Discussion Papers In Economics
And Business

Self-Esteem and Justice Orientation as Moderators for
Individual- and Group-Level Justice Effects
Tomoki Sekiguchi

Yoichiro Hayashi

Discussion Paper 08-15

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANSelf-Esteem and Justice Orientation as Moderators for
Individual- and Group-Level Justice Effects
Tomoki Sekiguchi

Yoichiro Hayashi

Discussion Paper 08-15
April 2008

この研究は「大学院経済学研究科・経済学部記念事業」
基金より援助を受けた、記して感謝する。

Graduate School of Economics andOsaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP)
Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPANSelf-Esteem and Justice Orientation as Moderators for Individual- and Group-Level
Justice Effects

Tomoki Sekiguchi †Yoichiro Hayashi ‡Abstract
We examine self-esteem and justice orientation as individual difference factors thatmoderate the relationship between individual-level and group-level justice and potential
employee reactions. Two studies were conducted using scenarios in which levels of
individual-level and group-level justice were manipulated. Using a sample of 419
undergraduate students, Study 1 showed that, whereas self-esteem moderated the relationshipbetween individual-level procedural justice and intention to leave, justice orientation
moderated the relationship between group-level procedural justice and helping behaviors.
Using a sample of 207 undergraduate students, Study 2 showed that justice orientation
moderated the relationships between individual-level and group-level distributive justice, andhelping and counterproductive behaviors. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

JEL Classification: M10, M12, M54
Keywords: organizational justice; self-esteem; justice orientation; group-level† Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University 1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043 Japan.

Email: tomoki@econ.osaka-u.ac.jp‡ Faculty of Lifelong Learning and Career Studies, Hosei University.

Research on organizational justice has repeatedly contended for the importance oftreating employees fairly. Treating employees fairly has been found to increase a number of
positive employee outcomes while treating them unfairly has been found to cause negative
employee reactions. The employee outcomes that have been found to be affected by suchfair/unfair treatment include job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors,organizational commitment, job satisfaction, voluntary turnover, absenteeism, retaliations andcounterproductive behaviors (e.g., see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007 for reviews). Organizational
justice researchers have also investigated why some people respond to the same justicetreatment differently. That is, researchers have investigated individual differences asmoderators of the effects of fair/unfair treatment (e.g., Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003, Colquitt,
Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2005; Scott & Colquitt, 2007; Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, & Bartel,2007). To date, several individual difference factors that moderate the effects oforganizational justice have been identified, such as equity sensitivity (Huseman & Hatfield,
1987), exchange ideology (Scott & Colquitt, 2007), self-esteem (Brockner et al., 1998;
Wisenfeld et al., 2007), justice orientation (Liao & Rupp, 2005), trust propensity, risk
aversion and morality (Colquitt et al., 2005).
In this investigation, we focus on self-esteem and justice orientation as important
individual difference factors that might moderate the relationship between fair/unfair
treatment and potential employee reactions. We posit that, because of the difference in thecharacteristics of self-esteem and justice orientation, these two individual difference factors
would generate different moderating effects of fair/unfair treatment on employee work
outcomes. Self-esteem is essentially a self-evaluative disposition and would be closely related
to self-interest or self-serving motivations in organizational life. On the other hand, justiceorientation, developed recently by Rupp and her colleagues (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington,-1-

2003), is related to a person’s moral values and would be closely related to the above
self-interest motivations in organizational life. Thus, these two dispositional characteristics
may influence an individual’s reactions to fair/unfair treatment in different ways because they
involve different mechanisms or motives regarding why people seek, and react to, justice(Cropanzano et al., 2001). To put it differently, we contrast the self-interest perspective(specifically the relational model) and the moral virtues perspective when theorizing about
the moderating effects of self-esteem and justice orientation. The self-interest perspective
suggests that people care about justice because it is beneficial to them (Cropanzano et al.,2001). In contrast, the moral virtues perspective suggests that people value justice simply
because it is moral (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003). We argue that the former is related toself-esteem, and the latter is related to justice orientation, as moderators of the effects oforganizational justice.
Another distinctive characteristic of the current investigation is that we explore theeffects of two different levels of justice, these being individual-level and group-level justice.
In this classification, we assume a context in which an organization has several subgroups,
such as departments and work units, and examine two different levels of fair treatment that
may occur in such a context. One treatment is targeted towards subgroups within theorganization by higher organizational authorities, such as top management and senior
executives. The other treatment is targeted towards individual members of a subgroup led bysuch authorities as supervisors and unit leaders. Borrowing from the concepts proposed bysocial justice researchers, such as Jasso (1980), Markovsky (1984) and Wenzel (2004), we
define these two levels of justice as individual-level justice and group-level justice.
Individual-level justice refers to fair/unfair treatment, within the subgroups, that is targeted
towards each individual member of the subgroup. On the other hand, group-level justicerefers to the fair/unfair treatment targeted to the subgroups as a whole.

-2-We explore individual-level and group-level justice because many modern
organizations consist of subgroups in which employees spend their working hours with theircoworkers. More importantly, we posit that individual-level and group-level justice effects on
employee work outcomes may be moderated differently by different individual difference
variables, such as those used in the current investigation, namely, self-esteem and justiceorientation. Thus, we explore how within-group employee work behaviors and attitudes areaffected when the group itself is treated fairly/unfairly by higher organizational authorities.
We also explore these variables when each group member is treated fairly/unfairly bysupervisors or unit leaders within the subgroups, and how these effects are moderated by aperson’s self-esteem and justice orientation. Specifically, we examine the following employee
behaviors and attitudes as potential reactions to individual-level and group-level fair/unfair
treatment: (a) in-role behaviors that are usually prescribed in job descriptions (Williams &Anderson, 1991); (b) helping behaviors directed towards coworkers as a part oforganizational citizenship behavior (Williams & Anderson, 1991); (c) counterproductive
behaviors that are a part of the negative behaviors that occur in response to fair/unfair
treatment (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997); and (d) an intention to leave that is part of an
employee’s withdrawal behavior (Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985).
INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL AND GROUP-LEVEL JUSTICEAs discussed, we examine the different levels of justice within the organizational
context for organizations consisting of several subgroups. That is, we examine
individual-level justice observed within the subgroup context and group-level justiceobserved within the organization-wide context. For example, for each group member,promotion and pay rise decisions conducted by the unit leader or group supervisor are crucial,as also is the processes or procedures by which such outcomes are determined. These cases
correspond to individual-level distributive and procedural justice, respectively. On the other-3-

