Content uploaded by Zhenyu Liao
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zhenyu Liao on Mar 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Zhenyu Liao
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zhenyu Liao on Feb 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Disentangling the Relational Approach to Organizational Justice:
Meta-Analytic and Field Tests of Distinct Roles of Social Exchange and Social Identity
Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang
Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E. Johnson*
Forthcoming in the Journal of Applied Psychology
ABSTRACT
Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two
pivotal proxies for the relational approach to studying organizational justice. Despite their
distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms
complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their
disparate fundamental premises—“reciprocity” underpinning social exchanges and “oneness”
underpinning identity construction—we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of
these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105
independent samples (N = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study
with 1,941 cross-day observations over three weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs.
Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effects of
justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent
identity) account for more of the indirect effects of justice on counterproductive work behavior.
Regarding the indirect effects on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based
mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms
respectively present greater utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into
the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research
encourages a more granular theoretical approach to studying organizational justice effects.
Keywords: organizational justice, social exchange, social identity, relative mediating power
Acknowledgments. We would like to express our deep appreciation to Zhaoli Song, who brought the first three
authors together during the PhD study and provided strong mentorship and support to develop them. His efforts
paved the way for the collective scholarly exploration of this work. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Umphress
and Marie S. Mitchell for their thoughtful comments. This research has benefited from the financial support of
Lingnan University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 71802188), and the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education of
China (Grant No. 18YJC630277). The first two authors contributed equally. All errors are our own.
* Zhenyu Liao, Northeastern University (liaozhenyu@northeastern.edu); Nan Wang, Lingnan University
(nanwang2@ln.edu.hk); Jinlong Zhu, Renmin University of China (zhujinlong@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn); Tingting Chen,
Lingnan University (tingtingchen@ln.edu.hk); Russell E. Johnson, Michigan State University
(johnsonr@broad.msu.edu).
© 2024, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors' permission.
The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/apl0001193
2
Organizational justice—the perceived fairness of decision outcomes and processes, and
the enactment of such outcomes and processes at work—has evolved as a prominent theoretical
account for variations in key work outcomes of employees (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt et al.,
2013). Although multiple theoretical approaches have been identified to explain fundamental
mechanisms underlying justice effects, the relational approach—which highlights fair treatment
as an essential element of social interactions that signals how individuals are valued and
embedded in a social context—has emerged as a prominent theoretical paradigm in the extant
literature (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Tyler & Lind, 1992). This approach primarily encompasses
two streams of scholarly inquiry. One is premised on social exchange theory, positing that justice
enactment derives economic and socioemotional resources desired by employees and engenders
their reciprocal actions as a result of the development of mutually supportive, respectful, and
trusting relationships with the supervisor and work group/organization (Blau, 1964; Moorman,
1991). The other stream is rooted in social identity theory, suggesting that fair treatment leads
employees to cooperate by fostering a positive sense of self-worth and by identifying the self
with external social entities (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
Despite their separate theoretical groundings, less is known about the subtle nuances of
the role that social exchange and social identity perspectives, as complementary components of
the relational approach, play in explicating justice effects. While some scholars have considered
them as seemingly interchangeable mechanisms that “come to quite similar conclusions” about
how justice shapes pivotal work outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2001, p. 40), cumulative evidence
explaining effects on voluntary cooperation appears “at odds with the predictions of exchange-
based mechanisms yet more consistent with those of identity-based mechanisms” (Tyler, 2012,
p. 349). Adding to this disparity, Colquitt et al. (2013) found that exchange-based mechanisms
3
had unexpectedly low power in transmitting justice effects to counterproductive work behavior
(CWB), although the mechanisms did present significant effects in predicting task performance
and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Their findings stand in sharp contrast to well-
documented evidence that justice increases norm conformity by establishing identification with
relational partners and groups (Johnson & Lord, 2010; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Yang et
al., 2013). Such fragmentary, inconsistent theoretical exposition necessitates a systematic
recalibration of the unique utility of the two mechanisms in accounting for justice effects.
The theoretical imperative for more nuanced knowledge of the relational approach is
further intensified by an emerging trend of studying within-person variation in response to the
rise and fall of justice in a shorter time frame (Ferris et al., 2012; Koopman et al., 2020; Matta et
al., 2017). Focusing on how daily justice affects momentary psychological states, recent studies
have revealed that employees display varying degrees of state-based fluctuations in perceived
exchange relationship quality, self-worth, and identification. However, it remains unclear
whether such intrapersonal dynamics provide an alternative angle for exploring the uncovered
differences between exchange- and identity-based mechanisms or whether they inadvertently
exacerbate existing theoretical ambiguity. Research thus far has rarely disentangled the specific
criterion-related validity of these two mechanisms with work outcomes in different temporal
contexts. This constrains the development of a fine-grained understanding of how the relational
approach helps explicate the occurrence of justice effects, confining the scope of contributions
that justice research could bring to the broader management literature.
In this research, we examine the relative mediating power of exchange- and identity-
based mechanisms for justice effects on key work outcomes (i.e., task performance, OCB, and
CWB) by tracing back to their distinct theoretical premises. The reciprocity principle of social
4
exchange propels employees to perform reciprocal actions in an optimal way that allows them to
deliver obligatory contributions without forgoing the pursuit of personal gains (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005), resulting in greater utility in predicting task performance. The “oneness”
rationale of social identity entails formulating one’s evaluative- and cognitive-based self-concept
from affiliations and interactions with a social group, motivating behaviors that enhance the
welfare of one’s group and its members and that adhere to group norms and rules (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). Identity-based mechanisms may demonstrate stronger power in mediating justice
effects on OCB and CWB. We combined a meta-analytic review with a preregistered experience
sampling study for theory testing. Our work takes an initial step toward developing theoretical
consensus about the nuanced roles of two pivotal mechanisms of the relational approach in
explicating justice effects from both static and daily dynamic perspectives (Hollenbeck, 2008).
Rationales of Social Exchange and Social Identity for Justice Effects
The relational approach primarily studies justice effects
1
from the perspectives of social
exchange and social identity. The social exchange framework of justice, which is governed by
the reciprocity principle (Gouldner, 1960), posits that justice enactment by group authorities
provides tangible and intangible resources for employees, facilitating the development of high-
quality relationships with authorities and/or the groups they represent. Employees feel obligated
to contribute equivalent levels of work inputs as reciprocation for what they received from fair
treatment (Masterson et al., 2000). The social exchange process essentially captures the pursuit
of individual benefits by two self-interested yet interdependent parties, who separate what is
1
Organizational justice is commonly studied at a dimensional level that includes the fairness of outcome decisions
(distributive) and processes (procedural) and the experienced respect and propriety (interpersonal) and transparency
and truthfulness (informational) from decision enactment (Colquitt, 2001). Although prior research suggests that
these dimensions may vary in their prediction of exchange- and identity-based variables (Colquitt et al., 2001),
teasing apart their predictive power is beyond the scope of our research. We follow prior meta-analyses (Colquitt et
al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2014) by hypothesizing about overall justice for theoretical parsimony, yet we consider the
separate dimensions in our empirical analysis for more granularity in result interpretation.
5
considered valuable resources by one another (Emerson, 1976; Lawler, 2000). Employees seek
to maintain an exchange balance by delivering reciprocal contributions for fair treatment in a
strategic way that enables them to maximize personal gains (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
Drawing from social identity theory, identity-based research (e.g., studies involving the
group-value model [Lind & Tyler, 1988], the relational model of authority [Tyler & Lind, 1992],
and the group engagement model [Tyler & Blader, 2003]) argues that fair treatment conveys
important social information for self-concept development, which elicits voluntary cooperative
behavior. Justice affirms employees’ self-worth and social standing within the group, boosting
the evaluative component of the self-concept, such as group-based self-esteem or felt status (i.e.,
positive self-evaluations; Blader & Tyler, 2009). Justice also indicates that it is safe and
beneficial to merge one’s self-concept with the fair party, fostering identity with the group as a
whole and/or with specific members (Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008). Such interdependent identity,
which captures a cognitive component of the self-concept, then propels employees to place the
needs and interests of the group as the driving force of their work behavior (Tyler & Blader,
2003). The common thread underlying both evaluative- and cognitive-based self-concept
development is the sense of “oneness”—that is, the self and the group are integrated as
overlapping psychological entities—which intrinsically motivate employees to enhance the
success of the group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Although both exchange- and identity-based
mechanisms explain justice effects, their distinct underlying motivations to enhance self- versus
group interests and welfare can lead to variations in their mediating power across key outcomes.
Relative Mediating Power of Exchange- and Identity-Based Mechanisms
Task performance. When performing reciprocal actions for fair treatment, employees
seek to contribute work resources that are relatively optimal for them to restore exchange balance
6
with the group and/or members without compromising personal interests (Flynn & Brockner,
2003). Among various work resources, individual task performance—role-prescribed efforts that
produce goods and services pivotal to group success—stands for one of the most proximal
indicators of individual reciprocation because it defines employees’ in-role responsibilities for
the interest of the group (Van Scotter et al., 2000). As a form of universal resource with clear
evaluation criteria, exemplary task performance not only directly benefits the group and its
authority figures and members (Colquitt et al., 2013; Foa & Foa, 1980) but also manifests a high
level of reciprocal contributions that employees have made for the interest of these parties,
thereby helping balance social exchange regardless of the targeted parties. More importantly,
producing high performance is directly linked to employees’ work outputs that could boost
personal interests related to rewards and recognition. Indeed, Flynn (2003) found that employees
varied productivity to offset imbalanced exchanges with groups. Justice research has shown that
justice-triggered high exchange quality with the group or members increases individual
performance (Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 2002).
In contrast, to the extent that justice enhances group-based self-concept development,
employees feel integrated with and thus motivated to benefit the group and members (Blader &
Tyler, 2009). They would prioritize group collective goals, needs, and welfare over individual
work goals and responsibilities, ensuring that their efforts could directly contribute to group
outcomes. They may opt for work approaches that are most conducive to group interests but not
necessarily optimal for individual performance (DeShon et al., 2004) and spend more time
performing cooperative behavior and facilitating collective work. Doing so would siphon the
energy and resources that could be used to enhance personal outcomes (Gabriel et al., 2018),
making identity-based mechanisms less powerful in predicting individual task performance.
7
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The positive indirect effects of justice on task performance via exchange-
based mechanisms will be stronger than those via identity-based mechanisms.
OCB. OCB refers to discretionary actions that are helpful to the group but beyond the
formal job description and are not explicitly rewarded (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). OCB is
other-oriented and not directly beneficial for personal work and can even come at a cost for
personal interests (Bergeron et al., 2013; Van Scotter et al., 2000). Group-oriented studies have
widely documented that fair treatment enhances positive self-evaluations and interdependent
identity, which motivate cooperative behavior such as OCB. Employees, who attach self-worth
to and identify with the group and members due to justice experience, develop a strong sense of
shared destiny with them and internalize the obligation to maximize their welfare (Mael &
Ashforth, 1995). This spurs the psychological driver of “reasons to” for OCB (Parker et al.,
2010). They are motivated to strive for the benefits and welfare of the group beyond personal
interests or even at personal costs (Bolino & Grant, 2016). They would prioritize the needs of the
group and members over those of their own by performing more OCB. However, as alluded to
previously, exchange parties engage in reciprocal actions ultimately to pursue personal gains. To
the extent that OCB is driven by social exchange, it will be confined to the accountable party for
personal benefits (Masterson et al., 2000; Rupp et al., 2014) or will cease at a level that suffices
to maintain an equitable balance (Flynn, 2003; Liao et al., 2019). OCB often requires extra
efforts that go beyond direct exchange targets (Van Dyne et al., 2000) and the level of obligated
reciprocation specified by fair treatment, or even comes at personal costs (Bolino & Turnley,
2005; Koopman et al., 2016). When employees fully internalize group interests, they are
motivated to perform such behavior to a greater degree (Greco et al., 2022; Matta et al., 2020).
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): The positive indirect effects of justice with OCB via identity-based
mechanisms will be stronger than those via exchange-based mechanisms.
8
Aside from “reason to,” OCB entails a “can do” psychological driver as it falls outside
prescribed work roles and requires considerable personal agency and self-efficacy (Parker et al.,
2010). To perform such discretionary actions, employees need to take the initiative to break role
boundaries and exceed the call of duty to facilitate group success. Positive self-evaluations equip
employees with a strong sense of agency (as personal choice appreciated by the group) and
confidence that they can and are capable of going beyond required responsibilities to do extra
work to help the group and members, especially when they are not solicited by others or tasks are
challenging (Van Dyne et al., 2000; Bolino & Grant, 2016). Yet, the strength of the mediating
effect of interdependent identity would be constrained by one’s latent concern about the lack of
agency or incompetence to handle situations calling for OCB. Instead, employees lean toward a
reactive strategy by providing help solicited by the group and members (Lee et al., 2019).
Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Within identity-based mechanisms, the positive indirect effects of justice
on OCB via positive self-evaluations will be stronger than those via interdependent identity.
