Disentangling the relational approach to organizational justice: Meta-analytic and field tests of distinct roles of social exchange and social identity.
Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang, Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E Johnson
{"title":"Disentangling the relational approach to organizational justice: Meta-analytic and field tests of distinct roles of social exchange and social identity.","authors":"Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang, Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E Johnson","doi":"10.1037/apl0001193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-\"reciprocity\" underpinning social exchanges and \"oneness\" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (<i>N</i> = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1716-1741"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001193","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-"reciprocity" underpinning social exchanges and "oneness" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (N = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including:
1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses).
2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research.
3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
