Perceptions of procedural fairness as a function of the freedom to voice and the position power of the target

Perceptions of procedural fairness are related to one\u27s opportunity to have input (voice) into the decision-making process. Previous research has primarily examined voice as a dichotomous variable (voice/mute); very little empirical work has examined voice using methods that either constrain or expand one\u27s opportunity for expression. It was hypothesized that changes in the quality and quantity of voice (i.e., constraints) would affect perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness. Free voice (no constraints) was predicted to receive the highest ratings of procedural justice. Constrained voice was predicted to receive comparatively lower ratings of procedural justice but to still be superior to a mute condition. Additionally, when people express a complaint, they often know who receives that information. Attributions about this person (the target) can affect perceptions of justice as a function of the target\u27s position power. The target may be instrumental in determining outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) or offer one an opportunity for value expressiveness as described by the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Alternatively, if voice is self-targeted (i.e., a personal journal) it may serve a cathartic purpose (Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). The present study manipulated both voice and target in a 3 x 3 factorial design. Voice was manipulated using questionnaires designed to allow different levels of expression in terms of the amount and content of the information communicated. Process control was manipulated by using three different voice targets varying in instrumental ability (position power). Findings support the notion that perceptions of procedural justice are enhanced by voice opportunities that allow greater freedom in the quality and quantity of expression. Free voice (no constraints) significantly enhanced perceptions of procedural fairness compared to constrained voice conditions. Similarly, constrained voice was preferable to the mute condition. Results concerning the target of voice found no difference in estimates of procedural justice between the group-value model (value expressiveness) and the control model (instrumental control). The implications for dispute-resolution procedures (e.g., employee grievances, arbitration, etc.) emphasize the importance of unconstrained voice when procedural justice concerns are crucial