The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation.

By Maureen L. Ambrose, Marshall Schminke. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009

847 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b5863807343944a779f27647f653ff1378bd0905

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

When and How Subordinate Performance Leads to Abusive Supervision: A Social Dominance Perspective (2018, methodology): “In an effort to minimize commonmethod bias, we used four different versions of the survey instruments by randomly determining the order of the measures (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Khan et al., 2014).”
Mandatory Fun: Consent, Gamification and the Impact of Games at Work (2014, methodology): “initiative is enacted is fair and the initiative itself is fair, we adapted three items from Ambrose and Schminke's (2009) overall justice measure that pertain to process fairness and added two additional items regarding whether the exercise itself was fair.”
Performance Appraisal Procedural Justice: The Role of a Manager’s Implicit Person Theory (2011, background): “Future research measuring overall justice perceptions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009), rather than only using a dimensionality-based measure of procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001), will nonetheless enable explicit examination of managers’ procedural justice-related behaviors associated with their IPTs.”
Justice, Fairness, and Employee Reactions (2015, background): “We believe it is time to use distinct terms for justice and fairness because more and more scholars are operationalizing both in their studies, often with fairness mediating the effects of justice (Ambrose & Schminke 2009, Kim & Leung 2007).”
When Do Employees Cyberloaf? An Interactionist Perspective Examining Personality, Justice, and Empowerment (2016, methodology): “However, researchers recently cast doubt on the benefits of exclusively examining specific types of justice, suggesting a shift of focus to investigating overall justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009).”
How perceptions of fairness can change (2013, background): “…from mediated relationships reported in two studies: different types of justice, which reflect employees’ judgments of one or more justice events, relate to employee attitudes and behavior through their effects on perceptions of entity fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009).”
Work Group Inclusion: Test of a Scale and Model (2020, methodology): “Employees were asked for their perceptions of inclusion (10 items, Table 1), overall justice (six items, Ambrose & Schminke, 2009), diversity climate (four items, McKay et al., 2008), and leader inclusiveness (four items, Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).”
Investigating When and Why Psychological Entitlement Predicts Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior (2019, methodology): “…that overall justice is the proximal driver of outcomes, with each of the above-mentioned specific justice types playing a more distal role (e.g., Ambrose and Schminke 2009) Previous research has demonstrated that organizational justice perceptions predict CWB (see meta-analysis by Dalal 2005).”
What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money (2013, background): “(Ambrose & Schminke, 2009).”
Is Consistently Unfair Better than Sporadically Fair? An Investigation of Justice Variability and Stress (2017, background): “…dimensions, and are the proximal mechanism by which justice dimensions influence important justice-related outcomes (Colquitt & Rodell, 2015; see also Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007); and (c) large-scale differences across the different dimensions are atypical because they have strong…”