Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness

as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice
Cindy P. Zapata a,⇑, Jesse E. Olsen b,1, Luis L. Martins c
a
Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 West Peachtree St., NW, Atlanta, GA 30308-1149, United States
b
School of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University, 1-1-155 Uegahara, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 662-8501, Japan
c
McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, B6300, Austin, TX 78712-0210, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Using social exchange theory, we argue that because supervisors tend to value employee trustworthiness,
Received 12 July 2011 they will be more likely to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules with trustworthy
Accepted 9 November 2012 employees. Given social exchange theory’s assumption that benefits are voluntary in nature, we propose
Available online 11 December 2012
that the benevolence and integrity facets of trustworthiness will be more likely to engender social
Accepted by Paul Levy
exchange relationships than the ability facet. Specifically, we propose that employees seen as having high
benevolence and integrity engender feelings of obligation and trust from their direct supervisors, increas-
Keywords:
ing the likelihood that these supervisors will adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules,
Organizational justice
Fairness
which in turn influences employee perceptions of justice. We find partial support for our mediated model
Interpersonal justice using a field sample.
Informational justice Published by Elsevier Inc.
Trustworthiness
Benevolence
Integrity
Social exchange

Introduction Despite the numerous beneficial employee attitudes and behav-

Understanding the effects of organizational justice has been a
popular topic of research for several decades (for a narrative
review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Most
scholars agree that organizational justice is multifaceted, consist-
ing of procedural justice, which is fostered by adhering to rules like
consistency, accuracy, and bias suppression (Leventhal, 1976,
1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and distributive justice, which en-
tails adhering to rules like equity, equality, and need (Adams,
1965; Homans, 1961). In addition, interpersonal justice involves
adhering to respect and propriety rules of interpersonal treatment
and informational justice captures adherence to truthfulness and
justification rules (Bies & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). Past
research has demonstrated that, when an employee perceives that
his or her supervisor has adhered to distributive, procedural, inter-
personal, and informational justice rules, a number of beneficial
attitudes and behaviors result (for reviews, see Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;
Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005).
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 (404) 894 6030.
E-mail addresses: cindy.zapata@scheller.gatech.edu (C.P. Zapata), jeolsen@
kwansei.ac.jp (J.E. Olsen), luis.martins@mccombs.utexas.edu (L.L. Martins).
1
Fax: +81 798 54 6082.
iors associated with justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;
Colquitt et al., 2001), there remains an important gap in the justice
literature: to date, we know little about why supervisors adhere to
justice rules in the first place. We should note that our study focuses
on the predominant framework in the organizational justice litera-
ture by measuring justice indirectly (i.e., measuring adherence or
violation of specific justice rules). As it stands, models of organiza-
tional justice tend to focus on justice as an independent variable,
making it exogenous in the causal system. Although important, this
perspective fails to account for antecedents of justice rule adher-
ence. In fact, the need to consider justice as a dependent, rather than
an independent, variable has been noted recently by several justice
scholars (Colquitt, 2012; Masterson, Byrne, & Mao, 2005; Patient &
Skarlicki, 2005; Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). From a theoretical
perspective, examining why supervisors adhere to justice rules will
provide a more complete picture of justice. From a practical
perspective, understanding the reasons why supervisors adhere to
justice rules can help organizations find ways to foster increased
justice rule adherence on the part of supervisors.
To be clear, there are a few studies that examine direct
measures of fairness perceptions (as opposed to indirect rule-
based measures) as dependent variables. For example, Skarlicki
and Latham (1997) examined the effects of providing fairness
training to union leaders on employee perceptions of global

0749-5978/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.001
2 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
fairness (see also Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). We should also note
that our review of the literature revealed only two studies treating
justice rule adherence as a dependent variable. Using an experi-
mental design, Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph (1998) found that
when confederates behaved assertively (by speaking in a confident
manner, maintaining eye contact, listening attentively, and directly
questioning the feedback received), student participants were more
likely to grant the confederate process and decision control, as well
as provide additional justifications for the feedback provided.
