Perceived Justice and Group Identification

Transcription

1 Original Article Perceived Justice and Group Identification The Moderating Role of Previous Identification Jukka Lipponen, 1 Barbara Wisse, 2 and Janne Perälä 3 1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, 2 Department of Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 3 Helsinki, Finland Abstract. Temporal dynamics have hardly been considered in the fields of organizational justice and group identification, yet addressing intraindividual change trajectories over time may lead to a fuller understanding of the relationship between justice and identification. Therefore, this study investigated the moderating role of previous identification (T1) in the relationship between later perceptions of justice (T2) and later identification (T2). After reviewing two competing and contradictory lines of research, we formed our main hypothesis and tested it with data derived from 109 respondents serving as conscripts in military units. In line with our hypothesis, our results clearly and consistently indicated that the relationship between later perceptions of three forms of supervisory focused justice (procedural, interactional, and distributive justice) and later identification was stronger among those individuals whose prior identification was low. Theoretical implications and managerial ramifications of our findings are discussed. Keywords: procedural justice, interactional justice, distributive justice, identification A review of the literature shows that it is difficult to overemphasize the importance of justice for organizational, work group, and group member functioning (see Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005, for a review). One explanation for why justice is so important has been provided by the group engagement model by Tyler and Blader (2003). According to this model perceived fairness conveys identity-relevant information to an individual. Particularly, it is asserted that by indicating a positive, respectful position within the group and by promoting pride in group membership, fairness engenders group identification. However, most research on the fairnessidentification relationship pays little attention to the fact that justice processes are situated in ongoing and dynamic social systems. Therefore, the present study addresses the issue of whether group members, at one given point in time, may react stronger to supervisor procedural, distributive, and interactional fairness than others depending on their base-line identification with that particular group. In doing so, this study adds to the existing literature in several ways. First, previous research has provided little insight into how the relationship between justice and identification develops over an extended period of time, and the use of longitudinal data may be helpful in painting a more complete picture of this relationship. Second, in contrast to the bulk of research in this area, we focus on all of the three most often distinguished forms of justice. This may aid in the development of a broader perspective on the justice-identification relationship. Third, the present study focuses specifically on supervisor justice. Because supervisor effectiveness is largely determined by the extent to which supervisors are able to foster group members identification, the conditions that feed into group members sensitivity to supervisor fairness are of importance. Supervisor Justice and Identification When people are assessing the fairness of their supervisor they may differentiate between several aspects. Specifically, they may assess the extent to which they are treated fair procedurally (the perceived fairness of the formal procedures used in allocation decision-making), distributively (the perceived fairness of the allocation outcomes; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998), and interactionally (the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment; e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986). Although some researchers regard the latter as a part of procedural justice, it is most often viewed and treated as a distinct aspect of justice (e.g., Bies, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996; cf. Colquitt, 2001). One reason as to why individuals are likely to make assessments of their supervisor s fairness has been offered by the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) and its predecessor group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988). These models assert fairness does not only serve instrumental concerns, but it also serves noninstrumental or relational concerns. Specifically, it is argued that fairness conveys identity-relevant information about the quality of one s relationships with authorities and fellow group DOI: / /a000029

2 14 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification members. Tyler and Lind (1992) explain the power of authorities by the fact that they are generally viewed as being representative of the whole group. The group authority (i.e., such as the supervisor or leader) is therefore perceived as the person who symbolizes the group. The extent to which those in a position of authority are fair may thus communicate important information, because as representatives of the group, their actions can be perceived as important indicators of group opinions, attitudes, and values. If the leader treats a certain member fair, this member can consider himself/ herself to be valued by the whole group. Indeed, fair procedures and treatment indicate a positive, respectful position within the group and promote pride in the membership of that group. These feelings of obtained respect and pride, in turn, are suggested to relate to group identification (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Identification refers to the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of their group membership (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Identification with an organization thus may be defined as the perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 34). Numerous research findings show that organizational identification has positive effects on various work outcomes (for recent reviews see Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Riketta, 2005). The more people identify with a group or organization, the more likely the individual is to act with the organization s best interest in mind (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and to conform to group s norms, values, and attitudes (Hogg, 2001). Identification has been linked with lowered turnover intentions (Edwards & Peccei, 2010; Tyler & Blader, 2000), higher work motivation (Riketta & Nienaber, 2007), higher interest in organizational processes (van Knippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006), increased extra-role behavior and cooperation (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Lipponen, Bardi, & Haapamäki, 2008; van Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006), and increased job satisfaction (van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). In sum, organizational functioning may benefit from higher levels of group identification. Importantly, the extent to which people identify with their organization has been found to be contingent on supervisor fairness. Indeed, a number of studies have found that procedural and interactional fairness are positively associated both with organizational identification (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2009; De Cremer & Blader, 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2000) and work group identification (e.g., Hakonen & Lipponen, 2008; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006). Previous Identification as a Moderator of the Justice-Identification Relationship Although the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) offers a sound theoretical explanation of how justice perceptions are related to identification, the model does not specifically focus on the temporal or developmental processes of this relationship. The group engagement model treats identification merely as a consequence of fair treatment. However, in most social groups, group member group authority relationships are continuing and dynamic systems that develop and change over time. Therefore, group members may react to perceived fair treatment by their supervisor differently depending on their initial level of group identification. We argue that considering the temporal dynamics of group member group authority relationships may benefit theoretical development of justice processes in general and of the group engagement model in particular: By addressing intra-individual change trajectories in identification a fuller understanding of the relationship between justice and identification may be realized. How then may previous identification with the group affect the relationship between later supervisor justice and later identification? May we expect this relationship to be stronger with higher or with lower previous identification? So far the existing literature is not conclusive on the matter. Several lines of research point to different and opposite directions. Below we will present this research and explain why we believe the evidence pointing to the idea that the relationship between later justice and later identification is stronger with lower group member prior identification to be particularly convincing. On the one hand, one may argue that justice has a stronger influence on later identification for individuals who identify strongly at an earlier point in time. For instance, based on the group-value model of justice (e.g., Lind & Tyler, 1988) and literature on psychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989) Brockner, Tyler, and Cooper-Schneider (1992) argued that some individuals value their relationship with the other party (e.g., group authority) more than others. Brockner et al. (1992) proposed that those individuals who are more committed to the group beforehand will be more concerned about, and influenced by the perceived fairness of the group authority, because they have invested more of their sense of self-worth in the group and because they more strongly feel that their organization has to treat them in a fair and dignified way (in return for their commitment). In line with these arguments, Brockner et al. (1992) found that individuals commitment (measured with items derived from Schwyhart and Smith s, 1972 company satisfaction scale) could be predicted by their initial commitment and their perceptions of how fairly they were treated. The most negative reactions were exhibited by those individuals who previously felt highly committed but who felt that their institution acted unfairly. Recently, based on ideas derived from group-value model of justice, Okimoto (2009) proposed and found that severe disrespectful treatment of other in-group members elicited lower identification levels than less severe disrespectful treatment, but only when observers strongly identified with the group. Although Okimoto s scenario study with undergraduate students focused only on one aspect of interactional justice (i.e., respect), the results of this study suggest that injustice relates more strongly to later identification among those with high identification. Importantly however, both the Brockner et al. (1992) study and the Okimoto (2009) study seem to focus more on perceptions of injustice and unfairness rather than on perceptions of justice and fairness. Indeed, other studies that show that high identifiers are more sensitive toward justice may be viewed from a similar perspective. For instance, De Cremer Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(1):13 23 Ó 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

