural justice enactment. Johnson et al. (2014) confirmed their

predictions that procedural justice was positively related to resource depletion

and that interpersonal justice enactment was negatively related to resource

depletion. The resource depletion, in turn, was negatively related to the

organizational citizenship behavior of managers, as fewer resources were

37

available to help others. The authors noted in their discussion that

informational justice enactment may also bring about depleting effects similar

to those of procedural justice, as informational justice enactment involves

explaining and justifying unpopular decisions.

While the study by R. E. Johnson et al. (2014) is interesting, more studies

are needed in order to better understand the consequences of justice enactment

for the actors themselves. The difficulties of behaving in an informationally

fair manner have been discussed in previous studies (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998,

2001), and ego-depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister et al.,

2007) provides an interesting perspective by proposing that justice enactment

has depleting effects. Ego-depleted individuals have difficulties controlling

themselves, particularly in terms of maintaining healthy behavior (Baumeister

et al., 2007). Therefore, justice enactment should have negative health effects

for actors. Also, not being able to control oneself emotionally may also be

negative for the reputation and recognition of actors.

The deontic model of justice (Folger, 1998, 2001), on the other hand,

predicts positive consequences. From a deontic perspective, enacting justice

entails displaying legitimate and socially justified behaviors. Displaying

morally sound behavior will lead to positive social recognition (Folger &

Cropanzano, 2010). Also, as not behaving according to socially-shared

standards of behavior would likely produce negative emotions within an actor,

actors may be intrinsically motivated to behave according to justice principles.

This may be a conscious choice or reflexive behavior (Cropanzano, Goldman,

& Benson, 2005). Therefore, justice enactment should have positive

consequences for the health and professional recognition of actors.

While ego depletion and deontic justice both make predictions about justice

enactment, albeit opposing ones, it may be that the benefits of enacting

interpersonal justice in terms of instilling positive emotions in subordinates

and receiving positive feedback are greater than the drawbacks of the

depleting effects. The depleting effects of interpersonal justice may be small

as the rules of interpersonal justice, including refraining from improper

remarks and showing respect, come naturally to most individuals. For

informational justice enactment, however, this may be different. While

showing adequate behavior will likely increase one’s reputation and

recognition, the depleting effects of informational justice are likely to be

greater. Providing adequate explanations adapted to target individuals

involves more effort (Patient & Skarlicki, 2005), especially in situations where

informational justice is more important, such as in uncertain times or when

irregularities appear. Also, the contagion effect of positive emotions and

positive feedback may be smaller. Therefore, informational justice enactment

may have more depleting effects and impact the health of actors negatively.

38

Concluding remarks

Research on the actor perspective is just emerging, and little knowledge is

available regarding which personality characteristics of managers predict

justice enactment and for whom it is easier to adhere to justice principles.

Moral regard and justice self-efficacy may be important antecedents. There is

also very limited knowledge on the consequences of justice enactment for the

actors. Ego-depletion theory and deontic justice can be applied to make

predictions. While ego-depletion theory can be used to predict negative effects

of justice enactment on well-being, deontic justice theory can be used to

predict positive consequences. The relative strength of these effects may

depend on the justice enactment facet and type of outcome being studied.

Testing this is important, because if justice enactment has mostly negative

outcomes for actors, it is morally questionable to recommend managers to

behave fairly and to recommend that managers should be trained to do so. If

it is the case that behaving fairly has negative consequences for actors, more

research is needed in order to find out how to limit the potential negative

consequences of justice enactment.

39

Summary of studies

After reviewing the relevant literature, including theories and empirical

evidence, the studies that comprise this thesis are presented below. For each

study, the background, details concerning the data, measures, and analytical

techniques are provided, followed by a summary of the results.

Study I

The interaction between organizational justice and job characteristics:

Associations with work attitudes and employee health cross-sectionally and

over time

Background

Organizational justice researchers have called for a more thorough

examination of the conditions under which organizational justice has stronger

or weaker associations with relevant work and health-related outcomes

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Ambrose et al., 2013). Moderators that reflect

a focus on individual or organizational characteristics have been proposed (cf.

Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005). Job characteristics, which have often been the

focus in research on how the work environment shapes employee health and

well-being (de Lange et al., 2003; Häusser et al., 2010), may also be relevant

as boundary conditions for the effects of organizational justice. Job demands,

job control, and social support can foster or undermine the fulfillment of

psychological needs (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). In the interplay with

organizational justice, it may be that the positive effects of organizational

justice on outcomes are reinforced by positive job characteristics such as job

control or social support. Similarly, it is possible that the negative effects of a

lack of organizational justice can be compensated for. While some studies

have already been conducted (Chen et al., 2010; Haar & Spell, 2009;

Heponiemi et al., 2008; Rousseau et al., 2009), this study contributes to the

justice literature by focusing on three aims.

40

Aim and hypotheses

The first aim of the study was to test the main and interactive effects of overall

justice perceptions and job characteristics (job demands, job control, and

social support) for employees. The second aim was to examine these effects

for the prediction of work and health outcomes (organizational commitment,

intention to stay, mental health, and somatic health), while the third aim was

to study the main and interactive effects within and over time.

The study tested several hypotheses. In terms of main effects, it was

hypothesized that organizational justice would be positively associated with

the work and health outcomes. When controlling for organizational justice,

job demands were hypothesized to be negatively related to work and health

outcomes, while job control and social support were predicted to positively

associate with work and health outcomes. In addition to the main effects, it

was also predicted that job characteristics would moderate the effects of

organizational justice on work and health outcomes. Specifically, it was

predicted that the association between organizational justice and outcomes

would be weaker when job demands are high. Regarding the interaction

effects between organizational justice and job control and social support,

competing hypotheses were made. First, it was predicted that when job control

or social support is high, the association between justice and outcomes would

be stronger. In contrast, it was also predicted that a high degree of job control

or a high degree of social support would compensate for the negative effects

of low organizational justice.

Data

Data were collected in a research project designed to analyze the antecedents

and outcomes of job-related uncertainties (Näswall et al., 2010).

Questionnaires were sent out to employees at an accounting firm specializing

in providing organizations with financial consulting and advice. The head

office is located in a large Swedish city and other offices are found across

Sweden. Access was given to all employees in the organization. Two cover

letters, one from the organization and one from the research group, were

included. The latter contained a description of the objectives of the study,

instructions on how to fill out the questionnaire, and information about

confidentiality and data treatment. A reminder postcard was sent out to those

who had not replied after approximately two weeks, and a second reminder

with a new copy of the questionnaire was sent out after one month. The first

wave of the data collection (T1) started in September 2008 and was concluded

in late October 2008. The second data collection wave (T2) started in August

2009 and was completed in November 2009, resulting in a time lag of around

12 months between the two waves of the data collection. At the initiative of

the company the questionnaires were accompanied by a voucher for a

paperback book at T1 and a scratch ticket at T2. At T1, the sample consisted

41

of 782 employees from whom 567 usable responses were received (73%). At

T2, the sample consisted of 806 employees from whom 579 usable responses

were received (72%). Of those who responded at T1, 429 subjects had

complete data at T2, yielding a longitudinal response rate of 76%. Women

constituted the majority of the sample (59%); the age ranged from 23 to 68

years (M = 42, SD = 11); 71% had a university or college degree; 56% were

parents with children under the age of 12 years; 82% worked full time; and

the average tenure was 7 years (SD = 7). Study I included these 429

employees.

Measures

Overall justice, job characteristics, outcome variables, and covariates were

measured as scales or single items. All scales were validated and tested in

Swedish in a Swedish context. Table 1 provides an overview of all of the

measures for Study I, including their origin, reliability, scaling, and example

items.

Analysis

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were conducted. For each

outcome variable, a separate regression was conducted, within time (T1

outcome variables) and over time (T2 outcome variables). Covariates were

entered first into the model, followed by organizational justice, and then one

of the job characteristics. In the next step, the two-way interaction between

organizational justice and the job characteristic was entered into the model.

The interaction terms were created with the cross-product of the standardized

variables. Following McClelland and Judd (1993), the interactions were tested

using a significance threshold of 10% due to the difficulty of discovering

interaction effects in field studies.

Results and conclusions

In terms of main effects, with the exception of job demands on work

outcomes, overall justice and the other job characteristics had significant

effects in the predicted directions on work attitudes, work behaviors, mental

health, and somatic health, both cross-sectionally and over time. Job demands

had no significant main effect on T1 organizational commitment and T2

intention to stay, thereby not supporting the predictions. Also, job demands

had a positive effect on T2 organizational commitment, which likely indicates

a suppression effect. In general, main effects of overall justice and job

characteristics were found.

4

2

Tab

le 1

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy I

Vari

ab

le

Ref

eren

ce

Alp

ha

Sca

le r

an

ge

No

. of

item

s

Exa

mp

le i

tem

Org

aniz

ati

onal

just

ice

Over

all

just

ice

van

der

Vli

et a

nd

Hel

lgre

n

(20

02),

bas

ed o

n L

ind (

2001a)

.86

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“I f

eel

that

my

emplo

yer

tre

ats

me

fair

ly”

Moder

ato

rs

Job d

eman

ds

Bee

hr,

Wal

sh, an

d T

aber

(19

76)

.72

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“It

fair

ly o

ften

hap

pen

s

that

I h

ave

to w

ork

und

er a

hea

vy t

ime

pre

ssu

re”

Job c

ontr

ol

Sver

ke

and

Sjö

ber

g (

1994),

bas

ed o

n H

ackm

an a

nd

Old

ham

(1

97

5)

and

Wal

sh,

Tab

er, an

d B

eeh

r (1

980)

.82

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

4

“Th

ere

is s

cop

e fo

r m

e

to t

ake

init

iati

ve

in m

y

work

”

Soci

al s

upport

C

apla

n, C

ob

b, F

ren

ch,

Har

riso

n, an

d P

inn

eau (

1975)

.79

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“I a

lway

s re

ceiv

e th

e

hel

p I

nee

d f

rom

my c

o-

work

ers

wh

en

dif

ficu

ltie

s in

my w

ork

aris

e”

Outc

om

es

Org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mit

men

t

All

en a

nd

Mey

er (

19

90)

T1 .

78

T2 .

79

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“I e

njo

y d

iscu

ssin

g m

y

org

aniz

atio

n w

ith

peo

ple

outs

ide

it”

42

4

3

Tab

le 1

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Inte

nti

on t

o s

tay

Sjö

ber

g a

nd

Sver

ke

(2000)

T1 .

85

T2 .

83

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“I a

m a

ctiv

ely l

oo

kin

g

for

oth

er j

ob

s” (

rever

se

coded

)

Men

tal

hea

lth

Go

ldb

erg (

19

79

) T

1 .

85

T2 .

84

1 (

alw

ays)

to 4

(nev

er)

12

“O

ver

th

e pas

t tw

o

wee

ks,

hav

e yo

u f

elt

const

antl

y u

nd

er

stra

in?”

Som

atic

hea

lth

Hel

lgre

n, S

ver

ke,

an

d I

sakss

on

(19

99),

bas

ed o

n A

nd

erss

on

(19

86)

T1 .

74

T2 .

76

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

10

“I

n t

he

pas

t 1

2 m

on

ths,

hav

e yo

u s

uff

ered

fro

m

bac

k p

ain?”

Cova

riate

s

Age

- -

In y

ears

1

-

Gen

der

-

- 0 (

man

) 1 (

wom

an)

1

-

Educa

tion

- -

0 (

low

er e

duca

tion)

1

(univ

ersi

ty o

r co

lleg

e

deg

ree)

1

-

Note

. “-

“ =

not

appli

cable

.

44

Besides the main effects of overall justice and job characteristics,

interactive effects were also found within and over time. Slightly fewer than

half of the possible interaction effects were significant. With job demands, the

interaction effects were negative, such that the high job demands slope was

steeper than the low job demands slope. For instance, the effects of

organizational justice on intention to stay and somatic health were stronger for

individuals perceiving high job demands, such that the negative effects of low

organizational justice were aggravated by high job demands (and nearly

compensated for by lower levels of job demands). With job control and social

support, the interaction effects were negative, such that the low job control /

social support slopes were steeper than the high job control / social support

slopes. This means that the effects of organizational justice on, for instance,

intention to stay and somatic health were stronger for employees reporting

lower levels of job control or social support, such that the negative effects of

low organizational justice were more negative for employees reporting low

levels of job control or social support (and less negative with higher levels of

job control or social support). In general, overall justice had stronger effects

on intentions to stay and on somatic health for employees perceiving high job

demands, low job control or low social support. Therefore, the predictions that

the negative effects from a lack of overall justice perceptions would be

attenuated by favorable job characteristics were supported, while the

predictions that positive job characteristics would reinforce the positive

effects of overall justice were mostly not supported.

Most of the research on the boundary conditions of justice effects has been

done on work outcomes. This study shows that job characteristics may shape

relationships between justice perceptions and both work and health outcomes.

