OrgJ

Question 1

Expectancy Theory (and 3 components)

Answer 1

employee behavior is directed toward pleasure and away from pain, more generally toward certain outcomes and away from others.
Choices depend on the 3 specific beliefs:
1) Expectancy (subjective probability that higher effort leads to more successful performance on X.
2) Instrumentality (belief that successful performance will result in some outcomes).
3) Valence (the anticipated value of the outcomes associated with performance, [employees are more motivated when successful performance helps them attain attractive outcomes, such as bonuses, while helping them avoid unattractive outcomes, such as disciplinary actions ]).
—Vroom 1964

Question 2

Equity Theory

Answer 2

outcomes are given out in an equitable way, determined subjectively by an individual comparing what they get for their effort vs a comparable other
Adams 1965

derived from Dissonance Theory, Adams 1962 study - students giving interviews to the general public - examined students giving the same pay for a task but made to feel overpaid or fairly paid

Question 3

Social Presence

Answer 3

“the sense that one is somewhere with another person
The lack of another individual’s presence, whether in person or via videoconference, may negatively impact an applicant’s perceptions (Basch, Melchers, Kegelmann & Lieb, 2020).

Short 1976”

Question 4

Impression Management

Answer 4

Impression management is a way in which people can try to control how they are presented in interactions and is generally classified into verbal and non-verbal strategies (Schlenker, 1980; Stevens & Kristof, 1995; Tsai et al., 2005).
This technique can be used by applicants to positively influence interviewers.
Impression management may be more difficult without another person present for the interview as with AVIs.

Schlenker, 1980; Tsai et al., 2005

Question 5

Relationship between Personality and Org Justice

Answer 5

Personality. Research has examined the connection between personality and organizational justice, largely around the Big-5 (extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and agreeableness; Shi et al., 2009).
This research has been mixed, with meta-analysis showing zero to very weak correlations (Hausknecht et al., 2004) and reviews indicate that personality is occasionally associated with justice perceptions in some studies (Gilliland & Steiner, 2012; McCarthy et al., 2017) and having little effect in others (Honkaniemi et al., 2013).

Question 6

Media Richness Theory

Answer 6

the richer the media, the more it is liked by the individual
AVI takes away any media as the applicant is merely speaking into a webcam. The use of virtual characters or videos of interviewers may improve applicant reactions, but more research would need to be done on this to draw any conclusions.

Draft and Lengel, 1987

Question 7

Test-Taking Motivation

Answer 7

seeks to determine the factors that increase or decrease motivation to perform on selection tests and the impact of this motivation on test performance and test validity
Dimensions: (1) motivation (desire to do well on test & put effort), (2) lack of concentration (keep mind on test), (3) belief in tests (belief this test and tests in general are valid), (4) comparative anxiety (relative to others taking the test), (5) test ease (how easy does it seem), (6) external attributions (extend preoccupation and fatigue influenced test performance), (7) general need achievement (acheivement striving in general), (8) future effects (beliefs regarding uses and impact of test on future decisions), and (9) preparation (time spent preparing)

Hausknecht et al. (2004) found that 1) both test motivation (ρ=0.32) and text anxiety (ρ=–0.32) predicted attitudes toward the test equally.2) conscientiousness predicted test motivation (p. 644) (ρ=0.21), but gender and ethnicity did not, 3) moderate correlations of test motivation with face validity (ρ=0.35) and opportunity to perform (ρ=0.32), and weaker relationships with predictive validity (ρ=0.18) and procedural justice (ρ=0.17).

Arvey etal 1990

Question 8

The Fair Process Effect

Answer 8

people who experience fair procedures are more likely to also judge the resulting outcome as fair

has been defined as the “the positive effect that people’s perceptions of experienced treatment fairness have on their subsequent reactions”

suggests explanations will make an unfair experience fairer

Van den Bos, 2015

Question 9

Technology Acceptance Model

Answer 9

(TAM) emphasizes perceived usefulness (the degree to which a potential user believes that technology will help to perform a task) and ease of use (the perceived utility of the effort to use the new technology) as the main determinants of users’ attitudes and behavioral intention to use and accept the system

Davis, 1989

Question 10

Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory

Answer 10

integrated Weiner’s (1985) attribution theory with the selection justice model (Gilliland, 1993) and the test perceptions framework (Arvey et al., 1990)
the match between situational perceptions and expectations of fair treatment leads to the perception of satisfaction or violation of justice rules and standards of conduct.
the theory suggests that an attribution process is used to ascribe locus, controllability, and stability assessments regarding violations, and then these assessments both directly and indirectly influence behavior through perceptions of self-concept, fairness, and other attitudes.

Ployhart & Ryan

Question 11

Self-Interest Motives

Answer 11

Original models of organizational justice emphasized the instrumental importance of procedural
justice—fair procedures maximize the likelihood of favorable outcomes in the
long run (Greenberg & Folger, 1983).
-suggests people seek justice to maximize the likelihood of favorable outcomes (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005). Self-interest has probably been the explicit or implicit assumption that has driven much applicant reactions research

Greenberg & Folger, 1983

Question 12

Source Effects

Answer 12

Peoples responses to experienced justice or injustice will be most strongly directed toward the source of their perceived justice or injustice, which means that procedures at the organizational level have the strongest org-focused outcomes, like org commitment, while interactional justice from supervisors will have stronger effects on outcomes that impact the supervisor, such as performance and satisfaction

Cropanzano and collegues , eg 2001

Question 13

Group Value Motives. Model

Answer 13

group membership and status are important motivators for seeking or desiring justice and fair treatment. Social identity is an important concept in this theoretical stream of organization justice (Blader & Tyler, 2009), and different forms of fair treatment are thought to communicate our value in a group.

When someone looks to procedural and interactional justice to affirm their standing in a group; assessing how you’re treated and whether you feel like you’re a valued member of the group or not (Lind & Tyler, 1988)
Also includes relational model, which is focused on whether an authority figure is deemed legitimate and people are willing to follow based on procedural and interactional justice (Tyler & Lind, 1992) and group engagement model, which focuses on engagement and discretionary behaviors like OCBs as the outcome of procedural and interactional justice

Tyler & Blader, 2003

Question 14

Social exchange theory

Answer 14

social exchange involves a series of interactions that generate obligations (Emerson, 1976).
these interactions are usually seen as interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person (Blau, 1964).
these interdependent transactions have the potential to generate high-quality relationships

The exchange of resources based on rules like reciprocity, which impact the relationship quality of the people exchanging resources (Blau, 1964). Relative to org justice, it’s the exchange of fair treatment for positive attitudes, cooperation and discretionary behaviors through relationship quality. If people receive fair treatment, they believe it deserves reciprocity

Emerson, 1976

Question 15

Deontic Outrage Motives

Answer 15

justice motivates behavior through moral outrage - labeled deontic reasoning (Folger etal 2005)
The deontic perspective suggests that unfair treatment is a moral wrong and therefore even unaffected individuals will react with attempts to restore justice.

Folger etal 2005

Question 16

Uncertainty Management Theory

Answer 16

employees want to “feel certain about their world and their place within it” (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002)

– (core tenant = uncertainty is stressful) introduced to explain why employees care about overall levels of fairness - procedural and interactional justice help reduce general uncertainty in organizations, and not just uncertainty associated with trust in authority
- when faced with general workplace uncertainty, individuals look to the fairness of their treatment as a means of managing and coping with that uncertainty. In the words of the theory’s authors, “people use fairness to manage their reactions to uncertainty” (Lind& van den Bos, 2002: 216).

Fairness-related information gives employees the means to manage uncertainty (fairness is more salient when people encounter uncertainty). Procedural and interactional justice help reduce general uncertainty in orgs (not just associated with trust in authority)

Van den Bos, 2002

Question 17

Fairness Heuristic Theory

Answer 17

fairness perceptions are thought to form initial and lasting impressions of the extent to which employee fair treatment is valued and practiced in the organization
- suggests that people are concerned with possible exploitation by an authority in a group, particularly in uncertain situations, and fair treatment communicates that individual efforts will be valued rather than exploited
-applicants infer characteristics of the organization from their experiences during the selection process
-accordingly, fairness perceptions are thought to form initial and lasting impressions of the extent to which employee fair treatment is valued and practiced in the organization
theory by Lind, 2001

Question 18

Invasion of Privacy

Answer 18

models focus on the invasiveness of selection procedures, with more negative reactions resulting from more invasive procedures

privacy concerns may be higher for decision automation (Gonzalez et al., 2019; Langer, König, & Papathanasiou, 2019; Langer, König, Sanchez, et al., 2019).