3 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification 15 (2006) focused on unfair treatment and revenge, and showed that high identifiers were more likely to respond with acts of revenge than low identifiers when treated unfairly. Likewise, Ståhl, Vermunt, and Ellemers (2006) argued that high identifiers may be particularly sensitive to the favorability of treatment by outgroup authorities, because an intergroup context may trigger expectations of discrimination and dishonesty (i.e., injustice) on behalf of the authority in high identifiers more than in low identifiers. Moreover, Brockner et al. (1992) focused on commitment instead of on identification. Although some authors see some overlap between the constructs (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999), most authors would argue that commitment especially if operationalized as satisfaction with the group lacks the crucial self-defining component of identification that refers to the psychological merging of self and a specific group or organization. More precisely, identification and commitment differ in their core meaning, with social identity referring to the inclusion of group membership as part of one s self-concept, and commitment referring to the binding of the individual to a target and a course of action of relevance to that target. As a consequence, the correlates, determinants, and effects of commitment and identification may differ substantially (e.g., Gautam, van Dick, & Wagner, 2004; Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). On the other hand, one may argue that justice has a stronger influence on later identification when individuals identify less at an earlier point in time. Because low identifiers are usually not convinced of the status and value of the group (e.g., van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008) they may search more actively for cues that entail information about the group s quality and worthiness. Indeed, Doosje, Spears, and Ellemers (2002) presented longitudinal empirical evidence for the idea that low identifiers can be particularly sensitive to status characteristics of the in-group (i.e., indicators of the group s quality and worthiness). Because justice may also provide information on group status and worthiness (Tyler & Blader, 2003), low identifiers may be particularly responsive to justice information. Moreover, low identifiers may experience less feelings of belongingness to their group and therefore they may be particularly sensitive to cues that provide information about the extent to which they are socially accepted and valued as group members (De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer & Blader, 2006). For instance, De Cremer, Brebels, and Sedikides (2008) showed that when individuals were uncertain about their belongingness to the group they showed stronger identification when they were granted instead of denied voice. They argued that this effect may show because voice, an aspect of procedural fairness, signifies inclusion. In contrast, those group members that have already incorporated the group as an important part of one s self (i.e., high identifiers) may be less sensitive to acceptance and relatedness information. Note that these findings align well with previous research that reveals that perceived justice is especially important when people experience uncertainty (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005). Uncertainty, in turn, leads people to turn to the group for reassurance (cf. Hogg, 2001), which may make them particularly sensitive to justice cues. Relatedly, it has been found that those who maintain a less central position in the group have a stronger need to assert their group membership (Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000). It has been argued that those who occupy a less central position in the group often also identify to a lesser extent (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997). The need that these individuals may feel to assert group membership with that particular group may imply that they are also more sensitive to cues that contain inclusiveness information such as provided by justice (cf. van Prooijen & Zwenk, 2009). Simply put, it may be argued that contingent on the extent to which individuals are treated fairly, particularly low identifiers have something to gain in terms of identification. Finally, high identification may also buffer the effects of factors that might motivate psychological withdrawal or lessened involvement in the organization (van Knippenberg, van Dick, & Tavares, 2007). High identification leads individuals to take the organization s interest to heart even when the relationship with the group authority is of lower quality, because psychological withdrawal would go against high identifiers motivation to further the organization s interest (van Knippenberg et al., 2007). In other words, unfairness should be less of a concern to high identifiers. In similar vein, Doosje et al. (2002) have argued that high identifiers are likely to keep supporting their group through thick and thin, whereas low identifiers are much more conditional in their support. The research pointing to the hypothesis that the relationship between perceived supervisor justice and later identification is stronger with lower group member prior identification is much more extensive, appears to be less subjected to theoretical debates (i.e., there are no studies that conceptually confuse identification and commitment), and incorporates reactions