However, a second field study failed to demonstrate significant
effects of assertiveness training on perceptions of interactional
justice. More recently, Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007)
examined the influence of an employee characteristic, namely cha-
risma, on supervisor justice rule adherence. Using an approach/
avoidance framework, Scott et al. (2007) suggested that charismatic
employees could actually increase positive sentiments and
decrease negative sentiments felt by a supervisor, thus positively
affecting perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice.
Unlike Scott et al. (2007), which provides an emotional explana-
tion for why managers might choose to adhere to justice rules, we
use social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to propose a cognitive
explanation for managerial justice rule adherence. Thus, the
purpose of our study is to apply what has become the dominant
lens in the justice effects literature, namely social exchange (Blau,
1964), to a relatively new question: Why do supervisors adhere to
justice rules, and what ultimately predicts employee perceptions of
justice rule adherence?
Social exchange theory is arguably the dominant theoretical
lens used in the justice literature. However, our approach is unique
in that we examine the supervisor-employee relationship in re-
verse, focusing on the supervisor’s role in the exchange relation-
ship, rather than the beneficial employee behaviors that result as
a consequence of fair treatment. According to the justice literature,
justice on the part of a supervisor can be viewed as a benefit to
employees—a benefit that may obligate employees to reciprocate
with beneficial attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Masterson, Lewis,
Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). Our
study takes a new perspective by examining this theoretical dy-
namic in reverse, proposing that employees can also provide
supervisors with valued benefits that may obligate them to recip-
rocate with justice rule adherence. Although both employees and
supervisors can provide each other with numerous valuable re-
sources, social exchange theory suggests that a particularly impor-
tant resource is trustworthiness, which is often conceptualized as
perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer, Davis,
& Schoorman, 1995). In fact, Blau (1964) suggests that ‘‘since social
exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial prob-
lem is to prove oneself trustworthy’’ (p. 98; see also Holmes,
1981). As a way to reciprocate employee trustworthiness, we pro-
pose that supervisors may respond with increased interpersonal
and informational justice rule adherence.
In addition to making a significant contribution to the justice
literature, our study also contributes to the trust literature by
examining the effects of employee trustworthiness, rather than
supervisor trustworthiness. To date, trust scholars have over-
whelmingly referenced the importance of trust in one’s supervisor
and perceptions of supervisor trustworthiness as antecedents of
valuable employee behaviors (for a review, see Colquitt, Scott, &
LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Yet social exchange theory im-
plies that trustworthiness amongst both parties is important for
effective social exchange relationships (Blau, 1964). Moreover, as
organizations become flatter and supervisors increasingly rely on
their employees, having trustworthy employees becomes more
critical to workplace success. Our model suggests that employees
seen as trustworthy by their supervisors are more likely to engen-
der social exchange relationships with the supervisors, leading to
increased interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence
(see Fig. 1).
A secondary purpose of our study was to examine the relation-
ship between supervisor justice rule adherence and employee per-
ceptions of justice. Unlike the philosophical view of justice, which
attempts to prescribe what should constitute as just behavior,
organizational justice is conceptualized as somewhat of a
subjective phenomenon (Cohen & Greenberg, 1982; Cropanzano
& Greenberg, 1997). Thus, the widely accepted operationalization
of justice is in the eye of the recipient. However, qualitative studies
have demonstrated that certain rules, the rules we now use to de-
scribe organizational justice, are in fact linked to perceptions of fair
treatment (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986; Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978).
Perhaps because of these studies, the justice literature often tends
to assume that employee perceptions of supervisory justice are
consistent with managerial justice rule adherence. However, we
know of no empirical study that has actually examined both the
supervisor’s justice rule adherence behavior (self-reported or
otherwise) and his or her employee’s perceptions of justice.