The nature of the interactions indicates that when a work environment

potentially leaves employees vulnerable, because they are faced with high job

demands or with low job control or social support, the effects of organizational

justice are likely to be stronger. This is in part in line with the theorizing of

Lind and van den Bos (Lind, 2001a; van den Bos, 2001), in that justice effects

are stronger when uncertainty is perceived. One may conclude that both

organizational justice and job characteristics contribute to the fulfillment of

employees’ psychological needs (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Deci &

Ryan, 2000). For a healthy work environment, organizations need to work on

both the fair treatment of employees and the job characteristics.

45

Study II

Don’t let it get to you!: A moderated mediated approach to the (in)justice–

health relationship

Background

The health outcomes of organizational justice are increasingly being studied

(see Robbins et al., 2012), but the underlying psychological mechanisms have

yet to be specified sufficiently. While it has been suggested that traditional

justice theories can also apply to processes regarding the justice–health link

(Ford & Huang, 2014; Greenberg, 2010), it has also been proposed that

mechanisms derived from health theories may be relevant as well (Greenberg,

2010; Robbins et al., 2012). Further, for justice pertaining to entities, such as

overall justice, it has been suggested that cognitive mediators are more

appropriate than emotional mediators (Colquitt et al., 2005). Empirical studies

have highlighted the mediating role of organizations’ responsiveness to work–

family issues, sleep problems, and lack of psychological need fulfillment

(Elovainio et al., 2003; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Whiteside & Barclay, 2013).

In line with the allostatic load model (McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman,

1999), it is also plausible that mental preoccupation with work (Siegrist, 1996;

von Thiele Schwarz, 2011) plays a mediating role for the relationships

between organizational justice perceptions and non-work outcomes such as

health.

Aim and hypotheses

The aim of this study was to specifically examine one of the cognitive

processes that link the experiencing of injustice to stress-related consequences

such as health consequences. In so doing, a moderated mediation model was

utilized. Using the allostatic load model (McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman,

1999), Study II hypothesized that mental preoccupation with work (Siegrist,

1996; von Thiele Schwarz, 2011) would be a relevant mediator. For this,

building on Judge and Colquitt (2004), mental health and work–family

conflict were chosen as dependent variables. Further, locus of control as a

personality concept was predicted to have a moderating role.

For this study, it was predicted that overall justice perceptions would be

positively associated with mental health and negatively associated with work–

family conflict. Mental preoccupation with work was hypothesized to mediate

the relationships between overall justice and both mental health and work–

family conflict. Furthermore, it was predicted that locus of control would

46

moderate the relationship between overall justice and mental preoccupation

with work.

Data

Data for this study was drawn from the same project as for Study I. In Study

II, those with less than one year of organizational tenure were excluded, which

resulted in a longitudinal sample size of 412 persons.

Measures

The variables of overall justice, locus of control, mental preoccupation, work–

family conflict, and mental health and the covariates were measured using

scales that had been validated for a Swedish population. Table 2 provides an

overview of the measures.

Analysis

A structural equation modeling technique was applied. A two-step protocol as

recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was followed, in which a

measurement model is tested before performing the structural model analysis.

Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler,

1990), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Values greater than or equal to .90 were considered to indicate an acceptable

fit for the CFI and the TLI. The RMSEA assesses model misfit (Browne &

Cudeck, 1993) and values less than .08 for RMSEA suggest a reasonable

model fit. Utilizing multiple indices provides a more complete and reliable

assessment of model fit (Browne, MacCallum, Kim, Andersen, & Glaser,

2002). The analyses were performed in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-

2012).

Multiple confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to investigate the

adequacy of our measurement model. For this, the chi-square difference was

tested for nested models. When the difference in chi-square is not significant,

the more parsimonious model is considered appropriate. When the difference

is significant, the model indicating a lower chi-square is to be preferred. A

parceling technique was used for reducing the 12 items of the mental health

measure to 3 parcels and the 8 items of the locus of control measure to 4

parcels. Parceling involves averaging together two or more items of a scale to

reduce the number of indicators and is a common technique. It is argued to

create more reliable indicators that come closer to a normal distribution, which

increases the stability of the model (Bandalos & Finney, 2001; Little, 2013;

Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Prior levels of dependent

variables were controlled for and the residuals of corresponding indicators

were correlated over time (Little, Preacher, Selig, & Card, 2007).

47

The significance of the mediation effects were assessed by the significance

of the indirect effect and the bias-corrected confidence intervals of the indirect

effects generated by bootstrap procedures based on 5,000 samples. In order to

test for the predicted interaction between overall justice and locus of control,

the latent moderated structural (LMS) approach by Klein and Moosbrugger

(Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000; Little, Bovaird, & Widaman, 2006) that is

implemented in Mplus was used. When testing latent interactions in Mplus,

the sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) was calculated

for the model including the latent interaction and for the model excluding it,

and these were compared to assess the adequacy of the model including the

interaction. The significance of the interaction was determined by examining

the significance of the interaction effect and the generated confidence intervals

based on a bias-corrected bootstrap procedure.

Results and conclusions

In accordance with predictions, mental preoccupation with work, a state

characterized by ongoing work-related thoughts, mediated the relationships

between overall justice perceptions and both mental health and work–family

conflict. When examining the individual difference variable of locus of

control, the results revealed that the association between overall justice and

mental preoccupation with work was stronger for those with a higher degree

of external locus of control. Thus, the indirect effects of overall justice on

mental health and work–family conflict via mental preoccupation with work

were significant for externals but not for internals.

Understanding the specific aspects underpinning the relationship between

organizational justice and health is important for the emerging research stream

on organizational justice as a health predictor (Elovainio, Kivimäki, &

Vahtera, 2002; Greenberg, 2010). This study helps to open up the black box

(Hagedoorn et al., 1998) that is shrouding the intervening mechanisms of this

relationship. The allostatic load model, as a solid theoretical framework

stemming from biological sciences, is well-suited for predicting the effects of

the cognitive mediator of mental preoccupation with work. Further, this study

showed that locus of control may be a relevant individual difference variable

for justice effects, as the indirect effects were only confirmed for externals.

Therefore, the specific aspects that mediate the relationships between

organizational justice and stress-related outcomes, such as the health of

internals, remain unclear for now.

4

8

Tab

le 2

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy I

I

V

ari

ab

le

Ref

eren

ce

Alp

ha

Sca

le r

an

ge

No o

f

item

s

Exa

mp

le i

tem

Org

aniz

ati

onal

just

ice

Over

all

just

ice

van

der

Vli

et a

nd

Hel

lgre

n

(20

02),

bas

ed o

n L

ind

(20

01

a)

.86

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

3

“I f

eel

that

my e

mp

loyer

trea

ts m

e fa

irly

”

Moder

ato

rs

Locu

s of

contr

ol

Lev

enso

n (

197

4)

.77

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

8

“My l

ife

is d

eter

min

ed b

y

my o

wn a

ctio

ns”

Med

iato

rs

Men

tal

pre

occ

upat

ion

wit

h w

ork

Ad

apte

d f

rom

Sie

gri

st e

t al

.

(20

04)

.92

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

5

“As

soon a

s I

get

up

in

th

e

morn

ing I

sta

rt t

hin

kin

g

about

work

pro

ble

ms”

Outc

om

es

Work

–fa

mil

y

confl

ict

Net

emey

er, B

ole

s an

d

McM

urr

ian

(1

996

)

T1 .

89

T2 .

88

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

4

“The

dem

and

s in

my w

ork

inte

rfer

e w

ith

my h

om

e an

d

fam

ily l

ife”

Men

tal

hea

lth

Go

ldb

erg (

19

79

) T

1 .

85

T2 .

84

1 (

alw

ays)

to 4

(nev

er)

12

“Over

the

pas

t tw

o w

eeks,

hav

e you

fel

t co

nst

antl

y

under

str

ain

?”

48

4

9

Tab

le 2

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Cova

riate

s

Age

- -

In y

ears

1

-

Gen

der

-

- 0 (

man

) 1 (

wom

an)

1

-

Educa

tion

- -

0 (

low

er e

duca

tion)

1 (

univ

ersi

ty o

r

coll

ege

deg

ree)

1

-

Note

. “-

“ =

not

appli

cable

.

50

Study III

Justice enactment and well-being: A test among SME owner-managers

Background

The recent focus on managers as actors (Scott et al., 2009) complements

traditional justice research on employees’ fairness perceptions at work. The

actor perspective has mainly been utilized to investigate individual differences

such as moral regard as antecedents of justice enactment (Brebels et al., 2011;

Patient & Skarlicki, 2010). Researchers have also asserted that justice self-

efficacy should positively influence justice enactment (Ambrose & Schminke,

2009a). A recent study showed that procedural justice enactment may be

deleterious for actors’ health (R. E. Johnson et al., 2014) and, based on ego-

depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister et al., 2007), it

suggested that informational justice enactment may function similarly.

However, interpersonal justice enactment was shown to have replenishing

effects. This effect can also be explained by the deontic model (Folger, 1998,

2001).

Aim and hypotheses

The aim was to test a model of antecedents and consequences of justice

enactment based on predictions from ego-depletion theory and the deontic

model of justice. Study III investigated moral regard and justice self-efficacy

as antecedents of justice enactment as well as the consequences that

interpersonal and informational justice enactment have on well-being.

Specifically, self-reported health, sleep quality, and professional recognition

were selected as indicators of well-being.

Regarding the predictions, it was hypothesized that justice self-efficacy is

positively related to interpersonal and informational justice enactment. Moral

regard was predicted to be positively related to interpersonal and

informational justice enactment. Interpersonal justice enactment was

predicted to positively relate to self-reported health, sleep quality, and

professional recognition. Informational justice enactment was predicted to

negatively associate with self-reported health and sleep quality but positively

associate with professional recognition.

Data

For this study, owner-managers of small to medium-sized enterprises (SME;

less than 250 employees) located in France were sampled. Data were collected

51

by a research team from the Amarok observatory. Amarok aims to study the

beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of French small business owners and is

partnered with different networks of SME in order to connect with owner-

managers. A total of 7973 business owners were found eligible for the target

group. From this list, a total of 426 business owners were recruited for

participation and they entered a panel study. As this type of population is

particularly non-responsive to email and postal surveys, they were contacted

directly by telephone. The phone interviews lasted on average 15 minutes. The

respondents were contacted between December and March for Time 1 data

collection and again two months later for Time 2 data collection. 349 owner-

managers provided Time 1 data. Of these, 293 respondents participated at T2

(56 people dropped out). Complete data were available for T1 and T2

measures of 252 owner-managers. Participants were on average 43 years old

and 22% of them were women. They controlled an average of 64% of their

business shares and the average size of the workforce of the companies was

18 (with a minimum of one employee).

Measures

The variables of justice enactment, the antecedents moral regard and justice

self-efficacy, and the consequences and covariates were measured with scales

for a French population. Except for scales for which an already validated

French translation existed, all measures were translated into French, and then

back-translated into English for verification. The translated scales were

pretested with a small group of entrepreneurs to assess their face validity.

Table 3 provides an overview of the measures.

Analysis

As in Study II, a structural equation modeling technique was applied in Study

III. A two-step protocol as recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988)

was followed, in which the measurement model was tested prior to the

structural model. Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index

(CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The same criteria were used for the

model fit indices as in Study II. The analyses were performed in AMOS

(Arbuckle, 2006).

Results and conclusions

Regarding the antecedents, moral regard positively predicted interpersonal

justice enactment but not informational justice enactment. Justice self-efficacy

was positively related to both interpersonal and informational justice

enactment, as predicted. Thus, having a high moral regard for employees and

feeling capable of behaving fairly stimulated justice enactment.

52

Regarding the consequences of interpersonal justice enactment,

interpersonal justice enactment had a marginally significant positive impact

on self-rated health when baseline self-rated health, and other covariates, were

taken into account. The relations to sleep quality and professional recognition

were not significant.

Regarding the predictions for the consequences of informational justice

enactment, the results indicated that informational justice enactment predicted

self-rated health and sleep quality negatively when controlling for baseline

levels and other covariates. Regarding the relation to professional recognition,

the results revealed that informational justice enactment positively related to

professional recognition. In sum, interpersonal justice enactment had a

positive health effect, while informational justice enactment had a negative

health effect but also a positive effect on feeling recognized.

The predictions in Study III were based on a justice theory, the deontic

model, as well as on a stress-related theory, the ego-depletion theory.

According to the results, the suitability of each theory depended on the facet

of justice enactment and the type of outcome variable under study. As there is

limited knowledge on the actor perspective (Scott et al. 2009), this study is an

important extension of the work by R. E. Johnson and colleagues (2014) who

were the first to study the consequences of justice enactment for the actors

themselves. Also, justice self-efficacy (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a) and

moral regard (Reed & Aquino, 2003) are established as antecedents. Although

scholars have concluded that the organizational justice literature has matured

(Colquitt et al., 2013), particularly with regard to the actor perspective and

justice enactment, many gaps still exist.