to different levels of fairness (instead on solely reactions to unfairness) than evidence pointing to the idea that the relationship is stronger with higher group member prior identification. Because the above arguments and empirical research do not give rise to the expectation of differential effects for each of the three forms of justice, our main hypothesis is: Hypothesis 1: Prior identification (T1) moderates the relationship between later perceptions of supervisor interactional, procedural, and distributive justice (T2) and later identification (T2): The relationship between later justice and later identification is stronger with lower group member prior identification. Method The Context of the Study The respondents of this study were conscripts. In Finland armed military service is mandatory for all male citizens. Those who have a strong ethical conviction against armed military service are allowed to consider non-armed service and civil service instead. Individuals who do not accept

4 16 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification any of these three alternatives are normally sentenced to prison. Most male citizens choose armed service and serve as conscripts in military units located around the country. The unit that was surveyed, the Ivalo border jaeger company, is located in northern Finland, in a small town called Ivalo, roughly 250 km north of the Arctic Circle. The unit acts under the command of the Finnish Border Guard. The main functions of the Border Guard are guarding of the land borders and the territorial waters, passport control at border crossing points, ports, and airports, as well as the performing of rescue operations. In addition, the Border Guard plays a role in national defence, side by side with the Finnish Defence Forces. Conscripts are trained to perform the duties which the Border Guard has to fulfill during a state of emergency. The training and conditions for conscripts are considered to be harder in this unit when compared to most other units. Respondents and Procedure During the survey period, the Ivalo border jaeger company hosted 126 conscripts. Data were gathered in two waves (the first wave 14 weeks prior to the second) using surveys. The first survey was administered to 122 conscripts (97% of all respondents), and the second one to 114 conscripts (93% of all respondents). To combine the two separate survey forms we used the social security number suffix that conscripts provided on both survey events. We were able to pair 109 survey forms (which comprises 86.5% of all respondents). The age of the respondents ranged from 19 to 22 years (M =19.7,SD = 0.70), and all of them were male. All conscripts filled in the questionnaires during collective survey sessions. Both surveys included information about the study, its purpose, and its voluntary nature. Given the context of our study, the confidentiality of the treatment of the data was heavily stressed both in the written instructions and in the oral instructions given by the third author who was present during the survey sessions. The third author also made sure that all confidentiality requirements were fulfilled and that sessions were similar in other aspects. In cooperation with the military contact person we planned carefully how the two surveys should be placed in time. For the timing of the first survey (which assessed identification at T1) it was important that the conscripts had formed an opinion of the unit. Moreover, in order to avoid that promotions would unduly affect our measurement, we wanted the first survey to take place before promotions (selections for further leadership training) were decided upon. Therefore, the first survey was held at the end of the basic training (after 8 weeks of service). For the timing of the second survey we opted for the latest possible phase of the conscript s military service, but (to avoid potential contrast effects) not too close to the end of the service period. Therefore, the second survey was administered 6 weeks before the end of service. Objective information on promotions was provided by the contact person, and it was used as a control variable in our analyses. Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(1):13 23 Measures At T1 the instructions referred explicitly to the first 8 weeks of military service and at T2 the instructions referred to the time between the first survey and the second survey. The three justice scales all targeted the respondent s immediate supervisor who was explicitly defined as the non-conscript military trainer that the respondent had most often been involved with during his military service. All responses were assessed on 5-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). Unit Identification (T1 and T2) Identification with the military unit was measured with six items derived from the Finnish version of Mael and Ashforth s (1992) Organizational Identification Questionnaire Lipponen, Helkama, & Juslin, 2003) (e.g., When I talk about my unit, I usually say we rather than they ). The measure used in the second survey (T2) was identical to the one used in the first survey (T1). Procedural Justice (T2) Conscripts perceptions of informal procedural justice were assessed with the Finnish version of Moorman s (1991) seven-item procedural justice scale (Elovainio, Kivimäki, & Helkama, 2001). These items are based on Leventhal s (1980) six procedural justice criteria (representativeness, consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, and ethicality) and focus on the structural aspects of the decision-making process. Interactional Justice (T2) The items for this scale were derived from Moorman s (1991) measure of interactional justice. One item that measured the integrity of the leader s explanations in terms of his/her behavior was added to the original scale ( My supervisor usually gives an honest explanation for the decisions he/she makes. ). In addition, one item was omitted from the original scale ( My supervisor is able to suppress personal biases. ), because that item rather explicitly refers to decision-making quality (cf. Colquitt, 2001). Distributive Justice (T2) The items for this scale were derived from Moorman s (1991) measure of distributive justice but modified for the respondents of our target organization. In previous studies (e.g., Moorman, 1991) distributive justice focused mainly on perceived fair distribution of financial rewards (salary, bonuses, etc.). As monetary rewards are not used in this context and as our purpose was to measure particularly the perceived distributive justice of the respondent s immediate supervisor, we decided to ask respondents to concentrate Ó 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

5 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification 17 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the measured variables Variable M SD Identification (T1) (.76) 2. Identification (T2) *** (.80) 3. Procedural justice (T2) *.37*** (.83) 4. Interactional justice (T2) **.43*** (.87) 5. Distributive justice (T2) **.47***.43***.32** (.89) 6. Promotion ***.37*** * ( ) Note. N = 109. Cronbach s alphas are displayed on the diagonal. *p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001, two-tailed. only on those aspects of distributive justice that could be controlled by the supervisors in our targeted organization: promotions, opportunities for special training, and public recognitions (cf. Lipponen & Wisse, 2010). In order to test the empirical distinctiveness of the three forms of supervisory justice confirmatory factor analysis was conducted by using AMOS (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) and three different factor structures were compared in our sample. In the one-factor model all items were indicative of one larger justice factor. In the two-factor model interactional justice and procedural justice were both indicative of one factor, and distributive justice was the other factor. In the three-factor model each three forms of justice were indicative of their own factors. The three-factor model seemed to have better fit (CFI =.910, IFI =.912, RMSEA =.075, C.I. RMSEA ) (v 2 (149, N = 109) = , p <.001) than the two-factor model (CFI =.752, IFI =.757, RMSEA =.123, C.I. RMSEA ) (v 2 (151, N = 109) = , p <.001), Dv 2 (2) = 158.5, p <.001 or the one-factor model (CFI = 0.531, IFI = 0.540, RMSEA =.168, C.I. RMSEA ) (v 2 (152, N = 109) = , p <.001), Dv 2 (3) = 379.1, p <.001. In other words, the confirmatory factor analysis gave us support for the distinctiveness of the three different forms of informal justice. 1 Results In our sample there was a strong positive correlation between identification measured at the two different time points (r =.68, p <.001). The mean level of identification at Time 1 (M = 3.87) was not statistically significantly different (t = 1.55, ns) fromtime2(m =3.95). Respondents who were promoted between the two measurement points scored significantly higher on Time 1 identification (M =4.19,SD =0.50vs.M = 3.67, SD =0.68,t = 4.21, p <.001) and Time 2 identification (M =4.23,SD =0.52 vs. M =3.76,SD =0.68,t =4.02,p <.001), and on the distributive justice measure (M =3.67, SD =0.58 vs. M =3.34,SD = 0.79, t =2.30,p <.05). A dichotomized variable was then computed, coded 0 = not promoted (62.4% of the respondents; n = 68), and 1 = promoted (37.6%; n = 41), and this variable was used as a control variable in main analyses. The summary statistics and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. The main hypotheses were tested by using the moderated multiple regression approach (Aiken & West, 1991) in which we used standardized values of the variables. We conducted a regression analysis with identification (T2) as the dependent variable. Prior identification and promotion were entered into the regression analysis in the first step and the three forms of justice were entered in the second step. The three forms of justice increased the explained variance of Time 2 identification with 10%. The interaction between previous identification and procedural justice was added in the third step (b =.15, p <.05). 2 The interaction between previous identification and interactional justice was added in the fourth step (b =.14, p <.05), and the interaction between previous identification and distributive justice in the fifth step (b =.17, p <.01). Conforming to our hypotheses, the interaction terms were significant and negative in each of the three cases. Moreover, adding the interaction 1 2 Moreover, we also tested a four-factor model, in which three forms of justice were indicative of their own factors and unit identification (T1) was the fourth factor. This four-factor model seemed to have a good fit (CFI =.900, IFI =.902, RMSEA =.063, C.I. RMSEA ) (v 2 (269, N = 109) = , p <.001). Several additional analyses were also conducted. For example, as significant interactions between procedural and distributive justice have previously been reported (cf. Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996), we also tested whether two-way interactions between the three forms of justice and between promotion and the three forms of justice could be found, but none of them were significant. Moreover, in order to rule out the possibility that the found significant two-way interactions would be only manifestations of possible higher-order three-way interactions (cf. De Cremer, 2005), we also tested for three-way interactions between procedural justice, distributive justice, and previous identification, but they turned out to be nonsignificant as well.