hand, how a company’s budget and other resources are allocated to the subgroups (e.g.,
departments or work units) in an organization should be critical for each subgroup, as also are
the process or procedure by which such allocation occurs. This corresponds to group-level
distributive and procedural justice, respectively.
As a general term, individual-level justice refers to people’s evaluations andconcerns about the realization of their individual entitlements (Wenzel, 2004). Thus, theindividual is the perceived recipient unit and the target of one’s judgment. Group-level justice,on the other hand, refers to people’s evaluations and concerns about the realization of theirgroup’s entitlements. Thus, the group is the perceived recipient unit and the target of one’s
judgment (Azzi 1992; Jost & Azzi 1996; Markovsky, 1985). In the case of individual-leveljustice, one could compare oneself as an individual with others in the same group. In the caseof group-level justice, one could compare one’s group as a whole with other subgroups in theorganization. Thus, the unit of analysis and the focus of fair treatment would be the groups
themselves.
The concept of individual-level versus group-level justice can be traced back torelative deprivation theory (e.g., Runciman, 1966). Relative deprivation research
distinguished between egoistic (personal) and fraternal (group) deprivation. Personal
deprivation refers to individuals’ evaluations of their personal outcomes relative to theirpersonal entitlements, whereas group deprivation refers to an evaluation of a group’s
outcomes relative to its entitlement. These two forms differ in their definition of the recipient
unit of resource allocation (Cohen, 1987; Eckhoff, 1974; Wenzel, 2000), and in the level ofabstraction of the target of one’s justice evaluation (person versus group).
This conceptualization of group-level justice is fundamentally different from recent
studies of justice climate, to which organizational justice researchers have paid more attention
because of the increased use of groups and teams in today’s work settings (Colquitt et al.,-4-

2002; Mossholder et al., 1998; Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Rupp, Bashshur, & Liao, 2006;
Liao & Rupp, 2005). Although justice climate is defined as group-level justice perception
relating to how the group as a whole is treated fairly, it is usually conceptualized as theaggregation of justice perceptions targeted towards individual members of the same group(Liao & Rupp, 2005). This is much like the shared perceptions of individual-level justice
within the group. On the other hand, for the conceptualization and operationalization ofgroup-level justice, the target of fair/unfair treatment is a group (subgroup) entity, whichcannot be reduced to the individual level as a target. In addition, our investigation examines
individual-level perception rather than shared perceptions among group members about
fair/unfair treatment targeted to the group (i.e., group-level justice), and the effects of such
perception on individual-level work outcomes.
Within the classifications, individual-level and group-level justice, different types ofjustice could exist (e.g., distributive and procedural justice). In this regard, Wenzel (2004) has
argued that this typology of individual-level and group-level justice (and inclusive-leveljustice in his conceptualizations) could be applied to both procedural and distributive justice.
Based on his argument, we examine both procedural and distributive justice at the individualand group levels.
THE SELF-INTEREST PERSPECTIVE AND SELF-ESTEEM
Several theoretical perspectives or “integrative theories” (Colquitt, Greenberg, &Zapata-Phelan, 2005) explain why people care about justice. Cropanzano et al. (2001) discuss
the “three roads” to organizational justice. Two self-interest roads (instrumental or material,and interpersonal or relational identity) contend that people only care about what justice does
for them, for example, the types of self-interest benefit sought. The third road, a moral
principle, is the only one contending that human motives can rise above self-interest.
Of these two roads of self-interest perspectives, proposed by Cropanzano et al.

-5-(2001), the relational model of organizational justice suggests that workers care about justicebecause it enhances an individual’s feelings of self-worth and acceptance by others. The
relational model was developed from both a group-value model and a relational model ofauthority (Tyler & Lind, 1992). This model argues that important inferences about the self asa member of an organization or group flow from an employee’s perception of justice, thusemphasizing the implications of relational inferences for fair/unfair treatment. That is, fairtreatment communicates a positive message about their group or organizational membership,
while unfair treatment communicates a negative message (Blader & Tyler, 2003).
As discussed, the relational model suggests that fair treatment communicatesself-evaluative information to people, and that fair treatment could affect people more or lesspositively, depending upon their self-esteem and associated self-related motives. Thus, anindividual’s self-esteem might play an important moderating role that influences therelationship between fair treatment and an employee’s attitudinal and behavioral reactions.
Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) theoretically connected the self-verification perspective with
self-esteem in the context of procedural justice. According to self-verification theory, once
people form self-views, they work on stabilizing them by seeking and embracing experiencesthat match their self-views, and by avoiding or rejecting experiences that challenge them (e.g.,
Swann, 1983). Because favorable evaluations are both self-verifying and self-enhancing,
individuals with high self-esteem should react more favorably to procedurally fair treatment
than to procedurally unfair treatment. By doing so, they confirm the positive self-views. On
the other hand, because the positive evaluative information inherent in fair treatment
disconfirms their self-views, compared with those with high self-esteem, individuals with low
self-esteem should be less eager to embrace fair over unfair treatment. Employees with highself-esteem may perceive unfair treatment as a violation of their self-views, whereas
employees with low self-esteem may not be so inclined. Thus, individuals with high-6-

self-esteem would react to unfair treatment more negatively than those with low self-esteem.
Findings from empirical studies are consistent with self-verification arguments.
Research has shown that individuals with low self-esteem are less likely to exhibit thepositive relationship between fair treatment and work attitudes and behaviors displayed bytheir counterparts who have high self-esteem. For example, Wiesenfeld et al. (2007) found apositive relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment amongindividuals with high self-esteem, but not among those with low self-esteem.
With respect to individual-level and group-level justice, it is considered that
individual-level justice will more likely convey information about self-worth because thetarget of individual-level justice treatment is each individual. On the other hand, group-leveljustice may not convey as much self-evaluative information as individual-level justice does,
because the target of the treatment is a group as an entity, rather than each individual.
Therefore, we predict that an individual’s self-esteem will moderate only the effects ofindividual-level justice on employee reactions, and will not moderate the effects ofgroup-level justice.
Research has shown that self-esteem moderates the relationship between
individual-level procedural justice and an employee’s work attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,
Brockner et al., 1998). By contrast, research has yet to examine how self-esteem moderates
the effects of individual-level distributive justice on employee work outcomes. This may be
because the relational model of organizational justice, which is closely related to self-esteem,
has been developed in terms of procedural as well as interactional justice, rather thandistributive justice (Cropanzano et al., 2001). However, we argue that distributive justice canalso communicate self-evaluative information to individuals. If it is true, self-esteem may
also moderate the effects of distributive justice. Recently, Roch and Shanock (2006) proposedthat distributive justice, as well as other forms of justice, can be understood within an-7-exchange theory framework (e.g., Blau, 1964). That is, distributive justice is more
representative of an economic exchange relationship partly because of its interest in specificoutcomes, whereas procedural and interactional justice is more representative of a social
exchange relationship with the organization as a whole or with members of the organization.
In addition, the relational model itself is considered an integrative theory (Colquitt,
Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005) that might explain multiple types of justice. Therefore,
we argue that individuals with high self-esteem are more likely than individuals with low
self-esteem to believe that they deserve to receive their entitlements relative to theircontribution or input. On the other hand, individuals with low self-esteem may be more likely
to accept unfair and unfavorable outcomes that are below their entitlements because they do
not believe they are valued by the organization.
To summarize, self-esteem would be expected to moderate the relationship between
individual-level justice and employee reactions, but not the relationship between thegroup-level justice and employee reactions. This occurs because individual-level justice, but
not group-level justice, may communicate self-verifying information effectively. In addition,
not only individual-level procedural justice but also individual-level distributive justicewould have the potential to communicate self-evaluative information to individuals.
Specifically, we predict that individuals with high self-esteem will be more reactive than
individuals with low self-esteem to individual-level distributive and procedural justice, interms of their in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors, andintention to leave.

