• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

学术界的(不)公正:程序公平、学生的学术认同以及对大学当局的感知合法性

(In)justice in academia: procedural fairness, students' academic identification, and perceived legitimacy of university authorities.

作者信息

Główczewski Michał, Burdziej Stanisław

机构信息

Institute of Psychology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Jurija Gagarina 39, Toruń, 87-100 Poland.

Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Fosa Staromiejska 1a, Toruń, 87-100 Poland.

出版信息

High Educ (Dordr). 2022 Aug 8:1-22. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8.

DOI:10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8
PMID:35968200
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9360702/
Abstract

UNLABELLED

A considerable body of literature has documented the significance of fair treatment in terms of generating trust towards decision-makers across different institutional contexts. It has also been demonstrated that even young children are sensitive to procedural justice, and that experiences of both fairness and unfairness help shape young people's wider attitudes towards authority. In this paper, we seek to extend these findings into the academic context. We use data from two separate studies of university students in Poland. In study 1 ( = 315), using a survey to capture students' actual experiences, we find that fair treatment was a stronger predictor of perceived legitimacy of university authorities than were fair outcomes. In study 2 ( = 751), also using a survey of a nationally representative sample of university students, we demonstrate that this procedural effect is mediated by students' identification with their university, and that trust in academic authorities translates into higher levels of engagement and lower levels of burnout. Academic identification fully mediated the relationship between both procedural and distributive fairness and engagement and partly mediated the relationship between the two dimensions of fairness and burnout. We conclude that the experience of procedural fairness leads students to more strongly identify with their university and thereby enhances their trust in university authorities.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8.

摘要

未标注

大量文献记录了公平对待在不同机构背景下对决策者产生信任的重要性。研究还表明,即使是幼儿也对程序正义敏感,公平和不公平的经历有助于塑造年轻人对权威的更广泛态度。在本文中,我们试图将这些研究结果扩展到学术背景中。我们使用了来自波兰大学生的两项独立研究的数据。在研究1(n = 315)中,通过一项调查来获取学生的实际经历,我们发现,与公平结果相比,公平对待是大学生对大学当局感知合法性更强的预测因素。在研究2(n = 751)中,同样对全国有代表性的大学生样本进行调查,我们证明这种程序效应是由学生对其大学的认同感介导的,并且对学术当局的信任转化为更高的参与度和更低的倦怠水平。学术认同完全介导了程序公平和分配公平与参与度之间的关系,部分介导了公平的两个维度与倦怠之间的关系。我们得出结论,程序公平的体验会使学生更强烈地认同他们的大学,从而增强他们对大学当局的信任。

