——

deviation below the mean, f = 12.24). As
hypothesized and shown in Figure 1, the form of
the relationship was strong and positive among
individuals at the high and average exchange
ideology levels but virtually nonexistent at the
low level.

DISCUSSION

We emphasize several caveats before dis-
cussing the results. First, data were collected
from employes students in a two-month, full-time
federal government training program, which may
not be representative. Second, the relationships
may be bidirectional; in other words, procedural
justice may be the moderator of the relationship
between exchange ideology and training satisfac-
tion. Third, as all measures were taken from
surveys, the data may be subject to common
method variance. However, the measurements
being taken at three different times may have
reduced its possible confounding effects.

These data suggest that exchange ideology
moderated the procedural justice-satisfaction
relationship: For employees whose attitudes and
behaviors were more congruent with organiza-
tional reinforcement, procedural justice percep-
tions were strongly related to satisfaction with
training performance. However, for those whose
attitudes and behaviors were more independent
of organizational reinforcement, procedural
justice and satisfaction were essentially unrelated.
Thus, these data suggest that in the development
of training satisfaction, procedural justice was
important among employees with strong exchange
ideology but comparatively unimportant among
employees with a weak exchange ideology.

These results have implications for both
organizational social exchange theory and instruc-
tor techniques. Consistent with previous research
(e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983), these findings
indicate the heuristic value of viewing satisfaction
as a consequence of social exchange processes.
Future research examining the relationships
between organizational contributions and outcome
behaviors should examine exchange ideology as
a possible moderating influence. Indeed, it is
possible that lack of attention to moderators such
as exchange ideology may have reduced the

utility of equity theory and led to arguments
(Mitchell, 1979; Mowday, 1979) that there is
little promise for the future of equity theory as a
model of organizational behavior. The basic
hypotheses of social exchange theory may need
to be revised to recognize that among some
individuals, reinforcements are less relevant in
the decision to engage in certain organizational
behaviors or adopt certain attitudes. Indeed, the
results presented here support Organ and Kon-
ovsky’s (1989) notion that there may be a dis-
positional component in the tendency to perceive,
or at least attend to, unfairness. This notion
appears to be intuitively consistent with everyday
experience. For example, some people are more
likely to say, “It just is not fair," while others
may say, "Life was never supposed to be fair; so
what?"

One practical implication of these results
might. be a suggestion that instructors should
adapt different styles in providing feedback and
support to their employees with regard to their
exchange ideologies. However, such adaptation
may not only be perceived as unfair but may also
lead to unfair evaluation and training procedures.
Indeed, it is possible that instructors may already
be consciously or unconsciously “adapting,” and
employees with strong exchange ideologies may
be more likely to let such variation affect their
attitudes. Research is needed to explore possible
differences already existing in within-instructor
variations in providing feedback and support and
the effect of these variations on perceived fair-
ness. The results presented here suggest that
instructors should follow fair procedures and
make efforts to communicate how fair the pro-
cedures are.


Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations
as a function of employee’s locus of control,
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497,

Stone, E. F., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989).
Clarifying some controversial issues surround-
ing statistical procedures for detecting moder-
ator variables: Empirical evidence and related

evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
3-10.

Sweeny, P. D., McFarlin, D.B. & Cotton, S. L.
(1991). Locus of control as a moderator of the
relationship between perceived influence and
procedural justice. Human Relations, 44
333-342,

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural
Justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Tyler, T. R. (1986). When does procedural
justice matter in organizational settings? In R.
J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazer-
man (Eds.), Research on negotiation in or-
Sanizations (pp.7-23). New York: JAI Press.

Witt, L. A. (1991), Equal opportunity percep-
tions and job attitudes. Journal of Social
Psychology, 131, 431-433.

Witt, L. A. (In press-a). Exchange ideology, job
attitudes, and organizational citizenship be-
haviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy.

Witt, L. A. (In Press-b). Exchange ideology as
a moderator of the relationships between
importance of participation in decision-making
and job attitudes. Human Relations.

Witt, L. A., & Wilson, J. W. (1990). Income
sufficiency as a predictor of job satisfaction
and organizational commitment: Disposition
differences. Journal of Social Psychology,
130, 267-268.

Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of
"moderator" variables. Psychological Bulletin,
76, 295-310.

‘U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: t991 - S61-020/40085


Similarly, Witt found that the following relation-
ships were higher among employees with strong
exchange ideologies than among those with weak
ones: (a) sufficiency of monthly income with
both job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment among American teachers (Witt & Wilson,
1990), (b) perceptions of equal opportunity with
both job satisfaction and procedural justice
among U.S. military personnel (Witt, 1991), (c)
perceptions of organizational support with super-
visor ratings of organizational citizenship be-
haviors among American tool factory workers
(Witt, in press-a), and (d) perceptions of the
importance of participation in decision-making
with perceptions of organizational goal norms,
organizational support, and satisfaction with
promotional opportunities among Yugoslav tool
factory workers (Witt, in press-b). These studies
have indicated that exchange ideology may affect
the perceptions of, and reactions to, various
aspects of the organization on the development of
other job attitudes.

