Mayer David M, Greenbaum Rebecca L, Kuenzi Maribeth, Shteynberg Garriy
University of Central Florida, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Jan;94(1):142-61. doi: 10.1037/a0013108.
Considerable research has demonstrated that fair procedures help improve reactions to decisions, a phenomenon known as the fair process effect. However, in the present research, the authors identify when and why objectively fair procedures (i.e., receiving voice) may not always improve justice perceptions. Findings from 2 studies (Ns = 108 and 277) yield support for the proposed identity violation effect, which posits that when an outcome violates a central aspect of one's self (i.e., personal and/or social identity), objectively fair procedures do not improve procedural and distributive justice perceptions. Further, consistent with the motivated reasoning hypothesis, the Voice x Identity Violation interaction on justice perceptions was mediated by participants' tendency to find a procedural flaw--namely, to doubt that opinions were considered before making the decision. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).
大量研究表明，公平程序有助于改善对决策的反应，这一现象被称为公平过程效应。然而，在本研究中，作者确定了客观公平的程序（即获得表达意见的机会）何时以及为何不一定总能提高对公正的认知。两项研究（样本量分别为108和277）的结果支持了所提出的身份侵犯效应，该效应认为，当结果侵犯了一个人自我的核心方面（即个人和/或社会身份）时，客观公平的程序并不能提高程序公正和分配公正的认知。此外，与动机性推理假设一致，关于公正认知的“获得表达意见的机会×身份侵犯”交互作用是由参与者发现程序缺陷的倾向所介导的——即怀疑在做出决定之前是否考虑了意见。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》（c）2009美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