5

3

Tab

le 3

. O

ver

vie

w o

f m

easu

res

for

Stu

dy I

II

Vari

ab

le

Ref

eren

ce

Alp

ha

Sca

le r

an

ge

No o

f

item

s

Exa

mp

le i

tem

Org

aniz

ati

onal

just

ice

Inte

rper

sonal

just

ice

enac

tmen

t

Ad

apte

d f

rom

Han

sen

, B

yrn

e,

and

Kie

rsch

(20

13

) o

f th

e

Co

lqu

itt

scal

e o

f org

aniz

atio

nal

just

ice

(Colq

uit

t, 2

001

)

.76

1 (

I did

not

do t

hat

at

all)

to 4

(I

did

that

a

lot)

3

“I t

reat

ed p

eople

wit

h e

xtr

a

resp

ect”

Info

rmat

ional

just

ice

enac

tmen

t

Ad

apte

d f

rom

Han

sen

et

al.

(20

13)

of

the

Colq

uit

t sc

ale

of

org

aniz

atio

nal

just

ice

(Co

lquit

t, 2

00

1)

.68

1 (

I did

not

do t

hat

at

all)

to 4

(I

did

that

a

lot)

3

“I t

oo

k t

he

tim

e to

exp

lain

my r

easo

nin

g o

r th

e ru

les

in d

etai

ls”

Ante

ceden

ts

Just

ice

self

-

effi

cacy

Bas

ed o

n A

mb

rose

an

d

Sch

min

ke

(20

09

a)

.73

0 (

I ca

nnot

do

that

at

all)

to 1

00 (

I am

hig

hly

cer

tain

I c

an

do t

hat

)

4

“I b

elie

ve

I ca

n b

ehav

e

fair

ly i

n a

co

nsi

sten

t

man

ner

, w

hen

I h

ave

to

info

rm m

y e

mp

loyee

s o

f a

dif

ficu

lt s

ituat

ion

”

Mora

l re

gar

d

Ree

d a

nd

Aqu

ino

(2

003

) -

1 (

abso

lute

ly n

o

obli

gat

ion)

to 7

(ver

y

stro

ng o

bli

gat

ion)

1

“Do y

ou

fee

l a

mo

ral

or

ethic

al o

bli

gat

ion

to

sho

w

conce

rn f

or

the

wel

fare

an

d

inte

rest

s o

f em

plo

yee

s?”

Med

iato

rs

Men

tal

pre

occ

upat

ion

wit

h w

ork

Sie

gri

st e

t al

. (2

00

4)

.92

1 (

stro

ngly

dis

agre

e)

to 5

(st

rongly

agre

e)

5

“As

soo

n a

s I

get

up

in

th

e

morn

ing I

sta

rt t

hin

kin

g

about

work

pro

ble

ms”

5

4 Tab

le 3

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Outc

om

es

Pro

fess

ional

reco

gnit

ion

- -

1 (

nev

er)

to 5

(al

most

dai

ly)

1

“In t

he

pas

t m

on

th,

ho

w

oft

en h

ave

yo

u f

elt

yo

ur

work

was

bei

ng

reco

gn

ized

”

Sel

f-re

port

ed

hea

lth

Bas

ed o

n I

dle

r an

d B

enyam

ini

(19

97)

- 1 (

bad

) to

5

(exce

llen

t)

1

“In t

he

last

mo

nth

, h

ow

would

yo

u r

ate

yo

ur

physi

cal

hea

lth

?”

Sle

ep q

ual

ity

Bu

yss

e, R

eyn

old

s, M

on

k,

Ber

man

, an

d K

up

fer

(19

89)

- 1 (

bad

) to

5

(exce

llen

t)

1

“Duri

ng t

he

pas

t m

on

th,

how

wo

uld

yo

u r

ate

yo

ur

slee

p q

ual

ity?”

Co

vari

ate

s

Neg

ativ

e

busi

nes

s re

sult

s

- -

0 (

not

inte

nse

emoti

ons)

to 5

(hig

hly

inte

nse

emoti

ons)

1

“In t

he

last

mo

nth

, w

hat

was

the

emo

tio

nal

in

ten

sity

that

yo

u f

elt

due

to

neg

ativ

e b

usi

nes

s re

sult

s?”

Vac

atio

n

- -

1 (

none)

, 2 (

one)

, 3

(tw

o o

r th

ree

tim

es a

month

), 4

(m

ore

than

1 d

ay p

er w

eek),

5

(the

full

month

or

close

to)

1

“In t

he

last

mo

nth

, h

ow

oft

en h

ave

yo

u t

aken

vac

atio

n?”

Note

. “-

“ =

not

appli

cable

.

54

55

Discussion

This thesis sought to contribute to a better understanding of the processes of

organizational justice in predicting the work and health outcomes of both

receivers and actors. While most of the literature on organizational justice

concerns the direct relationships between justice perceptions and work

outcomes, this thesis contributes to this literature not only by taking into

consideration both work outcomes and health outcomes, but also by

investigating moderating and mediating processes in the relationships

between organizational justice and its outcomes, as well as the perspectives of

both the recipients and actors. Specifically, the first aim was to examine

factors that modify the strength of the relationships between organizational

justice perceptions and individuals’ work and health outcomes. The second

aim of this thesis was to investigate the processes underlying the relationship

between organizational justice perceptions and health. The third aim was to

shed more light on the links between organizational justice and outcomes for

those who enact justice. These aims were addressed in three empirical studies,

using data reflecting both the receiver and actor perspective. In this chapter,

the findings of the three studies of this thesis are first discussed before they

are integrated in order to provide a broader theoretical account of

organizational justice for both receivers and actors. This is followed by further

theory-related suggestions as well as suggestions for future research and

practice.

Discussion of the findings

Using data collected from one organization in Sweden, the first two studies

focused on recipients’ justice perceptions. The third study focused on actors

and its data were collected from owner-managers in France.

Job characteristics as moderators of organizational justice effects

The first aim of the thesis was to investigate potential moderating factors for

the relationships between organizational justice perceptions and work and

health outcomes. In Study I, the focus was on the main and interactive effects

of overall justice and characteristics of the work environment (job demands,

job control, and social support, see J. V. Johnson & Hall, 1988; Karasek &

56

Theorell, 1990) on work outcomes (organizational commitment and intention

to stay) and health outcomes (mental and physical health). These relations

were studied both cross-sectionally and over time.

Regarding the main effects of justice perceptions and job characteristics,

Study I found that overall justice significantly contributed to explaining work

and health outcomes. Also, job characteristics were generally found to be

significantly associated with work and health outcomes even after the effect

of overall justice had been taken into account. In previous studies, it has been

found that justice perceptions had effects on work and health outcomes after

taking the effects of job characteristics into account (Kivimäki, Vahtera,

Elovainio, Virtanen, & Siegrist, 2007; Lawson, Noblet, & Rodwell, 2009;

Ndjaboué et al., 2012). These and findings from Study I suggest that justice

perceptions and characteristics of the work environment may have main

effects. Regarding practice, the results suggest that in order to create

workplaces where employees are engaged and healthy, organizations may

want to employee strategies that ensure favorable justice perceptions and job

characteristics.

In addition, in accordance with predictions, Study I found evidence for an

interactive pattern in that the justice effects were stronger when job

characteristics were unfavorable, that is, with high job demands, low job

control, or low social support. It may be that individuals’ fulfillment of

psychological needs is at risk when perceiving a lack of organizational justice

(Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2000), which then can be

offset by job characteristics, which in themselves can be need fulfilling (Fernet

et al., 2013; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). As these are interactive effects, one

may also state that it may be that when work conditions are poor,

psychological needs are met through alternative means. Feeling fairly treated,

according to the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), makes

people feel valued and confirms their standing within the group – which

compensates for some of the consequences associated with the negative

working environment. This is similar to the pattern other studies have found

(Elovainio et al., 2005; Haar & Spell, 2009; Rousseau et al., 2009). The fact

that this pattern was found across the three different job characteristics, across

different outcomes, and across time indicates a consistency that is needed to

inform practice. The fact that the previous research results in studies taking

into account justice facets were confirmed by the present results taking into

account overall justice, suggests that overall justice is a legitimate measure for

use in future studies. The overall justice measure has the advantage that it is

less complicated and shorter than assessing the (four) justice facets and may

be better at predicting health (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009b).

Previous research regarding job control is more common than research on

any of the other job characteristics and results in line with the interactive

pattern just described have mainly been consistent (Elovainio et al., 2005;

Haar & Spell, 2009; Rousseau et al., 2009). The interactive pattern that Study

I showed was also found in a previous study on social support (Rousseau et

57

al., 2009). However, for job demands, very few studies are available, and

Heponiemi et al. (2008) reported the opposite finding, where justice had

stronger effects on work–family conflict when job demands were low. The

authors argued that high job demands would create problems with balancing

work and private life, even when fair treatment is perceived. This pattern,

different than the one in the current study, may be related to the type of

outcome they studied, and such results underscore the need for further

research in order to better understand the combined influence of justice

perceptions and job demands on different outcome variables.

Study I also hypothesized that the positive effects of justice perceptions are

increased by favorable job characteristics. However, there was no support for

this in Study I in contrast to the findings of a previous study (Chen et al.,

2010). This could be explained by the potential existence of ceiling effects,

such that the levels of positive justice perceptions were relatively high, making

it difficult to enhance the positive effects of justice perceptions even more.

In Study I, most of the interaction effects between overall justice and job

characteristics were related to intention to stay and physical health. Previous

studies have found significant interaction effects on work outcomes such as

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions, and on

health outcomes such as psychological distress and sickness absence

(Elovainio et al., 2005; Haar & Spell, 2009; Heponiemi et al., 2008; Rousseau

et al., 2009). However, non-significant findings have also been found for

counterproductive work behavior and psychological distress/strain (Elovainio

et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2001). Investigations of different kinds of outcomes,

relating to health, satisfaction, engagement, and negative behaviors are needed

to fully understand the relationships between justice perceptions and

characteristics of the work environment. In sum, Study I showed that while

organizational justice appears to have beneficial effects on both work and

health outcomes, these effects are conditional upon situational factors such as

job characteristics. The moderating effects of job characteristics were found

to be similar for work and health outcomes, with regard to cross-sectional and

over time predictions.

The importance of mental preoccupation with work and locus of

control for the justice–health process

The relationships between organizational justice and non-work outcomes,

such as health, as well as their underlying processes were the focus of Study

II. Specifically, the second aim of the thesis was to propose and test a process

that links justice perceptions to health. Based on the allostatic load model

(McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman, 1999), which has developed into one

of the main theories for relating stressors to ill-health (Ganster & Rosen,

2013), it was argued that the perception of unfairness triggers a state of mental

preoccupation with work (Siegrist et al., 2004; von Thiele Schwarz, 2011)

which undermines employee health. In accordance with predictions, Study II

58

found that mental preoccupation with work was a relevant mechanism in the

relationship between overall justice and mental health. While mental

preoccupation with work was proposed to be triggered by injustice

experiences, it may also be elicited by other stressors at work which elicit

strong emotions, such as emotional labor or incivility from customers (Rupp

& Spencer, 2006; Walker, van Jaarsveld, & Skarlicki, 2014). Study II adds to

the emergent literature on justice as a health predictor (Elovainio, Kivimäki,

& Vahtera, 2002; Ndjaboué et al., 2012; Robbins et al., 2012) by investigating

the process of this relationship more specifically. This is important because if

justice has negative health effects, research needs to point out what the precise

mechanisms are in order to be able to develop practical countermeasures.

Also, this study follows requests by other scholars to investigate such

processes and open the black box of how justice perceptions transmit into

outcomes such as health (Ford & Huang, 2014; Greenberg, 2010; Hagedoorn

et al., 1998).

In a previous study on the relationship between organizational justice and

stress, work–family conflict was suggested to be a mediating factor (Judge &

Colquitt, 2004). In the present study, however, there was no support for work–

family conflict acting as a mediating factor for the relationship between

overall justice and mental health. Rather, as hypothesized, mental

preoccupation with work was found to mediate the relationship between

overall justice and work–family conflict, as justice perceptions were found to

be negatively related to mental preoccupation with work, which, in turn, was

positively associated with work–family conflict. Compared to Judge and

Colquitt (2004), who examined a US population, Study II was based on a

Swedish population, where the situation around work–family issues is

substantially different. It is also possible that the work-generated conflicts that

spill over to the home environment extend the duration of these work stressors,

which, according to the allostatic load model, could generate negative health

effects. Other studies are needed to investigate under what circumstances

work–family conflict and mental preoccupation with work function as

mediators of the relationships between justice perceptions and strain outcomes

related to stress or health and, also, to examine to what extent these two

mediators may be related.

Further, it was also taken into consideration that individuals differ in their

cognitive processes. In particular, locus of control was expected to play a

moderating role in the elicitation of mental preoccupation with work.

Accordingly, Study II tested locus of control as a personality variable that

affects the mediated relationships. The results revealed that the mediated

relationships were stronger for individuals with an external locus of control.

The results showed that mental preoccupation with work was a mediator of

justice effects on mental health (and work–family conflict) for externals only.