6 18 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification Table 2. The results of the multiple regression analysis predicting identification at Time 2 Identification (T2) b Step 1 Identification (T1).63*** Promotion.12 R 2.47*** Adjusted R 2.46*** Step 2 Identification (T1).56*** Promotion.07 Procedural justice (T2).09 Interactional justice (T2).09 Distributive justice (T2).23** R 2.57*** Adjusted R 2.55*** R 2 change a.10*** Step 3 Identification (T1).52*** Promotion.10 Procedural justice (T2).10 Interactional justice (T2).08 Distributive justice (T2).21** Identification (T1) Procedural justice (T2).15* R 2.59*** Adjusted R 2.57*** R 2 change b.02* Step 4 Identification (T1).52*** Promotion.09 Procedural justice (T2).09 Interactional justice (T2).10 Distributive justice (T2).22** Identification (T1) Interactional justice (T2).14* R 2.59*** Adjusted R 2.56*** R 2 change b.02* Step 5 Identification (T1).54*** Promotion.08 Procedural justice (T2).09 Interactional justice (T2).08 Distributive justice (T2).20** Identification (T1) Distributive justice (T2).17* R 2.59*** Adjusted R 2.57*** R 2 change b.03* Note. N = 109. a Compared to Step 1. b Compared to Step 2. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001, two-tailed. Identification T Low Distributive Justice T2 Low Identification T1 High Identification T1 High Distributive Justice T2 Figure 1. The moderating role of previous identification in the relationship between distributive justice and later identification. Identification T Low Procedural Justice T2 Low Identification T1 High Identification T1 High Procedural Justice T2 Figure 2. The moderating role of previous identification in the relationship between procedural justice and later identification. variables into models significantly improved the amount of variance explained (Table 2). 3 Simple slope analyses were then conducted using conditional values for previous identification that were calculated 3 As can be seen from Table 1, respondents scored relatively high on our identification and justice measures. Closer examination on normality also revealed that these variables were somewhat negatively skewed (skewness ranged from.43 to.74). Because skewness together with the high correlation between the two identification variables may point to the possibility of a ceiling effect, we decided to run parallel analyses with transformed variables (i.e., logarithm transformations) in order to rule out that a ceiling effect explained our results. In these analyses the interactions between previous identification on the one hand, and procedural justice (b =.15, p <.05), interactional justice (b =.13, p <.05), and distributive justice (b =.14, p <.01) on the other hand were again all significant, and showed a highly similar pattern to the results presented here. Additionally we performed a median split on prior identification and compared whether the level of variance in later identification (T2) differs between those whose prior identification (T1) was low (N = 54, variance =.018) and high (N = 55, variance =.012). Levene s test for equality of variances indicated no differences between the two groups (F = 1.27, ns). Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(1):13 23 Ó 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

7 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification 19 Identification T to be 1 standard deviation above and 1 standard deviation below the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). The simple slope analyses indicated that the slopes of procedural justice (b =.23, p <.05), interactional justice (b =.22, p <.05), and distributive justice (b =.36, p <.001) on later identification were significant when the respondent s level of previous identification was low, but not when it was high (b =.03, b =.04, and b =.03, respectively). In order to plot these significant two-way interactions, we utilized techniques described by Dawson and Richter (2006). The interactions are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Discussion Low Interactional Justice T2 Low Identification T1 High Identification T1 High Interactional Justice T2 Figure 3. The moderating role of previous identification in the relationship between interactional justice and later identification. In line with our hypothesis our results indicated that the relationship between later perceptions of procedural, interactional, and distributive justice and later identification was stronger among those individuals whose prior identification was low. These results are noteworthy for several reasons. We found all three forms of justice to feed into later identification among those who identified less strongly previously. Clearly thus, interactional justice, procedural justice, and distributive justice all relate in a similar vein to later identification contingent on previous identification. Moreover, our study also showed that distributive fairness feeds more strongly into later identification than interactional or procedural fairness do. Interestingly, studies that take all three forms of justice into account are relatively rare. In fact, research that explores the implications of the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003) often considers either procedural justice or interactional justice, and it seldom includes distributive justice. One reason may be that the effects of distributive fairness were often considered to be less pronounced than those of procedural or interactional fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2000), because the latter were argued to have more socio-emotional consequences and could more easily be considered as discretionary treatment than distributive fairness. More recently however, several scholars recognized that distributive justice may in fact have socio-emotional consequences (Blader & Tyler, 2009) and that its effects may particularly reveal itself when the distribution of rewards is under direct control of the provider of justice (Burton, Sablynski, & Sekiguchi, 2008; Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006). Some recent research has shown that distributive justice may in fact have more pervasive consequences than procedural or interactional justice (Martinez-Tur, Peiro, Ramos, & Moliner, 2006). For instance, Lipponen and Wisse (2010) found recently that of the three forms of supervisory justice, distributive justice operationalized as fair distribution of workload and responsibilities