Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,114

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.

Colquitt, Jason A.·2001·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Allen. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. 63 1 1990 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Aquino, 1995, Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice, and organizational citizenship., Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 21, 10.1007/BF02621253 · DOI
  3. Arbuckle, 1997, Amos users' guide. (Version 3.6).
  4. Barling, 1993, Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study., The Journal of Psychology, 127, 649, 10.1080/00223980.1993.9914904 · DOI
  5. Bentler, 1995, EQS structural equations program manual.
  6. Bies, 1986, Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness., Vol. 1, 43
  7. 10.1007/BF01048016 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bies, 1988, Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict: Is it enough to say it's not my fault?, Communication Research, 15, 381, 10.1177/009365088015004003 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cropanzano, 2001, Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda., 119
  10. Cropanzano, 2001, Using social justice to build effective work groups., 143
  11. Deutsch, 1975, Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice?, The Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137, 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.683 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/BF01384939 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2307/256422 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/256571 · DOI
  16. 10.2307/257990 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.561 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1177/014920639001600208 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/BF01048736 · DOI
  20. Greenberg, 1993b, The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice., 79
  21. 10.1006/obhd.1993.1004 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.288 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hackman, 1987, The design of work teams., 315
  24. Homans, 1961, Social behaviour: Its elementary forms.
  25. Joy, 1992, Delay of gratification as a moderator of the procedural justice-distributive justice relationship., Group & Organization Management, 17, 297, 10.1177/1059601192173008 · DOI
  26. Kanfer, 1991, Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology., Vol. 1, 75
  27. 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1177/014920639502100404 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.2307/256728 · DOI
  30. Leventhal, 1976, The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations., Vol. 9, 91
  31. Leventhal, 1980, Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences., 167
  32. Lind, 1995, Justice and authority relations in organizations., 83
  33. 10.2307/2393412 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Mansour-Cole. Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence of source, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors' fairness perceptions. 51 25 1998 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90058-6 · DOI
  36. 10.2307/1556364 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.2307/256489 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.2307/256591 · DOI
  40. Nunnally, 1978, Psychometric theory.
  41. Organ, 1990, The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior., Vol. 12, 43
  42. Price, 1986, Handbook of organizational measurement.
  43. Rousseau, 1998, Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust., Academy of Management Review. Academy of Management, 23, 393, 10.5465/AMR.1998.926617 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Scholl. Referent selection in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. 40 113 1987 · DOI
  45. Schwab, 1980, Construct validity in organizational behavior., Vol. 2, 3
  46. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1041 · DOI
  47. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Skarlicki. Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. 50 617 1997 · DOI
  49. 10.1006/jesp.1998.1360 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1006/obhd.1993.1022 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199701)18:1<83::AID-JOB779>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
  52. Tajfel, 1979, An integrative theory of intergroup conflict., 33
  53. Tata, 1996, Emphasis on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice: Differential perceptions of men and women., Psychological Reports, 79, 1327, 10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3f.1327 · DOI
  54. Thibaut, 1975, Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.
  55. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830 · DOI
  56. Tyler, 1999, Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective., 201
  57. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.482 · DOI
  58. Tyler, 1990, Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice., 77
  59. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.913 · DOI
  60. 10.2307/256902 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Vroom, 1964, Work and motivation.
  62. 10.2307/256750 · DOI
  63. Williams, 1995, Covariance structure modeling in organizational research: Problems with the method versus applications of the method., Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 225, 10.1002/job.4030160305 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Colquitt, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001-06
Volume
86
Issue
3
Pages
386-400
ISSN
  • 1939-1854
  • 0021-9010
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Cited by
4,114
References
14
Language
en

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

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.