Predicting Reactions to Procedural Injustice via Insights from Resource Theory

  • Ali Kazemi
  • Maedeh Gholamzadehmir
  • Kjell Törnblom
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)


Shifting focus from distributive to procedural justice, this chapter by Ali Kazemi, Maedeh Gholamzadehmir, and Kjell Törnblom starts from the proposition that in a situation of procedural injustice, restoration of justice will be attempted via behaviors that are isomorphic with the resource with which the violated procedural rule is isomorphic. An empirical illustration corroborated in large this novel line of reasoning and showed that when the procedural rule of voice was violated, restoration of justice was attempted via status isomorphic behaviors. This is consistent with Foa’s proposal that people prefer to retaliate a loss via a resource class proximal rather than distal to the lost resource. The proposition that inaccuracy is isomorphic with information, that is, a universalistic resource received mixed support. The notion that procedural injustice has implications for discrete emotions was supported. Regardless of the resource of deprivation, the denial of voice had greater impact than inaccuracy of decisions which, in turn, suggests a greater impact of particularistic (i.e., status) than of universalistic (i.e., information) resource deprivation.


Negative Emotion Procedural Justice Behavioral Reaction Procedural Fairness Procedural Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bembenek, A. F., Beike, D. R., & Schroeder, D. A. (2007). Justice violation, emotional reactions, and justice-seeking response. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 15–36). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). “Hot flashes, open wounds”: Injustice and the tyranny of its emotions. In D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & S. W. Gilliland (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on managing organizational justice (pp. 203–221). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics and correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 1–41). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  6. De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader’s bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Cremer, D. (2006). Unfair treatment and revenge-taking: The roles of collective identification and feelings of disappointment. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 10, 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Cremer, D., & van den Bos, K. (2007). Justice and feelings: Toward a new era in justice research. Social Justice Research, 20, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donnenwerth, G. V., & Foa, U. G. (1974). Effect of resource class on retaliation to injustice in interpersonal exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Foa, E. B., Turner, J. L., & Foa, U. G. (1972). Response generalization in aggression. Human Relations, 25, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegtvedt, K. A., & Killian, C. (1999). Fairness and emotional responses: Reactions to the process and outcomes of negotiations. Social Forces, 78, 269–303.Google Scholar
  14. Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research, 13, 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–54). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice: Toward a better understanding of its phenomenology. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in interpersonal relations (pp. 103–123). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mullen, E. (2007). The reciprocal relationship between affect and perceptions of fairness. In K. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.), Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications (pp. 15–37). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Törnblom, K., & Kazemi, A. (2010). Justice judgments of physical abuse and theft: The importance of outcome and procedure. Social Justice Research, 23, 308–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Törnblom, K., & Vermunt, R. (2007). Towards an integration of distributive justice, procedural justice, and social resource theories. Social Justice Research, 20, 312–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2003). Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  26. van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vermunt, R., Wit, A., van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (1996). The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest. Social Justice Research, 9, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Kazemi
    • 1
  • Maedeh Gholamzadehmir
    • 2
  • Kjell Törnblom
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Technology and SocietyUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  2. 2.University of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations