Cited by 633

Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments.

Lind, E. Allan, Kanfer, Ruth, Earley, P. Christopher·1990·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.952

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Persons given opportunities to express their views believe that they have greater control over the outcomes, which leads to greater procedural fairness judgments.

    “That is, the voice effect is explained by the presumption that persons given opportunities to express their views believe that they have greater control over the outcomes, which leads to greater procedural fairness judgments (Lind, Kanfer, and Early 1990).”
  • Judgments of the fairness of a decisionmaking procedure are enhanced when the individual involved is offered an opportunity to express his or her views and opinions before the decision is made.

    “This argument can be supported by the consensus in the psychology literature that judgments of the fairness of a decisionmaking procedure are enhanced when the individual involved in the situation is offered an opportunity to express his or her views and opinions before the decision is made (Lind, Kanfer, and Early 1990).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1990-11
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
952-959
ISSN
  • 1939-1315
  • 0022-3514
Cited by
633
References
6
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