Theoretically, capturing supervisors’ justice rule adherence
demonstrates the exchange of valued benefits critical to social ex-
change theory. Put differently, social exchange entails not just the
obligation or need to reciprocate, but actual reciprocation. Thus, our
model attempts to capture the multiple theoretical mechanisms
involved in social exchange relationships. From a practical per-
spective, establishing the link between supervisor justice rule
adherence and employee perceptions of justice increases our abil-
ity to theoretically propose antecedents to justice, thus better
informing the development of justice interventions. In other
words, in addition to explaining why employees have strong jus-
tice perceptions, one might also ask, why do supervisors adhere
to justice rules in the first place? Thus, our model includes super-
visors’ self-reported justice rule adherence as an antecedent of em-
ployee perceptions of justice. The following sections provide
conceptual support for our model.
Social exchange and employee trustworthiness
Beginning in the 1950’s, trust scholars began to document the
importance of characteristics of a trustee that foster a willingness
to be vulnerable on the part of the trustor, now commonly referred
to as trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995). Despite what appeared
to be some disagreement regarding the structure of trustworthi-
ness, Mayer et al. (1995) identified three characteristics that ap-
peared repeatedly throughout the literature: ability, benevolence,
and integrity. With respect to trustworthiness, ability captures
the trustor’s perception of the trustee’s capabilities and skills re-
quired for success in a particular domain (Mayer et al., 1995). Com-
petence and expertise are oft-used synonyms of ability (Gabarro,
1978; Mayer et al., 1995). Benevolence, sometimes termed loyalty,
caring, supportiveness, and openness, is typically defined as the
perceived extent to which the trustee wants to do well by the tru-
stor, excluding self-interested motives (Mayer et al., 1995). Integ-
rity refers to the extent to which the trustor believes the trustee
adheres to moral and ethically sensible principles (Mayer et al.,
1995). We should note that the trust literature tends to conceptu-
alize trustworthiness as a perception (e.g., Levin, Whitener, &
Cross, 2006; Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Simons,
2002). For example, Mayer et al. (1995, p. 720) noted that ‘‘in the
evaluation of trustworthiness it is the perceived level of integrity
that is important rather than the reasons why the perception is
formed.’’ Therefore we also operationalize trustworthiness as per-
ceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity.
Many empirical studies have demonstrated the importance of
trustworthiness. For example, a recent meta-analysis demon-
strated that employees who view their supervisors as trustworthy
 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
Fig. 1. Research model: the effect of supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness on employee justice perceptions, as mediated by social exchange mechanisms and
supervisor justice rule adherence.
perform better, engage in more frequent citizenship behaviors, and
refrain from counterproductive behaviors more often than employ-
ees who view their supervisors as less trustworthy (Colquitt et al.,
2007). In their review, Colquitt et al. (2007) speculated that dem-
onstrations of ability, benevolence, and integrity could be viewed
as supervisory benefits that invite employee reciprocation in the
form of beneficial job behaviors. Casting this relationship in
reverse, one could also reason that supervisors are more likely to
develop social exchange relationships with employees who are
perceived to be more trustworthy, particularly with regard to the
facets of benevolence and integrity.
Although there are varying perspectives on exchange relation-
ships, scholars agree that one of the core assumptions of social
exchange theory is that benefits given are contingent upon the
expectation of some future unspecified benefit (Blau, 1964;
Emerson, 1976). Consequently, ‘‘an individual who supplies
rewarding services to another obligates him. To discharge this
obligation, the second must furnish benefits to the first in turn’’
(Blau, 1964, p. 89). More importantly, social exchange theory dis-
tinguishes between the initial provision of a benefit or service
(i.e., ‘‘rewarding services’’), which if valued, prompts the recipient
of the benefit to experience attitudes supportive of reciprocation
(i.e., ‘‘felt obligation’’). Additionally, ‘‘since there is no way to as-
sure an appropriate return for a favor, social exchange requires
trusting others to discharge their obligations’’ (Blau, 1964, p. 94;
i.e., willingness to be vulnerable). Thus, feelings of obligation and
trust are important drivers of the reciprocation of benefits in the
social exchange process. Because trust entails a ‘‘willingness to
be vulnerable to the actions of another party based the expectation
that the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other
party’’ (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712), a lack of trust equals increased
risk in social exchange relationships. Blau (1964, p. 94) stated that
‘‘only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal
obligation, gratitude, and trust; purely economic exchange as such
does not.’’ In keeping with Holmes’s (1981) argument that percep-
tions of another’s trustworthiness provide the basis for social
exchange relationships, we argue that one factor likely to prompt
the feelings of obligation and trust that are critical to social
exchange is employee trustworthiness.