CWB. When fairness prompts employees to tie their self-concept to the group and its
members, employees internalize and adhere to group values, codes of behavior, norms, and
expectations. They are motivated to refrain from displaying CWB—intentional acts that violate
the rules and legitimate interests of the group (Dalal, 2005)—because doing so would enhance
group functioning and further circle back to reinforce positive self-evaluations and identity
construction (Holmvall & Bobocel, 2008; Johnson & Lord, 2010). However, employees may not
reciprocate fair treatment by mainly relying on restraining CWB because conformity with group
rules and norms is thought to be their code of conduct and fundamental role responsibility. Thus,
reducing CWB does not yield direct benefits for the group or members and is less likely to be
considered an effective reciprocal action (Gouldner, 1960). In situations of negative reciprocity,
to the extent that injustice triggers CWB, it would cease at the level when employees perceive
9
that they make negative exchanges even (Greco et al., 2019). This is because engaging in CWB
consumes substantial personal resources as shown by studies suggesting that norm-violation
behavior often makes employees spend much time and energy either justifying or compensating
for this negative behavior to reduce its negative impact on self-perceptions (Merritt et al., 2010).
However, when employees reject attaching the self to the group due to injustice, they constantly
engage in CWB to serve self-interest without an upper limit (Johnson et al., 2010).
Hypothesis 3a (H3a): The negative indirect effects of justice on CWB via identity-based
mechanisms will be stronger than those via exchange-based mechanisms.
Within identity-based mechanisms, affiliative motives lie at the heart of interdependent
identity, triggering genuine deindividualization (Blader et al., 2017). Conformity to group rules
and norms defines a fundamental requirement for group affiliation as it is both an expression and
an affirmation of employees’ sense of belonging to an interpersonal connection or a group,
leading to strong power in suppressing CWB (Bobocel, 2013). Positive self-evaluations, though
attached to group membership, reflect an emphasis on self-worth and significance. Conformity is
often premised on employees’ personal agreement with those group rules and norms, suggesting
less powerful effects of positive self-evaluation on suppressing CWB. Studies often reveal that
positive self-evaluation indicators are not always negatively related to CWB (Innes et al., 2005).
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Within identity-based mechanisms, the negative indirect effects of justice
on CWB via interdependent identity will be stronger than those via positive self-evaluations.
Overview of Studies
We conducted two studies with complementary methods to test the hypotheses. In Study
1, we meta-analytically reviewed findings from 105 independent study samples (N = 29,868) to
ground our testing in a large body of existing research. In Study 2, we constructively verified and
10
extended the initial findings using a preregistered experience sampling study
2
in which we
surveyed 147 employees and direct supervisors over three weeks to capture the daily ebbs and
flows in justice experiences and ensuing outcomes. Study 2 was reviewed and approved by the
Research Ethics and Safety Committee at Lingnan University (IRB# EC074/2021
“Organizational justice and self-based implications”). We detail the sampling processes and all
data exclusions (if any) below. We adhered to the Journal of Applied Psychology methodological
checklist. The syntax and processed data are available upon request (raw data are not available
due to the proprietary nature). A summary of the reviewed articles and variable coding in Study
1 and measurements in Study 2 are provided in the supplementary materials. Data were analyzed
using Mplus 8.0 (Muthn & Muthn, 1998-2017).
Study 1: A Meta-Analytic Test
Methods
Literature search, inclusion criteria, and coding. A rigorous test of our theory entails a
collection of justice studies examining exchange- or identity-based mechanisms. Our article
search focused primarily on collecting justice studies that either simultaneously examined both
exchange- and identity-based mechanisms or solely examined the latter.
3
We searched for
keywords through PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest dissertation databases without
2
See https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=3f3pr6 for preregistration. We preregistered 130 dyads in this study based
on the statistical power estimate of multilevel modeling (Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). We targeted a larger sample
in the data collection due to potential response attrition.
3
The justice literature has accumulated a series of reviews featuring effects on exchange-based mechanisms
(Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013; Rupp et al., 2014; Shao et al., 2013), yet to our best knowledge, there are few systematic
reviews focusing on effects on identity-based mechanisms. This means that the literature has provided a solid meta-
analytic foundation to verify our estimates related to exchange-based mechanisms but there is no study available for
verifying our correlation estimates of justice with identity-based mechanisms. Our key task thus was to have a
thorough collection of studies that enables rigorous estimates related to identity-based mechanisms and at the same
time allows us to make a rigorous comparison with exchange-based mechanisms. Our article pool provides adequate
samples for producing precise estimates of justice effects on exchange-based mechanisms that enabled rigorous
comparisons of the proposed mediating effects. For robustness checks, we used Colquitt et al.’s (2013) findings to
verify our estimate precision of the effects related to exchange-based mechanisms.
11
specifying a start date. We referred to justice terms used in prior reviews (i.e., (un)fair*, (in)just*,
and (in)equity) along with specific terms related to justice/context (i.e., procedural, distributive,
interpersonal, informational, interactional, organizational, workplace, team/group). We paired
them with identity-related keywords (i.e., self-concept, esteem, efficacy, and status for positive
self-evaluation; identity, identification, relational/dependent/interdependent self, self-construal
for interdependent identity) for an extensive search for identity-based mechanisms, and we kept
consistent with Colquitt et al. (2013) in identifying exchange-based mechanisms (leader-member
exchange, perceived organizational support, trust, and commitment) from the searched studies.
We also manually checked the reference list of prior reviews and utilized a two-way snowball
technique by backward-tracing references cited in the identified articles and forward-tracing
other articles that cited those identified articles using Google Scholar.
We excluded irrelevant articles from an initial collection of 885 articles. We first dropped
nonempirical articles and those without information to calculate zero-order effect sizes. We then
removed studies focusing on actors’/observers’ responses to justice enactment toward others
(e.g., coworkers, customers, or followers) or on justice climates. Third, we removed studies that
focused only on team-level or within-person estimates to avoid confounding our focus on
between-person estimates (Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Fourth, to establish causal inference, we
removed studies with clear temporal cues indicating that our mediators or outcomes were
measured or manipulated ahead of justice measures. Finally, to enable rigorous estimates of the
effects of justice dimensions, we excluded the effect sizes of procedural or interactional justice
that was operationalized as an inclusive, higher-order construct (i.e., combining interpersonal
and/or informational justice)
4
. This screening process led to a final set of 96 manuscripts with
4
Following the common practice in the recent justice literature, we operationalized justice with four dimensions
(Colquitt et al., 2013). Doing so helps align our review with the conceptual trend of justice studies and provides
12
105 independent study samples (N = 29, 868). We developed a coding sheet to process study
information in each sample (e.g., effect sizes, sample sizes, measurements, and reliabilities). We
initially reached a 95% to 100% coding agreement for all study variables and resolved the
remaining discrepancies by discussion.
Meta-analytic estimates. Following Hunter and Schmidt (2015), we conducted random-
effect meta-analyses to obtain estimates of the population correlations among study variables as
doing so allowed parameters to vary across studies. We estimated the mean sample-size-
weighted corrected correlations (𝜌) and other key indicators of study variables. We used the
reliability coefficients to correct measurement errors and reported fail-safe N to address the
publication bias issues (Dalton et al., 2012; Orwin, 1983). The relative mediating power across
three indirect effects was examined using meta-analytic structural equation modeling
(Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). We created a correlation matrix based on corrected correlations
and supplemented it with meta-analytic correlations from prior studies when there were missing
cells
5
. We computed the harmonic mean as our sample size for model estimation. To compare
the relative strengths of the mediating mechanisms, we specified both direct and indirect effects
on three outcomes to ensure estimation precision (Bergh et al., 2016; Kenny, 2008). To reduce
multicollinearity (Cohen et al., 2003), we first compared the indirect effects via exchange-based
more accurate estimates. Research has also argued that justice encompasses three dimensions: distributive justice,
procedural justice, and interactional justice (as a higher-level dimension of interpersonal and information justice;
Rupp et al., 2017). Given that interactional justice is theoretically relevant to the relational approach of justice
effects, it is enlightening to test our hypotheses using three justice dimensions. Please see the supplementary
materials for our additional analysis.
5
Studies included in our review were insufficient for estimating meta-analytic correlations between justice
dimensions and CWB and correlations among three outcomes. Following the common approach (Landis, 2013;
Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), we utilized Colquitt et al.’s (2013) correlation estimates of justice dimensions with
three outcomes rather than those from other meta-analytic studies (e.g., Dalal, 2005; Pindek et al., 2017), to confine
the scope of relational estimates within justice research and thus minimize the variety of the population of articles.
13
mechanisms with those via two identity-based mechanisms separately and then compared the
mediating power differences between the two identity-based mechanisms (Kalnins, 2018).
Results and Discussion
Table 1 reports the correlations among four justice dimensions
6
, which are largely
consistent with prior meta-analytic findings (Colquitt et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2014). Table 2
presents the positive correlations of four justice dimensions with exchange- and identity-based
mediating variables. Table 3 summarizes the correlation matrix of study variables. Tables 4–6
present meta-analytic structural equation modeling results testing the comparative indirect effects
via exchange- and identity-based mechanisms. As reflective of the relative strength between two
relevant mediating effects, the coefficients for H2a and H2b should be interpreted in light of their
absolute values and those for H3a should be interpreted in light of their negative values. The
indirect effects of justice on key outcomes via three mechanisms were significant, except for
those on CWB via exchange-based mechanisms as in Colquitt et al. (2013). Figure 1 illustrates
the comparative indirect effects. In supporting H1, the indirect effects on task performance via
exchange-based mechanisms were stronger than those via interdependent identity (Δ_distributive
= .073, p <.001, 95% CI [.037, .110]; Δ_procedural = .093, p < .001, 95% CI [.054, .132];
Δ_interpersonal = .111, p < .001, 95% CI [.075, .148]; Δ_informational = .099, p < .001, 95% CI
[.061, .137]) or those vias positive self-evaluations (Δ_distributive = .099, p < .001, 95% CI
[.070, .128]; Δ_procedural = .119, p < .001, 95% CI [.087, .152]; Δ_interpersonal = .145, p < .001, 95%
CI [.115, .175]; Δ_informational = .143, p < .001, 95% CI [.112, .174]).
6
Although our arguments focus on general justice experience (see Footnote 1), we report results of the four justice
dimensions for a comprehensive interpretation of our findings. Doing so is in line with prior justice studies that
presented results at the dimension level. We explored the effects of justice dimensions in Appendix A.
14
Positive self-evaluations prevailed over exchange-based mechanisms in mediating the
effects of procedural (Δ = -.033, p = .041, 95% CI [-.065, -.001]), interpersonal (Δ = -.074, p
< .001, 95% CI [-.102, -.045]), and informational justice (Δ = -.073, p < .001, 95% CI [-.103,
-.044]) on OCB, but not the effect of distributive justice (Δ_distributive = .000, p = 1.00, 95% CI
[-.029, .029]). Interdependent identity and exchange-based mechanisms did not significantly
differ in their mediating effects. These results partially supported H2a. Positive self-evaluations
outweighed interdependent identity in mediating the effects of procedural (Δ = -.029, p = .033,
95% CI [-.056, -.002]), interpersonal (Δ = -.039, p = .001, 95% CI [-.062, -.017]) and
informational justice (Δ = -.043, p = .001, 95% CI [-.068, -.018]), but not the effect of
distributive justice (Δ = .002, p = .894, 95% CI [-.024, .028]). H2b is largely supported.
The indirect effects on CWB via interdependent identity prevailed over those via
exchange-based mechanisms (Δ_distributive = .139, p < .001, 95% CI [.101, .177]; Δ_procedural = .154,
p < .001, 95% CI [.114, .195]; Δ_interpersonal = .134, p < .001, 95% CI [.096, .172]; Δ_informational
= .150, p < .001, 95% CI [.111, .189]). So did those via positive self-evaluations (Δ_distributive
= .040, p = .007, 95% CI [.011, .069]; Δ_procedural = .055, p = .001, 95% CI [.023, .088];
Δ_interpersonal = .035, p = .023, 95% CI [.005, .065]; Δ_informational = .055, p < .001, 95% CI
[.024, .086]). H3a is supported. Interdependent identity outweighed positive self-evaluations in
mediating the effects of justice on CWB (Δ_distributive = -.063, p <.001, 95% CI [-.088, -.038];
Δ_procedural = -.057, p <.001, 95% CI [-.083, -.030]; Δ_interpersonal = -.056, p <.001, 95% CI [-.079,
-.033]; and Δ_informational = -.057, p <.001, 95% CI [-.082, -.031]), supporting H3b.
To enable a more fine-grained interpretation of our meta-analytic results, we conducted
supplementary analyses testing the moderating effects of national culture, justice time frame, and
study design. Please see the detailed results in Appendix B.
15
Discussion. Although Study 1 provides initial evidence for the relative strengths of the
two relational mechanisms in accounting for justice effects, this study comes along with two
limitations due to the nature of the studies available for our review. Extant work has identified
affective experience and self-regulation as two additional key mechanisms of justice effects
(Koopman et al., 2020), neither of which were examined in our review. A more stringent test of
our theory warrants teasing apart the potential mediating effects of these two mechanisms.