Hypothesis 1: Self-esteem will moderate the effects of individual-level distributive andprocedural justice on in-role behaviors, helping behaviors,
counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave, such that the effects arestronger (more positive for in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, and morenegative for counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave) for
individuals who are high rather than low in self-esteem.

-8-

THE MORAL VIRTUES PERSPECTIVE AND JUSTICE ORIENTATIONAs discussed, instrumental and relational approaches to justice are categorized interms of self-interest perspectives (Cropanzano et al., 2001). On the other hand, a third
approach, termed the moral virtues or deontological model (Folger, 1998), is considered as
being beyond, or not involving, an individual’s self-interest. According to this model, justiceis not only construed by individuals as having a self-serving goal, but also as an end in itself.
That is, people care about justice because it provides basic respect for human dignity andworth (Folger, 1998; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002), or, more simply,
people value justice because it is moral (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2003).
Fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), an update of earlier work on referent
cognition theory (Folger, 1987), is an integrative justice theory closely related to the moral
virtues perspective. This theory emphasizes counterfactual thinking (Roose, 1997) as afundamental cognitive procedure for evaluating accountability and thus fairness. That is,fairness theory states that in order to determine if a given situation is fair or unfair, three
distinct judgments must be made. First, the degree of discrepancy between the actual eventand perceived alternatives will be assessed to judge whether the current condition is favorable
or unfavorable (the “would” component). Second, if the situation is perceived as unfair, theperson accountable for the injustice will be judged by assessing if the target (the person orentity responsible for the situation) could have acted differently (the “could” component).
Third, it will be determined whether the harmful actions violate some ethical principle (the“should” component). In this way, an injustice is seen as a violation of a moral norm.
Observing such a violation triggers a motivational state (termed “deonance”), which creates adesire to see that people are held accountable for their moral injunctions (Cropanzano,Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Folger, 1998, 2001). Research shows that when individuals knowthat a teammate has acted unfairly, they sacrifice their own resources in order to punish the-9-unfair person (Turillo et al., 2002). Individuals will punish unfairness even when they are
merely an observer to the injustice, when they have no sense of identification with the victim,
and even when the victim has no way of knowing the decision maker’s choice. In short,fairness theory predicts that self-sacrificing reactions, as opposed to self-interest, punish or
reward the target held accountable for unfair treatment.
As with other integrative theories of justice, fairness theory emphasizes thecommonalities rather than the divergences among the divergent forms of justice. For example,
the “would” counterfactual considers an event’s aversiveness with no particular importancebeing given to whether the event is distributive, procedural, or interactional in nature (Folger& Cropanzano, 2001).
Recent research has argued that individual differences exist in the extent to which
this “justice virtue” is held. That is, in order to react to fair/unfair treatment emanating fromindividuals’ moral motives, justice must be internalized as a moral virtue to some extent.
Justice orientation, developed by Rupp and her colleagues (Rupp, Byrne, & Wadlington,2003), is a stable individual difference variable that impacts upon the processes involved
when individuals are attentive to fairness around them, and indicates the extent to which theyinternalize justice as a moral virtue. If fair/unfair treatment is to be observed and comparedwith the moral principle, and if the perceived violation of the moral principle causes
deontological effects (e.g., self-sacrificing reactions to punish or reward the target held
accountable), justice orientation would produce differences in an individual’s reactions to thefair/unfair treatment.
Individuals high in justice orientation would be more likely than individuals low injustice orientation to react to fair/unfair treatment emanating from moral motives. At the sametime, individuals high in justice orientation may be more self-sacrificing than individuals low
in justice orientation when they encounter unfair treatment, especially when they witness- 10 -

other individuals being treated unfairly. Colquitt et al. (2005) have argued that highly moral
individuals may be more likely to search for moral meanings to their behaviors, and also beless likely to engage in unjust behaviors themselves. In short, individuals high in justiceorientation would react to unfair treatment with a lower emphasis on their own self-interest.
Some empirical studies have investigated the moderating effects of justiceorientation on the relationship between individual-level justice and employee reactions. Rupp
et al. (2003) found that justice orientation moderated the relationship between
individual-level distributive, procedural and interactional justice, and employee attitudes andbehaviors, such as job performance, organizational commitment, job satisfaction andemotional exhaustion. Liao and Rupp (2005) also found that justice orientation moderated theprocedural justice climate, as well as supervisory commitment and satisfaction. Colquitt et al.
(2005) examined the role of trait morality, which is similar to justice orientation but is a moregeneral individual disposition to morality. They found that trait morality moderated therelationship between individual-level distributive and interactional justice and task
performance. In our case of individual-level justice within the group, often the supervisors
and unit leaders in the group will be responsible for unfair treatment targeted towards
individual group members. In addition, individuals high in justice orientation would be moresensitive to those who can be held accountable for the unfair treatment given to individual
group members. Thus, as retribution against the source of injustice (i.e., a moral remedy),
individuals high in justice orientation would be more likely than individuals low in justiceorientation to reduce their in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, and increase both theircounterproductive behaviors and intention to leave.
On the other hand, the target of group-level justice/injustice can be identified as agroup that includes not only the focal individual but also his/her coworkers and supervisorsfrom the same group. Thus, especially for those individuals who are high on justice- 11 -

