The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Employee Justice Across Cultures: A Meta-Analytic Review
Abstract
This article explores the moderating influence of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance) on the relationship between justice perceptions and both supervisor- and employer-related outcomes. The integration of justice theories with Hofstede’s national culture typology implies multiple, and potentially competing, propositions regarding the impact of culture on justice effects. To sort out these issues, the authors present meta-analytic findings summarizing data from 495 unique samples, representing over 190,000 employees working in 32 distinct countries and regions. Results indicate that justice effects are strongest among nations associated with individualism, femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and low power distance. The authors discuss these findings in terms of the practice of justice across cultures.
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
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
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
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 · cited 1×
“Three theoretical models have contributed to this perspective: (a) the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), (b) the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), and (c) the group Shao et al. / Employee Justice Across Cultures 271 engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003).”
MethodJustice 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
The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Triandis, H. C. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.506 · Cited by 5,019
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
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
Individualism-collectivism and personality
Triandis, H. C. (2001) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169 · Cited by 2,589
The 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
Cited by
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315573997 · Cited by 706
Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527131 · Cited by 386
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L.-Q., & Bednall, T. C. (2019) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318823935 · Cited by 183
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Misati, E. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.013 · Cited by 179
Shan, W., Keller, J., & Joseph, D. (2019) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2357 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-12-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 263-301
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2145016063
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 16.47
- 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.