More importantly, research has increasingly recognized that justice experience varies
substantially from day to day and shapes work outcomes momentarily (Matta et al., 2017). Most
studies included in our review focused on static justice effects, constraining our implications for
the role of the two mechanisms in a more dynamic context. High exchange quality derives from
and sustains through episodic exchanges of equivalent resources (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
To the extent that social exchange explicates daily justice effects, employees feel propelled to
maintain a dynamic exchange balance by reciprocating what they receive from episodic justice
events with commensurate resources shortly (Emerson, 1976; Gouldner, 1960). Identity
construction, however, entails retrospective interpretation of subtle cues of self-worth and group
standing that accrue from a series of, instead of one episode of, daily justice experience (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). The disparate temporal nature of the two mechanisms brings into question
whether within-person fluctuations of daily justice experience alter the relative mediating power
of the exchange- and identity-based mechanisms. We conducted a preregistered daily study to
examine this research question as a constructive extension of our initial findings.
Research Question 1: At the within-person daily level, will the relative strengths of the
mediating effects of exchange- and identity-based mechanisms for justice effects be identical to
those proposed in the above hypotheses?
Study 2: An Experience Sampling Study of Daily Justice
Method
16
Sample. The initial sample involved 150 employees and their direct supervisors recruited
from a large commercial service-based firm located in southern China. The fourth author used
professional networks to connect with company executives for research support and sought
assistance from the HR department in recruiting full-time employees and managers who worked
closely. The interviews with participant representatives revealed that supervisors and
subordinates constantly interacted to handle daily work, suggesting a suitable research context
(Bolger et al., 2003). Participants performed various tasks such as marketing and project or
property management, and they were assured of the voluntariness and confidentiality of their
responses before study commencement. We received usable surveys from 147 subordinate–
supervisor pairs (98% response rates) whose dyadic tenure averaged 22.25 months (SD = 20.74).
Of the 147 subordinates, 59.9% were women, 70.1% had a college degree or above, their age
averaged 32.6 years (SD = 8.50), and their group tenure averaged 35.5 months (SD = 32.65). Of
the 147 supervisors, 59.9% were women, 34.7% had a college degree or above, their age
averaged 36.2 years (SD = 7.16), and their group tenure averaged 44.28 months (SD = 41.35).
Procedure. Participants completed a baseline survey assessing demographics at the end
of our research briefing session. One week later, participants started to complete daily surveys
for three consecutive weeks (i.e., Mondays to Fridays, 15 workdays). In the afternoons around 5
PM, subordinates rated daily justice, positive self-evaluations, interdependent identity, social
exchange quality, OCB, and CWB; supervisors assessed subordinates’ daily task performance.
7
All surveys were sent through the company’s online communication system. In the following
mornings around 8 AM, subordinates rated positive and negative affect and emotional
exhaustion as alternative mechanisms. Participants received 20 RMB (around $3.00) for
7
In accommodating the company’s request, task performance was rated by supervisors, and OCB and CWB were
self-rated by employees (Koopman et al., 2020; Matta et al., 2017).
17
completing each daily survey in appreciation of their effort. The HR department helped deliver
the incentive in cash on our behalf after we concluded the study. We matched subordinates’ Day
t afternoon reports of daily justice and three mediators with their Day t + 1 morning reports of
control variables, which were further paired with their Day t +1 afternoon reports of OCB and
CWB and supervisors’ reports of task performance, resulting in 1,941 subordinate-supervisor
paired cross-day observations (a 94.3% response rate; out of 2,058 possible observations).
Measures. Considering that our participants worked in distinct work groups within a
single organization, we focused on work groups as a social entity with which subordinates
developed self-evaluations and self-construals and engaged in social exchange. We measured
three mediators based on subordinates’ work groups to maintain conceptual consistency across
three key mediating mechanisms. All survey instruments were constructed in Mandarin Chinese,
following standard translation back-translation procedures to ensure meaning equivalence across
cultures (Brislin, 1980; see the supplementary materials for measurements).
Daily justice experience was measured with Hill et al.’s (2021) 12-item scale. The omega
(ω) coefficients as within-person reliability estimates were .83, .76, .88, and .86 for the scales of
daily distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, respectively. Daily
positive self-evaluations were measured with Anderson et al.’s (2012) five-item scale of
perceived group status (ω = .84). Interdependent identity was assessed with Blader and Tyler’s
(2009) five-item scale on group identity (ω = .81). Daily exchange quality with the group was
measured with Colquitt et al.’s (2014) four-item scale (ω = .88). Daily task performance was
measured with a four-item scale adapted from Williams and Anderson (1991; ω = .89). Daily
OCB (ω = .73) and CWB (ω = .88) were assessed with six- and eight-item scales adapted from
Dalal et al. (2009), respectively. We controlled for morning positive (ω = .88) and negative (ω
18
= .79) affect (Watson et al., 1988) and emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; ω = .90)
as alternative mechanisms. To reduce endogenous confounds and estimate daily changes, we
controlled for prior-day measures of dependent variables. We also controlled for subordinate
gender, age, group tenure, and dyadic tenure with the supervisor (Liao et al., 2018, 2021).
Analyses with and without controls yielded statistically consistent results.
Results
To address our research question, we conducted two-level path analyses using multilevel
structural equation modeling with random slopes (Preacher et al., 2010) in Mplus 8.0 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998-2017). We within-person centered independent variables to rule out between-
person confounds and computed pseudo-R2 values to estimate within-person variance accounted
for by predictors (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann et al., 2000). Table 7 presents descriptive
statistics and correlations. Tables 8 and 9 report multilevel analysis results. All daily variables
had significant within-person variance and high measurement distinctiveness (see Appendix C).
As shown in Figure 2, after controlling for alternative mechanisms, exchange quality
outweighed two identity-based mechanisms in mediating the effects of three justice dimensions
on daily performance (estimates = .022, p = .021, 95% CI [.003, .040] for distributive; .017, p
=.036, 95% CI [.001, .033] for interpersonal; and .022, p = .004, 95% CI [.007, .037] for
informational justice) but not for those of procedural justice (estimate = .009, p = .141, 95% CI
[-.003, .022]). These results are largely consistent with H1. Differing from Study 1, exchange
quality surpassed identity-based mechanisms in linking three justice dimensions with OCB
(estimates = .010, p = .085, 95% CI [-.001, .020], 90% CI [.000, .019] for distributive
8
; .007, p
8
We recognize that 95% CI of the indirect effect of distributive justice on OCB included 0. According to Preacher et
al. (2010) and management studies with similar multilevel analyses (e.g., Uy et al., 2017; Vogel et al., 2016), 90%
CI are justifiable for examining the significance of multilevel mediating effects. This result was generally consistent
with our conclusion of the prevailing role of exchange quality in mediating justice effects on OCB in this study.
19
= .046, 95% CI [.000, .015] for interpersonal; and .010, p = .045, 95% CI [.000, .020] for
informational justice) but not those of procedural justice (estimate = .004, p = .156, 95% CI
[-.002, .010]). Results are inconsistent with H2a and H2b. Interdependent identity outweighed
exchange quality and positive self-evaluations in mediating justice effects on CWB (estimates =
-.026, p = .004, 95% CI [-.044, -.009] for distributive; -.029, p = .002, 95% CI [-.047, -.010] for
procedural; -.015, p = .036, 95% CI [-.028, -.001] for interpersonal; -.012, p = .037, 95% CI
[-.024, -.001] for informational justice). The indirect effects via positive self-evaluations were
nonsignificant. These results partially align with H3a and fully align with H3b.
General Discussion
Despite the prominent role of the relational approach in studying organizational justice, it
remains less well understood whether and how exchange- and identity-based mechanisms—two
principal components of this approach—differ from one another. Our research theoretically
explicates and empirically documents that the two mechanisms have complementary effects on
linking justice with disparate outcomes. The mixed-method approach adds rigor to theory testing.
Our findings are enlightening for justice theory building and managerial practices.
Theoretical Implications
Our research first advances the justice literature by providing a more nuanced perspective
on the subtle differences in exchange- and identity-based mechanisms in explicating how justice
shapes key work outcomes. In combining a meta-analysis with a daily study, we corroborate that
social exchange and social identity aspects complement one another by providing greater utility
respectively in linking justice with outcomes that are consistent with their pertinent theoretical
roots. Exchange-based mechanisms more strongly predict formally prescribed work behavior, as
such behavior fulfills reciprocal obligations without compromising personal interests. Identity-
20
based mechanisms, however, generally predict different forms of cooperative behavior more
strongly, as employees tend to internalize and prioritize group interests. By disentangling their
relative mediating power in both long and short timeframes, our work brings more clarity to the
relational approach of justice effects (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Tyler, 2012) and takes a solid step
toward initiating theoretical consensus about the complementary roles of its two components.
Distinguishing the unique mediating roles of two mechanisms specifically enables us to
navigate a critical path to addressing the puzzling findings in Colquitt et al.’s (2013) work. In
showing that exchange-based mechanisms had unexpectedly little power in mediating justice
effects on CWB, their review seemed to undercut the essential role of the relational approach as
they instead invoked an affective lens to account for justice effects on CWB. Our results not only
replicate their findings on the nonsignificant mediating effects of exchange-based mechanisms
but also suggest that identity-based mechanisms, especially interdependent identity, play a
powerful role in explicating how justice reduces CWB. In doing so, our research reclaims the
core theoretical value of the relational approach in the justice literature.
Our work further advances identity-based justice research by shedding light on the subtle
differences in the roles of two self-concept components. Although positive self-evaluations and
interdependent identity arise from group justice experiences, their distinct psychological bases
would lead to differing behavioral approaches to group welfare (Gecas, 1982; Markus & Wurf,
1987). Extant research has treated them identically regarding their role in motivating voluntary
cooperation (Blader & Tyler, 2009). Moving this line of work to a greater level of granularity,
we largely document that the evaluative-based self-concept equips employees with personal
agency for group benefits, making positive self-evaluations more powerful in predicting OCB,
whereas the cognitive-based self-concept motivates them to internalize and act on group values
21
and norms, leading to greater predictability of interdependent identity for CWB. This is thought-
provoking because we introduce a more fine-grained approach to understanding why and how
identity-based mechanisms engender different types of voluntary cooperation.
Our meta-analytic review of between-person static studies in conjunction with a within-
person daily study enhances theory building by examining justice effects in different temporal
contexts. The daily intrapersonal approach constructively verifies and extends our comparative
theorizing by offering an alternative perspective to our initial findings. Intriguingly, while meta-
analytic evidence provided modest support for the overriding effects of positive self-evaluations
on OCB, the daily study revealed that exchange quality prevailed over the two identity-based
mechanisms. This is likely because an immediate feeling of reciprocal obligation arising from
perceived exchange quality would propel employees to perform daily OCB, which helps restore
an equitable balance in daily exchange episodes effectively (Liao et al., 2019, 2023). The extent
to which justice enhances OCB via positive self-evaluations, however, is more pronounced with
employees’ retrospective reports of work experience, as this design may allow them to perceive a
boost in the positive self-regard more saliently. Transient positive self-evaluations from one
episodic justice event do not always translate into helping behavior (Blader & Yu, 2017). These
findings enrich ongoing scholarly inquiry into daily justice effects.
Practical Implications
Our work yields important practical insight into management practices. The corollary of
nuanced differences in the relative strengths of exchange- and identity-based mechanisms in
accounting for justice effects suggests that managers should be more attentive to subtle cues of
employees’ distinct psychological reactions to fair treatment that could predict key work
outcomes. In doing so, managers can nudge desired work behaviors from employees effectively
22
(Colquitt, 2001). For example, when employees present high task performance but display CWB,
instead of trying to nurture a high-quality exchange relationship, managers could purposefully
reinforce their collective sense of self-concept through fair and respectful treatment (Blader et
al., 2017). Additionally, our daily study findings corroborate the daily ebb and flow of employee
justice experience. Managers want to be more aware of such within-person dynamic variations
that could elicit certain work behaviors beyond habitual behavior patterns. Organizations should
also regularly refine their policies, regulations, and work procedures by incorporating
employees’ constructive feedback and suggestions.
Limitations and Future Research
Our research has several limitations that should be acknowledged for future research.
First, although grouping distinct variables as the confluence of higher-order constructs in Study 1
has been a common practice in meta-analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2015; Viswesvaran & Ones,
1995), doing so may compromise our construct validity (especially the operationalization of
social exchange quality). Nonetheless, our variable groupings were deeply grounded in and
stringently examined by previous meta-analytic studies (Colquitt et al., 2013; Riketta & Van
Dick, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Study 2 further constructively verified most
meta-analytic findings using a complementary design. We specifically operationalized daily
exchange quality using Colquitt et al.’s (2014) scale, which showed better content validity for
capturing the conceptual essence of this construct (Blau, 1965). Future work should pay more
attention to the measurements of exchange- and identity-based mechanisms when exploring their
roles in explicating justice effects.