orientation and sensitive to the source of the unfair treatment in response to group-levelinjustice, reducing the extent of their in-role behaviors, their help for coworkers in the samegroup, as well as exhibiting both counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave, isinconsistent with their moral values. That is, it may not be considered a moral remedy torespond in this way within the group because the group is the target, not the source, of theunfair treatment. The source of unfair treatment exists outside of the group (e.g., top
management, senior executives). In addition, when facing injustice, individuals high injustice orientation may become more self-sacrificing and show commitment to their ethicalstandards. Thus, they would be less likely than individuals low in justice orientation to reduce
their in-role behaviors and their help for coworkers, and less likely to increase both theirintention to leave and their counterproductive behaviors.
Finally, consistent with fairness theory that emphasizes commonality across thevarious types of justice, our predictions regarding the moderating effects of justice orientation
on individual-level and group-level justice apply both to distributive and procedural
dimensions of justice.
In sum, we predict that justice orientation will moderate the effects of bothindividual-level and group-level (in)justice on employee reactions because a moral virtues
perspective might apply to both levels of justice. However, while individuals high in justiceorientation would be more likely to reduce their in-role behaviors and helping behaviors andto increase both their counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave in cases ofindividual-level unfairness as retribution against the source of injustice, these individuals
would be less likely to respond in such a way than individuals low in justice orientation incases of group-level unfairness, because their work behaviors and attitudes occur within thetargeted group, which is not the source of the unfair treatment.
Hypothesis 2: Justice orientation will moderate the effects of individual-level distributive
and procedural injustice on in-role behaviors, helping behaviors,- 12 -

counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave such that the effects arestronger (more negative for in-role behaviors and helping behaviors, andmore positive for counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave) for
individuals who are high rather than low on justice orientation.
Hypothesis 3: Justice orientation will moderate the effects of group-level distributive andprocedural injustice on in-role behaviors, helping behaviors,
counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave such that the effects are
weaker (less negative for in-role behaviors and helping behaviors, and lesspositive for counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave) for
individuals who are high rather than low on justice orientation.

We conducted two empirical studies to test these hypotheses. Study 1 considered theprocedural dimension of individual-level and group-level justice, and Study 2 dealt with
distributive dimensions of individual-level and group-level justice.

STUDY 1: METHODS
SampleParticipants were recruited from management classes in two public and private
universities located in Osaka, Japan. They were offered extra credit in return for participationin the study. All participants were told that participation in this study was voluntary andanonymous. Over 90% of the students who attended these classes agreed to participate in thisstudy, resulting in a sample size of 417, which included 80.1% males and 19.9% females withan average age of 20.78 years (SD = 1.92). Over 90% of the participants had experienced
part-time work. Because we collected data from two universities, we explored whether
significant differences existed in the mean levels of variables central to the study’s
hypotheses. Independent sample t tests for each variable revealed no significant differences
between the two samples, except for counterproductive behavior (t= –2.49, p < .05). Thus, we
combined the two samples into one, prior to testing the hypotheses.
Procedure
We used written scenarios to manipulate a situation that could occur in the- 13 -

workplace and should cause perceptions of justice/injustice. Greenberg and Eskew (1993)
suggested that using written scenarios is an effective method for gauging how someone
would react to a similar situation in an organization. In addition, Wiseman and Levin (1996)
found that individuals often make the same decisions in hypothetical situations as in real life.
For this study, we created scenarios based on a hypothetical large regional chain ofrestaurants. Several pilot studies were conducted to develop the scenarios. First, 18
undergraduate students in a management class were asked to provide information about work
situations in which they had perceived individual-level justice/injustice as well as group-leveljustice/injustice. They were also asked to provide information about the part-time jobs they
had experienced. Next, in another pilot study, about 100 students provided information about
their work experience, most of which involved part-time work. The results from these pilot
studies revealed that a part-time job at a restaurant was the most frequently mentioned work
experience. Therefore, we concluded that a restaurant is suitable for the development ofrealistic scenarios for undergraduate students as research participants.
In the scenarios of the hypothetical restaurant chain, each participant was asked toplay the role of a part-time employee in one of the branch restaurants. Participants wererandomly assigned to each treatment in a 2 (individual-level procedural justice: fair, unfair) x
2 (group-level procedural justice: fair and unfair) between-subjects factorial design.
Procedural justice versus injustice at both the individual and group level was manipulated byLeventhal’s (1980) criteria, including consistency and bias suppression. In addition, the orderin which individual-level and group-level procedural justice situations were presented wasvaried. Half of the surveys presented an individual-level justice situation first, andgroup-level justice situation second, and the other half of the surveys presented thesesituations in the reverse order. As a result, eight versions of these different scenarios werecreated, to one of which each participant was assigned at random. Finally, a pilot study was- 14 -

conducted in which 18 undergraduate students checked the realism of the scenarios and theappropriateness of the manipulations.
During a regular class session, one of the authors gave each participant a survey
containing one of eight different hypothetical vignettes followed by a series of questions.
Participants were asked to imagine themselves in the depicted scenario and to indicate theirlikelihood of engaging in several different behaviors, as well as their attitudes to the
hypothetical organization (the company as a whole) and the group (the branch restaurant).
Participants’ individual differences as well as their demographic information were alsomeasured in the survey questionnaires. Finally, debriefing was conducted after theparticipants returned their surveys.
Dependent and Moderator Variables
In-role behaviors. In-role behaviors were measured using four items from Williams
and Anderson (1991). A sample item was “Adequately completes assigned duties.”
Cronbach’s alpha for this set of items in the current study was .71.
Helping behaviors. Helping behaviors targeted towards coworkers were measured
with five items from the OCBI (organizational citizenship behaviors targeted towards
individuals) scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). An example statement is“Helps others who have heavy work loads.” Cronbach’s alpha for this set of items was .66.
Counterproductive behaviors. Counterproductive behaviors were measured using
seven items from Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998). A sample item is “Did work badly,
incorrectly or slowly on purpose.” Cronbach’s alpha for this set of items was .81.
Intention to leave. Intention to leave was measured using three items from Shore,
Newton and Thornton (1990). A sample item is “How often do you think about quitting yourjob at this organization?” Cronbach’s alpha for this set of items was .75.
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using four items from Rosenberg’s (1965)- 15 -