Therefore, individuals with an internal locus of control may have different

strategies for dealing with injustice at work. They are likely to be more

proactive (Spector, 1982) and may also be more assertive (Korsgaard et al.,

59

1998) with organizational representatives. Examining which mediating

factors play a role for internals’ perceptions of fairness is a direction for future

research. In conclusion, to better understand the processes of the justice–

health relationship, it will be important to study which mediators matter with

regard to different time periods, entities, and event justice perceptions (see

Colquitt et al., 2005; Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001). As shown in Study II,

it will also be important to study moderating factors (situational and

personality) in conjunction with mediating factors.

Antecedents and consequences of justice enactment

The first two studies of this thesis showed that there are many advantages

when employees perceive receiving fair treatment from the organization and

its representatives. Central players in enacting justice are authority figures

such as managers. It is relevant to investigate when and why they adhere to

justice principles and also what the consequences of these behaviors are.

Adhering to justice principles may be difficult, as it involves following rules

and suppressing biases and preferences, especially when difficult situations

arise (Folger & Skarlicki, 1998; R. E. Johnson et al., 2014). Since the actor-

focused model of justice has only recently appeared (Scott et al., 2009),

findings are limited, particularly when it comes to identifying what the health

consequences of justice enactment are for the actors themselves. The third aim

of this thesis was to increase our understanding of organizational justice and

its effects on well-being and health by incorporating the perspective of justice

enactment.

Most of the research on justice enactment has been done on the antecedents

(Brebels et al., 2011; Cornelis et al., 2012; Cornelis et al., 2013; Hoogervorst

et al., 2013; Patient & Skarlicki, 2010) . Study III adds to this by showing that

moral regard predicted interpersonal justice enactment. This is consistent with

predictions that the likelihood for moral disengagement (Bandura, 1986;

Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008) is smaller when individuals regard a

specific group or other individuals as part of their inner moral circle (Reed &

Aquino, 2003). Moral disengagement has been proposed to be a mechanism

through which individuals become detached from sanctioning their own

immoral behavior. Actors with high moral regard towards their employees

may therefore feel a moral obligation which guides their behavior. However,

moral regard did not predict informational justice enactment. This may

indicate that informational justice enactment is not purely a behavior based on

moral concerns (Leventhal, 1976; Turillo et al., 2002) but may also be used as

a political technique to shape employee opinion through individualized

information sharing, which therefore should not be predicted by moral regard.

Also, informational justice enactment might be determined less by managerial

volition and more by the regulatory context of labor laws. In France, labor

laws are highly prescriptive regarding the information rights of employees. It

may also be that moral regard predicts informational justice enactment when

60

the number of employees is smaller, as the risk for moral disengagement

would be decreased. In sum, it may be that contextual and situational factors

play a greater role in predicting informational justice enactment than

individual differences of managers, a proposition already suggested by

Masterson et al. (2005).

Further, Study III adds to what is known about the antecedents of justice

enactment by being the first to measure and empirically study the influence of

justice self-efficacy (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a) as an antecedent of justice

enactment. The results indicate that justice self-efficacy may be a relevant

antecedent of justice enactment. More research is needed to better understand

whether justice self-efficacy can be learned through experience, whether it has

correlates with other important personality constructs, and whether (and for

whom) training justice self-efficacy has measurable effects on manager

behavior.

The predictions in Study III were based on the deontic model (Folger, 1998,

2001) and ego-depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister et al.,

2007). Based on ego-depletion theory, justice enactment can be construed as

having depleting attributes. Justice enactment involves controlling one’s

emotions, impulses, and behaviors. According to this theory, individuals only

have limited resources for acting in these ways, and once they are exhausted,

a state of ego-depletion is reached, which undermines further options for

regulating behavior. This may undermine a healthy lifestyle and interacting

positively with people. The deontic model of justice, on the other hand, would

predict positive consequences from justice enactment. According to the

deontic view on justice, individuals may behave in line with justice principles

because they have an internalized moral standard for how others should be

treated and consider following it to be a moral obligation. Following socially

accepted rules of conduct should lead to a sense of satisfaction and a feeling

of being one with the world. Study III shows that these two explanations are

valid but the relative strength of the deontic or depleting effect depends on the

facet of justice enactment and the type of outcome variable.

In terms of the consequences, it was expected in the case of interpersonal

justice enactment that the positive effects of the deontic response would be

stronger than the negative depleting effects. Results confirmed that enacting

interpersonal justice was positively related to the self-rated health of actors.

Informational justice enactment was negatively related to self-rated health and

sleep quality but positively related to professional recognition. While

informational justice enactment may be depleting, as indicated by the negative

effects on health, the owners may perceive that their reputation is improving.

In contrast to interpersonal justice, which refers mainly to the affective level

of communication, informational justice enactment is on the content level

(Masterson et al., 2005). Therefore, in a country like France, with high power

distance (i.e., the extent to which power inequalities are accepted; Hofstede,

1984, 2001), it is more likely that the content level of communication will

build up reputation rather than the affective level. This may also be an

61

explanation for why interpersonal justice enactment was not positively related

to professional recognition. Also, interpersonal justice enactment was not

significantly related to sleep quality. This may be related to the fact that the

study had a two-month time lag, suggesting that future studies should

investigate other time lags to detect sleep effects.

While much is known about the employee perspective of justice

perceptions, to fully understand the interplay between employees and

employers and to guide practice, research needs to also focus on the managers

who enact justice. With Study III being one of only a few studies on justice

enactment, future research should focus more on justice enactment and how it

relates to a variety of different consequences, such as the mental health

indicators of owner-managers, preferably with multi-item scales. Future

research is needed to test if the factors shaping owner-managers behavior are

also relevant for other authority figures, such as managers. Owner-managers

have more discretion in their jobs than managers and employee behavior may

also be more important to owner-managers. So far, the majority of research

on organizational justice has focused on employees’ perceptions of justice or

on reactions of observers to injustice. The actor perspective investigates which

personal and situational factors may predict fair behavior, and what the

consequences are for actors, employees, and observers. Studies on justice

enactment can fill several gaps in the literature (Colquitt, 2012; Scott et al.,

2009; Scott et al., 2014). For instance, the reasons, deontic or instrumental,

why actors behave according to justice principles may influence employees’

justice perceptions and their subsequent impact on employee behavior. Also,

as indicated by the differential positive and negative effects of justice

enactment, justice enactment may be an area in which different justice theories

can be integrated, which has rarely been done (Fortin, 2008).

Methodological considerations

The three studies that comprise this thesis involve a number of methodological

aspects that need to be mentioned. Concerns about generalizability with regard

to context and culture, self-report data, and causality claims are important to

discuss, as these aspects potentially may have impacted the validity of the

results.

Data from Study I and Study II were obtained from a single accounting

business, with offices all across Sweden. However, the results were in

accordance with theory and also with earlier findings. Also, white-collar and

office work is a large part of employment in Sweden and other industrialized

countries across the world, so the findings should at least be generalizable to

comparable work and organizational settings.

The studies that comprise this thesis are based on data from France and

Sweden. In general, the majority of research on justice has been conducted in

the US (Greenberg, 2001c). Although some of the larger datasets for justice–

62

health studies come from Finland and the UK (Greenberg, 2010), among the

studies reviewed in Robbins et al. (2012), 50% of the data from such studies

were from the US. The pattern of results suggested that the association

between justice and health was stronger in US than in non-US samples.

Therefore, although the findings of the three studies of this thesis may not be

fully comparable to US findings due to the European origin of the data, they

add to the pool of research done outside of the US. Also, data from Study III

were obtained from owner-managers of small to medium-sized enterprises in

France. European Commission information reveals that 99.8% of all

enterprises in the European Union are small or medium in size, accounting for

66.9% of the employment and 58.4% of the value added creation. Therefore,

data in this thesis add not only to more European evidence on justice but also

stem from a sample that is of high economic value.

In terms of context and culture, Sweden and France both have their unique

differences in comparison to other countries regarding aspects such as

employment laws, social security and welfare systems, the role of unions.

Also, both Sweden and France have their unique cultural values which may

have shaped results. Cultures can differ not only in regard to the importance

of the concept of justice but also in regard to what justice norms and rules

form the justice construct and which rules are more adequate in certain

situations. Moreover, how justice judgments are formed, the relative

importance of justice facets, and the strength of the effects justice has on

outcomes can also differ (Colquitt et al., 2005; Greenberg, 2001b). Hofstede

(1984, 2001) proposed a number of cultural dimensions along which different

countries can vary. In a meta-analysis on the impact of cultural dimensions on

the relationships between justice perceptions and various employee outcomes,

justice effects were found to be stronger in individualistic cultures, such as

France and Sweden (Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). The three studies

of this thesis have not taken culture into consideration, so further research will

be needed to expand our knowledge on how cultural differences matter for

how organizational justice works. Although the studies comprising this thesis

are based on two cultures, the findings are mainly congruous with what was

expected, which may indicate that cultural differences did not substantially

affect their generalizability. Justice scholars have called for further

investigations of culture and other context variables in order to get a broader

conception of how justice functions (Fortin, 2008; Greenberg, 2001c). This

may also help clarify whether and how justice perceptions and justice

enactment may differ depending on cultural or economic backgrounds.

One potential limitation that applies to all three studies is the use of self-

reported data based on questionnaires. This carries with it a risk for common

method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 1994,

2006). It has been suggested that associations between variables measured

with the same method are distorted. However, self-reports are considered to

be adequate for measuring aspects such as preferences, motives, and

perceptions, which applies to the concepts studied in this thesis. Further, it has

63

been noted that moderation effects, which are examined in Study I and II, are

unlikely to be artifacts of common method variance (Siemsen, Roth, &

Oliveira, 2009). As has been shown in Study 1, when the measurement of

justice perceptions and work and health outcomes was separated by time (one

year), the associations were still about as strong, which indicates that the threat

of common method bias was marginal. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the

potential risk of common method variance, suggestions from Podsakoff et al.

(2003) were followed: participants were informed that there were no right or

wrong answers, response formats were varied in the questionnaire, and

confidentiality was guaranteed. To further reduce concerns regarding this,

other sources should be incorporated in the study design when possible. For

instance, some employee work and health outcomes could be measured by

asking colleagues or the occupational physician, and the work and health

outcomes of business owners could be measured by asking associates or other

employees. Another option is to measure health objectively by referring to

registered data (e.g., regarding medical visits, medication usage or sickness

absence). Both options, using other sources and objective data on health, have

been used in previous studies (Elovainio et al., 2013; Hjarsbech et al., 2014;

Judge & Colquitt, 2004), which suggests that the findings in this thesis may

not have been consequentially limited by self-report methodology.

Another potential limitation concerns the possibility of drawing inferences

on causality. Although the relationships were theorized to follow a causal

flow, and the results mostly supported these relationships, the true causes of

the result patterns may not have been measured (Little, Card, Bovaird,

Preacher, & Crandall, 2007). However, all three studies made use of some

kind of longitudinal design although only two data waves were used in the

studies. Study II and III predicted the dependent variables at Time 2 while

controlling for Time 1 dependent variables. Tests of reversed causality,

regarding health symptoms predicting levels of perceived organizational

justice over time, have so far produced inconclusive findings. For instance,

Ybema and van den Bos (2010) found support for the hypothesis that

distributive and procedural justice would have an effect on subsequent

depressive symptoms and sickness absence. They also found a small reversed

causal effect of sickness absence on subsequent distributive justice. They did

not find a reversed causal effect of depressive symptoms on justice

perceptions. Lang et al. (2011) found only the reversed causal effect that

depressive symptoms predicted organizational justice facets but not the

expected causal effect of justice perceptions predicting depressive symptoms.

These inconclusive findings on causality warrant future investigations. It may

be that to some extent both justice perceptions and health indicators may

reinforce each other, leading to spiral effects. More research is needed that

makes use of at least three data points or of experimental data to better draw

causal inferences about the associations (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982).

However, as longitudinal research in the organizational justice area is not

prevalent yet, little is known about what time lags would be most useful.

64

While some anecdotic evidence exists which suggests violations of justice

rules pervade the memories of individuals and have lasting consequences

(Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Gilliland, 2008), it is likely that the characteristics

of the event, the circumstances, and the personality of the individual interact

in determining how long-lasting the effects of justice are. Although justice

perceptions are traditionally held to be relatively stable, the dynamic nature of

justice perceptions has received more research attention lately (Jones &

Skarlicki, 2013). Fortin, Cojuharenco, Patient, and German (2014) reviewed

evidence on the effects of time for justice research and noted that there is some

evidence that justice events may affect certain outcomes, such as performance,

in a delayed fashion, thereby providing conceptual reasons for the importance

of including a time component in the study of justice. Apart from the

conceptual reasons, the advantages of longitudinal designs pertain to

causality, the validity of study results, and ruling out alternative explanations

(Roe, 2014; Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996).

Theoretical implications and future research

Despite these potential limitations, the results of the studies that comprise this

thesis have a number of theoretical implications. In this section, gaps that

future research can fill are also discussed.