Second, aside from longitudinal and experimental studies, we included a group of cross-
sectional studies in our review, as in most meta-analytic studies. This may inflate the observed
23
relations of interests (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Our verification of most Study 1 results using a
time-lagged daily, multisource design in Study 2 enhances the robustness of the findings. That
said, we encourage future research to examine our findings using more rigorous designs, such as
controlled laboratory or field experiments, to establish causal inference (Liao et al., 2023). Due
to the available pool of reviewed studies and the limited length of our daily surveys, our research
did not rule out other mechanisms, such as perceptions of uncertainty (Colquitt & Zipay, 2015).
We thus invite future research to test our results by teasing apart those key mechanisms.
Third, research has revealed that managerial discretion in justice enactment varies across
four justice dimensions, likely leading to their distinct predictive power on the key mechanisms
(Scott et al., 2014). We did not delve into such distinctions for theoretical parsimony. Instead, we
performed some post hoc analyses as preliminary exploration to spark future scholarly work (see
Appendix A). Briefly, we found that distributive justice generally had relatively weak power in
predicting positive self-evaluations in both studies, as compared to other justice dimensions. This
resonates with the rationale that managers have less latitude in enacting distributive justice due to
systematic constraints from organizational policies about rewards, promotions, and procedures,
making employees less able to extrapolate informative cues to boost positive self-regard (Scott et
al., 2009). For interdependent identity and exchange quality, interpersonal and information
justice had stronger predictive power in the meta-analytic study, but distributive and procedural
justice did so in the daily study. This inconsistency is likely due to differences in the temporal
nature (between-person static vs. within-person dynamic) or in measurement targets (targeted at
individuals such as managers vs. collective entities such as groups or organizations) in two
studies. Notably, the relative differences in the predictive power of the four justice dimensions
did not significantly alter their indirect effects on three outcomes via exchange- and identity-
24
based mechanisms. The mediating effects across four justice dimensions in both studies were
generally identical regarding their significance (see results in Tables 4-6 and 9). We also
explored cross-cultural variations in justice effects on key mediators (Appendix B). Future
research could conduct more in-depth testing on these initial observations in this work.
Finally, our research findings are based on traditional organizational contexts where
justice is mainly enacted by human authorities. With technological advancements and the
evolution of managerial practices, artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly played a central
role in organizational decision processes (Acikgoz et al., 2020; Araujo et al., 2020). We invite
future research to explore how employee justice perceptions and subsequent responses will be
shaped by AI-based management. For example, will the perceived fairness of AI-based decisions
on resource allocations exert identical effects on interdependent self-construal and social
exchange quality? Will employees give more weight to human-interactive forms of justice? Such
questions represent promising directions for future research.
Conclusion
Organizational justice has represented one of the most widely studied topics in the
management literature, yet extant research lacks consensus on subtle nuances of the relational
approach. By revealing the complementary mediating roles of exchange- and identity-based
mechanisms from both between-person and within-person perspectives, our findings inspire
future research to pursue a more fine-grained understanding of how and why justice matters.
25
References
* Articles included in the primary meta-analysis; † Articles included in the sub meta-analysis for the
correlations between positive self-evaluations and interdependent identity.
*Abdullah, H. O., & Al-Abrrow, H. (2022). Impact of perceived organizational justice, support and
identity on workplace behaviour through job attitudes: verification in the role of LOC.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis.
*Abril, T., Waldzus, S., & Collins, E. C. (2020). Validation of the organizational justice scale in a
Portuguese context. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 23, 95–115.
*Abuelhassan, A. E., & AlGassim, A. (2022). N33 How organizational justice in the hospitality industry
influences proactive customer service performance through general self-efficacy. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(7), 2579–2596.
Acikgoz, Y., Davison, K. H., Compagnone, M., & Laske, M. (2020). Justice perceptions of artificial
intelligence in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 399–416.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12306
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory.
Psychological Review, 109(4), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619
Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about
automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35(3), 611–623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management
Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Bagozzi, R.P. and Edwards, J.R. (1998) A General Approach for Representing Constructs in
Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100104
*Başar, U., & Sığrı, Ü. (2015). Effects of teachers’ organizational justice perceptions on intention to quit:
mediation role of organizational identification. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15, 45–
59.
*Bergami, M., & Morandin, G. (2019). Relationship between perceived justice and identification: The
mediating role of organizational images. Employee Relations, 41, 176–192.
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and
career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 39, 958-984.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407
Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., Lau, L. L., & Joo, H. (2016).
Using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research:
Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership‐performance
relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2338
Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (Vol. 85, pp. 89–118). Stanford University Press.
*Blader, S. L. (2007). What leads organizational members to collectivize? Injustice and identification as
precursors of union certification. Organization Science, 18, 108–126.
Blader, S. L., Patil, S., & Packer, D. J. (2017). Organizational identification and workplace behavior:
More than meets the eye. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 19–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.09.001
*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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013935
Blader, S. L., & Yu, S. (2017). Are status and respect different or two sides of the same coin? Academy of
Management Annals, 11(2), 800–824. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0150
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
26
Bobocel, D. R. (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall
justice and self-other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 720–731.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032857
†Bogrek, M. F. (2017). Determinants and outcomes of teachers' professional identity and organizational
identification: A comparative analysis in charter and regular public schools. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54(1), 579–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too:
A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in
organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153260
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 14, 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.004
*Brimbal, L., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., Hartwig, M., & Joseph, E. (2020). On the importance of a
procedurally fair organizational climate for openness to change in law enforcement. Law and
Human Behavior, 44, 394–411.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Cross-cultural research methods. In I. Altman, A. Rapaport, & J. F. Wohlwill
(Eds.), Environment and culture (pp. 47–82). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4899-0451-5_3
*Bustaman, H. A., Nor, M. N. M., Taha, A. Z., & Zakaria, M. (2020). The effects of organizational
justice, organizational reputation and self -esteem on job seeker attraction: A moderated mediation
model. Test Engineering and Management, 83(9724), 9724–9738.
*Byrne, Z. S. (2001). Effects of perceptions of organizational justice, identification, and support on
outcomes within work teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins.
*Campbell, N. S. (2007). Mentoring in a professional context: Trickle-down effects of mentors' justice
perceptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville.
†Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel
model of servant leadership, individual self-identity, group competition climate, and customer
service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521.
*Cheung, M. F. Y., & Law, M. C. C. (2008). Relationships of organizational justice and organizational
identification: The mediating effects of perceived organizational support in Hong Kong. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 14(2), 213–231.
*Cho, J., & Treadway, D. C. (2011). Organizational identification and perceived organizational support as
mediators of the procedural justice–citizenship behaviour relationship: A cross-cultural
constructive replication. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 631–
653.
*Choi, B. K., Moon, H. K., Ko, W., & Kim, K. M. (2014). A cross-sectional study of the relationships
between organizational justices and OCB. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35,
530–554.
*Choi, M. S. (2019). Self-efficacy and team leader equity matter: A study of active aging at work.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.3.386
27
Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. (2014). Scale indicators of social
exchange relationships: a comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(4), 599–618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036374
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208
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.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 75–99.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2008). Social exchange theory and organizational justice: Job
performance, citizenship behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of two literatures. In
S. W. Gilliland, D. P. Skarlicki, & D. D. Steiner (Eds.), Research in social issues in management:
Justice, morality, and social responsibility (pp. 63–99). Greenwich CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to justice. In GR Ferris
(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 1–113.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer
problem in meta‐analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation
matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012
*De Backer, M., Boen, F., Ceux, T., De Cuyper, B., Høigaard, R., Callens, F., … Vande Broek, G.
(2011). Do perceived justice and need support of the coach predict team identification and
cohesion? Testing their relative importance among top volleyball and handball players in Belgium
and Norway. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 192–201.
*De Clercq, D., Ul Haq, I., & Azeem, M. U. (2020). Unpacking the relationship between procedural
justice and job performance. Management Decision, 59(9), 2183–2199.
*De Cremer, D. (2005). Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational
identification. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 4–13.
*De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance
of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36, 211–228.
*De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Reputational implications of procedural fairness for personal and
relational self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 66–75.
*De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2008). Procedural justice effects on self-esteem under certainty versus
uncertainty emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 278–287.
*De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. R. (2006). Leader’s procedural justice affecting
identification and trust. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 553–564.
*De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of
charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858–866.
28
*De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F.
(2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 3–12.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-
goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035-1056.
*Du, J., Choi, J. N., & Hashem, F. (2012). Interaction between one’s own and others’ procedural justice
perceptions and citizenship behaviors in organizational teams: The moderating role of group
identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 289–302.
*Dude, D. J. (2012). Organizational commitment of principals: The effects of job autonomy,
empowerment, and distributive justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa,
Iowa City.
*Dulebohn, J. H., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group
incentive pay plans. Journal of Management, 24, 469–488.
*Edwards, M. R., & Edwards, T. (2012). Procedural justice and identification with the acquirer: the
moderating effects of job continuity, organisational identity strength and organisational similarity.
Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 109–128.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1): 335–362
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A
new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.12.2.121
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice and workplace
deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788–1811.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310372259
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of
favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539–
553. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040648
Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: predictors of givers’ and
receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034 –1045.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1034
*Fuchs, S., & Edwards, M. R. (2011). Predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived
organisational justice and organisational identification. Human Resource Management Journal,
22, 39–59.
Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself?
An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel
Psychology, 71(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.08.080182.000245
*Gillet, N., Colombat, P., Michinov, E., Pronost, A. M., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Procedural justice,
supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job
performance: the mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 69, 2560- 2571.
Gilligan, C. (1982). New maps of development: New visions of maturity. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52, 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb02682.x
*Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Greco, L. M., Porck, J. P., Walter, S. L., Scrimpshire, A. J., & Zabinski, A. M. (2022). A meta-analytic
review of identification at work: Relative contribution of team, organizational, and professional
29
identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 795-830.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000941
Greco, L. M., Whitson, J. A., O'Boyle, E. H., Wang, C. S., & Kim, J. (2019). An eye for an eye? A meta-
analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1117-
1143. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000396
*Hakonen, M., & Lipponen, J. (2008). Procedural justice and identification with virtual teams: The
moderating role of face-to-face meetings and geographical dispersion. Social Justice Research,
21(2), 164–178.
*Hasan, M., & Hussain, M. (2015). Role of perceived external prestige and organizational justice in
organizational identification. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 4(3), 611–
625.
†Harris, G. E., & Cameron, J. E. (2005). Multiple dimensions of organizational identification and
commitment as predictors of turnover intentions and psychological well-being. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 37, 159–169.
*Hassan, S. (2010). Fair treatment, job involvement, and turnover intention of professional employees in
government: The importance of organizational identification as a mediator. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
*Hassan, S. (2013). Does fair treatment in the workplace matter? An assessment of organizational fairness
and employee outcomes in government. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 539–
557.
*Haynie, J. J., Flynn, C. B., & Baur, J. E. (2019). The organizational justice-job engagement relationship:
How social exchange and identity explain this effect. Journal of Managerial Issues, 31(1), 28–45.
*He, H., Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles of
organizational identification and moral identity centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 681–
695.
Hill, E., Matta, F. K., & Mitchell, M. S. (2021). Seeing the glass as half full or empty: The role of affect-
induced optimistic and pessimistic states on justice perceptions and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 64(4), 1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1282
*Ho, A. (2012). The impact of perceived CSR on employee performance and turnover intention: An
examination of the mediating effects of organizational justice and organization based self-esteem.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Singapore Management University, Singapore.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling
to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467–
511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind
(Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.
Hollenbeck, J. R. (2008). The role of editing in knowledge development: Consensus shifting and
consensus creation. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Journal
editing: Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 16–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590_2
Holmvall, C. M., & Bobocel, D. R. (2008). What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and
reactions to procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 105(2), 147–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.09.001
†Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when
social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66, 127–172.
30
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings (3rd Ed.). SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483398105
*Imazai, K. I., & Ohbuchi, K. I. (2002). Conflict resolution and procedural fairness in Japanese work
organizations. Japanese Psychological Research, 44, 107–112.
†Jiang, J., & Wang, R. (2018). Want engaged temporary agency workers? Think beyond the money.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46, 1029–1042.
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in
multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1
Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit effects of justice on self-identity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019298
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2010). “Who I Am Depends on How Fairly I'm Treated”:
Effects of Justice on Self‐Identity and Regulatory Focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
40(12), 3020-3058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00691.x
Kalnins, A. (2018). Multicollinearity: How common factors cause Type 1 errors in multivariate
regression. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2362–2385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2783
Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 353–358.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094428107308978
*Kim, J. (Sunny), Milliman, J. F., & Lucas, A. F. (2021). N01 Effects of CSR on affective organizational
commitment via organizational justice and organization-based self-esteem. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 92, 102691.
*Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2020). Making the case for procedural justice: employees thrive and work
hard. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 100–114.
Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Cambridge: Center for
Moral Education, Harvard University.
*Koivisto, S., & Lipponen, J. (2015). A leader’s procedural justice, respect and extra-role behaviour: The
roles of leader in-group prototypicality and identification. Social Justice Research, 28(2), 187–
206.
