The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Justice Climate and Justice Orientation on Work Outcomes: A Cross-Level Multifoci Framework.
Abstract
In this article, which takes a person-situation approach, the authors propose and test a cross-level multifoci model of workplace justice. They crossed 3 types of justice (procedural, informational, and interpersonal) with 2 foci (organization and supervisor) and aggregated to the group level to create 6 distinct justice climate variables. They then tested for the effects of these variables on either organization-directed or supervisor-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behavior. The authors also tested justice orientation as a moderator of these relationships. The results, based on 231 employees constituting 44 work groups representing multiple organizations and occupations, revealed that 4 forms of justice climate (organization-focused procedural and informational justice climate and supervisor-focused procedural and interpersonal justice climate) were significantly related to various work outcomes after controlling for corresponding individual-level justice perceptions. In addition, some moderation effects were found. Implications for organizations and future research are discussed.
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
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
What Should Be Done with Equity Theory?
Leventhal, G. S. (1980) · Social Exchange · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2 · Cited by 3,010
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 · Cited by 514
Cited by
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031757 · Cited by 1,462
Is Disability Disabling in All Workplaces? Workplace Disparities and Corporate Culture
SCHUR, L., KRUSE, D., BLASI, J., & BLANCK, P. (2009) · Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society · doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.2009.00565.x · Cited by 354
Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0035789 · Cited by 250
Abusive Supervision Climate: A Multiple-Mediation Model of its Impact on Group Outcomes
Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0237 · Cited by 230
Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users
Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2015.17 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242-256
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2042098295
- Cited by
- 563
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 38.32
- 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
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.