10-item scale that had the greatest face validity for participants. Participants were asked toindicate their agreement with statements such as, “I feel that I have a number of goodqualities” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” Cronbach’s alpha for this set ofitems was .77.
Justice orientation. Justice orientation was measured using seven items from Rupp
et al. (2003). A sample item is “I wish I could make amends for every single injustice I haveever committed.” Cronbach’s alpha for this set of items was .75.
All items representing dependent and moderator variables, originally written in
English, were translated into Japanese and adjusted to the context of the scenarios. They were
back-translated to ensure that the meaning had been retained (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike,1973).
Manipulation Checks.
Based on Moorman (1991), six organizational justice scales were created to evaluate
the manipulations of the two forms of procedural justice using a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Half of these scales, involving individual-level procedural
justice, assessed the degree to which participants perceived the fairness of the process of pay
raise decisions within the branch. The remaining items, involving group-level procedural
justice, assessed the degree to which participants perceived the fairness of the company’ssystem, which ranked every branch. In addition, using a seven-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree), participants indicated the extent of their agreement withstatements such as “I am pretty familiar with that kind of situation,” the mean response (M)being 3.97 with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.22.
STUDY 1: RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
To ensure that justice manipulations were perceived in the expected way, we- 16 -

compared the manipulation check scales across the various conditions. The results of aone-way ANOVA indicated that the justice conditions were manipulated successfully in the
expected way. The participants who read an individual-level fair scenario (M = 4.66, SD =1.24) showed a higher level of fairness than did those who read an individual-level unfair
scenario (M = 2.78, SD = 1.02) (F= 292.86, p < .01). Similarly, participants who read agroup-level fair scenario (M = 4.49, SD = 1.14) showed a higher level of fairness than did
those who read a group-level unfair scenario (M = 2.51, SD = 1.01) (F= 359.14, p < .01).
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among thevariables used in this study. Of note are the correlations between justice orientation and someof the outcomes. Higher scores on justice orientation were associated with higher scores on
helping behaviors and in-role behaviors (r = .31 and r = .25, respectively, p < .05) and lower
scores on counterproductive behavior (r = –.24, p < .05). Self-esteem, on the other hand, wasonly associated with helping behaviors (r = .11, p < .05).
-----------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here------------------------------------------Tests of Hypotheses
We used hierarchical regression analysis to test hypotheses. To reduce potential
multicollinearity, we mean-centered independent and moderator variables before computing
the product terms (Aiken & West, 1991). In the first step of the regression analysis, the main
effect of justice manipulation and the moderators were entered. In the second step, two-way
interactions relevant to the hypotheses, as well as the interaction between individual-levelprocedural justice and group-level procedural justice, were entered. The addition ofinteraction terms explained significant additional variance in helping behaviors (p < .01) andintention to leave (p < .05). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in
Table 2.
- 17 -

-----------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here------------------------------------------Hypothesis 1 predicted stronger effects of individual-level procedural justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave
when self-esteem was high. The results in Table 2 demonstrated the significant moderating
effect of self-esteem on the relationship between individual-level procedural justice andhelping behaviors (p < .01), and the marginally significant moderating effect of self-esteem
between individual-level procedural justice and helping behaviors (p < .10). Plots of thesignificant interactions, using the approach recommended by Aiken and West (1991), areshown in Figure 1. As expected, the effects of individual-level procedural justice on intention
to leave were stronger when self-esteem was high rather than low. As predicted, there were no
significant moderating effects of self-esteem for the effects of group-level justice. Taken
together, our data provided some support for Hypothesis 1 with respect to the procedural
justice dimension.
Hypothesis 2 predicted stronger effects of individual-level procedural (in)justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave
when justice orientation was high. The results in Table 2 demonstrated the marginallysignificant moderating effect of justice orientation between individual-level procedural justiceand both helping behaviors and intention to leave (p < .10). Hypothesis 2 was weakly
supported with respect to the procedural justice dimension.
Hypothesis 3 predicted weaker effects of group-level procedural (in)justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave
when justice orientation was high. The results in Table 2 demonstrated the significant
moderating effect of justice orientation between group-level procedural justice and helping
behaviors only (p < .05). Plots of the significant interaction, shown in Figure 2, are in the- 18 -

hypothesized directions. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported with respect to theprocedural justice dimension.
-----------------------------------------Insert Figures 1 and 2 about here------------------------------------------STUDY 2: METHODS
SampleParticipants were recruited from management classes in a public university locatedin Osaka, Japan. Extra credit was given in return for participation in the study. All
participants were told that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. Over 90% of
attending students agreed to participate in this study, resulting in a sample size of 207,
including 80.7% males and 19.3% females with an average age of 21.16 years (SD = 1.48).
About 95% of the participants had experience in part-time work.
Procedure
We used the same scenarios and procedures as Study 1 except for the manipulationof individual-level and group-level justice. In this study, we manipulated individual-level andgroup-level distributive justice instead of procedural justice. Thus, participants wererandomly assigned to a 2 (individual-level distributive justice: fair, unfair) x 2 (group-level
distributive justice: fair and unfair) between-subjects factorial design. Distributive justice atboth the individual and group levels was manipulated by varying the degree to which anequity allocation norm was followed in which rewards are consistent with contributions(Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976).
Dependent and Moderator Variables
In-role behaviors. As in Study 1, in-role behaviors were measured using four items
from Williams and Anderson (1991). Cronbach’s alpha was .69.
Helping behaviors. As in Study 1, helping behaviors targeted towards coworkers- 19 -

were assessed with five items from the OCBI scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .76.
Counterproductive behaviors. As in Study 1, counterproductive behaviors wereassessed using the seven items developed by Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998).
Cronbach’s alpha was .78.
Intention to leave. As in Study 1, intention to leave was measured using three items
developed by Shore, Newton, and Thornton (1990). Cronbach’s alpha was .67.
Self-esteem. As in Study 1, self-esteem was measured with four items taken fromRosenberg’s (1965) 10-item scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .80.
Justice orientation. As in Study 1, justice orientation was measured using seven
items taken from Rupp et al. (2003). Cronbach’s alpha was .70.
All items, originally written in English, were translated into Japanese and adjusted tothe context of the scenarios. They were back-translated to ensure that the meaning was
retained (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973).
Manipulation Checks.
As in Study 1, six organizational justice scales were created to evaluate themanipulations of the two forms of distributive justice, based on Moorman (1996). Half ofthese scales, involving individual-level distributive justice, assessed the degree to which
participants perceived the fairness of any pay increase criteria used within the branch. The
remaining items, involving group-level distributive justice, assessed the degree to which
participants perceived the fairness of the company’s system, which ranked every branch. In
addition, using a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), participants
indicated the extent of their agreement with statements such as “I am pretty familiar with thatkind of situation,” the mean response being 4.20 with a standard deviation of 1.14.