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily
investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2),
414–435. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0262
Koopman, J., Lin, S. H., Lennard, A. C., Matta, F. K., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). My coworkers are treated
more fairly than me! A self-regulatory perspective on justice social comparisons. Academy of
Management Journal, 63(3), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0586
*Kwak, A. (2006). The relationships of organizational injustice with employee burnout and
counterproductive work behaviors: Equity sensitivity as a moderator. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant.
Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling:
Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 251–261.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x
*Lapalme, M., & Guerrero, S. (2019). How do I stand compared to agency workers? Justice perceptions
and employees’ counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Nursing Management, 27, 1471–
1478.
*Lau, R. S. (2008). Integration and extension of leader-member exchange and organizational justice and
individual-and group-levels of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Lee, H. W., Bradburn, J., Johnson, R. E., Lin, S. H. J., & Chang, C. H. D. (2019). The benefits of
receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 197. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000346
*Leonardelli, G. J., & Toh, S. M. (2010). Perceiving expatriate coworkers as foreigners encourages Aid.
Psychological Science, 22(1), 110–117.
31
*Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2008). Role ambiguity and self-efficacy: The moderating effects of goal orientation
and procedural justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 368–375.
*Li, J., Laurence, G. A., & Blume, B. D. (2018). How does supervisor-focused procedural justice explain
the effects of person-focused leadership? The moderating role of leader-referenced relational-self.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 387–399.
*Liang, J., & Li, X. (2019). Explaining the procedural justice-perceived legitimacy relationship: Relying
on relational concern or instrumental concern? Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 193–206.
Liao, Z., Liu, W., Li, X., & Song, Z. (2019). Give and take: An episodic perspective on leader-member
exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000371
Liao, Z., Lee, H. W., Johnson, R. E., Song, Z., & Liu, Y. (2021). Seeing from a short-term perspective:
When and why daily abusive supervisor behavior yields functional and dysfunctional
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106, 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000508
Liao, Z., Wu, L., Zhang, H. J., Song, Z., & Wang, Y. (2023). Exchange through emoting: An emotional
model of leader–member resource exchanges. Personnel Psychology, 76(1), 311-346.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12506
Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., & Song, Z. (2018). Cleansing my abuse: A reparative
response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103,
1039-1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000319
Liao, Z., Zhang, J. H., Wang, N., Bottom, W. P., Deichmann, D., & Tang, P. (2023). The gendered
liability of venture novelty. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.1425
*Lilly, J. D., & Wipawayangkool, K. (2018). When fair procedures don’t work: A self-threat model of
procedural justice. Current Psychology, 37, 680–691.
*Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M. E., & Moilanen, M. (2004). Perceived procedural justice and employee
responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 13, 391–413.
*Lipponen, J., Wisse, B., & Perälä, J. (2011). Perceived justice and group identification. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 10, 13–23.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
*Liu, F., Chow, I. H.-S. & Huang, M. (2020). High-performance work systems and organizational
identification The mediating role of organizational justice and the moderating role of supervisor
support. Personnel Review, 49, 939–955.
*Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., & Law, R. (2017). Linking leadership and justice to organizational commitment.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29, 1167–1184.
*Ma, B., Liu, S., & Liu, D. (2014). The impact of organizational identification on the relationship between
procedural justice and employee work outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 42, 437–444.
*Malhotra, N., Sahadev, S., & Sharom, N. Q. (2022). Organisational justice, organisational identification
and job involvement: the mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and the moderating
role of person-organisation fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(8),
1526–1561
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556364
32
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017). Is consistently unfair
better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(2), 743–770. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0455
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Guo, Z. A., & Matusik, J. G. (2020). Exchanging one uncertainty for another:
Justice variability negates the benefits of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 97-110.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000425
*McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions:
How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking
charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200–1211.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees us to be
bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2010.00263.x
*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, 41–59.
*Minibas-Poussard, J., Le Roy, J., & Erkmen, T. (2017). The moderating role of individual variables in
the relationship between organizational justice and organizational commitment. Personnel Review,
46, 1635–1650.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 845–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475
*Mucci, D. M., Jorissen, A. & Frezatti, F. (2023). A manager's stewardship identification in Brazilian
family firms: the role of controls' design and procedural justice. Journal of Family Business
Management, 13(2), 335-355.
*Murshed, F., Cao, Z., Savitskie, K., & Sen, S. (2023). Ethical CSR, Organizational Identification, and
Job Satisfaction: Mediated Moderated Role of Interactional Justice. Social Justice Research,
36(1), 75–102.
Muthén, L. K. and Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th Ed.). LA, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
*Newlon, C. S. (2000). Effects of procedural justice and self-efficacy on acceptance of merit pay.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State University, Long Beach.
*Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, dentification with
organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 100, 202–215.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2),
157–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population
correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 260–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.260
*Outlaw, R., Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., & Sessions, H. (2019). How fair versus how long: An
integrative theory‐based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness. Personnel
Psychology, 72, 361–391.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
*Patel, C., Budhwar, P., & Varma, A. (2012). Overall justice, work group identification and work
outcomes: Test of moderated mediation process. Journal of World Business, 47, 213–222.
33
*Pattnaik, S., & Tripathy, S. K. (2022). The effect of organizational justice on employee performance in
the Indian Public Sector Units: the role of organizational identification. Benchmarking: An
International Journal. https://www.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0508
*Phillips, J. M. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice perceptions in hierarchical
decision-making teams. Small Group Research, 33, 32–64.
*Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Kruglanski, A. W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Follower need for
cognitive closure as moderator of the effectiveness of leader procedural fairness. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 582–595.
Pindek, S., Kessler, S. R., & Spector, P. E. (2017). A quantitative and qualitative review of what meta-
analyses have contributed to our understanding of human resource management. Human
Resource Management Review, 27(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.003
*Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Toward an explanation of applicant reactions: an examination of
organizational justice and attribution frameworks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 72, 308–335.
Podsakoff, N. P., Spoelma, T. M., Chawla, N., & Gabriel, A. S. (2019). What predicts within-person
variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 104(6), 727–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000374
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing
multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
*Qu, Y., Jo, W. M., & Choi, H. C. (2020). Gender discrimination, injustice, and deviant behavior among
hotel employees: Role of organizational attachment. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, 21(1), 78–104.
*Ramkissoon, A. (2016). The moderating role of interactional justice on the relationship between justice
and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern
University, Davie.
*Ren, Z., Zhang, X., Li, X., He, M., Shi, H., …, & Liu, H. (2021). Relationships of organisational justice,
psychological capital and professional identity with job burnout among Chinese nurses: A cross-
sectional study. Journal of clinical nursing, 30, 2912– 2923.
Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of
the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490-510.
*Roberson, Q. M. (1999). Group justice: A conceptual model of shared perceptions of fairness among
members of organizational workgroups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.
*Ruder, G. J. (2003). The relationship among organizational justice, trust, and role breadth self-efficacy.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.011
Rupp, D. E., Shapiro, D. L., Folger, R., Skarlicki, D. P., & Shao, R. (2017). A critical analysis of the
conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for reassessment?.
Academy of Management Annals, 11, 919-959.
34
*Schroth, H. A., & Pradhan Shah, P. (2000). Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An
examination of the effects of procedural justice on self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
462–471.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence
and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
756–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015712
Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & 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, 1571–1591. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0644
*Shabeer, S., Nasir, N., & Rehman, S. (2023). Inclusive leadership and career adaptability: the mediating
role of organization-based self-esteem and the moderating role of organizational justice.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26, 496-515.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice across cultures: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Management, 39, 263–301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311422447
*Shim, D.C. (2011). Antecedents of government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The
impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB
norms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University at Albany, State University.
*Siegal, W. E. (2000). An identification-based model of organizational citizenship behavior: Testing an
alternative interpretation of procedural justice effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University, New York.
†Sluss, D. M., Ashforth, B. E., & Gibson, K. R. (2012). The search for meaning in (new) work: Task
significance and newcomer plasticity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 199–208.
†Smith, L. G., Gillespie, N., Callan, V. J., Fitzsimmons, T. W., & Paulsen, N. (2017). Injunctive and
descriptive logics during newcomer socialization: The impact on organizational identification,
trustworthiness, and self‐efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 487–511.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
*Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects
of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x
*Tetteh, S. D., Osafo, J., Ansah-Nyarko, M., & Amponsah-Tawiah, K. (2019). Interpersonal fairness,
willingness-to-stay and organisation-based self-esteem: The mediating role of affective
commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–10.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-
friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 207-216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9351-z
Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice and effective cooperation. Social Justice Research, 25(4), 355–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0168-5
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.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
*Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedures and reactions to
organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529–545.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 25, 115–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
*Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are
endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235–244.
35
*Üstün, F. (2022). The effect of organizational justice on organizational identification in the Covid-19
process: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 395–409.
Uy, M. A., Lin, K. J., & Ilies, R. (2017). Is it better to give or receive? The role of help in buffering the
depleting effects of surface acting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1442-1461. doi:
10.5465/amj.2015.0611
*Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2008). How leader prototypicality affects followers' status: The role of
procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 226-250.
*van Dijke, M., & Cremer, D. D. (2010). Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders:
Leader benevolence or follower control? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 85–96.
*Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2012). When does procedural
fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in
relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 235–
248.
Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism,
propensity to trust and self‐esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non‐work
setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(200002)21:1%3C3::AID-JOB47%3E3.0.CO;2-6
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational
commitment: self‐definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27, 571–584.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual
performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526–535.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.526
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta‐analysis and
structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 865–885.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x
Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting
and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management
Journal, 59, 1561-1584. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0850
*Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning
behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader‐member
exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1103–1126.
†Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership–employee
performance links: The role of relational identification and self‐efficacy. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172.
†Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L. (2011).
Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-
efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 115, 204–213.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
*Wang, C., Wang, Z., Chen, K., & Feng, J. (2022). Double-edged sword of perceived mastery climate on
evasive knowledge hiding: the mediating roles of perceived status and perceived social support.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(8), 729–745.
*Wang, T., & Jiang, H. (2015). The mediating effects of organizational and supervisor identification for
interactional justice: The case of Sichuan civil servants in China. Public Personnel Management,
44(4), 523–542.
36
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590
*Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann Jr, 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, 1235–1253.
*Wolters, H. M. K. (2009). The potential impact of selection system characteristics on organizational
justice perceptions at the facet and global level with an analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, and
self-perception outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University, Mount
Pleasant.
*Workman-Stark, A. (2020). Enhancing police engagement: An examination of the links between fair
treatment and job engagement in a Canadian police organization. International Journal of Police
Science and Management, 22(3), 308–322.
†Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits
organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 362–378.
*Xu, G., Huang, Y., & Huang, S. (Sam). (2023). Informational justice and employee knowledge hiding
behaviours: Mediation of organizational identification and moderation of justice sensitivity.
Heliyon, 9(4), e14697.
Yang, L. Q., Johnson, R. E., Zhang, X., Spector, P. E., & Xu, S. (2013). Relations of interpersonal
unfairness with counterproductive work behavior: The moderating role of employee self-
identity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
012-9271-8
*Zhang, Y., Long, L., & Zhang, J. (2015). Pay for performance and employee creativity. Management
Decision, 53, 1378–1397.
37
Table 1
Correlations across Four Justice Dimensions in Study 1
Justice dimensions
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
%Vart
Fail-safe N
Distributive justice
Procedural justice
42
14226
.577
.158
.661
.182
[.605, .718]
[.428, .894]
5.0
697
Interpersonal justice
13
4884
.560
.136
.620
.173
[.524, .717]
[.399, .842]
5.0
192
Informational justice
13
4737
.599
.144
.675
.187
[.571, .779]
[.436, .914]
4.0
245
Procedural justice
Interpersonal justice
13
4884
.525
.107
.587
.124
[.516, .659]
[.428, .746]
10.2
176
Informational justice
13
4737
.567
.107
.641
.128
[.568, .714]
[.477, .805]
9.1
204
Interpersonal justice
Informational justice
12
4578
.702
.119
.786
.139
[.706, .866]
[.608, .964]
4.2
293
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = the mean sample-size-weighted observed
correlation; SDr = standard deviation of observed correlations; ρ = the mean sample-size-weighted
correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard deviation of corrected
correlations; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval; %Vart = the
percentage of variance explained by study artifacts. Fail-safe N is the number of studies with null findings
that would be needed to reduce ρ to .05.
