Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fairness lohnt sich!

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fairness und Fairplay

Zusammenfassung

Die Orientierung an Prinzipien der Gerechtigkeit ist für die Kooperation in sozialen Interaktionen zentral. Dies gilt sowohl in Organisationen als auch im Privatleben oder anderen gesellschaftlichen Kontexten. Psychologisch werden vier Dimensionen von Gerechtigkeit unterschieden und zwar Verteilungs- und Prozessgerechtigkeit, interpersonale und informationale Gerechtigkeit. Diese haben einen differentiellen Einfluss auf menschliches Erleben und Verhalten.

Menschen kooperieren in sozialen Interaktionen, wenn sie den Eindruck haben, dass ihre Wünsche und Bedürfnisse berücksichtigt werden. Die Wahrnehmung von Gerechtigkeit hat sich hier als besonders einflussreich erwiesen, denn die Umsetzung von Prinzipien der Gerechtigkeit spricht sowohl das Bedürfnis nach Kontrolle als auch das der personalen (moralischen) und sozialen Identität an. Interaktionen werden dann problematisch, wenn Personen das Gefühl haben, dass ihre Bedürfnisse verletzt werden. Dann reagieren sie mit Widerstand in der sozialen Interaktion.

Im vorliegenden Beitrag erfolgt zunächst eine Darstellung der verschiedenen Dimensionen von Gerechtigkeit. Danach wird analysiert, über welche Prozesse Gerechtigkeit bzw. Ungerechtigkeit menschliches Erleben und Verhalten beeinflusst. Abschließend wird ein integratives Modell vorgestellt, welches formuliert, wann Menschen in Interaktionen kooperieren und wann sie mit Widerstand reagieren.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Adams, Stacy J. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, hg. von Leonard Berkowitz, 267–299. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, Maureen und Schminke, Marshall. 2009. The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology 94, Nr. 2: 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, Robert J. und Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: Research on negotiation in organizations, hg. von Roy J. Lewicki, Blair H. Sheppard und Max H. Bazermann, 43–55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, Peter. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Yochi und Spector, Paul E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 86: 278–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, Jason A. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 386–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, Jason A., Conlon, Donald E., Wesson, Michael J., Porter, Christopher O. und Ng, K. Yee. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review

    Google Scholar 

  • of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, Jason A., Scott, Brent A., Rodell, Jessica B., Long, David M., Zapata, Cindy P., Conlon, Donald E. und Wesson, Michael J. 2013. Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect- based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology 98: 199–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, Russell, Byrne, Zinta, Bobocel, Ramona und Rupp, Deborah. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58: 169–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, Russell, Goldman, Barry und Folger, Robert. 2003. Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 1019–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, Russell, Chrobot-Mason, Donna, Rupp, Deborah und Prehar, Cynthia. 2004. Accountability for corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review 14, Nr. 1: 107–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, Russell und Greenberg, Jeff. 1997. Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In: International Review of industrial and organizational psychology, hg. von Cary L. Cooper und Ivan T. Robertson, 317–372. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, Faye J. 1982. Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby Faye J. und Ropp S. Ann. 2002. A wakening to discrimination. In: The justice motive in everyday life, hg. von Michael Ross & Dale Miller, 382–396. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCharms, Richard. 1968. Personal causation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Morton. 1975. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issue 31: 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, Heino und Kluge, Jürgen. 2006. Perspektive Deutschland. Was die Deutschen wirklich wollen. Berlin: Escon Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förg, Michael. 2008. Personal benefits, fair treatment and thorough communication: What does really help to reduce fear and uncertainty in change processes? PhD diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, Robert. 1998. Fairness as moral virtue. In: Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes, hg. von Marshall Schminke, 13–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, Robert und Cropanzano, Russell. 2001. Fairness today: Justice as accountability. In: Advances in organizational justice, hg. von Jeff Greenberg und Russell Cropanzano, 1–55. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, Robert und Konovsky, Mary A. 1989. Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal 31, Nr. 1: 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, Mario und Schmitt, Manfred. 2009. Sozialpsychologie kompakt, Weinheim: Beltz,