Bauer 2006

Question 19

Fairness Theory

Answer 19

addresses issues of moral accountability and blame. According to this theory, when an unfavorable event is experienced, individuals react with counterfactual reasoning to determine if a more favorable event would have resulted from other procedures that could or should have been used

Counterfactuals
Would - what would have happened differently - get the job or not?, needed to start the other two
Should - should it have been done in a different way - were procedures appropriate?
Could - could they have made another choice - did something stop them? eg hiring freeze,

Folger and Cropanzano 1998

Question 20

Adams - equity- early work

Answer 20

Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1962). The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047751
1963 Study - 2 hypotheses derived from dissonance theory were tested: (a) when a person is paid by the hour his productivity will be greater when he perceives his pay as inequitably large than when identical pay is perceived as equitable, and (b) when a person is paid on a piecework basis his productivity will be less when he perceives his pay in inequitably large than when he perceives identical pay as being equitable. The first hypothesis was sustained (p < .05) in a laboratory experiment in which 11 male college Ss earned $3.50 per hour and were induced to feel overpaid and 11 control Ss earned $3.50 per hour and were induced to feel fairly paid. The second hypothesis was sustained (p < .01) in a factorial design study in which 36 Ss were paid either $3.50 per hour or 30 cents per piece, and felt either equitably paid or inequitably overpaid. In both studies an identical task, in which Ss interviewed the general public, was used. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
1965 chapter -
The process of exchange is almost continual in human interactions, and appears to have characteristics peculiar to itself, and to generate affect, motivation, and behavior that cannot be predicted unless exchange processes are understood. This chapter describes two major concepts relating to the perception of justice and injustice; the concept of relative deprivation and the complementary concept of relative gratification. All dissatisfaction and low morale are related to a person’s suffering injustice in social exchanges. However, a significant portion of cases can be usefully explained by invoking injustice as an explanatory concept. In the theory of inequity, both the antecedents and consequences of perceived injustice have been stated in terms that permit quite specific predictions to be made about the behavior of persons entering social exchanges. Relative deprivation and distributive justice, as theoretical concepts, specify some of the conditions that arouse perceptions of injustice and complementarily, the conditions that lead men to feel that their relations with others are just. The need for much additional research notwithstanding, the theoretical analyses that have been made of injustice in social exchanges should result not only in a better general understanding of the phenomenon, but should lead to a degree of social control not previously possible. The experience of injustice need not be an accepted fact of life.

Question 21

Distributive Justice

Answer 21

percieved fairness of the decision making outcome
based on equity, equality, and need

Equity - Outcomes based on inputs relative to others
Equality - Outcomes allocated without distinction or differentiating characteristics among potential decision recipients
Need - Outcomes allocated on the basis of individual

Deutsch (1975)

Question 22

Procedural Justice

Answer 22

Job-Relatedness (content) - The extent to which the selection procedure appears to be measuring content related to the job
Job-Relatedness (predictive) - The extent to which the selection procedure appears to be valid
Opportunity to Perform (aka Chance to Perform) - The opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge, skills, and abilities within the testing and selection context
Reconsideration Opportunity - The opportunity to modify, correct, or retake a selection procedure
Consistency of Administration - The extent to which the selection process is consistent across people and time

affected positively and negatively by automation;

+ automated decisions improve perceptions of processes as being based on accurate information, being performed consistent, as well as free of bias (Colquitt, 2001), for instance in the context of job interview performance evaluations (Acikgoz et al., 2020; Langer, König, Sanchez, et al., 2019; Marcinkowski et al., 2020). Even decision augmentation can lead to more perceived consistency in decision-making

• impair perceptions of whether it is possible to express one’s views and feelings about a process, appeal processes and more generally control decision processes and outcomes reduced perceived control of automated decisions was found for people in personnel selection (Langer, König, & Papathanasiou, 2019; M. K. Lee, 2018)

Leventhal, 1980

Question 23

Informational Justice

Answer 23

Selection Information (aka Information known) - The provision of information and explanations for selection procedures and decisions prior to, during, or following the selection process
Feedback Timeliness - The provision of timely feedback and the effects of lags in the selection process
Honesty (aka Openness) - The extent to which communication is open, candid, and truthful

refers to perceived openness, honesty, and transparency in decision processes
Results inconclusive -
tentative evidence that people perceive automated decisions as less open towards the applicants than human decisions, although there were no differences in perceived information known about the decision processes (Acikgoz et al., 2020).

Bies & Moag 1986 - interactional justice
Split came about after Gilliland Model

Question 24

Interpersonal Justice

Answer 24

Interpersonal Treatment (aka Interpersonal Effectiveness of Administrator) - The degree to which applicants are treated with warmth and respect
Two-way Communication - The chance to interact and offer input during the selection process
Propriety of Questions - The extent to which questions avoid inappropriate or biased content

refers to the perception of being treated with dignity and human warmth in decision processes was generally harmed by automation
Studies on automated job interviews found lower social presence, two-way communication, and less adequate interpersonal treatment in automated interviews (Acikgoz et al., 2020; Langer, König, & Papathanasiou, 2019; Langer, König, Sanchez, et al., 2019)

Bies & Moag 1986 - interactional justice
Split came about after Gilliland Model

Question 25

Correlation of Distributive and Procedural Justice

Answer 25

When the outcomes are good, people don’t spend as much time worrying about the procedures

Hauenstein etal 2001 conducted a meta analysis and found a correlation of about .64, however there was a great deal of variability between the studies

Question 26

Gilliland Model name

Answer 26

model of applicants’ reactions to employment selection

Question 27

Organizational Attractiveness

Answer 27

perceptions toward the organization

A Vignette study by Acigkoz et al. (2020) found lower organizational attractiveness, job pursuit intentions, and stronger litigation intentions when using decision automation in interviews with mediations principally through decreased chance to perform and decreased two-way communication quality
Opportunity to perform as central mediator was also found in MY STUDY

Question 28

Employee Justice Across Cultures

Answer 28

Shao et al. 2013 - Results indicate that justice effects are strongest among nations associated with individualism, femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and low power distance.

Consistent with the instrumental perspective of justice, the data show that individualism moderates the justice effects relevant to both organizational (e.g., organizational identification and trust) and supervisory (e.g., perceived supervisory support) outcomes, such that the effects are stronger among employees from individualistic versus collectivistic countries.
Consistent with the relational perspective, masculinity negatively moderates the justice effects such that the effect sizes are larger in feminine than in masculine countries.
Consistent with the uncertainty management perspective, uncertainty avoidance moderates the justice effects such that the effects are stronger among employees from high versus low uncertainty avoidance countries.
Consistent with the moral perspective of justice, power distance moderates justice effects such that the effects are weaker among employees from high versus low power distance countries.

The research varies and results are mixed

Question 29

Org Justice - the instrumental perspective

Answer 29

proposes that individuals are concerned with justice issues because they are motivated by self-interest, with fairness providing an important mechanism for outcome maximization (Adams; Thibaut & Walker, 1975)

people desire to control in the decision-making process (e.g., voice) because process control can result in positive outcomes in the long run

Question 30

Org Justice - the relational perspective

Answer 30

proposes that individuals are concerned with justice because fair treatment provides an indication of standing and status within a social collective, which in turn contributes to employees’ sense of self-worth and self-esteem (Tyler & Lind, 1992)

Three theoretical models have contributed to this perspective: (a) the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), (b) the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), and (c) the group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003). All three models propose that people care about their value and importance to the groups with which they are associated.

Thus, individuals care about justice because fair (and unfair) treatment conveys information pertinent to a sense of self-worth and self-esteem (Cropanzano, Byrne, et al., 2001).

Question 31

Org Justice - the moral perspective

Answer 31

proposes that people care about fairness because treating people unfairly violates universal norms of ethics and morality (e.g., Folger, 1998, 2001). Fairness theory and its predecessor, referent cognitions theory (Folger, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1993), to a large degree underlie the moral perspective.

people judge injustice through a three-step counterfactual thought process. These steps include the deployment of three counterfactuals: (a) Would better outcomes have resulted had an alternative situation occurred? (b) Could the transgressors have behaved differently, leading the negative outcome to be avoided? and (c) Should the transgressors have behaved in a way that was more conforming to the moral code?

Question 32

Org Justice - the uncertainty management perspective

Answer 32

This perspective (and its predecessor, fairness heuristic theory) suggests that individuals are concerned with justice because (a) individuals have the innate need for certainty and predictability and (b) employees’ perceptions of justice can provide information that can reduce uncertainties (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Miedema, 2000).

As proposed by van den Bos and his colleagues, fairness judgments serve as heuristics that can be used to interpret events.
Stated differently, we care about how fairly we are treated by others because justice perceptions offer us an efficient and effective tool to deal with the uncertainties that we encounter.
That is, individuals react positively to fair treatment because fairness perceptions can reduce uncertainty (e.g., whether an authority is trustworthy or not) or at least alleviate the discomfort associated with uncertainty (Elovainio
et al., 2005; van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, 1998).

Question 33

Org Justice and AI with Performance Evaluations

Answer 33

people perceive automated decisions as less fair than human decisions across personnel selection, performance evaluation, and scheduling scenarios

Newman et al., 2020 across 5 survey vignette studies