Justice in relation to work and health outcomes

This thesis builds on theoretical and empirical research proposing that

organizational justice is related to work and health outcomes. The three studies

of this thesis confirmed that both justice perceptions and justice enactment

have consequences, even over time, for various work and health outcomes of

employees and owner-managers. In Study I, organizational justice perceptions

were found to be related to levels of organizational commitment and intentions

to stay. Established justice theories such as social exchange theories (Blau,

1964; Colquitt et al., 2013), fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001a), relational

theories (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992), and deontic theories

(Folger, 1998, 2001) can be used to explain these relationships. Study I and

Study II also showed associations between organizational justice perceptions

and health outcomes. Existing justice theories may also be used to understand

the connection, although the theoretical connection is less direct. Justice

perceptions may generate trust (Lind, 2001a), a sense of belonging (Tyler &

Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992), and positive emotions (Folger, 1998,

2001), which may all be beneficial for the health and well-being of

individuals. However, a more direct connection was proposed in Study II with

the introduction of the allostatic load model to further understand the justice–

health relationship and its processes.

65

With the growing interest of epidemiologists and health scholars in justice

as a predictor of health (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Vahtera, 2002; Ndjaboué et

al., 2012; Robbins et al., 2012), there is increasing evidence that justice

perceptions are indeed relevant for predicting the health status of employees.

Study I and Study II contribute to this stream of research by showing that

overall justice is related to mental and physical health. Regarding the

generality of predictors and outcomes (bandwidth-fidelity, see Ambrose &

Schminke, 2009b), overall justice is expected to better predict general

outcomes regarding health than justice facets. The focus on overall justice

instead of justice facets in research on predicting health, as in Study I and

Study II, is therefore justified.

Apart from the emergent stream on justice and health (Cornelis et al.,

2013), there is a newly emerging stream in the justice literature that focuses

on actors (Scott et al., 2009). Study III combined these two streams and

investigated the relationship between justice enactment and the health of those

who enact justice. As justice enactment refers to specific behaviors, it is

conceptualized as pertaining to the four justice facets (Colquitt, 2001),

distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (see Scott et

al., 2009). Study III focused on interpersonal and informational justice

enactment and found that interpersonal justice enactment was positively

related to self-rated health and that informational justice enactment was

negatively related to self-rated health and sleep quality. There are two

noteworthy things about these findings. First, there seems to be a difference

between facets of justice enactment in respect to the health consequences for

actors. Second, informational justice enactment was negatively related to

indicators of health. In a previous study on the consequences of procedural

and interpersonal justice enactment, R. E. Johnson et al. (2014) found that

procedural justice enactment was positively related to the depletion of

resources. Therefore, this suggests that the results of Study III may not be

incidental but indicative of a consistent pattern. These results indicate that the

justice–health relationship is not fully understood, particularly with regard to

the actor perspective. Predictions based on resource models such as ego-

depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998; Baumeister et al., 2007) may be

helpful for understanding the negative association between justice enactment

and health. Although much more is known regarding work outcomes than

health and well-being outcomes within justice research, knowledge of the

consequences of justice enactment is still limited. Further research is needed

to investigate a broader range of outcomes of justice enactment, such as work,

health, and well-being outcomes.

Moderators of the effects of organizational justice

Traditionally, justice scholars have mainly been interested in how

organizational justice predicts various work behaviors, for example,

citizenship behaviors or performance (Colquitt et al., 2013). Increasingly, the

66

relations between justice perceptions and work outcomes are being studied

with regard to the moderating factors that influence the strength of the

relationships (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003, 2009b). All of the previous meta-

analyses in this area have hinted that there is considerable variance in the

relations between justice perceptions and work outcomes that moderators may

account for. In a recent meta-analysis (Colquitt et al., 2013), the authors tested

various moderators for the relationships between justice and outcomes.

Specifically, they tested the moderating effects of entity and event justice, of

organizational and supervisory level, and of the context of the data collection

in the organization in terms of being positive or negative and whether many

or few employees were affected; however, none of these were shown to be

relevant moderators. In fact, the authors concluded that situational and

personality moderators, as suggested by Nowakowski and Conlon (2005), are

more likely to matter for justice effects.

This is, in effect, what this thesis has relied upon. Study I tested the

situational factor of job characteristics and confirmed its moderating role for

the effects of justice perceptions. The study contributes to lessening the gap

of knowledge on moderators by showing the impact of the job characteristics

not only on work outcomes but also on health outcomes. Also, interactions

were shown across time, confirming findings based on cross-sectional study

designs. Study II tested the moderating role of a personality concept, locus of

control, and found that it impacts the process behind organizational justice

perceptions affecting health. Future research on the justice–health relationship

should further study the impact of individual and situational moderating

factors.

In the meta-analysis of Colquitt et al. (2013), it was suggested that future

research could benefit from including personality concepts such as how

sensitive people are to justice issues (Liao & Rupp, 2005) and how sensitive

people are to receiving or observing injustice or gaining from injustice

inflicted on others (Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995). With the emerging

focus of research on authority figures enacting justice, adapting concepts such

as sensitivity to justice issues to managers may be fruitful when investigating

moderators.

Mediators of the justice–health relationship

Despite considerable accumulated research, there is still little consensus about

which mediating factors are relevant for which outcomes or under which

circumstances as well as little agreement on which theory is most viable. Thus,

Study II aimed at opening the black box (Hagedoorn et al., 1998) of the

justice–health relationship by studying the process through which the overall

justice perceptions of employees may impact mental health. Colquitt et al.

(2005) suggested that cognitive types of mediators may transmit the effects of

entity justice whereas emotional types of mediators may be more relevant for

the effects of event justice. Following this suggestion, Study II proposed that

67

mental preoccupation with work is a cognitive mediator of the relationship

between organizational justice perceptions such as entity justice and non-work

outcomes such as health outcomes. The results suggest that mental

preoccupation with work may prolong the mental representation of unfairness

perceptions, which is associated with decreased mental health, particularly for

externals. An important future avenue of investigation would be to explore

what individuals think about when they worry and ruminate about work.

There is some evidence, although not based on justice research, that

individuals may engage in affective rumination similar to the intrusive

ongoing thoughts measured in Study II, but individuals may also engage in

problem-solving thought patterns (Cropley, Michalianou, Pravettoni, &

Millward, 2012; Querstret & Cropley, 2012) that have been shown to be

positively related to sleep quality and decreased fatigue (Querstret & Cropley,

2012). The allostatic load model (McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman, 1999)

would suggest that prolonging a stressor, even for problem-solving purposes,

carries with it negative health consequences. This perspective assumes that

injustice is a stressor which triggers either the positive or negative kind of

mental preoccupation with work. The focus on negatively laden affective

rumination versus positively laden problem-solving rumination is similar in

research investigating challenge and hindrance stressors (LePine, LePine, &

Jackson, 2004). This stream of research has shown that while both challenge

and hindrance stressors exhaust the resources of individuals, challenge

stressors are positively related to motivation and performance and hindrance

stressors are negatively related to motivation and performance (LePine,

Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005). Similarly, perceptions of injustice may trigger

positive and negative reactions. Positive reactions may include thinking about

what can be done and how to solve issues, which should be particularly strong

among individuals with an internal locus of control. Negative reactions may

involve negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, hostility, and negative self-

or other-directed behavior. Injustice perceptions may have a direct negative

effect on exhaustion, fatigue, and negative emotions, but also a positive

indirect effect on creativity, performance, and engagement triggering active

problem-solving activities (see also Rodell & Judge, 2009). Therefore, it may

be that injustice perceptions can also have positive consequences by triggering

activities that help solve problems. These positive aspects are likely to be

stronger for internals. Future research is needed to substantiate this claim.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to study further what employees do

exactly when they perceive injustice due to single or multiple events involving

their supervisor or organization. Deontic justice (Folger, 1998, 2001; Folger

& Cropanzano, 2010) predicts that perceiving or receiving injustice triggers

negative emotions such as anger, hostility or moral outrage. It is likely that

these negative emotions will be followed by taking action; that is, individuals

will likely want to take revenge and punish someone. If injustice does not stem

from a source that it can easily be attributed to (e.g., in large organizations it

may be unclear who is responsible for a specific HR policy), or if reacting

68

with sabotage, stealing, etc. (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002) is

outside of the moral convictions of employees, the injustice may turn out to

be particularly harmful for employees as it may increase their rumination and

worry. Therefore, to better understand how individuals react just and unjust

events as well as the potential long-term effects on the well-being of

individuals, questions concerning on attribution may also be relevant. This is

related to discussions on the context of justice (i.e., entity versus event justice)

and on the source of justice (i.e., HR manager or formal organization)

(Colquitt & Shaw, 2005).

Study II investigated a cognitive mediator, but several justice theories,

including the fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), and models for

justice and health (Ford & Huang, 2014; Greenberg, 2010) proposed that

emotions may also have an important role in understanding the effects of

justice (see for a review Cropanzano, Stein, & Nadisic, 2011). Although

several theories on justice propose that justice elicits emotions, Cropanzano et

al. (2011) concluded in their review that research has not yet fully uncovered

how this process works. Further, they conclude that the affective state of

individuals colors fairness perceptions. The current mood individuals are in

may influence responses when being asked to indicate the fairness of the

organization. Therefore, justice perceptions do not only trigger emotions and

moods but emotions and moods also influence justice perceptions. Current

moods and emotions also influence cognitive mediators. When employees are

in a negative mood, they may ruminate and worry even more when an unjust

event happens. Therefore, cognitive and emotional aspects may interact in

predicting how justice perceptions shape non-work outcomes.

Although unhealthy behaviors were not found to act as a mediator in a

previous study on the justice–health relationship (Elovainio et al., 2003), it is

likely that individuals engage in different coping strategies that may interfere

with a healthy lifestyle. To fully uncover the processes behind the

relationships between organizational justice perceptions and health outcomes,

it may be useful to integrate justice theories with stress and health theories. In

conclusion, it might not be possible to pin down one mediating factor for the

relationship between justice perceptions and health; the importance of various

potential cognitive, emotional, identity-related, and biological mediating

factors may depend on the type of justice, type of work or context, type of

individual, type of time lag, and type of outcome.

Justice enactment

This thesis was also concerned with the justice enactment of business owners.

Justice enactment was proposed to be an ego-depleting activity (see R. E.

Johnson et al., 2014). However, individuals may nevertheless decide to engage

in actions consistent with justice principles as a type of deontic response. A

deontic response, in this sense, is a self-sacrificial act that is made in order to

balance an observed injustice (Cropanzano et al., 2005). Justice enactment

69

may also function as a deontic response. Enacting justice may trigger pride in

one’s actions and stimulate positive emotions from subordinates, which,

through emotional contagion processes, elicit positive emotions in managers

as well (R. E. Johnson et al., 2014). Also, managers may decide to enact justice

because they anticipate that they would experience negative emotions, such as

shame or guilt, otherwise.

While individual differences, regarding, for example, moral regard and

justice self-efficacy, have presently been found to be associated with justice

enactment, in the one previous study that investigated consequences of justice

enactment, R. E. Johnson et al. (2014) reported that half of the variance in

justice enactment was attributable to within-person variation over time.

Whether justice enactment leads to positive or negative consequences may

depend on why the justice is enacted It may be that acting justly is a

managerial strategy that is applied in certain situations, for instance, when

handling conflicts at work. It is likely that individual differences and

situational factors interact in the prediction of when and why a manager enacts

justice (see Scott et al., 2009). For instance, in a study on the antecedents of

moral behavior, it was shown that individuals’ implicit assumptions about the

legitimacy and ethicality of business interacted with environmental cues

regarding the ethical and competitive qualities of their organization to shape

their moral behavior regarding adequately reporting insurance claims

(Reynolds, Leavitt, & DeCelles, 2010).

Study III investigated small business owner-managers who employ others.

In contrast, there are also self-employed individuals who do not employ

others, sometimes referred to as independents (Prottas & Thompson, 2006). It

has been shown that small business owners with employees differ from

employees and independents in regard to their work characteristics as well as

their well-being and health (Chay, 1993; Parslow et al., 2004; Prottas &

Thompson, 2006; Stephan & Roesler, 2010). Also, there are differences

between entrepreneurs and managers, and between different kinds of

entrepreneurs (founders, heirs, etc.), in terms of, for instance, their personality

and level of motivation, which can influence justice enactment (Schjoedt,

2013; Stewart & Roth, 2007). Future research should take into account the

type of entrepreneur and, also, study justice enactment in various contexts

where the managers have differing levels of managerial discretion.

When it comes to the factors that influence justice behavior, research on

middle managers has focused on trickle-down effects, finding that middle

managers’ justice perceptions of top management influence their actions

regarding their subordinates (Ambrose et al., 2013; Masterson, 2001). It has

been shown that middle managers receiving unjust treatment in turn act

unfairly towards their subordinates in most but certainly not all cases (van

Houwelingen, van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2014). The same study suggested that

managers who receive unfairness from upper management are less likely to

pass this unfairness on to their own subordinates when they construe their self

as independent from their supervisor (relational-interdependent self-

70

construal). It is an open question whether the justice that small business

owners receive from their stakeholders may also influence their own justice

actions.

