Search results

Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.

This research aims to examine how source of funds (paying with company’s funds versus personal funds) affects buyer’s judgments of price fairness and via these judgments, buyer’s response to prices.

A scenario-based experiment is used (N = 200). To test the hypotheses, the authors run moderated mediation regression analyses with the help of the PROCESS macro.

Drawing on fairness heuristics theory, the authors hypothesize and find that relative to when paying with personal funds, when paying with company’s funds, the perceived price difference plays a less significant role, whereas the perceived social acceptability of the pricing practice underlying the price difference plays a more important role in shaping price fairness judgments and, via these judgments, buyer’s response to prices.

The findings generate advice for companies that serve both the business and personal segments (e.g. airlines and hotels). Buyers in the personal segment typically pay with their own money. To persuade these buyers that a price is fair, it is crucial to show that the price represents a good deal for them. Buyers in the business segment often pay with company’s fund. Companies have more flexibility in charging different prices, but they should make sure that the reasons for the price difference are socially acceptable.

This research shows how the relative role of price difference versus social acceptability in price fairness judgments varies as a function of source of funds and how an inconsistency between price difference and its economic impact affects price fairness judgments.

Factors other than job performance might affect judgments about pay fairness for employees doing the same job, and the strength of these factors may differ across national cultures. This study uses a multivariate, policy‐capturing approach to compare the way that characteristics of employees—seniority, education, family size, individual job performance, and work effort—affect judgments about the fairness of pay received by employees in Korea and the United States. Regression models of the determinants of judgments about pay fairness by Korean and U.S. nationals were estimated. Korean pay fairness judgments were found to be relatively more sensitive to differences in seniority, education, and family size, and American pay fairness judgments were relatively more sensitive to variations in individual job performance and work effort.

This paper aims to link conceptually the concepts of price fairness and customer satisfaction and empirically demonstrate the influence of perceived price fairness on satisfaction judgments. Further, it seeks to examine specific factors that influence fairness perceptions including price perception and consumer vulnerability.

The study is conducted in the context of automobile purchases in major German car dealerships. Based on a theoretical conceptualization of the constructs and an empirical pretest, 246 car buyers were surveyed and their fairness perceptions and satisfaction judgments with the car buying process measured.

The research shows that price perceptions directly influence satisfaction judgments as well as indirectly through perceptions of price fairness. Results also indicated that consumers' vulnerability, which is induced by a perceived demand‐supply relationship and the urgency of need from the consumers' side, had a negative effect on perceived price offer fairness.

The research demonstrated the influence of perceived price fairness on satisfaction judgments empirically. The study was conducted in the context of car purchases and the generalizability of the model should be further tested.

The effect of consumer vulnerability implies that sellers should not only avoid exploiting their customers but should also anticipate consumers' potential feelings of being exploited. Being sensitive to the buyers’ psychological state and assuring buyers of fair treatment will enhance perceptions of price fairness without changing the price offer.

Both the direct and indirect effects of price perception on satisfaction judgment were examined in the paper. Specifically, the influences of consumer vulnerability and price procedure fairness on satisfaction judgments are new and contribute to the dual‐entitlement principle and our existing knowledge in price fairness.

In previous experiments where negotiators' fairness judgments have been found to be egocentrically biased, it is possible that the observed bias was caused largely by selective encoding of the background information given to negotiators. The extent to which egocentric fairness judgments were caused by selective encoding, however, cannot be determined from those experiments. In the present study, we tested for the effects of selective encoding by varying the point in time that negotiators learned their role in a simulated wage dispute. Results indicated that, while judgments of a fair settlement point were the most egocentric under conditions that allowed for selective encoding, these conditions were not necessary for the bias to occur; there was a significant degree of egocentric bias even when there was no possibility of selective encoding. Implications of these results for both research and practice are discussed.

Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the other. Specifically, status quo theories depict individuals as resistant to perceptions of injustice in their social environments, whereas theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice depict individuals as quite sensitive to the justice that characterizes outcomes and treatment.

Methodology/approach – We build on previous research on the justice judgment process to consider ways in which the findings from these two research streams can be integrated.

Findings – We suggest that the two overarching streams of research have identified and empirically explored two distinct modes of justice evaluation: a system justification mode and a system critique mode.