was the strongest predictor of externally rated departmental level academic performance. The results of our study clearly underscore the significant role that distributive fairness may play in justice processes. Note, however, that we made sure to focus particularly on those aspects of distributive justice that were to the discretion of the supervisor (i.e., promotions, opportunities for special training, and public recognition). We posit that research may benefit from a closer inspection of the context in which distributive justice takes place as it may provoke a more thorough deliberation of the measurement of distributive fairness. As we mentioned in the Introduction section, our decision to expect the relationship between justice and later identification to be particularly strong with lower prior identification instead of with higher prior identification resulted in part from the observation that the latter studies seemed to concentrate on injustice rather than justice. Notably, the Okimoto (2009) study focuses on disrespectful treatment, and the Brockner et al. (1992) study was conducted in the context of organizational layoffs and encounters with police or the court system. In sum, these findings suggested that in contexts where there is something to lose in terms of identification, high identifiers respond more strongly, while in contexts where there is something to gain in terms of identification, low identifiers respond more strongly. Of course, additional research is needed to test whether this reasoning may be confirmed by data. Experimental studies may be used to investigate whether different manipulations of justice (e.g., voice) or injustice (e.g., transgressions) trigger different effects among high and low identifiers. In addition, it is important to note here that the nature of the group membership in our study differs in certain respects from those normally studied in justice research (e.g., workgroups, students in laboratory experiments). Military service is very intensive. Conscripts spend 24 hr a day with their fellow unit members. As a result, it is quite likely that the role of other possible group memberships that an individual may possess is diminished during the service. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, as described in the Method section, the military service is mandatory and therefore the group member s decision to join the group is not necessarily voluntary and leaving the group during service is usually not possible without very high (psychological and social) costs. Earlier research that applied Social Identity Theory has

8 20 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification suggested that when group boundaries are impermeable (i.e., changing group membership is not a realistic option), the group and its characteristics more strongly affect the conception of the self (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990). Arguably, the difficulty to leave the group may generate a greater propensity in low identifiers (i.e., individuals who might leave the group if it would have permeable boundaries) to search for information on group status and their position in it. Therefore, the idea that the relationship between later justice and later identification is stronger among the low identified may particularly reveal itself when group boundaries are relatively impermeable, as is the case in this study. Unfortunately, we did not measure the perceived difficulty of leaving the group in our sample. Future studies may take this into consideration. One additional explanation for the found pattern of relationships may be related to the positive association between group identification and certain forms of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) also labeled as The Good Soldier Syndrome (Organ, 1988). Of the several forms of OCB sportsmanship (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) may be especially relevant here. Namely, sportsmanship is discretionary behavior that indicates the willingness of an individual to tolerate less than ideal circumstances, avoiding complaining about trivial matters, and focusing on positive aspects of the organization. As there is some evidence (e.g., Gurbuz, 2009) that identification and sportsmanship are positively related, it may well be that high identifiers would later show more sportsmanship and therefore are not affected by less fair treatment. It is also possible that in a military context and in relatively hard training conditions, the idea that conscripts should show a high amount of sportsmanship may even be a group norm. High identifiers, in turn, may have incorporated this norm more strongly as compared to low identifiers (Terry & Hogg, 1996). As sportsmanship has also been related to fair treatment, it would be very interesting to study in future the temporal dynamics between identification, justice, and shared group norms on sportsmanship. Note that in our study we focus particularly on supervisor justice. Blader and Tyler (2003) refer to the fairness offered by such particular representatives of the group as the informal source of justice. In their four-component model of justice Blader and Tyler set this informal source of justice apart from a formal source. The formal source of fairness refers to the fairness provided by the policies, rules, and prevailing norms of the group as a whole. So far, justice research has focused more on the formal source of justice and thus on more systemic or institutionalized justice, or on the fairness of authorities who are not in a supervisor role vis-à-vis the target of justice (e.g., judges in a court of law, government decision-makers). Supervisor behavior as an informal source of fairness information has received lesser attention (van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & van Knippenberg, 2007). However, in many social groups the most common authority is the supervisor (i.e., organizations, the military). More recently, several researchers have further applied the social identity perspective to leader fairness by taking into consideration the concept of leader prototypicality. The more prototypical the leader, the more he or she represents the group s standards, values, and norms. Prototypical leaders may thus be considered to exemplify group normative behavior (Turner Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Recently several studies (e.g., Lipponen, Koivisto, & Olkkonen, 