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald. 1988. Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 4: 606–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, Nr. 5: 561–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald. 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: Interpersonal and informational moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54, Nr. 1: 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald. 1994. Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, Nr. 2: 288–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, Jerald und Folger, Robert. 1983. Procedural justice, participation and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In: Basic group processes, hg. von Paul B. Paulus, 235–256. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grienberger, Ilse, Rutte, Christel und van Knippenberg, Ad F. 1997. Influence of social comparisons of outcomes and procedures on fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, Nr. 6: 913–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, John, Sturman, Michael und Roberson, Quinetta. 2011. Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectoiries on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 96, Nr. 4: 872–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, Friedrich, Förg, Michael, Frey, Dieter, Jonas, Eva, Rotfuß, Waldemar, Traut-Mattausch, Eva und Westerheide, Peter. 2008. Psychologie, Wachstum und Reformfähigkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, Friedrich, Förg, Michael, Jonas, Eva und Traut-Mattausch, Eva. 2007. Vertrauen und die Durchsetzbarkeit von Reformen, Wirtschaftspsychologie 4: 122–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, Michael und Abrams, Dominic. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Russel, Lanaj, Klodiana und Barnes, Christopher. 2014. The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology 99, Nr. 4: 635–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, David und Martens, Martin. 2009. The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30, Nr. 8: 1025–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Harold H., Holmes, John G., Reis, Harry, Rusbult, Caryl und Van Lange, Paul. 2003. An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Ziva. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108, Nr. 3: 480–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, James, Rupp, Deborah und Brockner, Joel. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management 33: 841–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Cynthia, Law, Kenneth und Bobko, Philip. 1999. The Importance of Justice Perceptions on Pay effectiveness: A Two-Year Study of a Skill-Based Pay Plan. Journal of Management 25, Nr. 6: 851–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale, Grohmann, Anna und Kauffeld, Simone. 2013. Promoting multifoci citizenship behavior: Time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust and commitment. Applied Psychology 62, Nr. 3: 454–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, Gerald S. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, hg. von Leonard Berkowitz, 91–131. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, Gerald S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, hg. von Kenneth J. Gergen, Martin S. Greenberg und Richard H. Wills, 27–55. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, Roy J., Wiethoff, Carolyn und Tomlinson, Edward C. 2005. What is the role of trust in organizational justice? In: Handbook of Organizational Justice, hg. von Jerald Greenberg und Jason A. Colquitt, 249–270. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Allen, E. 2001. Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In: Advances in organizational justice, hg. von Jerald Greenberg, 58–88. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Allen, E., Kanfer, Ruth und Early, Christopher, P. 1990. Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, Nr. 5: 952–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Allen, E., Lissak, Robin I. und Conlon, Donald E. 1983. Decission Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13, Nr. 4: 338–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Allen E. und Tyler, Tom R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. Allen und Van den Bos, Kees. 2002. When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertain management. In: Research in organizational behavior, hg. von Berry. M. Staw und Roderick M. Kramer. Boston, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, Günther, Streicher, Bernhard, Jonas, Eva und Woschée, Ralph. 2007. Gerechtigkeitseinschätzungen in Organisationen. Diagnostica 53: 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovsky, Barry. 1988. Injustice and Arousal. Social Justice Research 2, Nr. 3: 223–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, Suzanne S., Lewis, Kyle, Goldman, Barry und Taylor M. Susan. 2000. Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair produces and Treatment on Work Relationship. Academy of Management Journal 43, Nr. 4: 738–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, Roger, Davis, James und Schoorman, David. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, Nr. 3: 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Günter und Hassebrauck, Manfred. 1993. Gerechtigkeitstheorien. In: Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, hg. von Dieter Frey und Martin Irle 217–242. Band I. Bern: Hans Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, Elizabeth und Skitka, Linda. 2006. Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, Nr. 4: 629–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roch, Sylvia und Shanock, Linda. 2006. Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. Journal of Management 32, Nr. 2: 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, Jordan M., Ford, Michael T. und Tetrick, Lois. 2012. Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology 97, Nr. 2: 235–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, Deborah. 2011. An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review 1, Nr. 1: 72–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, Deborah und Cropanzano, Russell. 2002a. Multifoci justice and social exchange relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 925–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, Deborah und Cropanzano, Russell. 2002b. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89: 925–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, Deborah, Shao, Roudan, Jones, Kisha und Liao, Hui. 2014. The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 123: 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwinger, Thomas. 1980. Gerechte Güter-Verteilung: Entscheidungen zwischen drei Prinzipien. In: Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion, hg. von Gerold Mikula, 107–140. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, Debra L., Buttner, Holly, E. und Barry, Bruce. 1994. Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58: 346–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, Debra L. und Kirkman, Bradley L. 2001. Anticipatory injustice: The consequences of expecting injustice in the workplace. In: Advances in organizational justice, hg. von Jeff Greenberg und Russell Cropanzano, 152–178. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, Daniel P. und Folger, Robert. 1997. Relationship in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, Nr. 3: 434–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, Daniel P., Folger, Robert und Tesluk, Paul. 1999. Personality as a Moderator in the Relationship between Fairness and Relation. Academy of Management Journal 42, Nr. 1: 100–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, Linda. 2003. Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7, Nr. 4: 286–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, Linda und Crosby, Faye. 2003. Trends in the social psychological study of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7: 282–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, Linda und Mullen, Elizabeth. 2002. Understanding judgements of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 1419–1429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streicher, Bernhard, Jonas, Eva, Maier, Günther, Frey, Dieter, Woschée, Ralph und Waßmer, Bettina. 2008. Test of the construct validity and criteria validity of a German measure of organizational justice. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 24: 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, Henry und Turner, John. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Psychology of intergroup relations, hg. von Stephen Worchel und William Austin, 7–24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, John und Walker, Laurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, John und Walker, Laurens. 1978. A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review 66, Nr. 3: 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R. 2000. Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35: 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R. und Blader, Steven. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioral Engagement. New York, NY: Psychological Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R., Boeckman, Robert, Smith, Heather J. und Huo, Yuen J. 1997. Social Justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R., Degoey, Peter und Smith, Heather. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, Nr. 5: 913–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R. und Lind E. Allen. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 115–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R., Rasinski, Kenneth und Spodick, Nancy. 1985. Influence on voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35: 117–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, Kees. 2005. What is responsible for the fair process effect? In: Handbook of Organizational Justice, hg. von Jerald Greenberg und Jason A. Colquitt, 273–300. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos Kees Lind Allen E. Vermunt Riel und Wilke Henk A. M. 1997. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72: 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sozialpsychologie, FB Psychologie, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020, Salzburg, Österreich

    Prof. Eva Jonas

Authors
  1. Prof. Eva Jonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Minas Dimitriou

  2. Salzburg, Germany

    Gottfried Schweiger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jonas, E. (2015). Fairness lohnt sich!. In: Dimitriou, M., Schweiger, G. (eds) Fairness und Fairplay. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08675-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08675-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-08674-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-08675-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation