Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations.

By E. Lind. 2001

1,097 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7baac3d84562172861f8944673b0a53404599cb

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

A Cross-Cultural Examination of Subordinates' Perceptions of and Reactions to Abusive Supervision (2015, methodology): “Fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001; Lind et al., 1993) also predicts that fairness assessments are an important predictor of whether subordinates choose to respect their supervisor’s orders and engage in constructive work effort—subordinates’ willingness to exert a great deal of time, energy,…”
Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: An assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS) (2011, background): “Sitkin and Roth (1993) recognize it as “value congruence”, Lind (2001) identifies it as “fairness & moral character” and Colquitt et al. (2007) treats it as honesty, fairness and justice.”
When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models (2012, background): “…essentially refers to an assessment of employees’ relationship with their supervisor and with the organization, speaking in particular to the issue of whether authorities can be trusted not to abuse their power by exploiting employees and damaging their identity (Tyler & Blader, 2002; Lind, 2001).”
Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover (2008, background): “In addition, researchers have argued that when faced with uncertainty, individuals tend to engage in cognitive shortcut and use known information as ‘‘heuristic substitutes” for related information (Lind, 2001).”
Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and turnover (2005, background): “Recently, however, Lind (2001) has suggested that the interaction effect of procedural and distributive justice posited by Brockner and Wiesenfeld (1996) was applied too broadly, a stance Brockner (2002) has affirmed.”
Moderating effects of job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice and employee well-being: Gender differences (2005, background): “The social-cognitive model of justice judgements devised by van den Bos and Lind (2002) examines the relationship between organizational justice and perceived uncertainty.”
Cultural variation and the psychological contract (2003, background): “…been found to be more sensitive to procedural (as opposed to distributional) fairness in evaluations of outcomes (Brockner et al., 2000) because fair procedures and interpersonal treatment signal to individuals their status and confirm their membership in the in-group (Leung, 2001; Lind, 2001).”
Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice (2005, background): “According to fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001), the implications of procedures become increasingly self-relevant in the presence of concerns about social interdependence, because interdependent relationships ‘‘open the door to rejection and loss of identity’’ (Lind, 2001, p. 61).”
WHY DO MANAGERS ACT FAIRLY IN THE FIRST PLACE? A DAILY INVESTIGATION OF "HOT" AND "COLD" MOTIVES AND DISCRETION (2014, result): “This stands in sharp contrast to research on reactions to justice, the growth of which has been facilitated by frameworks such as social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), fairness heuristic theory (Lind, 2001), uncertainty management theory (Lind & Van den Bo”
Applying Uncertainty Management Theory To Employee Voice Behavior: An Integrative Investigation (2012, background): “When procedural justice is low, employees have less trust in the formal system and thus may perceive a greater uncertainty in their environment (Tyler & Lind, 1992) and experience a lower sense of belonging to the group or the organization (Lind, 2001).”
Complementary Variable- and Person-Centered Approaches to the Dimensionality of Psychometric Constructs: Application to Psychological Wellbeing at Work (2016, background): “Interestingly, this second approach appears to be related to conceptual arguments highlighting the idea that individuals tend to experience fairness in a more holistic way (Hauenstein et al., 2001; Lind, 2001), which seems empirically supported by the observation that correlations between justice di”
Understanding Judgments of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A Test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning (2002, background): “…to be a determinant of perceived political legitimacy (Tyler, Casper, & Fisher, 1989), obedience to the law (Tyler, 1990), and predicts how people reason about fairness regardless of whether they are the direct recipient or a third party perceiver of procedural treatment (Van den Bos & Lind, 2001).”
Illuminating the ‘Face’ of Justice: A Meta‐Analytic Examination of Leadership and Organizational Justice (2018, result): “This is consistent with fairness heuristic theory, part of the relational model of justice, which suggests that subordinates make quick assessments of the fairness of their leaders based on initial justice encounters (Lind, 2001).”
When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members ☆ (2006, background): “Similar to Lind and Tyler s (1988) group value model, African-American employees perceptions of being disadvantaged and devalued within their work group will coincide with judgments of current and future procedural justice as being unfavorable.”
Fairness at the Group Level: Justice Climate and Intraunit Justice Climate (2009, background): “Lind (1995, 2001) views this as a fundamental social dilemma.”