<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Brockner, J.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/16784/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>When Do Procedural Fairness and Outcome Fairness Interact to Influence Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors? The Moderating Effect of Uncertainty (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20840/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees’ work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees’ tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people’s uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers’ reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes?: The moderating effect of prevention focus (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14494/</link>
      <pubDate>2008-03-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The present studies were designed to delineate when procedural fairness would be more versus less likely to be inversely related to people’s self-evaluations in response to unfavorable outcomes. Prior theory and research have shown that: (1) the more that people assign psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes, the more likely are their self-evaluations to be adversely affected by such outcomes, and (2) people who are more prevention focused in their self-regulatory orientation assign greater psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes. Consequently, we predicted that in the face of unfavorable outcomes, the inverse relationship between procedural fairness and self-evaluations would be more likely to emerge among those who are more prevention focused. Using different conceptions or operationalizations of all of the independent and dependent variables, we found support for this prediction in three studies, spanning different cultures, contexts, and methodologies.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14997/</link>
      <pubDate>2005-03-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of procedural fairness on people’s attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people’s reactions to procedural fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), procedural fairness had more of an influence on participants’ reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>