Originality/value of chapter – We develop a model of the justice judgment process that specifies the circumstances under which each of the two modes is likely to operate.

From the perspective of customer segmentation, most scholars show more interest in the very important person (VIP) customer’s service experience and satisfaction; however, the way in which ordinary customers view VIP services has received less attention. Based on fairness heuristic theory and social comparison theory, this study aims to examine the impact of the social visibility of VIP services on ordinary customers’ satisfaction and explored the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions of this effect.

Two experiments were conducted, Study 1 verified the main effect and mediating effect, Study 2 tested the moderating effect.

The results show that the social visibility of VIP services decreases ordinary customers’ satisfaction and perceived fairness mediates this effect. The deservingness of VIP status moderates the connection between social visibility and perceived fairness.

This research changes the objects of VIP services research and focuses on ordinary customers as its main group and expands the scope of social comparisons among customers.

The findings expand the scope and perspective of research on VIP services and provide guidance to service providers to reduce ordinary customers’ feelings of unfairness so as to improve customer satisfaction.

This study explores the effect of the social visibility of VIP services on ordinary customer satisfaction from the perspective of perceived fairness, as well as the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of the effect.

This chapter examines how public attitudes and judgments about tax fairness reflect distributive justice rules about proportionality/contributions, needs, and equality; fairness issues that influence voluntary tax compliance (Hofmann, Hoelzl, & Kirchler, 2008; Spicer & Lundstedt, 1976). Most public polls and some prior research indicate the general public considers progressive income tax rates as fairer than flat tax rates, a reflection of the Needs rule of distributive justice theory; our 1,138 participants respond similarly. However, two-thirds of our politically representative sample of the American public actually assign “fair shares” of income taxes consistently with fairness-as-proportionality above an exempt amount of income, consistent with the Contributions rule of Equity Theory. We argue experimental assignments of fair shares of income taxes can best be understood as a combination of the Needs rule, applied by exempting incomes below the poverty line from income taxation (via current standard deductions) and taxing incomes above this exempt amount at a single tax rate (i.e., a flat-rate tax) consistent with the Proportionality/Contributions rule. Viewed in combination, these two distributive justice rules explain the tax fairness judgments of 89% of our sample and indicate surprising general agreement about what constitutes a fair share of income taxes that should be paid by US citizens from the 5th percentile to the 95th percentile of the income distribution. The joint application of these fairness rules indicates how seemingly competing, partisan distributive justice concerns can inform our understanding of social attitudes about tax fairness across income classes.

Data from samples of managers from eight countries, Thailand, Nigeria, Philippines, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, Spain, and the United States, are used to explore cross-national differences in how individuals make judgments about an individual's pay. A policy-capturing instrument is used to elicit judgments about the ways that variations in individual employee job performance, business unit performance, seniority, schooling, and need affect judgments about pay fairness. Significant between-country differences are found in the sensitivities of pay fairness judgments. However, these differences are not well explained by differences in individualism/collectivism reflected either by a priori categorizations of national culture or direct measures of horizontal/vertical collectivism. Implications for the explanation of cross-national differences are explored.

Drawing on the fairness theory, this paper aims to propose a conceptual framework that investigates how co-creation in the failed service delivery (coproduction intensity) and co-creation in the service recovery affect customers’ evaluation of the firm’s competence, justice and ethicalness, and ultimately their willingness to co-create in the future.

Tax services were chosen as the research context. A consumer panel consisting of individuals who live in the USA and have used tax preparation services within the past year was recruited. The first study explores what happens to customers’ ethical perceptions during a failed co-created service encounter. A secondary study investigates what happens to customers’ ethical perceptions in the event that the failed co-created service is recovered.

The findings show that customers’ perceptions of the firm’s abilities and ethics are impeded by coproduction intensity but favorably influenced by co-creation of recovery.

A sense of ethicalness and fairness is violated when co-created service failure occurs, but fortunately, practitioners can count on engaging customers in the service recovery process as co-creators of the solution to positively alter perceived ethicalness and fairness.

Failed co-created services represent an under-researched area in the marketing literature. Current investigations of co-created service failures have largely approached the notion of fairness from a perceived justice perspective without referencing ethical judgments. However, fairness is grounded in basic ethical assumptions of normative treatment. This research is among the first to highlight the importance of perceived ethicalness in the context of co-created service failure and recovery.