J O U R N A L OF B U S I N E S S A N D PSYCHOLOGY

V o l u m e 4, No. 1, Fall 1989

THE I N F L U E N C E OF SOCIAL
C O M P A R I S O N S ON P E R C E P T I O N S
OF P R O C E D U R A L F A I R N E S S
Maureen L. Ambrose
University of Iowa
Carol T. Kulik
Carnegie Mellon University

Recently, organizational researchers have discussed the importance

of considering the influence of procedures on individuals' responses to
organizational outcomes. Research in this area (Folger, 1986; Green-
berg, 1987; Sheppard, 1984) is generally consistent with the findings of
Thibaut and Walker (1975), that the perceived fairness of a procedure,
especially control over the process, affects individuals' satisfaction with
their outcomes. However, researchers have not considered the organiza-
tional impact of social information on perceptions of procedural fairness.
Yet, a large body of research (See Mowday (1987) for a review) has gen-
erally demonstrated the importance of social comparisons in determin-
ing the perceived fairness of outcomes.
While no empirical research in organizational procedural fairness
addresses the use of social comparisons, Folger's (1986) theory of refer-
ent cognitions provides a framework for analyzing individuals' reactions
to procedures and their subsequent outcomes. Referent cognitions the-
ory suggests that when individuals receive unfavorable outcomes but
can imagine that had they been allowed input to the procedure, they
could have received a favorable outcome, they will be most dissatisfied.
Folger's work in this area has dealt with individuals' imagination of a
different state (essentially a self-imagined referent), but a similar com-
parison may occur with a social comparison--a referent other. Analo-
gous to Folger's self-imagined referent, the individual may feel most dis-
satisfied when he or she has low process control and receives an
unfavorable outcome, while a comparative referent has high process
control and receives a favorable outcome. The referent serves to provide
the individual with the range of possibilities available for the procedure
and the outcome.

129 9 1989 Human Sciences Press

130 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

While the most intense dissatisfaction should arise from a discrep-

ancy between self and referent for both procedure and outcome, a simi-
lar difference in the evaluation of the outcome should occur when the
individual's and the referent's outcomes are the same, but the referent
has greater process control than the individual. If the discrepancy be-
tween the procedures influences reactions to the outcome, satisfaction
with the same outcomes should be less when low own process control is
matched with high referent process control. For example, when both the
individual and the referent receive unfavorable outcomes, and the indi-
vidual has low process control while the referent has high process con-
trol, the individual should be less satisfied with his or her outcome than
if both had high process control.
This study examines how social comparisons influence evaluations
of procedures and outcomes. Participants are told they will be allowed to
provide input to an organizational decision (high process control) or not
(low process control) and are given information about the procedure to
which a referent was subject (high or low process control). They are then
provided with either a favorable or unfavorable outcome and given in-
formation about the referent's outcome (favorable or unfavorable). Sev-
eral hypotheses are examined:

1. A main effect for own outcome on outcome satisfaction and fair-

ness is expected. Individuals who receive favorable outcomes are
expected to perceive the outcome as more fair and more satisfy-
ing than individuals who receive unfavorable outcomes.
2. A main effect for own process control on process and outcome
satisfaction and fairness is expected. Individuals wih high pro-
cess control are expected to perceive the procedure as more fair
and more satisfying and to be more satisfied with their outcome
than those with low process control.
3. An interaction of own and referent process control for process
and outcome satisfaction and fairness is expected. Individuals
who experience low process control when the referent experi-
ences high process control are expected to be less satisfied with
their outcomes and procedures and perceive the outcome and
procedure to be less fair than those individuals whose referents
experience the same or less process control.
4. Subjects who experience low process control and receive unfavor-
able outcomes while their referents have high process control
and receive favorable outcomes will report lower levels of job sat-
isfaction, be more likely to want to leave the job, and be less
willing to commit additional time to work than other subjects.
 MAUREEN L. AMBROSEAND CAROLT. KULIK 131

METHOD

Subjects
105 undergraduate students participated in the experiment for ex-
tra course credit. The study was a 2 (own process control: high/low) x 2
(referent process control: high/low x 2 (own outcome: favorable/unfavor-
able) x 2 (referent outcome: favorable/unfavorable) factorial design.

