The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Culture and Procedural Fairness: When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do it
Abstract
Previous research has shown that procedural fairness and outcome favorability interactively combine to influence people's reactions to their social exchanges. The tendency for people to respond more positively when outcomes are more favorable is reduced when procedural fairness (how things happen) is relatively high. This paper evaluates whether cultural differences in people's tendencies to view themselves as interdependent or independent (their self-construal) moderate the interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome favorability. In three studies, participants indicated their reactions to an exchange with another party as a function of the other party's procedural fairness and the outcome favorability associated with the exchange. In Study 1, participants' national culture was treated as a proxy for their self-construal. In Study 2, people's national culture and self-construal were assessed. In Study 3, participants were classified on the basis of their self-construals. Converging evidence across studies showed that the interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome favorability was more pronounced among participants with more interdependent forms of self-construal.
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
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
The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 · Cited by 2,510
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256704 · Cited by 1,929
Cited by
Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559 · Cited by 1,238
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.133 · Cited by 1,200
Self-citationTaras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018938 · Cited by 1,160
Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206307300818 · Cited by 980
The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310373752 · Cited by 800
Metadata
- Authors
- Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-159
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2045607848
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 33.55
- 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: Culture and Procedural Fairness: When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do it. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2666982
- The paper
- Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and Procedural Fairness: When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do it. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666982
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.