The present study examined the moderating
effect of exchange ideology on the relationship
between procedural justice perceptions and
satisfaction with a training experience. We
hypothesized that procedural justice would be
positively related to training satisfaction. Em-
ployees perceiving unfairness would likely feel
dissatisfaction with the training experience. In
addition, we hypothesized that procedural justice
would account for greater variance in training
satisfaction among individuals whose effort is
determined by what the organization gives them
(strong exchange ideology) than those whose
effort is independent of organizational reinforce-
ment (weak exchange ideology).

METHOD

Ninety-two civilian federal government
employees (68 males, 24 females; M age = 26)
out of 185 (49.73%) who began a two-month,
full-time government training: (a) completed their
training, and (b) voluntarily completed surveys at
different times throughout their 8-week training.
On day one, employees completed the S-item
(e.g., “An employee’s work effort should depend
partly on how well the organization deals with
his or her desires and concerns.") Eisenberger, et

al. (1986) exchange ideology questionnaire (M =
15.53, SD = 3.29). On the final day of testing,
they completed a 2-item measure (e.g., "Do you
think that the training program is fair?") of
procedural justice (M = 8.63, SD = .81) pre-
sented on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = def-
initely disagree; 5 = definitely agree). On the
next and final day of the program, after receiving
their grades, they completed a 1-item measure
(cf. Scarpello & Campbell, 1983; M = 3.17, SD
= 1,15) of their satisfaction with the training
experience: "To what extent did you enjoy your
experiences here at (the training program)?" with
five response options: (a) “Not at all; I hated it
here at (this training program);" (b)"Not much;
I disliked it here at (this training program);" (c)
"I’m not sure whether I liked it or disliked it
here at (this training program);" (d) “Somewhat;
1 liked it here at (this training program);" (e) "A
great deal; I think that it was great here at (this
training program)." High scores on the exchange
ideology measure reflect the orientation to per-
form congruently with reinforcement; low scores
reflect the orientation to perform independently
of reinforcement. High scores on the procedural
justice and satisfaction scales indicated percep-
tions of fairness and greater satisfaction, respec-
tively.

RESULTS

Contrary to our hypothesis, procedural
justice and training satisfaction were not related
(r = .19, ns). To test for the moderating effect
of exchange ideology, hierarchical moderated
multiple regression analyses were performed with
the cross-product term of procedural-justice and
exchange ideology entered as a third variable in
the equation (Zedeck, 1971). The change in R”
indicated a moderating effect of exchange ideol-
ogy (R° = .16, F = 5.8, p < .001; AR’ =
.053, F = 5.5, p < .05).

In order to identify the form of the moder-
ator effect, we graphically plotted three slopes
(Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Stone & Hollenbeck,
1989), one for a "high" exchange ideology score
(one standard deviation above the mean, f =
18.82), one for an “average” exchange ideology
score (at the mean, f = 15.53), and one for a
"low" exchange ideology score (one standard


Exchange Ideology

14

Figure 1,
Satisfaction Scores Regressed On Procedural Justice Scores:

Low, Average, and Exchange Ideology Scores

Satisfaction with Training Experience

r
3.55
3k
2.57
2b
x Levels of Exchange Ideology:
—— Low avg High
1.5 —
7 10

Procedural Justice Perceptions

Note: Low score = 1 standard deviation below the mean; high score = 1

standard deviation above the mean.


"Office of Aviation Medicine
Washington, D.C. 20591 - ieee

Relationship

| This cit vag the poblc srg

the National Techical information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161. -



REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding
of equity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job
satisfaction and the good soldier: The rela-
tionship between affect and employee “citi-
zenship." Academy of Management Journal,
26, 587-595.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the be-
havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S.,
& Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
500-507.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of
complex organizations. New York: The Free
Press.

Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of
organizational involvement. Academy of
Management Review, 4, 53-62.

Greenberg, J. (1986). The distributive justice of
organizational performance evaluations. In H,
W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Justice in social relations. (pp. 337-
351). New York: Plenum.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organiza-
tional justice theories. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 12, 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace
status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 606-613.

Joy, V., & Witt, L. A. (1991, May). Grati-
fication deferment and perceptions of justice.
Presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Chic-
ago.

Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R.
(1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and
accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.

Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J.
N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of
performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done
with equity theory? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In K.
Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and
research (27-55). New York: Plenum Press.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. Jr., Fry, W. R.
(1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of alloca-
tion preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice
and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The rela-
tionship between man and organization. Ad-
ministrative Sciences Quarterly, 9, 370-390,

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Or-
ganizations. New York: Wiley.

Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Organizational behavior.
In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.),
Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 243-281.

Mowday, R. T. (1979). Equity theory predictions
of behavior in work organizations. In R. M.
Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and
work behavior (2nd ed.; pp. 124-146). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cogni-
tive versus affective determinants of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 157-164.

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job
satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Person-
nel Psychology, 36, 577-600.


