The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions
Abstract
The authors used exchange theory to clarify distinctions between organizational justice types and considered the implications of recent conceptual developments regarding justice associated with interpersonal treatment (interactional justice) and the inclusion of justice associated with outcomes (distributive justice) for an exchange model of justice. Using two samples (401 part-time and 272 full-time employees), they found unique relationships of interactional justice and justice concerning informational adequacy with supervisor relationship quality, justice concerning procedures with organizational support, and distributive justice with pay satisfaction. Also, an updated measure of interactional justice appears to capture more of the interpersonal fairness domain than the current measure.
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
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
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
Moorman, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.845 · Cited by 3,422
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Cited by
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311415280 · Cited by 1,625
Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2010) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.614 · Cited by 230
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Tziner, A. (2014) · Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones · doi:10.5093/tr2014a1 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 299-322
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2099307529
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 31.39
- 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: Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206305280115
- The paper
- Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280115
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.
