Regular Article
Health Consequences of Organizational Injustice: Tests of Main and Interactive Effects

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2951Get rights and content

Abstract

I report the results of two studies that explored relationships between employees' justice perceptions and their psychological well-being. In both studies, the main and interactive effects of distributive justice and procedural justice accounted for significant, unique variance in employees' psychological distress. Consistent with predictions derived from a framework that integrates stress and coping theory with justice theory, relationships between procedural justice and psychological distress were stronger when distributive justice was lower. I discuss theoretical implications for the organizational justice literature and identify the studies' limitations and practical implications.

References (45)

  • J.S. Adams

    Inequity in social exchange

  • J.S. Adams et al.

    Equity theory revisited: Comments and an annotated bibliography

  • M.G. Evans

    A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1985)
  • J. Brockner et al.

    Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2000)
  • J. Brockner et al.

    When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1997)
  • J. Brockner et al.

    An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1996)
  • S. Cartwright

    Taking the pulse of executive health in the U.K

    Academy of Management Executive

    (2000)
  • S. Cartwright et al.

    Managing workplace stress

    (1997)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1983)
  • S. Cohen et al.

    Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1985)
  • C.L. Cooper et al.

    Living with stress

    (1988)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    The NEO PI/FFI manual supplement

    (1992)
  • R. Cropanzano et al.

    Progress in organizational justice: Vol. 12. Tunneling through the maze

    International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

    (1997)
  • M. Davidson et al.

    When excuses don't work: The persistent injustice effect among black managers

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1998)
  • L.R. Derogatis

    Brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual

    (1993)
  • R.G. Folger et al.

    Organizational justice and human resource management

    (1998)
  • R.G. Folger et al.

    A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression

  • S. Folkman

    Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1984)
  • S. Folkman et al.

    Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1984)
  • S.W. Gilliland

    Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1994)
  • J. Greenberg

    The quest for justice on the job: Essays and experiments

    (1996)
  • R.L. Kahn et al.

    Stress in organizations

  • Cited by (232)

    • When employees fight back: Investigating how customer incivility and procedural injustice can impel employee retaliation

      2022, International Journal of Hospitality Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Fairness characterizes one of the essential organizational processes (Moreo et al., 2020). In contrast, procedural injustice, which is the perception of unfairness regarding organizational procedures, can be particularly detrimental and can induce psychological strain (Tepper, 2001). Rooted in organizational process, procedural injustice can be “influenced by how supervisors enact resource allocation procedures” (C. Liu, Yang, & Nauta, 2013, p. 65).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research was supported by a summer research grant awarded to the author from the Belk College of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

    f2

    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Bennett J. Tepper, Department of Management, Belk College of Business Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. E-mail: [email protected].

    View full text