There is some evidence that subordinates also have an influence on the

behavior of managers. For instance, it has been reported that assertive

subordinates receive more interactional fairness (Korsgaard et al., 1998).

Also, when managers knew the needs of subordinates, they adapted their

fairness behavior (Cornelis et al., 2012; Hoogervorst et al., 2013). It may be

that subordinates’ expression of the traits that endow them with attentiveness

to their surroundings and the behavior of managers prompts increased justice

enactment from managers. In a study on abusive supervision, it was found that

deviant behavior from employees (e.g., coming in late, stealing or sabotage)

that triggered hostile behavior from the manager was stronger in effect than

the hostile behavior from the manager which triggered employees’ deviant

behavior (Huiwen, Ferris, Morrison, & Brown, 2014). Similarly, one could

test the temporal influence employees and supervisors have on the

development of the justice perception–justice enactment cycle.

Interestingly, there is little knowledge about whether justice enactment

influences the justice perceptions of employees. Justice scholars assume that

this is the case, and it is also safe to assume that there is a positive relationship.

One reason for the potential discrepancy between what supervisors perceive

they do and what employees perceive supervisors do in terms of justice may

be related to their preferences or perceptions of situational appropriateness of

specific justice rules over others (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009a). Differing

sets of justice rule preferences between employee and manager may even lead

to a situation where a supervisor perceives something as fair while the

subordinate perceives the same as unfair. In these situations, besides factors

such as perspective-taking, empathy, and similarity between actor and

recipient, informational justice in terms of providing explanations and

adequate justifications for actions may diminish this discrepancy (Ambrose &

Schminke, 2009a). When a discrepancy exists between what the managers

perceive they are doing and what employees perceive the managers are doing,

it may be particularly harmful to an organization’s climate, performance, and

turnover as well as to the satisfaction and health of employees and managers.

In sum, besides further substantiating research on justice actors, justice theory

may profit from integrating the actor and the receiver perspectives.

Nature of justice

Two of the three studies of this thesis focused on overall justice as a type of

entity justice regarding the organization. Study III, instead, made use of the

justice rules and examined two justice facets. The advantages of focusing on

overall justice have been outlined in the introduction. An advantage of justice

facets is that there are justice rules associated with each facet. It is less clear,

however, how overall justice perceptions are formed. Fairness heuristics

71

theory (Lind, 2001a) proposes a process by which available justice

information is used to form a general impression of the fairness of the

organization, which serves as a heuristic for whether to trust the employer.

Ambrose and Schminke (2009b) show that overall justice is predicted by

justice facets. In a qualitative study, Hollensbe, Khazanchi, and Masterson

(2008) found that overall justice is not only predicted by organizations or

supervisors applying justice rules but also by factors such as organizational

support, co-workers experiences and the general tenure of the employees. In

a context characterized by change, it has also been shown that overall justice

guides justice facets in an anticipatory way, such that once an overall justice

impression is formed, it will guide expectations about the organization’s

future behavior (Rodell & Colquitt, 2009). While this thesis did not focus on

the antecedents of justice perceptions, it is of conceptual relevance to

investigate the antecedents of overall justice as well as interactions with

justice facets (Choi, 2008) and anticipatory justice facets in predicting work

and health outcomes.

As has been common until recently in the justice literature, the studies that

comprise this thesis view justice as an overarching concept that encompasses

both justice and injustice. Because interest in the potential differences between

justice and injustice has gained momentum lately, it is important to reflect

upon the conceptualization and measurement of justice and injustice.

Some scholars have argued that injustice is the key driver in shaping

attitudes and behaviors, whereas justice is the normal state that is only noticed

when something goes wrong (Cropanzano et al., 2011; Harlos & Pinder,

1999). This would imply that the effects of injustice on work, health, and well-

being outcomes are stronger than the effects of justice. However, it seems to

be more complicated than this. In one study, it has been shown that justice had

stronger predictive power than injustice on outcomes regarding self-esteem,

performance, and citizenship behavior, while injustice had more predictive

power than justice for outcomes regarding hostility and counterproductive

work behavior (Colquitt, Long, Rodell, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2014). In

predicting when justice or injustice would have stronger effects on outcomes,

the authors of this study relied on the concepts of promotion and prevention

focus (Higgins, 1997). They maintained that just treatment from

organizational representatives instills employees with a sense of safety, which

may lead them to be more concerned with behaving according to their ideal

by seeking to aspire and grow, as indicated by performance and self-esteem.

Injustice experiences, on the other hand, leave employees feeling unsafe,

which triggers cognitive preoccupation with the treatment and an emotional

and behavioral tendency to act against this treatment, as manifested in hostility

and counterproductive behavior. With respect to the impact on health, this

could mean that whether justice or injustice has stronger effects depends on

the kind of indicators of health and well-being being studied. For instance,

sickness absence may be more strongly predicted by injustice than justice,

72

whereas psychological need fulfillment and psychological well-being is more

strongly predicted by justice than injustice.

It also seems that individuals focus on different justice aspects depending

on whether they are recalling fair or unfair events (Cojuharenco & Patient,

2013). One study has found that when individuals recall fair experiences, they

mainly focus on outcome allocations (distributive justice), whereas when

recalling unfair experiences, generally more information regarding different

justice aspects is provided, especially with regard to interactional justice

aspects. The authors of this study speculate that this may have something to

do with individuals scrutinizing unfair events more closely and thus having a

more thorough picture than for fair experiences. As most individuals expect

fair treatment from their organizations (see also Jones & Skarlicki, 2013),

employees may ruminate and think about unjust experiences much longer than

they would otherwise value just experiences, which is consistent with the

principles of negativity bias and bad-is-more-predictive-than-good (Bies,

2001; Gilliland, 2008). Therefore, the mediating role of mental preoccupation

with work (part of Study II) should be stronger for injustice experiences than

for justice experiences.

While some suggest that justice and injustice may not be on the same

continuum (Hillebrandt & Barclay, 2013), others argue that justice and

injustice facets are at two opposing ends of a continuum (Colquitt et al., 2014).

However, Colquitt et al. (2014) suggested that overall justice and overall

injustice may be two independent concepts, such that an organization can be

fair in some respects, for instance, by mostly allocating resources fairly, and

unfair in others, for instance, by chronically disrespecting its employees. The

independence of justice and injustice might also mean that a lack of injustice

may not be as good as justice or lack of justice (see Gilliland, 2008). These

few empirical studies show that future research on justice is needed to

understand whether it is indeed better to conceptualize justice and injustice as

different concepts or as different states of the same concept as well as to

determine to what extent it may depend on the outcome studied.

Organizational justice from a stress perspective

In this thesis, injustice has often been considered a stressor (Vermunt &

Steensma, 2001) that provokes stress responses, and stress theories have been

pointed out as being important for the study of the relationship between justice

and health (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Vahtera, 2002; Robbins et al., 2012).

Vermunt and Steensma (2001) suggested in their injustice–stress theory that

injustice is a stressor, and Cropanzano et al. (2005) concluded that injustice

should be added to the list of workplace stressors. Considering injustice as a

stressor has interesting implications. Stress theories may shed some light on

the nature of injustice as a stressor.

Study I applied the demand–control(–support) model (J. V. Johnson &

Hall, 1988; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) in which job demands are clearly

73

defined as overload, role conflict or role ambiguity. It conceptualizes job

demands and job control as being tied to the work tasks themselves rather than

to the organization. In such an approach, organizational justice cannot be

considered as a kind of job demand or job control. However, from the

perspective of the job demands–resources model of Bakker and Demerouti

(2007), organizational justice can be conceptualized in relation to demands

and resources. In the job demands–resources model, emotional, mental, and

physical job demands are differentiated from job resources. Job demands

refers to various aspects of the job that exhaust the mental and physical

energies of individuals, which leads to depletion and health problems. For

instance, high work pressure, emotionally demanding interactions, and

unfavorable physical environments exert a toll on individuals. Job resources –

which help in the fulfillment of work-related goals, reduce the costs of job

demands, and stimulate growth and learning – lead to increased motivation,

engagement, and extra-role behavior. They include pay, job security, support,

participation in decision-making, role clarity, task significance, and

performance feedback. In their theory, Bakker and Demerouti suggest that job

demands trigger a health impairment process and that job resources trigger a

motivating process. Justice theories such as the group engagement model,

social exchange theory, and fairness heuristics theory (Blau, 1964; Lind,

2001a; Tyler & Blader, 2003) predict that perceiving justice will have a

motivational impact on employees. Therefore, one could construe

organizational justice as a kind of job resources. The justice–stress theory

(Vermunt & Steensma, 2001) along with evidence from studies on injustice

as health risk factor (Elovainio, Kivimäki, Eccles, & Sinervo, 2002) would

suggest that a health impairment process takes place. On the basis of this

perspective, one could construe organizational injustice or lack of justice as a

kind of job demand. The application of the demands–resources model (Bakker

& Demerouti, 2007) to organizational justice seems to point in conflicting

directions regarding whether justice should be regarded as a job demand or a

job resource. However, taking into consideration the potential differences

between justice and injustice, as two different concepts, may reconcile the

issue. It may be that justice triggers a stronger motivational process whereas

injustice elicits a stronger health impairment process. Further, Bakker and

Demerouti suggest that demands and resources may interact, such that job

resources may buffer job demands and, also, that job resources are more

salient when job demands are high. Applying this to justice and injustice,

given that they can be conceptualized and measured as separate concepts,

would suggest that justice and injustice may also interact with one another.

There is another prominent stress theory that has not been used in the three

studies comprising this thesis but which could be relevant when differentiating

between justice and injustice. The conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll,

1989) describes psychological stress as an individual’s reaction to his/her

environment when losing or fearing a loss of resources or when a gain in

resources was expected but did not happen. The theory proposes that only

74

resources need to be taken into account. Different types of resources, such as

valued conditions, personal characteristics, and energies, are differentiated.

Valued conditions, such as tenure or seniority, can have salutary effects, for

instance, on creating strong interpersonal relationships when the conditions

are positive for the individual. Personal characteristics, also called general

resistance resources, refer to personal orientations toward the world, and can

buffer against stress. Energies refer to resources that aid in the acquisition of

other resources, such as money and knowledge. Instrumental models of justice

(Thibaut & Walker, 1975) advance that individuals are vested in justice

because it promotes influence and control and also guarantees valued

resources, including promotions, benefits, and rewards. Justice may therefore

also be a resource or, in Hobfoll’s categorization, an energy. More generally,

justice perceptions may have a role in the stress process. When facing a

potential work stressor, individuals who are treated fairly by their organization

are more likely to assume that they will be able to call on organizational

resources for support, as justice perceptions are used to interpret one’s

standing in the organization (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992).

Employees may also feel more confident about receiving compensation when

they are coping with a work stressor for the organization’s sake. As a result,

justice perception may also be a fundamental moderator of the relationships

among resources, threats, and stress reactions. According to conservation of

resources theory, individuals need to gather resources to avoid a resource loss

spiral. In the case of injustice, it may be that individuals turn towards other

sources, such as the supervisor, to retain and protect their self-worth, sense of

belonging, sense of control, and trust in their organization. However, Hobfoll

would perhaps regard justice and injustice as the same concept although on

opposite ends of the scale, as only resources and not demands are critical for

understanding stress (Hobfoll, 1989).

In conclusion, incorporating stress frameworks into the area of

organizational justice raises questions about whether justice and injustice

constitute job demands or job resources, and, if the latter, which type of

resource it is, and how it can shape stressor–strain relations. These will be

interesting questions to pursue after the conceptual differences and

measurement issues have been clarified for the concepts of justice and

injustice.

Practical implications

This thesis highlights the role that justice plays in promoting positive work

outcomes and health for both employees and business owner-managers.

Several practical guidelines have been given (Cropanzano et al., 2007;

Greenberg, 2004) on what to be aware of in order to shape employees’ justice

perceptions positively. Results of the studies comprising this thesis provide

additional insights. The results of Study I revealed that justice perceptions and

75

job characteristics have main effects, which shows that organizations should

focus both on promoting perceptions of fairness and on job design efforts to

create good working conditions. The negative effects that perceiving less

justice had on work attitudes and well-being were aggravated by high

demands, low control, and low support, respectively. Therefore, organizations

should not regard matters of fairness lightly, even when employees have

favorable job characteristics.

The results of Study II suggest that in order to ensure that employees have

enough resources and energy left over to commit themselves to taking on new

challenges and work, it may be worthwhile to create options for employees

that are designed to lessen or combat stress and its physiological reactions.

This may include on-the-job and off-the-job options for recovery, including

time for physical exercise, hobbies, family, and friends (Oerlemans, Bakker,

& Demerouti, 2014; Zijlstra & Sonnentag, 2006). Also, workplaces could

offer greater work-scheduling autonomy in order to provide employees with

time to spend on non-work activities. These activities may counter the

elicitation of mental preoccupation with work when injustice is perceived at

work (Zijlstra, Cropley, & Rydstedt, 2014). It was shown that an internal locus

of control was able to buffer being mentally preoccupied with work when

perceiving injustice. Therefore, it may be valuable to aim at fostering certain

individual characteristics, such as locus of control, through cognitive-

behavioral therapy (Vincent, Walsh, & Lewycky, 2010). In general,

organizations may want to invest in interventions aimed at reducing mental

preoccupation with work in relation to injustice and increasing recovery

experiences in order to improve employee well-being (see also Barclay &

Skarlicki, 2009; Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).

