Why Do Individuals Act Fairly Or Unfairly? An Examination Of Psychological And Situational Antecedents Of Organizational Justice

Most studies on organizational justice have focused on individuals’ reactions to justice. As such, a key question has been left largely unanswered: Why do individuals act fairly or unfairly? The present research adopted a person-situation interactionist approach (Trevino, 1986) to examine psychological and situational antecedents of individuals’ fair behavior. The social identity model of deindividuation (SIDE; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995) and side-bet theory of continuance commitment (Becker, 1960) was used to examine how organizational identification and continuance commitment might influence employees’ fair or unfair behavior depending on an organization’s justice climate. Based on SIDE, it was hypothesized that organizational identification relates positively to employees’ feelings of deindividuation. Based on side-bet theory, it was further hypothesized that employees’ continuance commitment relates positively to their adoption of a subordinate role. Both deindividuation and adoption of a subordinate role were argued to make employees more susceptible to external influences and, therefore, make individuals more likely to behave in ways that are normative in a given context. Individuals who have higher levels of continuance commitment and organizational identification were, therefore, argued to engage in fair or unfair behavior depending on the level of the justice climate and the strength of the justice climate of their workgroup. The results of three studies provided support for the majority of hypotheses. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed