The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Procedural fairness and self‐esteem
Abstract
We argue that people's self‐esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self‐esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self‐esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self‐esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self‐esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
What is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures
Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053563 · Cited by 912
Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction With Citizen-Police Encounters
Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0104_1 · Cited by 282
Cited by
Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80003-x · Cited by 913
The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary Deference to Authorities
Tyler, T. R. (1997) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4 · Cited by 755
The effects of pay level on organization‐based self‐esteem and performance: A field study
Gardner, D. G., Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/0963179041752646 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Koper, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 313-325
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2123156728
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Procedural fairness and self‐esteem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejsp.2420230307
- The paper
- Koper, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1993). Procedural fairness and self‐esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230307
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.