Stimulus Materials and Procedure

Subjects participated in a computer-based simulation in which they
assumed the role of an advertising account manager for a book pub-
lisher. The computer presented them with a series of memos, letters~
and messages to read. The referent was introduced through a memo
from a co-worker (Pat). The last memo was a request from their "boss"
asking them to work on the weekend to generate new advertising strat-
egies for one type of book (e.g., health and fitness). This request con-
flicted with a social commitment (e.g., sailing) previously described in
the messages. Subjects were instructed to indicate the number of hours
they were willing to work on the weekend. They were then instructed to
type their advertising ideas into the computer. They were told that the
number of hours they allocated would determine the amount of time the
computer allowed them to brainstorm (actually, no time limit was set).
When they had exhausted their ideas, they continued with the study.
This sequence of memos, time allocation, and brainstorming oc-
curred four times during the session. The manipulation of process con-
trol occurred during the third sequence. During the third set of memos,
subjects were informed their expense records would be subjected to an
internal audit. Subjects in the high process control condition were told
they would be allowed to have input into the process. They were told
they would meet with the auditor to provide the relevant records, an
explanation of expenses, and any other information they felt was impor-
tant. Subjects in the low process control condition were informed they
would have no input. In this case, subjects were informed the auditor
would pick up the records and receipts for the audit, but no input from
the subject was allowed. Both memos also informed the subjects if this
procedure was the same as past procedures (high own control/high refer-
ent control; low own control/low referent control) or had changed (high
own control/low referent control; low own control/high referent control).
Referent process control was explicitly manipulated by a memo from
"Pat" indicating he/she had been subjected to an audit previously and
132 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

allowed input (high process control) or allowed no input (low process

control).
The manipulation of outcome occurred during the last sequence of
memos. Subjects in the favorable outcome condition were informed that
they had passed the audit "with flying colors" and received a memo of
praise from their boss. Subjects in the unfavorable outcome condition
were informed that they would be put on probation, their expenses
closely monitored, and received a memo of disappointment from their
boss. During this sequence of memos, "Pat" also provides feedback about
the outcome he/she experienced, either favorable or unfavorable, and its
consequences.
After completing the final brainstorming task, subjects responded
to a series of questions. Subjects indicated the amount of control (1 =
very little; 7 -- a great deal) they had in the audit procedure, evaluated
the fairness (1 = very unfair; 7 = very fair) of the audit procedure and
its results, rated how satisfied they were with both the audit procedure
and its outcomes (1 = very dissatisfied; 7 = very satisfied), indicated
their overall satisfaction with the account manager job (1 = very dissat-
isfied; 7 = very satisfied), and the likelihood that they would quit the
job in the near future (1 = very likely; 7 = very unlikely). After an-
swering these questions, subjects provided demographic information and
were debriefed.

RESULTS

Subjects' perceptions of the degree of control they had over the audit
procedure was investigated using a 2 (Favorable or Unfavorable Own
Outcome) x 2 (High or Low C o n t r o l ) x 2 (Favorable or Unfavor-
able Referent Outcome) x 2 (High or Low Referent Control) ANOVA.
Only the anticipated main effect for Own Control was significant
(Fl,s9 = 6.12, p < .05), indicating that subjects perceived greater control
in the High Control condition (X = 2.19) than in the Low Control condi-
tion (X = 1.56).
In order to address the first three hypotheses, a 2 (Favorable or
Unfavorable Own Outcome) x 2 (High or Low Control) x 2 (Favorable
or Unfavorable Referent Outcome) x 2 (High or Low Referent Control)
MANOVA was conducted on the subjects' responses to the four ques-
tions assessing perceived fairness of the audit procedure and outcomes,
and satisfaction with the audit procedures and outcomes. Results indi-
cated significant main effects for own outcome (F4.s6 = 41.41, p < .001),
referent outcome (F4,s~ = 3.12, p < .05), and own control (F4,s6 = 2.45,
p < .05). There were no significant interactions.
 MAUREEN L. AMBROSE AND CAROL T. KULIK 133

