The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories
Abstract
A taxonomy is presented that categorizes theories of organizational justice with respect to two independent dimensions: a reactiveproactive dimension and a process-content dimension. Various theories within each of the four resulting categories are identified. The implications of the taxonomy are discussed with respect to clarifying theoretical interrelationships, tracking research trends, and identifying needed areas of research. Stimulated by conceptualizations of justice in organizations by such theorists as Homans (1961), Adams (1965), and Walster, Berscheid, and Walster (1973), organizational researchers devoted considerable attention in the 1960s and 1970s to testing propositions about the distribution of payment and other work-related rewards derived from equity theory (for reviews, see Campbell &
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
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241 · cited 1×
“The present taxonomy helps us recognize the conceptual traditions from which new theoretical developments, such as those of Folger (1986) and Bies (1987) were derived, and as such facilitates appreciation for their integrative nature.”
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
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
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
New directions in equity research.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033967 · Cited by 1,649
Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction With Citizen-Police Encounters
Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0104_1 · Cited by 282
Cited by
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
Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 · Cited by 3,199
Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104 · Cited by 1,870
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206306294258 · Cited by 1,837
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256489 · Cited by 1,704
Metadata
- Authors
- Greenberg, J.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078698249
- Cited by
- 2,284
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 26.88
- 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: A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/257990
- The paper
- Greenberg, J. (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/257990
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.