- 20 -

STUDY 2: RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
To ensure that the justice manipulations were perceived in the expected way, we
contrasted the manipulation check scales across the various conditions. The results of aone-way ANOVA indicated that the justice conditions were successfully manipulated in the
expected way. Participants who read an individual-level fair scenario showed a higher levelof fairness (M = 4.09, SD = .57) than did those who read an individual-level unfair scenario(M = 3.65, SD = .56) (F(1, 205) = 31.10, p < .01). Similarly, participants who read agroup-level fair scenario showed a higher level of fairness (M = 3.61, SD = .65) than did
those who read a group-level unfair scenario (M = 4.03, SD = .67) (F(1, 205) = 20.71, p< .01)..
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among thevariables used in this study. Higher scores on justice orientation were associated with higherscores on in-role behaviors and helping behaviors (r = .22 and r = .21, respectively, p < .05)
and lower scores on intent to leave (r = –.14, p < .05). Self-esteem, on the other hand, wasonly associated with in-role behaviors (r = .16, p < .05).
-----------------------------------------Insert Table 3 and 4 about here------------------------------------------Tests of Hypotheses
We used hierarchical regression analysis to test hypotheses, both independent andmoderator variables being mean-centered before computing the product terms. In the firststep of the regression, the main effect of justice manipulation and the moderators wereentered. In the second step, two-way interactions relevant to the hypotheses, as well as theinteractions between individual-level distributive justice and group-level distributive justice,- 21 -

and between individual-level and group-level justice and self-esteem, were entered. The
addition of interaction terms explained significant additional variance in helping behaviors
and counterproductive behaviors (p < .05) and marginally significant additional variance inin-role behaviors (p < .10). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in
Table 4.
Hypothesis 1 predicted stronger effects of individual-level distributive justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave
when self-esteem was high. Contrary to the prediction, there were no significant moderating
effects of self-esteem on the effects of individual-level distributive justice. On the other hand,
there was a significant moderating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between
group-level distributive justice and in-role behaviors (p < .05) in spite of the marginallysignificant results in terms of additional variance explained. This moderating effect was not
hypothesized. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported with respect to the distributive justicedimension.
Hypothesis 2 predicted stronger effects of individual-level distributive (in)justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave
when justice orientation was high. The results in Table 4 demonstrated the significant
moderating effect of justice orientation between individual-level distributive justice and both
helping behavior and counterproductive behavior (p < .05). The moderating effect for in-role
behaviors was also significant (p < .05) in spite of the marginally significant results in termsof additional variance explained. Plots of the significant interactions, shown in Figures 3 and4, are in the hypothesized directions. Thus, our data provided some support for Hypothesis 2
with respect to the distributive justice dimension.
Hypothesis 3 predicted weaker effects of group-level distributive (in)justice on
in-role behaviors, helping behaviors, counterproductive behaviors and intention to leave- 22 -

when justice orientation was high. The results in Table 4 demonstrated the significant
moderating effect of justice orientation between group-level distributive justice and both
helping behaviors and counterproductive behaviors (p < .05). Plots of the significant
interactions are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The moderating effect of helping behaviors was in
the hypothetical direction, but the moderating effect for counterproductive behaviors was
opposite to the prediction. Thus, there was a mixed support for Hypothesis 3 with respect tothe distributive justice dimension.
----------------------------------------------Insert Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 about here----------------------------------------------DISCUSSION
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the moderating role of self-esteem
and justice orientation on the effects of individual-level and group-level justice on potential
employee reactions. We predicted that self-esteem would only have a moderating effect on
individual-level justice associated with employee reactions because individual-level justiceeffectively communicates self-verifying information while group-level justice may not. We
also predicted that justice orientation would moderate the effects of both individual-level andgroup-level justice on employee reactions because a moral virtues perspective might apply toboth levels of justice. On the other hand, we predicted that the direction of the moderation byjustice orientation would be opposite for cases of individual-level and group-level justicebecause of the different characteristics of these levels of justice (i.e., the source and target of
the treatment). Generally, data from two studies were supportive of these basic arguments.
We found a moderating effect of self-esteem on the relationship between
individual-level procedural justice and an intention to leave. In addition, the moderation
effect was marginally significant for in-role behaviors. These results are consistent with past
research as well as self-verification arguments. However, our results suggest that self-esteem- 23 -

also moderated the relationship between group-level distributive justice and helping
behaviors, which was not hypothesized. The direction of this effect was opposite to theprediction based on self-verification. This finding may be produced by mechanisms otherthan self-verification, which, as an effect, interacted with self-esteem. For example,
behavioral plasticity theory (e.g., Brockner, 1988) suggests that individuals with low
self-esteem will be more reactive to situational cues than those with high self-esteem. In ourcase, compared with individuals with high self-esteem, those with low self-esteem would
have reacted more negatively to group-level unfair treatment, and more positively togroup-level fair treatment when adjusting their helping behaviors. Overall, our findings
demonstrate that any self-verification mechanism that causes the moderating effects ofself-esteem would apply only to individual-level procedural justice. A different mechanismthat moderates the effects of self-esteem may exist in the case of distributive and/or
group-level justice.
When using justice orientation as a moderator, the most consistent finding was thatjustice orientation moderated group-level justice and helping behaviors for both proceduraland distributive justice. These findings supported the argument that individuals high in justiceorientation would be less likely to reduce helping behaviors in the event of unfair group-level
treatment. This is because they tend to believe that reducing helping behaviors would only
harm in-group members and supervisors from the same group that was treated unfairly.
However, the significant moderating effect of justice orientation between group-level
distributive justice and counterproductive behaviors was opposite to the hypothesis andinconsistent with our original argument. A possible interpretation of this result, based on a
post hoc examination of the nature of the interaction, might be that individuals high in justiceorientation were more appreciative of fair treatment, and thus responded more positively than
did those who were low in justice orientation. Future research might explore further the- 24 -

reasons for these different moderating effects of justice orientation on helping behaviors andcounterproductive behaviors.
The moderating effects of justice orientation on individual-level justice andemployee reactions were generally supported by the data and were consistent with past
research (e.g., Rupp et al., 2003). However, these relationships were relatively weaker forindividual-level procedural justice where we obtained only marginally significant moderating
effects for helping behaviors and intention to leave.
Taken together, the results from these studies have important implications for thetheory of organizational justice. Some previous research findings on self-esteem and justiceorientation as moderators of individual-level justice were replicated. Our understanding of
their moderation was also extended by examining these two variables at the same time, andby incorporating group-level justice and its effects on employee reactions. By doing so, it has
become clear that these two individual difference moderators work differently at theindividual and group justice levels. Of special interest, our findings regarding group-leveljustice are novel in the field of organizational justice. They might contribute to the newfrontier of organizational justice research in management.
Implications for Practice
Our findings also have implications for management practice. First, our investigation
extends the knowledge of the boundary conditions for applications of different levels andtypes of justice, which could improve management effectiveness. For example, our findings
suggest that supervisors or unit leaders of subgroups within an organization would benefit
from having group members who are high in justice orientation. Such people are relatively
tolerant when the group, as a whole, is treated unfairly by higher organizational authorities. In
such circumstances, they would not reduce helping behaviors within the group. However,supervisors and unit leaders should also be aware that group members who are high in justice- 25 -