Hypothesis 1 predicted t h a t the favorability of the subjects' outcome

would influence both outcome satisfaction and outcomes fairness. Exam-
ination of the univariate tests associated with the MANOVA indicates
t h a t outcome favorability influenced both outcome satisfaction (F1,89
= 159.83, p < .001) and outcome fairness (Fl,s9 = 88.61, p < .001). In
support of Hypothesis 1, subjects who received a positive outcome were
more satisfied (:~ = 5.47) t h a n subjects who received a negative out-
come (:~ = 2.10 and 2.86, respectively).
Although it was not predicted, own outcome also had a significant
effect on procedural fairness (Fl,s~ = 12.77, p < .001) and satisfaction
with the procedure (F!~s9 = 3.98, p < .05). Subjects perceived the pro-
cedure as more fair (X = 3.83) and more satisfying (X = 4.72) when
they received positive outcomes t h a n when they received negative out-
comes (X = 2.86 and 3.94, respectively).
Hypothesis 2 predicted t h a t process control would influence the per-
ceived fairness of the procedure and outcomes, and satisfaction with the
procedure and outcomes. An examination of the univariate tests associ-
ated with the MANOVA indicates partial support for this hypothesis.
Subjects described the procedure as more fair when they had high pro-
cedural control (:~ = 5.00) t h a n when they had low procedural control
(X = 4.28), Fl,s9 = 7.19, p < .01. No significant univariate effects were
found for the influence of own control on outcome satisfaction or out-
come fairness.
Hypothesis 3 predicted t h a t own control would interact with refer-
ent control to influence perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. Since no
significant interactions were found, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
The main effect for referent outcome t h a t emerged in the MANOVA
had not been predicted. An examination of the univariate tests indicates
t h a t referent outcome had a significant influence on outcome fairness
(Fl,s9 = 5.89, p < .05). Subjects described their own outcome as more
unfair when the referent's outcome was negative (X = 3.87) t h a n when
it was positive (:~ = 4.54).
The final hypothesis predicted t h a t subjects' job satisfaction, inten-
tion to quit, and willingness to commit time to the task would be a
function of their own and the referent's procedural control and out-
comes. To investigate this hypothesis two analyses were performed.
First, a 2 (Favorable or Unfavorable Own Outcomes) • 2 (High or Low
Control) • 2 (Favorable or Unfavorable Referent Outcome) • 2 (High
or Low Referent Control) MANOVA was conducted on the job satisfac-
tion and intention to quit measures. The predicted 4-way interaction
was nonsignificant. However, there was a marginally significant main
effect for own outcome (F2,s4 = 2.73, p = .07) and a significant own out-
come • referent control interaction (F2,s4 = 4.03, p < .05). Examina-
tion of the univariate tests associated with the outcome main effect indi-
134 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

