Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blader, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, T. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blader, S. L.
Right arrow Articles by Tyler, T. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a "Fair" Process

Steven L. Blader

New York University

Tom R. Tyler

New York University

Two studies test the prediction of the four-component model of procedural justice that people evaluate the fairness of group procedures using four distinct types of judgment. The model hypothesizes that people are influenced by two aspects of the formal procedures of the group: those aspects that relate to decision making and those that relate to the quality of treatment that group members are entitled to receive under the rules. In addition, people are hypothesized to be separately influenced by two aspects of the authorities with whom they personally deal: the quality of decision making by those authorities and the quality of the treatment that they receive from them. The results of two studies support the hypothesis of the four-component model by finding that all four of the procedural judgments identified by the model contribute to overall evaluations of the fairness of group procedures.

Key Words: procedural justice • judgment • decision making • treatment • groups

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 6, 747-758 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167203029006007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
E. V. Rubin
The Role of Procedural Justice in Public Personnel Management: Empirical Results from the Department of Defense
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., January 1, 2009; 19(1): 125 - 143.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
J. C. Besley, K. A. McComas, and C. W. Trumbo
Local Newspaper Coverage of Health Authority Fairness During Cancer Cluster Investigations
Science Communication, June 1, 2008; 29(4): 498 - 521.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of ManagementHome page
J. J. Lavelle, D. E. Rupp, and J. Brockner
Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model{dagger}
Journal of Management, December 1, 2007; 33(6): 841 - 866.
[Abstract] [PDF]