The results of Study III suggest that justice enactment may lead to positive

or negative consequences for owner-managers depending on which facet of

justice is enacted. Behaving in an interpersonally fair manner was positively

related to the health of actors. Also, adhering to informational justice rules had

positive consequences on feeling professionally recognized. Selection and

formal training opportunities are often limited for business owners. Therefore,

learning to identify others who can serve as role models might be a useful

skills for business owners who want to manage their employees in line with

justice principles. These role models may be able to exhibit how to apply

various justice rules to promote fairness in various situations. For managers in

organizations, apart from mentoring and role modeling programs, selection

procedures and training options for promoting fairness may be very useful

(Brown & Treviño, 2006). Also, efficacy beliefs, which were found to have a

key role in enacting justice, could be incorporated into or given more emphasis

in training programs. Although evidence is lacking, it is likely that justice self-

efficacy can be trained through role playing and case studies (Frayne &

Latham, 1987; Schutte, 2014). As the number and socio-economic

significance of small and medium-sized enterprises is enormous, interventions

to protect and enhance the health and well-being of business owners are of

76

paramount importance. The costs associated with ill-health are extremely high

for both employees and managers. Justice has been shown to be an important

factor for the well-being of employees as well as owner-managers. The next

step is for research and practice to work even more closely together to design

programs and interventions that foster justice at the workplace (Greenberg,

2006; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996).

Conclusions

Justice is important to people – especially when there is not enough of it. This

is also true at the workplace. Everyone can relate this, either by having

experienced it firsthand or through knowing somebody who was treated

unfairly at their job. Going to a workplace every day where injustice rules is

difficult. In fact, many people who experience unfairness at the workplace are

demotivated, dissatisfied, unhappy, sick, ready to leave, and even ready to take

revenge. With this as a starting point, this thesis set out to investigate the

relationships between organizational justice and work and health outcomes in

more detail. In the chapters of this thesis, it was pointed out that there is a

large body of research on the direct impact of organizational justice

perceptions on employees’ affective states, cognitions, and behaviors.

Nevertheless, justice scholars still have more evidence to uncover, especially

when it comes to the moderating and mediating processes. This thesis expands

upon the extant literature by (i) investigating moderating factors for the

relationship between organizational justice perceptions and work and health

outcomes, (ii) exploring mental preoccupation with work as a mediating

process by which organizational justice perceptions translate into health

outcomes, and by (iii) putting the focus on the enactors of justice principles

and looking at the well-being outcomes of actors.

The results revealed that employees who perceive overall fair treatment

from their organization and its representatives are not only more likely to be

engaged at work, feel more secure, worry less, and to stay with the

organization, but are also more likely to be mentally and physically healthy.

These positive effects were found to persist over time. Therefore, promoting

fairness at the workplace is likely to lead to better performing organizations.

This thesis contributes to the literature by demonstrating that justice

perceptions have positive effects on work and health outcomes. These effects

were stronger for employees with high job demands, low control over their

work, or low social support from their colleagues. Future research

investigating the relationship between justice and health should therefore

consider the work environment.

Compared to research on the relationships between justice perceptions and

work outcomes, the justice–health research strand is relatively new. The

underlying processes are not well understood and constituted the focus of this

thesis. The allostatic load model was used as a core theoretical framework to

77

guide predictions. When employees feel unfairly treated by their organization

and its representatives, their mental preoccupation with work may increase.

This is especially the case for individuals with an external locus of control,

i.e., people who believe they have little control over their fate. Mental

preoccupation with work, which can express itself in worrying and ruminating

about work-related issues outside of work, was found to be associated with

decreased mental health over time.

In order to expand the scope of justice research, it is important to study not

only employees but also authority figures. In this thesis, a particularly

numerous and economically relevant population was studied: small business

owner-managers. When considering such a population, it is not the receiver of

justice who is the center of attention, as with the traditional perspective in

justice research. Rather, the focus is on the enactor of justice, a recently

emerging trend in justice research. It was found that owner-managers are more

likely to enact justice when they feel a moral obligation towards their

employees, and when they believe they are capable of behaving justly, i.e.,

when they have high justice self-efficacy beliefs. Enacting justice is not an

easy task; it requires self-regulation and self-control, and may trigger negative

health effects. The results showed that enacting informational justice was

related to impaired self-rated health and sleep quality and improved

professional recognition. Interpersonal justice enactment was found to be

positively related to self-rated health. Considering that justice enactment and

justice perceptions are intertwined through trickle-down effects, establishing

the consequences of justice enactment for authority figures may provide the

basis for a new approach to developing fairness in the workplace. Indeed, in

addition to enacting fairness for the benefit of their employees and

organizations, managers may be encouraged to exhibit fair behavior for their

own benefit.

In 1993, Greenberg suggested that organizational justice research was in a

state of ‘intellectual adolescence,’ characterized by an absence of theory, a

lack of central questions that define the area, and measurement issues. With

the meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001) on

the consequences of justice, and the publication of a measure that is still the

most widely used (Colquitt, 2001), researchers ushered the field into a more

mature state. In 2013, Colquitt and colleagues concluded that the literature has

matured in that the definitions, antecedents, and consequences of

organizational justice (perceptions) are agreed upon. This thesis contributes to

the advancement of the field by providing three inter-related approaches to the

study of organizational justice and well-being. It provides insights into the

moderating and mediating processes of justice perceptions and justice

enactment for employees and business owners.

78

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-289). New York US: Academic Press.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 803-812.

Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 266-275.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295-305.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009a). Assessing roadblocks to justice: A model of fair behavior in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio & H. Liao (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 28, pp. 219-263): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009b). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-500.

Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 678-689.

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947-965.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

Andersson, K. (1986). Utveckling och prövning av ett frågeformulärsystem rörande arbetsmiljö och hälsostillstånd [Development and testing of a

79

questionnaire concerning the work environment and health] (Vol. Report 2). Örebrö: Yrkesmedicinska kliniken.

Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 1001-1029.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-286.

Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin, E. M. (2007). Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work autonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479-495.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Bal, P. M., de Lange, A. H., Ybema, J. F., Jansen, P. G. W., & van der Velde, M. E. G. (2011). Age and trust as moderators in the relation between procedural justice and turnover: A large-scale longitudinal study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(1), 66-86.

Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the wounds of organizational injustice: Examining the benefits of expressive writing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 511-523.

Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629-643.

Barclay, L. J., Whiteside, D. B., & Aquino, K. (2014). To avenge or not to avenge? Exploring the interactive effects of moral identity and the negative reciprocity norm. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 15-28.

Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286-295.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.

80

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351-355.

Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 391-405.

Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 41-47.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199.

Black, D. C., & Drost, D. (2011). Health at work - an independent review of sickness absence. UK: The Stationery Office Limited.

Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994-1014.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Justice and empathy: What motivates people to help others? In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 226-250). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). How can theories of organizational justice explain the effects of fairness. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 329-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464.

Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bloom, D. E., Cafiero, E. T., Jané-Llopis, E., Abrahams-Gessel, S., Bloom, L.

R., Fathima, S., . . . Weinstein, C. (2011). The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Fairness as social responsibility: A moral self‐regulation account of procedural

81

justice enactment. British Journal of Management, 22(Suppl 1), S47-S58.

Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189-208.

Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 1043-1049.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Browne, M. W., MacCallum, R. C., Kim, C., Andersen, B. L., & Glaser, R. (2002). When fit indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 403-421.

Buysse, D. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI): A new instrument for psychiatric research and practice. Psychiatry Research, 28(2), 193-213.

Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The history of organizational justice: The founders speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P. J., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chay, Y. W. (1993). Social support, individual differences and well-being: A study of small business entrepreneurs and employees. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 66(4), 285-302.

Chen, Z., Zhang, X., Leung, K., & Zhou, F. (2010). Exploring the interactive effect of time control and justice perception on job attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(2), 181-197.

Choi, J. (2008). Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 513-528.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

82

Cojuharenco, I., & Patient, D. (2013). Workplace fairness versus unfairness: Examining the differential salience of facets of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 371-393.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Two decades of organizational justice: Findings, controversies, and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior: Volume 1 - Micro Approaches (pp. 73-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 526-547). New York: Oxford University Press.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 165-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do we stand? In J. A. Colquitt & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 589-619). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1-15.

Colquitt, J. A., Long, D. M., Rodell, J. B., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2014). Adding the “in” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038131.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 110-127.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236.

Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 113 -152). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

83

Conger, J. J. (1956). Alcoholism: Theory, problem, and challenge. II. Reinforcement theory and the dynamics of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 17(2), 296-305.

Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2012). The effect of followers’ belongingness needs on leaders’ procedural fairness enactment: Mediation through interpersonal and team attraction. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(1), 31-39.

Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). When leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders' adherence to procedural fairness rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 605-613.

Crawshaw, J. R., Cropanzano, R., Bell, C. M., & Nadisic, T. (2013). Organizational justice: New insights from behavioural ethics. Human Relations, 66(7), 885-904.

Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.

Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2 ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209.

Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Benson, L. I. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of Work Stress (pp. 63-89). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol 20. (pp. 1-123). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Cropanzano, R., Stein, J. H., & Nadisic, T. (2011). Social justice and the experience of emotion. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Cropley, M., Michalianou, G., Pravettoni, G., & Millward, L. J. (2012). The relation of post-work ruminative thinking with eating behaviour. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(1), 23-30.

De Cremer, D. (2005). Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1), 4-13.

De Cremer, D., & Alberts, H. J. E. M. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how positive I feel: The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness need. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(3), 333-344.

84

De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2004). How self-relevant is fair treatment? Social self-esteem moderates interactional justice effects. Social Justice Research, 17(4), 407-419.

de Jonge, J., & Kompier, M. A. J. (1997). A critical examination of the Demand-Control-Support Model from a work psychological perspective. International Journal of Stress Management, 4(4), 235-258.

de Lange, A. H., Kompier, M. A. J., Taris, T. W., Geurts, S. A. E., Beckers, D. G. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2009). A hard day's night: A longitudinal study on the relationships among job demands and job control, sleep quality and fatigue. Journal of Sleep Research, 18(3), 374-383.

de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). 'The Very Best of the Millennium': Longitudinal Research and the Demand-Control-(Support) Model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282-305.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374-391.

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.

Dewa, C. S., Corbiere, M., Duran, M.-J., & Hensel, J. (2012). Challenges related to mental health in the workplace. In R. J. Gatchel & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health and Wellness (pp. 105-130). New York: Springer.

Diekmann, K. A., Sondak, H., & Barsness, Z. I. (2007). Does fairness matter more to some than to others? The moderating role of workplace status on the relationship between procedural fairness perceptions and job satisfaction. Social Justice Research, 20(2), 161-180.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.

Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work environments, stress, and productivity: An examination using ASSET. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 409-423.

Elovainio, M., Ferrie, J. E., Singh-Manoux, A., Gimeno, D., De Vogli, R., Shipley, M., . . . Kivimaki, M. (2010). Organisational justice and markers of inflammation: the Whitehall II study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 67(2), 78-83.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Eccles, M., & Sinervo, T. (2002). Team climate and procedural justice as predictors of occupational strain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 359-374.

85

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Organizational justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 418-424.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 105-108.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., & Virtanen, M. (2003). Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and health. Health Psychology, 22(3), 287-293.

Elovainio, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Vahtera, J., & Kivimäki, M. (2006). Justice at work and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61(2), 271-274.

Elovainio, M., Linna, A., Virtanen, M., Oksanen, T., Kivimäki, M., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2013). Perceived organizational justice as a predictor of long-term sickness absence due to diagnosed mental disorders: Results from the prospective longitudinal Finnish public sector study. Social Science & Medicine, 91, 39-47.

Elovainio, M., van den Bos, K., Linna, A., Kivimäki, M., Ala-Mursula, L., Pentti, J., & Vahtera, J. (2005). Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: Testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Social Science & Medicine, 61(12), 2501-2512.

Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 395-406.

European Foundation. (2009). Convergence and divergence of working conditions in Europe: 1990–2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(2), 161-188.

Fernet, C., Austin, S., Trépanier, S.-G., & Dussault, M. (2013). How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Exploring the distinct mediating roles of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 123-137.

Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In S. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 3-33). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

86

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). Social hierarchies and the evolution of moral emotions. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial Ethics (pp. 207-234). New York, NY: Routledge.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Fen-is (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of "voice" and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253-2261.

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 79-87.

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2001). Fairness as a dependent variable: Why tough times can lead to bad management. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 97-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ford, M. T., & Huang, J. (2014). The health consequences of organizational injustice. In S. Leka & R. R. Sinclair (Eds.), Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 35-50). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 93-126.

Fortin, M., Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & German, H. (2014). It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.1958

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309.

Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 387-392.