Technical Report Documentation Page

T. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3, Recipient's Cotolog No.
DOT/FAA/AM-91/11
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

EXCHANGE IDEOLOGY AS A MODERATOR OF THE PROCEDURAL July 1991

JUSTICE-SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP & Performing Orgonization Code

[8. Performing Organization Report No.
7. Author!s)

Lawrence A. Witt, Ph.D. and Dana Broach, Ph.D.

9% Performing Organization Name and Address

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

P. 0. Box 25082 11 Contract or Grant No.
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

This work was performed under task AM-C-91-HRR-123.

16. Abstract

The present study of 92 civilian Federal Government employees in a 2-month, full-time training
Program tested the hypothesis that exchange ideology would moderate the relationship between
procedural justice perceptions and satisfaction with the training experience. Exchange ideology
refers to the relationship between what the individual receives and gives in an exchange
relationship. At one end of its dispositional continuum, employee effort is based on
organization reinforcements -- a strong exchange ideology. At the other end of the continuum,
employees put forth effort without regard to what they receive from the organization -- a weak
exchange ideology. The data indicated that perceptions of procedural justice accounted for
greater variance in satisfaction among trainees with a strong exchange ideology than among
those with a weak exchange ideology. These results suggest that the effect of fairness on
satisfaction with a training experience appears to be dependent on the individual’s exchange
ideology.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Satisfaction

Exchange ideology
Procedural justice

Equity .
¥;0b athtudes Yoersonned

Springfield, Virginia 22161

Document is available to public through
the National Technical Information Service,]

W. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages | 22. Price

Unclassified

Unclassified 9

Form DOT F 1700.7 (6-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized


EXCHANGE IDEOLOGY AS A MODERATOR OF THE
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE-SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP

Recent research on equity theory (Adams,
1963) has extended traditional emphases on
monetary outcomes (i.e., fairness of pay out-
comes) to nonmonetary outcomes (Greenberg,
1988), such as performance appraisal and to
procedural justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
The present study examined procedural justice
aspects of training performance.

Greenberg (1986) suggested that the proces-
ses by which performance information is
collected and by which performance ratings are
made involve matters of procedural, rather than
distributive justice. For example, Landy (Landy,
Barnes, & Murphy, 1978; Landy, Barnes-Farrell,
& Cleveland, 1980) found that a "fair" evaluation
was one that contains fair procedures independent
of the outcome.

The notion of procedural justice is par-
ticularly important with regard to performance
appraisal. Procedural justice refers to the in-
dividual’s belief that “fairness exists when alloca-
tive procedures satisfy certain criteria" (Lev-
enthal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980, p. 195-196), Em-
ployees who perceive their supervisor or instruc-
tor as being unfair in assessing their performance
may experience negative affect. Indeed, a not
uncommon response to performance feedback is
the expression, "It just is not fair." Whether the
employee receives a favorable or unfavorable
rating, he/she is likely not to have a satisfactory
training experience if the criteria used for making
the evaluation were not fair. For example, when
instructors use different criteria for different
employees, the instructor will probably be per-
ceived as being unfair, and students aware of the
differences will experience little satisfaction with
the experience,

With few exceptions (oy & Witt, 1991;
Sweeny, McFarlin, & Cotton, 1991; Tyler,
1986), organizational justice theories (Adams,
1963; Greenberg, 1987; Leventhal, 1980; Leven-
thal, et al., 1980) have failed to consider such
individual differences as cognitive style that may
account for a significant amount of the variance
in job satisfaction (Spector, 1982). One such

cognitive style that may affect the salience of
procedural justice on the development of satisfac-
tion with a training experience is exchange ideol-
ogy.

Exchange ideology refers to the relationship
between what the individual receives and gives in
an exchange relationship. Most of us know some
people who will do almost anything for us,
regardless of what we do for them. Others,
however, are careful to do no more for us than
we do for them. Discussing this notion in the
context of work organizations, Eisenberger,
Hutchison, Huntington, and Sowa (1986) de-
scribed exchange ideology as a continuum. At
one end of the continuum, individuals will per-
form congruent with organization reinforcements.
In other words, when they are treated well, they
will work hard; if not, they won’t. At the other
end of the continuum, individuals put forth effort
without regard to what they receive from the
organization. These individuals will work hard
even if they perceive themselves as being treated
poorly. Thus, exchange ideology reflects the
individual’s expectation for the person-organiza-
tion exchange. Citing previous research (Etzioni,
1961; Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965; March &
Simon, 1958), Eisenberger, et al. (1986, p. 501)
suggested that an individual’s increase in work
effort and positive job attitudes that comes from
a greater effort-outcome expectancy “depends on
an exchange ideology favoring the trade of work
effort for material and symbolic benefits."

In support of this idea, Eisenberger, et al.
(1986) found that the relationships between
perceived organizational support and absenteeism
were greater for a sample of American teachers
with a “strong” exchange ideology than those
with a "weak" ideology. In other words, for
individuals whose ideology was to perform
congruent with reinforcement (strong), percep-
tions of organizational support may have been
more salient in the decision to be absent from
work than for those whose ideology was to
perform independent of reinforcement (weak).