补充信息

在线版本包含可在10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8获取的补充材料。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2833/9360702/e876b9de0c6d/10734_2022_907_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2833/9360702/77769ef88b79/10734_2022_907_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2833/9360702/e876b9de0c6d/10734_2022_907_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2833/9360702/77769ef88b79/10734_2022_907_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2833/9360702/e876b9de0c6d/10734_2022_907_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
(In)justice in academia: procedural fairness, students' academic identification, and perceived legitimacy of university authorities.学术界的(不)公正:程序公平、学生的学术认同以及对大学当局的感知合法性
High Educ (Dordr). 2022 Aug 8:1-22. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00907-8.
2
The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation.对权威的信任和程序公平对合作的影响。
J Appl Psychol. 2007 May;92(3):639-49. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639.
3
The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects.权威权力在解释程序公平效应中的作用。
J Appl Psychol. 2010 May;95(3):488-502. doi: 10.1037/a0018921.
4
Trust in decision-making authorities dictates the form of the interactive relationship between outcome fairness and procedural fairness.对决策当局的信任决定了结果公平与程序公平之间互动关系的形式。
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015 Jan;41(1):19-34. doi: 10.1177/0146167214556237. Epub 2014 Nov 11.
5
Conceptualizations of fairness and legitimacy in the context of Ethiopian health priority setting: Reflections on the applicability of accountability for reasonableness.埃塞俄比亚卫生重点确定背景下的公平与合法性概念:对合理性问责制适用性的思考
Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Dec;18(4):357-364. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12153. Epub 2017 May 22.
6
Procedural justice and status: status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.程序正义与地位:作为程序公平效应前提的地位显著性
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Dec;83(6):1353-61.
7
Perceptions of campus authorities: Institutional responses, fairness, and bystander action.校园当局的认知:制度回应、公平性和旁观者行为。
J Am Coll Health. 2021 Nov-Dec;69(8):851-859. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1711762. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
8
The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients.决策者和决策接受者之间社会利益和公平问题的作用。
Law Hum Behav. 2007 Dec;31(6):573-610. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9084-2. Epub 2007 Jan 24.
9
Organisational Justice, Burnout, and Engagement in University Students: A Comparison between Stressful Aspects of Labour and University Organisation.组织公正、倦怠与大学生敬业度:劳动压力与大学组织方面的比较
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 26;15(10):2116. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102116.
10
Questioning fairness: the relationship of mental health and psychopathic characteristics with young offenders' perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy.质疑公平性:心理健康和精神病态特征与青少年罪犯对程序正义和合法性认知之间的关系
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2017 Oct;27(4):354-370. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2004. Epub 2016 Jun 13.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of the Justice Component of a JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) Inventory in a College of Pharmacy.药学院中JEDI(公正、公平、多样性和包容性)量表的公正成分分析
Pharmacy (Basel). 2024 Jul 29;12(4):118. doi: 10.3390/pharmacy12040118.

本文引用的文献

1
Impacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Life of Higher Education Students: Global Survey Dataset from the First Wave.新冠疫情对高等教育学生生活的影响:第一波全球调查数据集
Data Brief. 2021 Dec;39:107659. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107659. Epub 2021 Dec 1.
2
The future of value in digitalised higher education: why data privacy should not be our biggest concern.数字化高等教育中的价值未来:为何数据隐私不应是我们最担忧的问题。
High Educ (Dordr). 2022;83(1):119-135. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00639-7. Epub 2020 Nov 19.
3
Depression and Anxiety During the COVID-19 Pandemic in an Urban, Low-Income Public University Sample.
城市低收入公立大学人群在新冠疫情期间的抑郁和焦虑状况。
J Trauma Stress. 2021 Feb;34(1):12-22. doi: 10.1002/jts.22600. Epub 2020 Oct 12.
4
The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation.《COVID-19恐惧量表:编制与初步验证》
Int J Ment Health Addict. 2022;20(3):1537-1545. doi: 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8. Epub 2020 Mar 27.
5
Trust and Discipline: Adolescents' Institutional and Teacher Trust Predict Classroom Behavioral Engagement following Teacher Discipline.信任与纪律:青少年对学校和教师的信任可预测其在教师实施纪律后课堂行为投入度的变化。
Child Dev. 2020 Mar;91(2):661-678. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13233. Epub 2019 Mar 30.
6
Organisational Justice, Burnout, and Engagement in University Students: A Comparison between Stressful Aspects of Labour and University Organisation.组织公正、倦怠与大学生敬业度:劳动压力与大学组织方面的比较
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Sep 26;15(10):2116. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102116.
7
The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation.整体公正判断在组织公正研究中的作用:中介作用检验
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Mar;94(2):491-500. doi: 10.1037/a0013203.
8
Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior.检验并拓展群体参与模型:社会认同、程序公正、经济成果与角色外行为之间的联系
J Appl Psychol. 2009 Mar;94(2):445-64. doi: 10.1037/a0013935.
9
Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions.现实政治与公平程序:群体认同对政治决策接受度的调节作用
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Mar;92(3):476-89. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.476.
10
The influence of national culture on the perceived fairness of grading procedures: a comparison of the United States and China.国家文化对评分程序公平感的影响:美国与中国的比较
J Psychol. 2005 Sep;139(5):401-12. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.401-412.