orientation are the ones who are more reactive to unfair treatment at an individual levelwithin the group.
In addition, group members with high self-esteem would be more responsive toindividual-level procedural fairness. Thus, supervisors and unit leaders should understand thegroup members’ self-esteem and implement fair procedures, especially when the groupmembers have high self-esteem.
Limitations
The results of our investigation should be considered in terms of their limitations.
First, since we relied on scenarios for manipulating justice treatments, realism as well as
relatively weak manipulations might have been an issue. For example, participants’ strong
affective reactions to unfair treatment that would otherwise have been possible in real-lifesituations might not have occurred in response to our scenarios. To eliminate this type oflimitation, we followed the guidelines presented by Greenberg and Eskew (1993) by having
our participants assume their own role in familiar situations, and by asking them to indicate
how they would actually respond. Furthermore, we carefully constructed the scenarios to be
as familiar as possible for the participants. Pilot studies were conducted to ensure that the
manipulations worked effectively on the levels of justice.
Another but related issue arises since reactions to fair/unfair treatments were
measured as self-reported intentions rather than by actual behaviors. Although Wiseman andLevin (1996) suggested that individuals often make the same decisions in hypotheticalsituations as in real life, and past research using similar measures (e.g., Scott & Colquitt,2007) has produced significant results, future research might replicate and extend our
findings by measuring actual reactions in field or laboratory settings.
Suggestions for Future Research
Future research might constructively replicate and extend the findings of this- 26 -

investigation using different methodologies, such as laboratory studies and employee surveys
conducted in field settings. Additionally, researchers of such studies might change theoperationalization of individual-level and group-level justice, as well as examine different
dependent variables to describe employee reactions to fair/unfair treatment. More specifically,
our investigation operationalized group-level justice as individuals’ perceptions because wewere interested in individual difference variables as moderators of individual-level reactions
to group-level fairness. However, another possibility for operationalizing group-level justiceis to measure group members’ shared perceptions regarding fair/unfair treatment at the grouplevel (e.g., Chan, 1998). This method is similar to the operationalization of justice climate.
Nonetheless, group-level justice, measured in this way, is different from justice climate
because of a difference in the target of fair treatment. In general, conceptualizations of justice
above the individual level (e.g., collective or group-level justice, justice climate) are still
elusive and need to be clarified in future research.
Future research might also explore other factors that moderate the effects ofindividual-level and group-level justice. Although our investigation examined self-esteem andjustice orientation as two individual difference variables grounded in different theoreticalperspectives of justice, other individual difference or situational variables may also be used asmoderators. Since group-level justice, as examined in this paper, has received less attention
from organizational justice researchers, there might be opportunities to theorize and test otherfactors that moderate the effects of group-level justice. Potential candidates of suchmoderators include degree of identification to the group grounded in social identify theory(Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individual tendency of intergroup comparison (Roberson, 2006),
degree of task interdependence within work units (Roberson, 2006),
individualism–collectivism or self-construal (e.g., independent versus interdependent self)(Holmvall & Bobocel, 2007), all of these variables being somewhat relevant to group- 27 -

behavior at work. Personality variables that have already been identified as moderators forindividual-level justice effects are also worth examining in the context of group-level justice,provided they are also theoretically relevant to justice at the group level.

- 28 -

REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkwitz (Ed.), Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2: 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Azzi, A. E. 1992. Procedural Justice and the Allocation of Power in Intergroup Relations:
Studies in the United States and South Africa. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18: 736-747.
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods.
New York: J. Wiley.
Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory and practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Brockner. J, Heuer. L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T.,
Bjorgvinsson S., 1998. The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice:converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75:394-407.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2003. What constitutes fairness in work settings? A
four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review,
13: 107-126.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83: 234-246.
Cohen, R. L. 1987. Distributive Justice: Theory and Research. Social Justice Research 1:
19-40.
Cohen-Charash., Y., & Specter, P, E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86: 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. 2003. Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of
the literature. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The state of thescience: 165-210. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justiceat the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justiceresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2005. What is organizational justice? Ahistorical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds). Handbook of organizational
justice: 3-58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
- 29 -

Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents andconsequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55: 83-109.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. 2006. Justice and personality: Using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Process, 100: 110-127.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Folger, R. 2003. Deontic justice: The role of Moralprinciples in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1019-1024.
Cropanzano, R, Rupp, D., Mohler, C., & Scminke, M. 2001. Three roads to organizational
justice. Research in personnel and Human Resource Management, 20: 1-113.
Eckhoff, T. 1974. Justice: Its determinants in social interaction. Rotterdam: Rotterdam
University Press.
Folger, R. 1987. Reforming the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognition model. In J.
C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation:
Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives: 183-215. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Folger, R. 1998. Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Moralmanagement of people and processes: 13-34. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Folger, R. 2001. Fairness as deonance. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki(Eds), Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice: 3-33. New
York: Information Age Publishing.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg& R. Folger (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice: 1-55. Lexington, MA: New
Lexington Press.
Greenberg, J., & Eskew, D. E. 1993. The Role of Role Playing in Organizational Research.
Journal of Management, 19: 221-241.
Holmvall, C. M., & Bobcel, D.R. 2007. What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals
and reactions to procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.09.001.
Hulin, C.L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. 1985. Alternative opponunities and withdrawal
decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 2, 233-250.
Huseman, R.C. & Hatfield, J.D. 1978. Communicating employee benefits: Directions for
future research. Journal of Business Communications, 15: 3-17.
Jasso, G. 1980. A New Theory of Distributive Justice, American Sociological Review, 45:
3-32.

- 30 -

Jost, J. T., & Azzi, A. E. 1996. Microjustice and macrojustice in the allocation of resources
between experimental groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 136: 349-365.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. 2007. Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study ofJustice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model.
Journal of Management, 33: 841-866.
Leventhal, G. S. 1976 Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C.
Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology, vol.9: 91-131. Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980 What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the studyof fairness in social relationship. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: 27-55. New York: Plenum.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. 2005. The Impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work
Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:
242-256.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. The relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journalof Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. 1998. A multilevel analysis of procedural
justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 131-141.
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. 2006. Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework:
Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. Journal of Management, 32: 299-322.
Roberson, Q. M. 2006. Justice in teams: The activation and role of sensemaking in theemergence of justice climates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 100: 177-192.
Robinson, S.L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence ofwork groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management
Journal, 41: 658-672.
Roose, N. J. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121: 133-148.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
University Press.
Runciman, W. G. 1966. Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social
inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rupp, D. E., Bashshur, M., & Liao, H. 2007. Justice climate past, present and future: Modelsof structures and emergence. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 6: 357-396.
Rupp, D. E., Byrne, Z. S., & Wadlington, P. 2003. Justice orientation and its measurement:
Extending the deontological model. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of- 31 -

the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orland, FL.
Skarlicki, D. P. & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434-443.
Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. 2007. Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual
differences? : An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five.
Group and organization management, 32: 290-325.
Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton, G. C. 1990. Job and organizational attitudes inrelation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 57-67.
Swann, W. B. 1983. Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J.
Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 2:
33-66. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.)
Tajfel, H. & Tuner, J. 1979 An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel (Ed.),
Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umpress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. 2002. Is virtue its own
reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational behavior andHuman Decisions Process, 89: 839-865.
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna(Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: 115-191. New York: Academic Press.
Wenzel, M. 2004. Social Identification as a Determinant of Concerns about Individual-,Group-, and Inclusive-Level Justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67: 70-87.
Wiseman, D. B., & Levin, I. P. 1996. Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditionsof Real and Hypothetical Consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 66, 241-250.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. 2007. Is More Fairness
Always Preferred? Self-Esteem Moderates Reactions to Procedural Justice. Academyof Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1235 – 1253.