Table 2
Correlations of Four Justice Dimensions with Key Mediating Variables in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
%Vart
Fail-safe N
Distributive justice
Positive self-evaluations
15
5809
.263
.153
.298
.184
[.201, .396]
[.062, .535]
8.1
79
Interdependent identity
33
11074
.398
.114
.471
.135
[.421, .521]
[.297, .644]
13.9
319
Social exchange quality
15
5317
.450
.125
.530
.118
[.465, .594]
[.378, .681]
14.8
172
Procedural justice
Positive self-evaluations
36
7266
.305
.142
.357
.171
[.296, .418]
[.138, .576]
16.3
239
Interdependent identity
66
20821
.414
.150
.485
.177
[.441, .530]
[.259, .712]
8.8
666
Social exchange quality
28
8911
.494
.118
.580
.133
[.528, .633]
[.411, .750]
12.3
371
Interpersonal justice
Positive self-evaluations
6
2237
.254
.021
.290
.026
[.241, .339]
[.257, .323]
82.2
30
Interdependent identity
8
2947
.370
.125
.425
.150
[.315, .535]
[.232, .618]
10.7
67
Social exchange quality
6
1917
.483
.147
.551
.142
[.431, .671]
[.369, .733]
10.4
73
Informational justice
Positive self-evaluations
5
1937
.278
.099
.322
.120
[.207, .438]
[.169, .476]
17.3
29
Interdependent identity
9
3050
.406
.103
.480
.137
[.384, .577]
[.304, .656]
13.5
89
Social exchange quality
5
1470
.466
.155
.558
.142
[.425, .691]
[.377, .740]
12.6
62
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = the mean sample-size-weighted observed
correlation; SDr = standard deviation of observed correlations; ρ = the mean sample-size-weighted
correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard deviation of corrected
correlations; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval; %Vart = the
percentage of variance explained by study artifacts. Fail-safe N is the number of studies with null findings
that would be needed to reduce ρ to .05.
38
Table 3
Correlations among Justice Dimensions, Key Mediators, Work Outcomes, and Demographic Variables in Study 1
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1. Distributive justice
—
2. Procedural justice
.661
(42, 14226)
—
3. Interpersonal justice
.620
(13, 4884)
.587
(13, 4884)
—
4. Informational justice
.675
(13, 4737)
.641
(13, 4737)
.786
(12, 4578)
—
5. Positive self-evaluations
.298
(15, 5809)
.357
(36, 7266)
.290
(6, 2237)
.322
(5, 1937)
—
6. Interdependent identity
.471
(33, 11074)
.485
(66, 20821)
.425
(8, 2947)
.480
(9, 3050)
.293
(10, 2758)
—
7. Social exchange quality
.530
(15, 5317)
.580
(28, 8911)
.551
(6, 1917)
.558
(5, 1470)
.390
(8, 2792)
.548
(22, 7620)
—
8. OCB
.210
(36,10100)
.300
(71, 16864)
.430
(13, 2533)
.420
(8, 1937)
.468
(5, 1460)
.361
(21, 5790)
.359
(8, 2735)
—
9. CWB
-.260
(24, 5112)
-.280
(30, 6455)
-.240
(10, 2043)
-.290
(9, 1974)
-.274
(3, 699)
-.339
(4, 1689)
-.214
(2, 981)
-.510
(10, 2384)
—
10. Task performance
.260
(45, 11336)
.240
(57,14258)
.160
(11, 3542)
.160
(11, 3124)
.330
(5, 1566)
.345
(6, 2704)
.400
(5, 2436)
.580
(20, 5144)
-.470
(5, 933)
—
11. Gender
(0 = male, 1 = female)
-.035
(12, 4577)
.006
(20, 5468)
-.022
(4, 907)
-.005
(4, 851)
-.005
(10, 3316)
.040
(16, 4971)
-.103
(6, 2519)
.018
(7, 2382)
-.133
(3, 823)
.084
(1, 508)
—
12. Age
.002
(12, 4511)
.005
(20, 5749)
-.020
(4, 907)
.004
(4, 851)
.118
(9, 3062)
.040
(14, 4523)
.028
(6, 2221)
.034
(7, 2206)
-.040
(4, 1429)
-.125
(2, 813)
-.011
(19, 6420)
—
13. Education
.085
(5, 2490)
.010
(11, 2901)
.144
(1, 306)
-.036
(1, 250)
.072
(6, 2442)
.023
(8, 2295)
-.003
(5, 2076)
-.046
(4, 1061)
.043
(1, 250)
-.031
(2, 813)
-.057
(11, 4198)
.087
(11, 4207)
—
14. Organizational Tenure
-.046
(9, 4160)
-.042
(16, 4922)
-.031
(1, 341)
.068
(2, 591)
.122
(6, 2562)
.045
(12, 3828)
.044
(3, 1674)
.004
(1, 508)
.040
(6, 1934)
.004
(4, 1429)
-.030
(14, 5290)
.401
(13, 5027)
.055
(7, 2724)
Note. Table contents include ρ (k, N); ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; k = number of
studies; N = cumulative sample size; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior. The correlations
between justice dimensions and outcome variables and the correlations among the outcome variables were from Colquitt et al.’s (2013) meta-
analytic results. We further conducted an additional meta-analysis to obtain the meta-correlation between positive self-evaluations and
interdependent identity.
39
Table 4
Comparative Indirect Effects through Exchange-Based and Interdependent Identity Mechanisms in Study 1
Variables
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Distributive justice
Social exchange quality
.155**
[.130, .180]
.129**
[.105, .153]
.006
[-.018,.030]
Interdependent identity
.082**
[.062, .102]
.115**
[.093, .136]
-.133**
[-.155, -.111]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.073**
[.037, .110]
.014
[-.022, .051]
.139**
[.101, .177]
Procedural justice
Social exchange quality
.184**
[.157, .211]
.112**
[.085, .138]
.020
[-.007, .046]
Interdependent identity
.091**
[.070, .112]
.104**
[.083, .125]
-.135**
[-.157, -.112]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.093**
[.054, .132]
.008
[-.031, .047]
.154**
[.114, .195]
Interpersonal justice
Social exchange quality
.197**
[.170, .223]
.051**
[.028, .075]
.009
[-.017, .034]
Interdependent identity
.086 **
[.067, .104]
.077 **
[.059, .095]
-.125**
[-.146, -.105]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.111 **
[.075, .148]
-.026
[-.060, .009]
.134 **
[.096, .172]
Informational justice
Social exchange quality
.203**
[.176, .229]
.063**
[.039, .088]
.020
[-.006, .045]
Interdependent identity
.104**
[.083, .125]
.080**
[.059, .100]
-.131**
[-.153, -.108]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.099**
[.061, .137]
-.016
[-.053, .020]
.150**
[.111, .189]
Note. Harmonic mean N = 2,795; indirect effects were calculated when interdependent identity and social exchange quality were modeled in the
same model simultaneously. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
40
Table 5
Comparative Indirect Effects through Exchange-Based and Positive Self-Evaluations Mechanisms in Study 1
Variables
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Distributive justice
Social exchange quality
.159**
[.135, .183]
.116**
[.094, .138]
-.021
[-.044, .002]
Positive self-evaluations
.060**
[.047, .073]
.116**
[.099, .133]
-.061**
[-.075, -.048]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.099**
[.070, .128]
.000
[-.029, .029]
.040**
[.011, .069]
Procedural justice
Social exchange quality
.194**
[.168, .221]
.101**
[.077, .125]
-.014
[-.040, .012]
Positive self-evaluations
.075**
[.060, .090]
.135**
[.116, .153]
-.069**
[-.085, -.054]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.119**
[.087, .152]
-.033*
[-.065, -.001]
.055**
[.023, .088]
Interpersonal justice
Social exchange quality
.208**
[.182, .233]
.031**
[.010, .052]
-.026*
[-.050, -.002]
Positive self-evaluations
.062**
[.049, .075]
.105**
[.089, .121]
-.061**
[-.075, -.048]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.145**
[.115, .175]
-.074**
[-.102, -.045]
.035*
[.005, .065]
Informational justice
Social exchange quality
.214**
[.188, .240]
.041**
[.019, .062]
-.009
[-.033, .016]
Positive self-evaluations
.071**
[.057, .085]
.114**
[.097, .131]
-.064**
[-.078, -.050]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.143**
[.112, .174]
-.073**
[-.103, -.044]
.055**
[.024, .086]
Note. Harmonic mean N = 2,795; indirect effects were calculated when interdependent identity and social exchange quality were modeled in the
same model simultaneously. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
41
Table 6
Comparative Indirect Effects through Interdependent Identity and Positive Self-Evaluations Mechanisms in Study 1
Variables
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Estimate
95% CI
Distributive justice
Interdependent identity
.113**
[.093, .133]
.121**
[.102, .141]
-.115**
[-.135, -.095]
Positive self-evaluations
.071**
[.057, .084]
.120**
[.102, .137]
-.052**
[-.065, -.040]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.042**
[.017, .067]
.002
[-.024, .028]
-.063**
[-.088, -.038]
Procedural justice
Interdependent identity
.126**
[.106, .147]
.108**
[.088, .127]
-.116**
[-.137, -.096]
Positive self-evaluations
.087**
[.072, .103]
.137**
[.119, .155]
-.059**
[-.074, -.045]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.039**
[.012, .066]
-.029*
[-.056, -.002]
-.057**
[-.083, -.030]
Interpersonal justice
Interdependent identity
.121**
[.102, .140]
.062**
[.046, .077]
-.107**
[-.126, -.089]
Positive self-evaluations
.074**
[.061, .088]
.101**
[.085, .116]
-.051**
[-.063, -.039]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.047**
[.023, .071]
-.039**
[-.062, -.017]
-.056**
[-.079, -.033]
Informational justice
Interdependent identity
.144**
[.123, .165]
.069**
[.052, .087]
-.110**
[-.131, -.090]
Positive self-evaluations
.085**
[.070, .100]
.112**
[.096, .129]
-.053**
[-.067, -.040]
Δ Indirect effect difference
.059**
[.033, .086]
-.043**
[-.068, -.018]
-.057**
[-.082, -.031]
Note. Harmonic mean N = 2,795; indirect effects were calculated when interdependent identity and social exchange quality were modeled in the
same model simultaneously. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
42
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study 2 Variables
Variables
Mean
Within-
person
SD
Between-
person
SD
Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Within-person level (daily)
1. Distributive justice
3.50
.41
.70
(.83)
2. Procedural justice
3.31
.44
.70
.56**
(.76)
3. Interpersonal justice
3.86
.40
.68
.29**
.26**
(.88)
4. Informational justice
3.66
.45
.76
.30**
.36**
.58**
(.86)
5. Positive self-evaluations
3.35
.40
.71
.23**
.29**
.32**
.31**
(.84)
6. Interdependent identity
3.79
.36
.65
.37**
.38**
.30**
.29**
.30**
(.81)
7. Social exchange quality
3.89
.39
.60
.28**
.28**
.22**
.27**
.25**
.35**
(.88)
8. Morning positive affect
3.04
.42
1.03
.08**
.09**
.07**
.07**
.05*
.04
.05*
(.88)
9. Morning negative affect
1.43
.31
.66
-.01
-.002
-.001
-.02
-.003
.03
-.01
-.01
(.79)
10. Morning emotional exhaustion
2.31
.65
.81
-.03
-.001
-.05*
-.03
-.02
-.03
-.07**
-.14**
.16**
(.90)
11. Task performance
4.24
.38
.49
.18**
.15**
.11**
.13**
.09**
.16**
.29**
.01
.02
.003
(.89)
12. OCB
3.95
.31
.50
.19**
.21**
.15**
.21**
.18**
.17**
.24**
.09**
.05*
.01
.16**
(.73)
13. CWB
1.73
.35
.58
-.17**
-.17**
-.09**
-.12**
-.11**
-.22**
-.16**
.000
.02
.02
-.14**
-.20**
(.88)
Between-person level
1. Age
32.60
–
8.51
2. Gender
.40
–
.49
.43**
3. Group tenure (month)
35.50
–
32.65
.42**
.13
4. Dyadic tenure (month)
22.25
–
20.74
.34**
.13
.63**
Note. Within-person level, N = 1,941-2,143 (the smaller sample size entailed cross-day estimates); between-person level, N = 147. Gender was
coded as 0 = women, 1 = men. Variables 1-7 were measured on day t afternoon; variables 8-10 and variables 11-12 were measured on day t +1
morning and afternoon, respectively. Within-person correlations are based on within-person scores. SD = standard deviation; OCB =
organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior. The reliabilities of daily measures were estimated as within-person
omega (ω) coefficients and displayed on the diagonal in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
43
Table 8
Unstandardized Coefficients of Multilevel SEMs for Testing Main and Mediating Effects in Study 2
Variables
Positive self-
evaluations
(Day t)
Interdependent
identity
(Day t)
Social exchange
quality
(Day t)
Task performance
(Day t + 1)
OCB
(Day t + 1)
CWB
(Day t + 1)
γ
SE
γ
SE
γ
SE
γ
SE
γ
SE
γ
SE
Intercept
3.05**
.24
3.60**
.20
3.64**
.19
3.53**
.26
3.29**
.23
2.77**
.32
Control variables
Age
.004
.01
.003
.01
.003
.001
-.003
.01
.01
.01
-.01
.01
Gender
.35**
.13
.20
.12
.21
.11
-.06
.10
.15
.09
.07
.12
Group tenure
.001
.002
.001
.002
.000
.002
-.001
.002
.00
.001
.001
.003
Dyadic tenure
.001
.003
.000
.003
.003
.002
.002
.001
.001
.002
-.002
.003
Positive self-evaluations on Day t - 1
.03
.03
Interdependent identity on Day t - 1
.05
.03
Social exchange quality on Day t - 1
-.01
.03
Task performance on Day t
.09
.08
OCB on Day t
.04
.04
CWB on Day t
.01
.05
Independent variables
Distributive justice on Day t
.02
.03
.13**
.04
.09*
.04
.06
.03
.05†
.03
-.06*
.03
Procedural justice on Day t
.13**
.04
.18**
.03
.08*
.04
.01
.03
.04
.02
-.01
.03
Interpersonal justice on Day t
.19**
.03
.10**
.03
.08*
.04
.02
.03
.01
.03
.02
.04
Informational justice on Day t
.09**
.03
.07*
.03
.13**
.03
.05
.04
.09
.03
-.05
.03
Mediators
Positive self-evaluations on Day t
-.02
.03
.01
.02
.01
.03
Interdependent identity on Day t
.02
.03
.002
.03
-.17**
.04
Social exchange quality on Day t
.20**
.04
.09**
.03
-.02
.04
Alternative mediators
Morning positive affect on Day t + 1
.01
.02
.05**
.02
.001
.02
Morning negative affect on Day t + 1
.02
.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
Morning emotional exhaustion on Day t + 1
.01
.01
.01
.01
.004
.01
Pseudo-R2
.31
.46
.32
.27
.25
.19
Note. Within-person level, N = 1,941-2,143 (the smaller sample size entailed cross-day estimates); between-person level, N = 147. Gender was
coded as 0 = women, 1 = men. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; SE = standard error.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
44
Table 9
Summary of Indirect Effects of Day t Justice on Day t + 1 Work Outcomes through Key Mediators in Study 2
Variables
Task performance on Day t +1
OCB on Day t +1
CWB on Day t +1
Indirect effect
95% CI
Indirect effect
95% CI
Indirect effect
95% CI
Distributive justice on Day t
Positive self-evaluations
-.001
[-.003, .001]
.000
[-.001, .002]
.000
[-.002, .002]
Interdependent identity
.004
[-.006, .013]
.000
[-.008, .008]
-.026**
[-.044, -.009]
Social exchange quality
.022*
[.003, .040]
.010†
[-.001, .020]
-.002
[-.009, .006]
Procedural justice on Day t
Positive self-evaluations
-.002
[-.007, .003]
.001
[-.004, .006]
.001
[-.005, .006]
Interdependent identity
.004
[-.006, .013]
.000
[-.008, .008]
-.029**
[-.047, -.010]
Social exchange quality
.009
[-.003, .022]
.004
[-.002, .010]
-.001
[-.004, .003]
Interpersonal justice on Day t
Positive self-evaluations
-.003
[-.011, .005]
.002
[-.006, .009]
.001
[-.007, .009]
Interdependent identity
.002
[-.003, .006]
.000
[-.004, .004]
-.015*
[-.028, -.001]
Social exchange quality
.017*
[.001, .033]
.007*
[.000, .015]
-.001
[-.007, .004]
Informational justice on Day t
Positive self-evaluations
-.002
[-.008, .004]
.001
[-.004, .007]
.001
[-.005, .007]
Interdependent identity
.002
[-.003, .006]
.000
[-.004, .004]
-.012*
[-.024, -.001]
Social exchange quality
.022**
[.007, .037]
.010*
[.000, .020]
-.002
[-.010, .006]
Note. Within-person level, N = 1,941; between-person level, N = 147. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work
behavior; CI = confidence interval. 90% CI = [.000, .019] for the indirect effect of distributive justice on OCB through social exchange quality.