Fujishiro, K., & Heaney, C. A. (2009). Justice at work, job stress, and employee health. Health Education & Behavior, 36(3), 487-504.

Fusilier, M. R., Ganster, D. C., & Mayes, B. T. (1987). Effects of social support, role stress, and locus of control on health. Journal of Management, 13(3), 517-528.

Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085-1122.

Ganzel, B. L., Morris, P. A., & Wethington, E. (2010). Allostasis and the human brain: Integrating models of stress from the social and life sciences. Psychological Review, 117(1), 134-174.

Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic

87

health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 32(6), 482-492.

Gibbs, P. C., & Burnett, S. B. (2011). Well-Being at work, a new way of doing things? A journey through yesterday, today and tomorrow. In A.-S. Antoniou & C. Cooper (Eds.), New Directions in Organisational Psychology and Behavioral Medicine (pp. 25-42). Farnham, Surrey, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

Gilliland, S. (2008). The tails of justice: A critical examination of the dimensionality of organizational justice constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 271-281.

Goldberg, D. (1979). Manual of the general health questionnaire. London: NFER Nelson.

Goldman, B., & Cropanzano, R. (2014). “Justice” and “fairness” are not the same thing. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.1956

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity. Human Relations, 66(7), 925-950.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1993a). The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way, maybe. Social Justice Research, 6(1), 135-148.

Greenberg, J. (1993b). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Greenberg, J. (2001a). Setting the justice agenda: Seven unanswered questions about "what, why, and how". Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 210-219.

Greenberg, J. (2001b). The seven loose can(n)ons of organizational justice. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 245-271): Stanford University Press.

Greenberg, J. (2001c). Studying organizational justice cross-culturally: fundamental challenges. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 365-375.

Greenberg, J. (2004). Stress fairness to fare no stress: Managing workplace stress by promoting organizational justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352-365.

Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 58-69.

Greenberg, J. (2010). Organizational injustice as an occupational health risk. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 205-243.

88

Haar, J. M., & Spell, C. S. (2009). How does distributive justice affect work attitudes? The moderating effects of autonomy. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1827-1842.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Hagedoorn, M., Buunk, B. P., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Opening the black box between justice and reactions to unfavorable outcomes in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 11(1), 41-57.

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495-525.

Hansen, A. M., Byrne, Z. S., & Kiersch, C. E. (2013). Development and Validation of an Abridged Measure of Organizational Justice. Journal of Psychology, 147(3), 217-244.

Harlos, K. P., & Pinder, C. C. (1999). Patterns of organizational injustice: A taxonomy of what employees regard as unjust. In J. A. Wagner, III (Ed.), Advances in qualitative organization research, Vol. 2. (pp. 97-125). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

Hauenstein, N. M. A., McGonigle, T., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice: Implications for justice research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13(1), 39-56.

Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M. (2011). Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 872-880.

Häusser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A review of recent research on the job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1-35.

Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 179-195.

Heponiemi, T., Elovainio, M., Pekkarinen, L., Sinervo, T., & Kouvonen, A. (2008). The effects of job demands and low job control on work-family conflict: The role of fairness in decision making and management. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3), 387-398.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.

Hillebrandt, A., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Integrating organizational justice and affect: New insights, challenges, and opportunities. Social Justice Research, 26(4), 513-531.

Hjarsbech, P. U., Christensen, K. B., Bjorner, J. B., Madsen, I. E., Thorsen, S. V., Carneiro, I. G., . . . Rugulies, R. (2014). A multi-wave study of

89

organizational justice at work and long-term sickness absence among employees with depressive symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health, 40(2), 176-185.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Hoel, H., Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). The costs of violence/stress at work and the benefits of a violence/stress-free working environment. Geneva: Report Commissioned by the International Labour Organization

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1099-1116.

Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1185-1199.

Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., & van Dijke, M. (2013). When do leaders grant voice? How leaders’ perceptions of followers’ control and belongingness needs affect the enactment of fair procedures. Human Relations, 66(7), 973-992.

Huiwen, L., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 651-664.

Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21-37.

Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.

Jex, S. M., & Crossley, C. D. (2005). Organizational consequences. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of Work Stress (pp. 575-601). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78(10), 1336-1342.

90

Johnson, J. V., Hall, E. M., & Theorell, T. (1989). Combined effects of job strain and social isolation on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in a random sample of the Swedish male working population. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 15(4), 271-279.

Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 635-650.

Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: The formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1025-1051.

Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(2), 138-160.

Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 395-404.

Juster, R.-P., McEwen, B. S., & Lupien, S. J. (2010). Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1), 2-16.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.

Kausto, J., Elo, A.-L., Lipponen, J., & Elovainio, M. (2005). Moderating effects of job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice and employee well-being: Gender differences. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(4), 431-452.

Kern, M. L., Waters, L., Adler, A., & White, M. (2014). Assessing employee wellbeing in schools using a multifaceted approach: Associations with physical health, life satisfaction, and professional thriving. Psychology, 5(6), 500-513.

Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., Virtanen, M., & Siegrist, J. (2007). Effort-reward imbalance, procedural injustice and relational injustice as psychosocial predictors of health: complementary or redundant models? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64(10), 659-665.

Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474.

Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on manager's interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 731-744.

91

Kudielka, B. M., Von Känel, R., Gander, M.-L., & Fischer, J. E. (2004). Effort-reward imbalance, overcommitment and sleep in a working population. Work & Stress, 18(2), 167-178.

Lawson, K. J., Noblet, A. J., & Rodwell, J. J. (2009). Promoting employee wellbeing: The relevance of work characteristics and organizational justice. Health Promotion International, 24(3), 223-233.

LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York: Plenum. Lerner, M. J. (1981). The justice motive in human relations: Some thoughts

on what we know and need to know about justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 11–35). New York: Plenum.

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377-383.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The Impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242-256.

Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A. (2001b). Thinking critically about the justice judgments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 220-226.

Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181-223). Boston: Elsevier.

92

Lipponen, J., Koivisto, S., & Olkkonen, M.-E. (2005). Procedural justice and status judgements: The moderating role of leader ingroup prototypicality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 517-528.

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NJ: Guildford Press.

Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 497-519.

Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 207-230): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151-173.

Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 357-365.

Martin, M. W. (2007). Happiness and virtue in positive psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1), 89-103.

Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees' and customers' perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594-604.

Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice behaviors. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & K. van den Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 79–103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1(840), 33-44.

McEwen, B. S. (2008). Central effects of stress hormones in health and disease: Understanding the protective and damaging effects of stress and stress mediators. European Journal of Pharmacology, 583, 174-185.

McEwen, B. S., & Seeman, T. (1999). Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress. Elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 30-47.

93

Michel, A., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). I scratch your back—you scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees' cooperation during change? Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 41-59.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245-268.

Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational citizenship behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355-380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774-789.

Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 652-668.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Näswall, K., Låstad, L., Vetting, T.-S., Larsson, R., Richter, A., & Sverke, M. (2010). Job insecurity from a gender perspective: Data collection and psychometric properties: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1999). Stress at work: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). The economic burden of occupational fatal injuries to civilian workers in the United States based on the census of fatal occupational injuries, 1992-2002.

Ndjaboué, R., Brisson, C., & Vézina, M. (2012). Organisational justice and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 69(10), 694-700.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410.

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087.

Nicklin, J., McNall, L., Cerasoli, C., Strahan, S., & Cavanaugh, J. (2014). The role of overall organizational justice perceptions within the four-dimensional framework. Social Justice Research, 27(2), 243-270.

94

Nowakowski, J. M., & Conlon, D. E. (2005). Organizational justice: Looking back, looking forward. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1), 4-29.

Oerlemans, W. G. M., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). How feeling happy during off-job activities helps successful recovery from work: A day reconstruction study. Work and Stress, 28(2), 198-216.

Parslow, R. A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., Strazdins, L., & D'Souza, R. M. (2004). The associations between work stress and mental health: A comparison of organizationally employed and self-employed workers. Work & Stress, 18(3), 231-244.

Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers don't always do the right thing when delivering bad news: The roles of empathy, self-esteem, and moral development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & K. van den Bos (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149-178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager’s empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36(2), 555-578.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Prottas, D. J., & Thompson, C. A. (2006). Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: A comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 366-378.

Querstret, D., & Cropley, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between work-related rumination, sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(3), 341-353.

Quick, J. C., Cooper, C. L., Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. D., & Gavin, J. H. (2003). Stress, health, and well-being at work. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science (pp. 53-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270-1286.

Reynolds, S. J., Leavitt, K., & DeCelles, K. A. (2010). Automatic ethics: The effects of implicit assumptions and contextual cues on moral behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 752-760.

Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 235-272.

Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. (2011). Well-Being: Productivity and Happiness at Work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

95

Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. (2009). Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice in an organizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 989-1002.

Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451.

Roe, R. A. (2014). Test validity from a temporal perspective: Incorporating time in validation research. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 754-768.

Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aubé, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 305-317.

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159-185.

Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 971-978.

Schjoedt, L. (2013). The influence of work-and-family conflict on male entrepreneurs’ life satisfaction: a comparison of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(1), 45-65.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 294-304.

Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 443-453.

Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 8, 385-407.

Schutte, N. S. (2014). The broaden and build process: Positive affect, ratio of positive to negative affect and general self-efficacy. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 66-74.

Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the Big Five. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 290-325.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: the role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 756-769.

96

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1597-1609.

Scott, B. A., Garza, A., Conlon, D., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the first place? A daily investigation of "hot" and "cold" motives and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1571-1591.

Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 263-301.

Shapiro, D. (2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the “wheels” already invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 235–242.

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41.

Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58(8), 1483-1499.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476.

Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (2000). The interactive effect of job involvement and organizational commitment on job turnover revisited: A note on the mediating role of turnover intention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 3, 247-252.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 100-108.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 161-169.

Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309-341.

Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482-497.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.

Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 1-12.

97

Spencer, S., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). Angry, guilty, and conflicted: Injustice toward coworkers heightens emotional labor through cognitive and emotional mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 429-444.

Stein, J. H., Steinley, D., & Cropanzano, R. (2011). How and why terrorism corrupts the consistency principle of organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(7), 984-1007.

Stephan, U., & Roesler, U. (2010). Health of entrepreneurs versus employees in a national representative sample. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 717-738.

Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2007). A meta-analysis of achievement motivation differences between entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(4), 401-421.

Sverke, M., & Sjöberg, A. (1994). Dual commitment to company and union in Sweden: An examination of predictors and taxonomic split methods. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 15(4), 531-564.

Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Locus of control as a moderator of the relationship between perceived influence and procedural justice. Human Relations, 44(4), 333-342.

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

Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39–64.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10.

Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 839-865.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.

van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931-941.

98

van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60). Boston: Elsevier.

Van Den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493-1503.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277-294.

van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1998). The job demand-control(-support) model and physical health outcomes: A review of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 13(5), 909-936.

van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & Stress, 13(2), 87-114.

van der Vliet, C., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The modern working life: Its impact on employee attitudes, performance and health SALTSA report 4. Sweden: National Institute for Working Life & SALTSA.

van Houwelingen, G., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2014). Fairness Enactment as Response to Higher Level Unfairness: The Roles of Self-Construal and Spatial Distance. Journal of Management.

van Olffen, W., & de Cremer, D. (2007). Who cares about organizational justice? How personality moderates the effects of perceived fairness on organizational attachment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 386-406.

van Prooijen, J.-W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1166-1180.

van Prooijen, J.-W., De Cremer, D., van Beest, I., Ståhl, T., van Dijke, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2008). The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1303-1315.

Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2001). Stress and justice in organizations: An exploration into justice processes with the aim to find mechanisms to reduce stress. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2). (pp. 27-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vermunt, R., & Steensma, H. (2003). Physiological relaxation: Stress reduction through fair treatment. Social Justice Research, 16(2), 135-149.

Vincent, N., Walsh, K., & Lewycky, S. (2010). Sleep locus of control and computerized cognitive-behavioral therapy (cCBT). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(8), 779-783.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with

99

work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193-203.

von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2011). Inability to withdraw from work as related to poor next‐day recovery and fatigue among women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(3), 377-396.

Vrijkotte, T. G. M., van Doornen, L. J. P., & de Geus, E. J. C. (2004). Overcommitment to work is associated with changes in cardiac sympathetic regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(5), 656-663.

Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Exploring the effects of individual customer incivility encounters on employee incivility: The moderating roles of entity (in)civility and negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 151-161.

Walsh, J. T., Taber, T. D., & Beehr, T. A. (1980). An integrated model of perceived job characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 252-267.

Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Echoes of silence: Employee silence as a mediator between overall justice and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 251-266.

WHO. (1946). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2) (pp. 100). Geneva: World Health Organization.

WHO. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization.

WHO. (2008). PRIMA-EF: Guidance on the European framework for psychosocial risk management: A resource for employers and work representatives. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1235-1253.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 145-169.

Zijlstra, F. R. H., Cropley, M., & Rydstedt, L. W. (2014). From recovery to regulation: An attempt to reconceptualize 'recovery from work'. Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 30(3), 244-252.

Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). After work is done: Psychological perspectives on recovery from work. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 129-138.