- 32 -TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables Used in Study 1
Variables
1.Individual-level Procedural Justice
2. Group-level Procedural Justice
3. Self-Esteem
4. Justice Orientation
5. In-Role Behaviors
6. Helping Behaviors
7. Counterproductive Behaviors
8. Intention to Leave
Note. n = 419, * p < .05, ** p < .01.

M
.50
.50
4.42
4.49
5.33
4.66
2.57
4.19

SD
.50
.50
1.04
.77
.89
.84
.93
1.21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.03
-.01
-.06
.09
.04
-.10*
-.33**

-.02
-.10
-.01
.11*
.02
-.13**

.12*
.04
.11*
.01
-.06

.25**
.31**
-.24**-.09.50**-.59**-.07-.24**-.09.13**

TABLE 2Moderated Regression Results in Study 1
Regression step

In-Role Behaviors――――――――⊿ R2
βR2
1. Individual-Level Procedural Justice (IPJ)
07** .07**.11*
Group-Level Procedural Justice (GPJ)-.01
Self-Esteem.01
Justice Orientation.25**

Helping Behaviors――――――――
R2⊿ R2
β.10** .10**
.06
.02
.07
.30**

2.

IPJ x GPJ
.09** .01.07
.14** .03**.08+
IPJ x Self Esteem.05.09+
GPJ x Self Esteem.06.02
IPJ x Justice Orientation.03.09+
GPJ x Justice Orientation
-.04
-.10*
Note. n = 419. ⊿R2 values may not sum exactly to R2 values due to rounding error.
+ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.

- 33 -Counterproductive
Behaviors――――――――
R2
⊿ R2
β
02+
.02+
-.10*
.02
.02
-.10+

――――――――
R2⊿ R2
β.13** .13** -.33**-.12**
-.07
-.02

.03

.16**

.01

-.01
-.03
-.07
.04
-.03

Intention to Leave

.03*

.03
-.16**
.01
.08+
-.03

TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables Used in Study 2
Variables
1.Individual-level Distributive Justice
2. Group-level Distributive Justice
3. Self-Esteem
4. Justice Orientation
5. In-Role Behaviors
6. Helping Behaviors
7. Counterproductive Behaviors
8. Intention to Leave
Note. n= 207, * P < .05, ** P < .01.

M
.50
.50
4.48
4.47
5.33
4.63
2.48
4.33

SD
.50
.50
1.07
.71
.91
.94
.84
1.02

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-.02
-.05
.02
-.03
.02
.01
-.27**

.01
.02
-.04
-.01
.05
-.14*

.26**
.16*
.12
-.08
-.07

.22**
.21**
-.11
-.14*

.53**
-.56**.06-.27**-.04-.07

TABLE 4Moderated Regression Results in Study 2
Regression step

In-Role Behaviors――――――――⊿ R2
βR2
1. Individual-Level Distributive Justice (IDJ) .06*
.06*
-.03
Group-Level Distributive Justice (GDJ)-.04
Self-Esteem.11
Justice Orientation.19**

Helping Behaviors――――――――
R2
⊿ R2
β
.05*
.05*
.01
-.01
.07
.19**

2.

IDJ x GDJ
.10** .04+ -.06
.12** .07*
.04
IDJ x Self Esteem
-.01
-.07
GDJ x Self Esteem
-.16*
-.12
IDJ x Justice Orientation
.15*
.15*
GDJ x Justice Orientation
.03
-.15*
2
2
Note. n = 207. ⊿R values may not sum exactly to R values due to rounding error.
+ P < .10, * P < .05, ** P < .01.

- 34 -Counterproductive
Behaviors――――――――
R2
⊿ R2
β
02
.02
.01
.05
-.06
-.10

――――――――
R2⊿ R2
β.11** .11** -.27**
-.14*
-.05
-.12+

.08+

.12**

.06*

.04
-.02
.05
-.19*
-.17*

Intention to Leave

.01

.06
-.01
.07
.01
.03

FIGURE 1
Plots of Interaction Between Individual-Level Procedural Justice and Self Esteem on
Intention to Leave

6

Intention to leave

5.5
5
4.5
Low Self esteem
High Self esteem

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Low Individual-Level
Procedural JusticeHigh Individual-Level
Procedural Justice

FIGURE 2
Plots of Interaction Between Group-Level Procedural Justice and Justice Orientation on
Helping Behaviors

6

Helping Behaviors

5.5
5
Low Jusitice Orientation
High Jusitice Orientation

4.5
4
3.5
3
Low Group-Level
Procedural JusticeHigh Group-Level
Procedural Justice35

FIGURE 3
Plots of Interaction Between Individual-Level Distributive Justice and Justice Orientation
on Helping Behaviors

6

Helping Behaviors

5.5
5
Low Jusitice Orientation
High Jusitice Orientation

4.5
4
3.5
3
Low Individual-Level
Distributivel JusticeHigh Individual-Level
Distributivel Justice

FIGURE 4
Plots of Interaction Between Individual-Level Distributive Justice and Justice Orientation
on Counterproductive Behaviors

Counterproductive Behavior

43.5
3Low Justice Orientation
High Justice Orientation

2.5
2
1.5
1
Low Individual-Level
Distributive JusticeHigh Individual-Level
Distributive Justice36

FIGURE 5
Plots of Interaction Between Group-Level Distributive Justice and Justice Orientation on
Helping Behaviors

6

Helping Behaviors

5.5
5
Low Jusitice Orientation
High Jusitice Orientation

4.5
4
3.5
3
Low Group-Level
Distributive JusticeHigh Group-Level
Distributive Justice

FIGURE 6
Plots of Interaction Between Group-Level Distributive Justice and Justice Orientation on
Counterproductive Behaviors

Counterproductive Behavior

43.5
3Low Justice Orientation
High Justice Orientation

2.5
2
1.5
1
Low Group-Level
Distributive JusticeHigh Group-Level
Distributive Justice37