†p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
45
H3a: .139**/.154**/.134**/.150**
H3b: -.063**/-.057**/-.056**/-.057**
Figure 1
Meta-Analytic Results of Relative Mediating Effects of Exchange- and Identity-Based Mechanisms in Study 1
Note. Coefficients of comparative indirect effects across three mechanisms from Tables 4-6 were presented in the figure. As reflective of the
relative strength between the two examined mediating effects, the coefficients for H2a and H2b should be interpreted in light of their absolute
values and those for H3a should be interpreted in light of their negative values. Dashed lines indicate the indirect paths that are outweighed by
the other two mechanisms. H1, H3a, and H3b were fully supported across justice dimensions, while H2a and H2b were partially supported.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
H1:
.073**/.093**/.111**/.099**
.099**/.119**/.145**/.143**
Task Performance
Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
Counterproductive
Work Behavior
Social Exchange
Quality
Positive
Self-Evaluations
Interdependent
Identity
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interpersonal Justice
Informational Justice
H3a: .040**/.055**/.035*/.055**
H2a:.014/.008/-.026/-.016
H2a: .000/-.033*/-.074**/-.073**
H2b: .002/-.029*/-.039**/-.043**
46
Figure 2
Path Analytic Results of Relative Mediating Effects of Daily Exchange- and Identity-Based Mechanisms in Study 2
Note. Solid lines indicate significant paths; dashed lines indicate non-significant paths. The comparative indirect effects were reported underneath
each pertinent hypothesis. In Study 2, H1 and H3b were fully or largely supported and H3a was partially supported across justice dimensions.
However, H2a and H2b were not supported.
*p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed).
Task Performance
Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
Counterproductive
Work Behavior
Social Exchange
Quality
Positive
Self-Evaluations
Interdependent
Identity
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interpersonal Justice
Informational Justice
.09*
.08*
.08*
.13**
.02
.13**
.09**
.19**
.13**
.18**
.10**
.07*
.20**
.09**
-.02
.01
-.02
.01
-.17**
.02
.002
H1
.022*/.009/.017*/.022**
H3a, H3b:
-.026**/.029**/-.015**/-.012*
H3a: .000/.001/.001/.001
H2a, H2b
.000/.001/.002/.001
47
Appendix A: Effects of Justice Dimensions on Exchange- and Identity-Based Mechanisms
We explored the relative predictive power of justice dimensions on exchange- and identity-based
mechanisms by conducting a relative weight analysis (Johnson, 2000; Tonidandel & LeBreton 2015; see
https://relativeimportance.davidson.edu/). In the meta-analytic study, we found that 19%, 41%, 17%, and
23% of the total variance of positive self-evaluations were accounted for by distributive, procedural,
interpersonal, and informational justice, respectively; 26%, 31%, 17%, and 26% of the total variance of
interdependent identity were accounted for by distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational
justice, respectively; and 21%, 32%, 24%, and 23% of the total variance of social exchange quality were
accounted for by distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice, respectively.
In the daily study, results showed that 34%, 27%, and 27% of the total variance in daily positive
self-evaluations were explained by interpersonal, informational, and procedural justice respectively,
larger than 12% by distributive justice. For daily interdependent identity, 32% and 35% of its total
variance were accounted for by distributive and procedural justice respectively, larger than 19% by
interpersonal justice and 14% by information justice. Further, the percentages of variance accounted for
by distributive (30%) and procedural (29%) justice of the total variance of social exchange quality were
greater than those accounted for by interpersonal (19%) and informational (14%) justice, respectively.
Across two studies, we generally found that distributive justice had relatively weak power in
predicting positive self-evaluations. Such results are consistent with research on managerial discretion in
justice rule adherence (Scott et al., 2009; 2014). Organizational justice is usually enacted by authorities
such as managers, whose latitude in enacting justice dimensions can vary due to systematic constraints of
managerial practices arising from organizational policies or resource scarcity. Specifically, distributive
justice enactment is largely subject to existing regulations and protocols, such as compensation and
promotion standards, giving managers less discretion and latitude, as compared with the other three
justice dimensions. There is a less informative signal that could be extrapolated by subordinates from
distributive justice experience for positive self-regard boosting. Notably, in our meta-analytic study,
procedural justice appeared to have a greater rescaled relative weight in its predictive power than
interpersonal and informational justice, for which managers might have more enactment discretion.
Technically, this is likely due to the relatively small number of studies available on the relationships of
interpersonal and informational justice with positive self-evaluations, which limits the ability to capture
potential effects thoroughly. That said, this is our speculation in hindsight. This necessitates rigorous
examination in future research.
For interdependent identity and social exchange quality, the results from two studies presented
inconsistent findings. In our meta-analytic study, interpersonal and information justice had stronger
predictive power for these two constructs, whereas in the daily study, distributive and procedural justice
had stronger predictive power. This inconsistency likely arises from the temporal difference (between-
person static relations vs. within-person dynamic relations) between the two studies. This could also be
due to the difference in conceptual scope between these two studies. In our meta-analytic review, both
interdependent identity and social exchange quality included targets of individuals (e.g., supervisors) and
collective entities (e.g., groups or organizations). However, in the daily study, both interdependent
identity and social exchange quality were targeted at the latter. Distributive and procedural justice are
likely to convey messages that the higher-level authorities and the group treat individual members fairly.
This may lead to greater utility in predicting group identity and social exchange quality within the group.
We invite future research to further verify and explicate such discrepancies using different research
approaches.
Notably, the abovementioned differences in the predictive power of justice dimensions did not
significantly alter their indirect effects on three outcomes via exchange- and identity-based mechanisms.
The mediating effects across justice dimensions presented in both studies were generally identical
regarding their significance.
48
TABLE A1
Results of Relative Weight Analysis in Studies 1 & 2
Variables
R2
Raw relative weight
Rescaled relative weight (%)
Study 1: Meta-Analytic Results
Criterion = Positive self-evaluations
.14
Predictors: Distributive justice
.03
19.06
Procedural justice
.06
40.49
Interpersonal justice
.02
17.12
Informational justice
.03
23.33
Criterion = Interdependent identity
.30
Predictors: Distributive justice
.08
26.10
Procedural justice
.09
31.05
Interpersonal justice
.05
17.38
Informational justice
.08
25.47
Criterion = Social exchange quality
.42
Predictors: Distributive justice
.09
21.09
Procedural justice
.13
32.13
Interpersonal justice
.10
24.26
Informational justice
.09
22.51
Study 2: Daily Study Results
Criterion = Daily Positive self-evaluations
.16
Predictors: Distributive justice
.02
11.80
Procedural justice
.04
26.81
Interpersonal justice
.05
34.36
Informational justice
.04
27.03
Criterion = Daily Interdependent identity
.21
Predictors: Distributive justice
.07
31.92
Procedural justice
.07
34.57
Interpersonal justice
.04
19.27
Informational justice
.03
14.23
Criterion = Daily Social exchange quality
.13
Predictors: Distributive justice
.04
30.08
Procedural justice
.04
28.64
Interpersonal justice
.02
14.54
Informational justice
.03
26.74
Notes: Rescaled relative weight indicates the percentage of variance explained by the specific predictor.
49
Appendix B: Supplementary Meta-Analysis Results of the Moderating Effects of Culture,
Time Frame, and Study Design in Study 1
Justice represents one of the key moral values adopted across societies (Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg,
1971), suggesting that psychological responses to fairness may vary depending on broad social beliefs
and norms (Shao et al., 2013). We thus conducted supplementary analyses to examine whether national
cultures moderated justice effects on three key mediators by using Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions
and indexing (i.e., power distance, collectivism, femininity, uncertainty avoidance; Hofstede, 2001, 2005;
Hofstede & Bond, 1988) to conduct weighted least square regression analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2015).
Justice experience involves distinct time frames, manifested as event-based (i.e., focusing on specific
work events such as performance evaluations) and entity-based (i.e., focusing on overall experience with
longer timescales) justice (Cropanzano et al., 2001). According to Colquitt et al. (2013), the time frame
could affect employee perceptions of justice experience, moderating the intensity of justice effects on
three key mediators. We thus conducted additional analyses in this regard. Furthermore, we analyzed the
extent to which the research design moderated justice effects on the three key mediators. To investigate
the moderating effects of the time frame and study design, we categorized the studies accordingly (time
frame: event vs. entity; study design: experiment vs. cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) and performed z-
tests to assess the significance of these effects. Due to the limited number of studies available or missing
cells for some tests, these results should be interpreted as informative rather than conclusive.
The results of the moderating effects are presented below, including Table B1 for those of
national cultures, Tables B2-1 to B2-3 for those of time frame, and Tables B3-1 to B3-3 for those of study
designs. For national cultures, distributive justice presented a stronger effect on positive self-evaluations
when samples were from high (vs. low) power distance countries (B = .011, p < .05), or from countries
with high (vs. low) collectivism (B = .006, p < .01). When the samples were drawn from countries with
high (vs. low) femininity, both distributive justice (B = .031, p < .05) and procedural justice (B = .007, p <
.01) had stronger effects on positive self-evaluations. Moreover, when the samples were drawn from high
(vs. low) femininity countries, interpersonal justice (B = .026, p < .05) displayed stronger effects on
interdependent identity. Finally, when the samples were drawn from countries with high (vs. low)
uncertainty avoidance, interpersonal justice (B = .013, p < .05) demonstrated stronger effects on
interdependent identity.
Taken together, we found that distributive justice generally had stronger effects on positive self-
evaluations for the samples from high power distance, collectivism, and femininity cultures. Interpersonal
justice had stronger effects on interdependent identity in samples from high femininity or uncertainty
avoidance cultures, while informational justice had stronger effects on interdependent identity in samples
from high collectivism culture. Such effects might be traced to the distinct implications of justice
dimensions for self-concepts across national cultures. By examining the moderating effects related to each
justice dimension, this set of findings provides a finer level of granularity for the testing of national
cultures as boundary conditions for justice effects. Our work thus advances Shao et al.’s (2013) research,
which examined the cultural contingency for the effects of overall justice instead of specific justice
dimensions.
