The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments.
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Recovery Voice and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Factors (2007) · cites this paper as Lind, Kanfer, and Early 1990
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Recovery Voice and Satisfaction After Service Failure: An Experimental Investigation of Mediating and Moderating Factors (2007) · cites this paper as Lind, Kanfer, and Early 1990
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814
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
Self-citationWhat 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 · cited 1×
“a favorable outcome (Leventhal, 1980) or an equitable outcome”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Relational Model of Authority in Groups
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60283-x · Cited by 2,977
Self-citationThe Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07 · Cited by 2,208
Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384 · Cited by 2,062
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
Self-citationDo Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault
Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3054098 · Cited by 588
Metadata
- Authors
- Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C.
- Affiliations
- American Bar Foundation (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1990-11
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 952-959
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2056619857
- Cited by
- 924
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 30.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Keywords
- procedural justice, fairness judgments, voice, control
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