cates t h a t subjects were less likely to want to quit when they had
received positive outcomes (:~ = 4.41) t h a n when they received negative
outcomes (X = 3.78), Fl,s5 = 4.16, p < .05. There was also an effect of
own outcome on job satisfaction (FI,s5 = 3.98, p < .05) such t h a t sub-
jects who had received positive outcomes were more satisfied (X = 4.33)
t h a n those who had received negative outcomes (X = 3.79).
Examination of the univariate tests for the own outcome x
referent control interaction identified significant interactions for inten-
tion to quit (Fl,s5 = 7.79, p < .01) and job satisfaction (Fl,s5 = 3.47,
p < 05). The intention to quit means are shown in Table 1. Subjects
were most likely to quit when their outcomes were unfavorable and the
referent had low control. The same pattern of means occurred for sub-
jects' rating of their job satisfaction. Subjects were least satisfied
(:~ = 3.42) when they received unfavorable outcomes and the referent
had low control (unfavorable outcomes, high referent Control: X = 4.20;
favorable outcomes, high referent control: X = 4.15; favorable out-
comes, low referent control: X = 4.52).
In a second analysis addressing Hypothesis 4, a 2 (Favorable or Un-
favorable Own Outcome) x 2 (High or Low Control) x 2 (Favorable or
Unfavorable Referent O u t c o m e ) • 2 (High or Low Referent Con-
trol) x 4 (Book) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the num-
ber of weekend hours subjects said they were willing to spend generat-
ing advertising strategies. Since the audit procedure was introduced
during the third book account, and the results reported during the
fourth book account, subjects could respond to unfair t r e a t m e n t by limit-
ing the hours they were willing to work. Two main effects emerged.

TABLE 1

M e a n I n t e n t i o n to Q u i t as a F u n c t i o n o f O w n O u t c o m e a n d
Referent Control

Own Ou~ome

Referent Control Favorable Unfavorable

High 4.00 4.25

(n = 27) (n = 24)
Low 4.81 3.32
(n = 27) (n = 25)
Note: 1 = very likely to quit; 7 = very unlikely to quit.
 MAUREEN L. AMBROSEAND CAROLT. KULIK !35

First, there was a main effect for book (F3,267 = 49.10, p < .001) such
t h a t subjects were willing to invest fewer hours after the first account
(~[ = 6.39, 3.36, 2.61, 3.24 for each of the four books). Second, there was
a significant main effect for control (Fl,s9 = 4.18, p < .05) such t h a t sub-
jects who had low control were willing to invest more hours (:~ = 4.32)
t h a n subjects who had high control (:~ = 3.48).
There were also two significant interactions. First, a significant
book X own outcome interaction (F3,267 = 2.81, p < .05) indicated t h a t
subjects who received a negative outcome committed more hours after
the audit results were announced (:~ = 5.96, 3.53, 2.73, 3.78 for the four
books) t h a n subjects who received positive outcomes (:~ = 6.80, 3.20,
2.50, 2.72 for the four books). This effect may reflect an effort on the
part of the negative-outcome subjects to impress their supervisor after
their poor performance on the audit.
Finally, there was a book X own outcome X referent control interac-
tion (F3,267 = 4.45, p < .01). The means for this interaction are dis-
played in Table 2. In contrast to the results obtained for job satisfaction
and intention to quit, subjects who had received favorable outcomes but
had a referent with low process control were willing to invest fewer
hours on the fourth account t h a n other subjects.

TABLE 2

M e a n H o u r s Willing to Work as a F u n c t i o n o f B o o k ,
O w n O u t c o m e a n d R e f e r e n t Control

Own Outcome

Referent Control Favorable Unfavorable

High
Book 1 5.74 6.96
Book 2 2.81 4.04
Book 3 2.26 2.64
Book 4 2.81 3.56
(n = 27) (n = 25)
Low
Book 1 7.85 5.00
Book 2 3.59 3.04
Book 3 2.74 2.81
Book 4 2.63 4.00
(n = 27) (n = 26)
136 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to examine the influence of social compari-