Regarding time frame, we found that only entity-based distributive justice had a significantly
stronger effect on positive self-evaluations (z = 7.36, p < .01; Table B2-1) than did event-based justice,
while only entity-based procedural justice had stronger effects on interdependent identity (z = 2.52, p <
.05; Table B2-2) than did event-based justice. Regarding study design, only procedural justice showed
smaller effects on interdependent identity with experimental design as compared with cross-sectional or
longitudinal design (z = -6.37, p < .01 and z = -3.80, p < .01; Table B3-2).
50
Table B1
Weighted Least Squares (WLS) Regression Analyses for Moderating Effects of National Cultures in Study 1
Variables
Power distance
Collectivism
Femininity
Uncertainty avoidance
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
Distributive Justice
Positive self-evaluations
.011*
.004
.006**
.001
.031*
.012
.005
.005
Interdependent identity
.001
.002
.001
.001
-.001
.002
-.001
.002
Social exchange quality
.005
.003
.002
.002
-.005
.005
-.002
.003
Procedural Justice
Positive self-evaluations
.000
.003
.001
.002
.007**
.002
.005
.004
Interdependent identity
.001
.002
.001
.001
-.003
.002
-.003
.002
Social exchange quality
.004
.004
.001
.003
-.006
.006
-.006
.004
Interpersonal Justice
Positive self-evaluations
.002
.001
.001
.001
.005
.003
.003
.003
Interdependent identity
-.002
.005
.000
.003
.026*
.010
.013**
.003
Social exchange quality
.010
.004
.005
.002
.000
.014
-.009
.011
Informational Justice
Positive self-evaluations
.004
.003
.002
.002
-.039
.031
-.010
.008
Interdependent identity
.008
.006
.009*
.003
.004
.017
.004
.006
Social exchange quality
.010
.004
.014
.006
.114
.051
-.034
.015
Note. B = unstandardized WLS regression coefficient; SE = standard error.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
51
Table B2-1
Moderating Effects of Time Frame (Entity vs. Event) on the Relationships between Justice and Positive Self-evaluations in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
z value
Distributive justice
Entity
13
5469
.280
.142
.317
.174
[.218, .415]
[.094, .540]
7.36**
Event
2
340
-.010
.000
-.011
.000
[-.090, .068]
[-.011, -.011]
Procedural justice
Entity
22
5912
.310
.113
.362
.135
[.300, .425]
[.190, .535]
0.41
Event
14
1354
.280
.228
.330
.281
[.172, .489]
[-.030, .691]
Interpersonal justice
Entity
6
2237
.254
.021
.290
.026
[.241, .339]
[.257, .323]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Informational justice
Entity
5
1937
.278
.099
.322
.120
[.207, .438]
[.169, .476]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
52
Table B2-2
Moderating Effects of Time Frame (Entity vs. Event) on the Relationships between Justice and Interdependent Identity in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
z value
Distributive justice
Entity
32
10570
.411
.100
.489
.114
[.445, .533]
[.343, .635]
-
Event
1
504
.120
-
.133
-
-
-
Procedural justice
Entity
60
19185
.425
.145
.500
.171
[.455, .545]
[.281, .719]
2.52*
Event
6
1636
.286
.141
.325
.156
[.190, .460]
[.125, .525]
Interpersonal justice
Entity
8
2947
.370
.125
.425
.150
[.315, .535]
[.232, .618]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Informational justice
Entity
9
3050
.406
.103
.480
.137
[.384, .577]
[.304, .656]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
53
Table B2-3
Moderating Effects of Time Frame (Entity vs. Event) on the Relationships between Justice and Social Exchange Quality in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
z value
Distributive justice
Entity
15
5317
.450
.125
.530
.118
[.465, .594]
[.378, .681]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Procedural justice
Entity
27
8371
.488
.119
.574
.135
[.520, .629]
[.401, .747]
-
Event
1
540
.590
-
.668
-
-
-
Interpersonal justice
Entity
6
1917
.483
.147
.551
.142
[.431, .671]
[.369, .733]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Informational justice
Entity
5
1470
.466
.155
.558
.142
[.425, .691]
[.377, .740]
-
Event
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
54
Table B3-1
Moderating Effects of Study Design on the Relationships between Justice and Positive Self-Evaluations in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
Comparison
z value
Distributive justice
Experiment (G1)
1
260
.017
-
.020
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
11
4743
.255
.134
.289
.161
[.189, .388]
[.082, .495]
G2-G3
-1.29
Longitudinal (G3)
3
806
.388
.169
.445
.224
[.182, .707]
[.158, .731]
G1-G3
-
Procedural justice
Experiment (G1)
12
1241
.301
.230
.357
.284
[.184, .529]
[-.007, .721]
G1-G2
0.13
Cross-sectional (G2)
19
4881
.297
.116
.346
.132
[.279, .412]
[.177, .514]
G2-G3
-0.89
Longitudinal (G3)
5
1144
.343
.113
.406
.156
[.255, .556]
[.205, .606]
G1-G3
-0.49
Interpersonal justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
5
1937
.242
.000
.276
.000
[.228, .323]
[.276, .276]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
300
.333
-
.379
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Informational justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
5
1937
0.278
0.099
0.322
0.120
[.207, .438]
[.169, .476]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
55
Table B3-2
Moderating Effects of Study Design on the Relationships between Justice and Interdependent Identity in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
sdr
ρ
sdρ
95% CI
80% CR
Comparison
z value
Distributive justice
Experiment (G1)
1
504
.120
-
.133
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
30
9879
.414
.101
.487
.115
[.442, .532]
[.340, .634]
G2-G3
-0.44
Longitudinal (G3)
2
691
.376
.076
.521
.086
[.373, .669]
[.411, .630]
G1-G3
-
Procedural justice
Experiment (G1)
3
753
.156
.069
.177
.084
[.052, .301]
[.069, .284]
G1-G2
-6.37**
Cross-sectional (G2)
58
18364
.422
.142
.495
.165
[.450, .539]
[.282, .706]
G2-G3
-0.35
Longitudinal (G3)
5
1704
.443
.150
.524
.196
[.345, .701]
[.272, .775]
G1-G3
-3.80**
Interpersonal justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
7
2549
.369
.136
.418
.160
[.294, .542]
[.213, .622]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
398
.380
-
.478
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Informational justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
8
2652
.415
.109
.483
.146
[.374, .590]
[.295, .669]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
398
.340
-
.460
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
56
Table B3-3
Moderating Effects of Study Design on the Relationships between Justice and Social Exchange Quality in Study 1
Variables
k
N
r
SDr
ρ
SDρ
95% CI
80% CR
Comparison
z value
Distributive justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
14
4919
.472
.102
.544
.104
[.483, .603]
[.409, .677]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
398
.170
-
.248
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Procedural justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
24
7759
.506
.115
.590
.132
[.533, .646]
[.421, .758]
G2-G3
1.11
Longitudinal (G3)
4
1152
.418
.108
.510
.117
[.381, .638]
[.360, .660]
G1-G3
-
Interpersonal justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
5
1519
.536
.120
.585
.131
[.464, .706]
[.417, .752]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
398
.280
-
.364
-
-
-
G1-G3
-
Informational justice
Experiment (G1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G1-G2
-
Cross-sectional (G2)
5
1519
.536
.120
.585
.131
[.464, .706]
[.417, .752]
G2-G3
-
Longitudinal (G3)
1
398
.280
-
.364
-
-
-
G1-G3
Note. k = number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = mean sample size weighted observed correlations; SDr = standard deviation of
observed correlations; ρ = mean sample-size-weighted correlation corrected for attenuation due to unreliability; SDρ = estimated standard
deviation; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; 80% CR = 80% credibility interval.
57
Appendix C: Preliminary Tests of Daily Variables in Study 2
Within-person Variance in Daily Variables
All daily study variables vary significantly on a daily basis: 27.8% for distributive justice, 29.9%
for procedural justice, 27.9% for interpersonal justice, 27.8% for informational justice, 25.5% for positive
self-evaluations, 25.1% for interdependent identity, 31.1% for social exchange quality, 39.5% for task
performance, 29.4% for OCB, and 28.7% for CWB. These results necessitate the use of random
coefficient modeling in Study 2 data analysis.
Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analyses
We conducted a series of multilevel confirmatory factor analyses to examine the discriminant
validity of key daily measures reported by subordinates (i.e., four justice dimensions, daily positive self-
evaluations, daily interdependent identity, daily social exchange with the group, OCB, and CWB). To
maintain an optimal sample-size-to-parameter ratio and minimize factor solution instability (Bagozzi &
Edwards, 1998), we randomly created three-item parcels for OCB items and four-item parcels for CWB
items. The results showed that a nine-factor baseline model composed of four justice dimensions, three
mediators, OCB, and CWB fit the data well (χ2 (918) = 2062.54, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .95, TLI
= .94, SRMR (within-dyad) = .04, SRMR (between-dyad) = .05), better than alternative models, including an eight-
factor model in which indicators of exchange quality and interdependent identity loaded on one factor
(Δχ2 (16) = 1711.38, Satorra-Bentler scaled Δχ2 = 464.15, p < .001, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .87, TLI = .86,
SRMR (within-dyad) = .07, SRMR (between-dyad) = .05), an eight-factor model in which indicators of social
exchange quality and positive self-evaluations loaded on one factor (Δχ2 (16) = 3032.47, Satorra-Bentler
scaled Δχ2 = 1255.13, p < .001, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .82, TLI = .79, SRMR (within-dyad) = .08, SRMR (between-
dyad) = .07), an eight-factor model in which indicators of interdependent identity and positive self-
evaluations loaded on one factor (Δχ2 (16) = 1987.43, Satorra-Bentler scaled Δχ2 = 490.95, p < .001,
RMSEA = .04, CFI = .86, TLI = .85, SRMR (within-dyad) = .07, SRMR (between-dyad) = .09).
58
Online Supplementary Materials
Section 1: Summary of Variable Examples of Study Constructs in the Meta-Analytic Study
Study
N
Design
Justice
Dimensions
Social Exchange
Quality
Positive Self-
evaluations
Interdependent
Identity
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
Abdullah & Al-Abrrow
(2022)
1125
B
procedural justice
perceived
organizational
support;
organizational
commitment
organizational
identification
task performance
OCB
Abril et al. (2020)
115
B
distributive fairness,
procedural fairness
organizational
identification
Abuelhassan et al.
(2022)
380
C
distributive justice,
procedural justice
self-efficacy
extra-role
behavior
Başar & Sığrı (2015)
292
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice,
interpersonal justice,
informational justice
organizational
identification
Bergami & Morandin
(2019)
743
B
distributive fairness,
procedural fairness
organizational
identification
Blader (2007)
182
B
procedural justice
identification
with university
Blader & Tyler (2009;
sample 1)
112
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
organizational
identification
extra-role
behavior
Blader & Tyler (2009;
sample 2)
831
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
organizational
identification
extra-role
behavior
Brimbal et al. (2020)
711
B
procedural justice
organizational
identification
Bustaman et al. (2020)
327
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice,
interpersonal justice,
informational justice
self-esteem
59
Study
N
Design
Justice
Dimensions
Social Exchange
Quality
Positive Self-
evaluations
Interdependent
Identity
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
Byrne (2001)
177
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
supervisory/coworke
r commitment
workgroup-
identification
job performance
OCB toward
supervisor/co
worker
Campbell (2007)
76
B
procedural justice
(profession-related)
occupational
commitment;
perceived
professional support
professional
identity
Cheung & Law (2008)
159
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice,
interpersonal justice,
informational justice
perceived
organizational
support
organizational
identification
Cho & Treadway (2011;
sample 1)
130
B
procedural justice
perceived
organizational
support
organizational
identification
OCB
Cho & Treadway (2011;
sample 2)
135
B
procedural justice
perceived
organizational
support
organizational
identification
OCB
Choi (2019)
508
B
leader equity
self-efficacy
Choi et al. (2014)
284
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
organizational
identification
OCB
De Backer et al. (2011;
sample 2)
110
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
team
identification
De Clercq (2020)
190
C
procedural justice
organization-
based self-esteem
De Cremer (2005)
198
B
distributive justice,
procedural justice
organizational
identification
OCBO
De Cremer & Blader
(2006)
83
A
procedural justice
self-evaluation
De Cremer & Sedikides
(2008; sample 4)
44
A
procedural justice
self-esteem
De Cremer & Van Hiel
(2008; sample 1)
79
A
procedural justice
self-esteem
De Cremer & Van Hiel
(2008; sample 2)
147
A
procedural justice
self-esteem
60
Study
N
Design
Justice
Dimensions
Social Exchange
Quality
Positive Self-
evaluations
Interdependent
Identity
Task Performance
OCB
CWB
De Cremer & Van
Knippenberg (2002;
sample 3)
99
A
procedural justice
group
belongingness
OCBO
De Cremer et al. (2006)
257
B
procedural justice
organizational
identification