2005; Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick (2009) have demonstrated the moderating role of leader prototypicality in the relationship between the perceived procedural justice and outcome variables such as status judgments (pride and respect) and leader endorsement. Other studies showed that prototypicality of the leader feeds into perceptions of procedural fairness of these leaders (cf. van Dijke & De Cremer, 2010). These studies, so we assert, further testify to the valuable insights that may be derived from applying a social identity perspective to the study of leader fairness. In this study we concentrated on the moderating role of the previous identification on the relationship between later justice and later identification. However, the relationship between justice and identification is probably much more complex than that presented here. Although not related to our main hypothesis our data also indicated that prior identification was significantly related to later perceptions of procedural justice. This result is, in fact, quite in line with ideas presented by Blader (2007), who argued that there appears to be a bidirectional relationship between procedural justice and identification. Procedural justice may both shape and be shaped by identity (as well as by positive outcomes). One challenge for future studies is that in order to reliably investigate this bidirectional relationship in a field setting, we need longitudinal data with at least three measurement points of both identification and procedural justice combined with accurate individual level information on promotions, pay raises, bonuses, and other positive outcomes obtained during the study period. Our study also has specific implications for leadership theory and practice. First, one of the more overarching points that we would like to make is that leaders, as much as leadership researchers, may take into account that identification and justice processes do not take place in a temporal vacuum. By taking a more long-term perspective, leaders acknowledge that subordinates at every point in time have past experiences that they carry with them, and that these experiences influence their choices, behavior, self-concept or social identity, roles, and outcomes at work. Second, leaders who may want to enhance identification levels in their work group may realize that justice is particularly important for those subordinates who identify to a lesser extent. Given the several negative consequences of low identification (increased turnover rates, lowered extra-role behavior, etc.) it would be highly important for supervisors to devote their attention especially to those subordinates who show some signs of lowered identification. For low identifiers fair treatment would serve a kind of invitation to psychologically attach themselves to the group. Of course, the present study is not without its limitations. First, our study is based on a rather small number of observations. Interactions between continuous variables are very difficult to find and often require large samples for sufficient power (Aiken & West, 1991). However, there has also not been any evidence, so far, for spurious interaction effects Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(1):13 23 Ó 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

9 J. Lipponen et al.: Justice and Identification 21 (Aiken & West, 1991). This suggests that the interactions we found are valid, although it would be good to replicate them in future studies. Second, the mono-source, mono-method design may have painted an inflated picture of the relationships between variables. Yet, it is important to point out that common source and method bias cannot account for statistical interactions. Indeed, it has been argued that it lowers the effect size of interactions and lowers the power for the test of interactions (Evans, 1985; McClelland & Judd, 1993). As a concluding remark, we would like to point out that groups and individuals change as a function of their own experience (McGrath & O Connor, 1996). Yet, to date, studying temporal issues has been largely neglected in the field of procedural justice and organizational identification. Therefore, it is our hope that this study will inspire future researchers to devote more attention to the role of time in the complex processes relating to group identification and perceptions of justice of the group authorities. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos users quite version 4.0. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp ). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Blader, S. L. (2007). What determines people s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, Blader, S., & Tyler, T. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a fair process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, Blader, S., & Tyler, T. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008). Linking justice, performance and citizenship via leader-member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23, Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp ). New York, NY: Wiley. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions: The development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, De Cremer, D. (2005). Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, De Cremer, D. (2006). Unfair treatment and revenge taking: The roles of collective identification and feelings of disappointment. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, De Cremer, D., Brebels, L., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity as both cause and effect: The development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, Edwards, R., & Peccei, M. R. (2010). Perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and employee outcomes: Testing a simultaneous multifoci model. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Selfcategorization, commitment to the group and group selfesteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, Ellemers, N., Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Organizational justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gurbuz, S. (2009). Some possible antecedents of military personnel organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 21, Hakonen, M., & Lipponen, J. (2008). Procedural justice and identification with virtual teams: The moderating role of faceto-face meetings and geographical dispersion. Social Justice Research, 21,