sons on evaluation of procedures and outcomes. We expected to replicate
the traditional procedural fairness effects (main effects for process con-
trol on evaluations of procedures and outcomes), as well as find an inter-
action of referent control and own control on outcome and process eval-
uations. There was partial support for the hypotheses, as well as some
unexpected findings.
Hypothesis 1, that own outcome favorability would influence per-
ceptions of outcome fairness and satisfaction, was supported. However,
the results also indicated that referent outcome influences perceptions
of outcome fairness. Participants reported the outcome as less fair when
the referent's outcome was negative than when the referent's outcome
was favorable. It m a y be that subjects identify with the referent, vicari-
ously experiencing unfairness when the referent's outcome is negative.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that control over the process would lead in-
dividuals to be more satisfied with both the procedure and the outcome.
This hypothesis was partially supported. Individuals in the high process
control condition were more satisfied with the procedure than those
with low process control. No significant effect was found for outcome
satisfaction. However, outcome favorability influenced perceptions of
procedural fairness and satisfaction. This finding is not consistent with
the traditional procedural justice results. It appears that individuals re-
lied on cues from the outcome to guide their judgments about the pro-
cess. This result is similar to recent findings by Guzzo, Wagner,
Maguire, Herr, and Hawley (1986) who showed that individuals' knowl-
edge of group performance (favorable or unfavorable) influenced ratings
of the favorability of the group process by which the outcome was
reached. The novelty of the audit process in this study may have led
subjects to rely on their own outcome favorability to guide procedural
ratings.
We predicted (Hypothesis 3) that own control and referent control
would interact to affect evaluations of the procedure and outcome. How-
ever, no significant interactions for procedural or outcome satisfaction
or fairness were found.
Finally, the results on intention to quit and job satisfaction with
regard to Hypothesis 4 illustrate the importance of referent information.
These results suggest that learning a referent has low process control
exaggerates reactions to one's own outcomes. Individuals are most satis-
fied with the job in general and least likely to want to quit when they
receive favorable outcomes and their referent has low process control.
However, the most negative reactions occur when individuals receive
unfavorable outcomes and their referent has low process control. One
 MAUREEN L. AMBROSE AND CAROL T. KULIK 137

possibility is that subjects use the referent to infer the fairness of the
system. When individuals receive favorable outcomes in a system
known to treat people unfairly (i.e., low referent process control) they
are relieved to receive positive outcomes. Receiving unfavorable out-
comes in a system that treats people unfairly, however, results in an
intensified negative reaction. Contrary to our prediction that individ-
uals would respond directly to interpersonal comparisons, this explana-
tion suggests that individuals may be using comparisons as systemic
indicators of procedural unfairness.
The results concerning subjects' willingness to commit to extra
hours working on an account are consistent with a systemic explana-
tion. Subjects committed the most time after they received unfavorable
outcomes and the referent had low control. If these individuals perceive
the system to be unfair, they may be particularly concerned about alle-
viating the negative impression conveyed by their supervisor in the
memo that followed the audit. On the other hand, subjects with favor-
able outcomes and low referent control committed the fewest hours to
the final account. Having expressed the least interest in quitting and
the highest job satisfaction, they may feel most comfortable with their
current level of effort.
Several comments about the study itself should be considered in
interpreting these results. First, this study dealt with intangible out-
comes--praise or reprimand. The procedural fairness literature has tra-
ditionally dealt with tangible outcomes. While one would expect the dy-
namics to be similar, intangible outcomes may be evaluated differently
than tangible outcomes. Second, the operationalization of control in this
study was weak. During the experimental session subjects were in-
formed they would be allowed to have input to the audit, but they never
actually provided the auditor with information. While this manipula-
tion may have been substantial enough to elicit differences in fairness
and control ratings, subjects may not truly have felt that they had con-
trol. Thus, when individuals in high process control conditions received
unfavorable outcomes, they may not have experienced enough control to
have it influence their evaluations. Similarly, this weak manipulation
may have blurred the experienced difference of control between the low
and high conditions. Future research should involve subjects mere ac-
tively in the procedure and the outcome.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299) New York: Academic.
Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H.W. Bierhoff,
R.L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum.
138 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 12(1), 9-22.
Guzzo, R.A., Wagner, D.B., Maguire, E., Herr, B. & Hawley, C. (1986). Implicit theories
and the evaluation of group process and performance. Organizational Performance
and Human Decision Processes, 37, 279-295.
Lind, E.A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J.W. (1980). Procedure and
outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643-653.
Mowday, R.T. (1987). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R.M.
Steers & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior (4th ed, pp. 89-110). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Sheppard, B.H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 6, pp. 141-
190), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.