As facets of trustworthiness that inform social exchange, benev-
olence (i.e., ‘‘the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do
good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive’’ Mayer
et al., 1995, p. 718) and integrity (i.e., ‘‘trustor’s perception that the
trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds accept-
able’’ Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719) differ from ability in an important
3
respect: ability, defined as a ‘‘group of skills, competencies, and
characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some
specific domain’’ is arguably seen as less discretionary (i.e., within
one’s personal control) in nature than either benevolence or integ-
rity (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717). In fact, many scholars have noted
that ‘‘most people assume that ability is not under the direct voli-
tional control of the individual’’ (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001, p. 76;
see also Weiner, Frieze, Kukia, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971).
In contrast, demonstrating loyalty to a supervisor (e.g., benevo-
lence) and adhering to moral principles (e.g., integrity) are likely
viewed by others as more discretionary than ability. We expect
that the more seemingly discretionary aspects of trustworthi-
ness—benevolence and integrity—should be more relevant to social
exchange relationships than ability, which the literature suggests
is less discretionary. This is because social exchange theory relies
on the assumption that exchanges are discretionary, and therefore
when a supervisor experiences more discretionary aspects of trust-
worthiness from a subordinate, it should engender greater felt
obligation than when the supervisor experiences the less discre-
tionary aspect of subordinate trustworthiness.
Indeed, while an employee’s ability might indicate whether or
not that individual has the requisite competencies needed, benev-
olence and integrity are sometimes jointly referred to as character
(Gabarro, 1978). As such, benevolence and integrity are also
important to social exchange relationships because having
employees with strong character should be a valuable asset for
supervisors. For example, employees that demonstrate high levels
of integrity should be viewed as more reliable than their low
integrity counterparts (Simons, 2002). Thus, uncertainty should
decrease when integrity is high. Benevolent employees, which
are those that demonstrate a positive orientation toward their
supervisor (e.g., displaying loyalty, care, and support) aside from
a profit motive, should elicit a positive emotional response from
the supervisor (Colquitt et al., 2007). In sum, supervisors benefit
when employees are seen as demonstrating benevolence and
integrity.
If employee benevolence and integrity are in fact valuable to
supervisors, social exchange theory would suggest that supervisors
should develop feelings of obligation toward employees viewed as
trustworthy on these facets. Perceptions of trust should also follow,
as benevolence and integrity are conceptualized as two central
antecedents of trust perceptions (Mayer et al., 1995). Therefore,
we argue that supervisors experience an increase in perceptions
of both trust and obligation toward employees viewed as having
benevolence and integrity. Ability is also an important facet of
trustworthiness, but because it is seen as less discretionary in nat-
4 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
ure, the effects of employee benevolence and integrity should be
significantly stronger than those of ability with respect to social
exchange relationships. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1a. Perceived employee benevolence and integrity are
positively related to supervisor felt obligation.
Hypothesis 1b. Perceived employee benevolence and integrity are
positively related to supervisor trust.
Hypothesis 2a. The effects of perceived employee benevolence
and integrity on supervisor felt obligation are significantly more
positive than the effects of perceived employee ability on supervi-
sor felt obligation.
Hypothesis 2b. The effects of perceived employee benevolence
and integrity on supervisor trust are significantly more positive
than the effects of perceived employee ability on supervisor trust.
According to social exchange theory, to ensure the continuation
of exchanges, one must discharge obligations by reciprocating in
kind (Blau, 1964). In fact, failing to reciprocate sufficiently places
future benefits at risk (Blau, 1964). Similarly, trust scholars have
also described a cycle of reciprocity whereby trust begets trust
(e.g., Butler, 1995). Thus, it is to be expected that the felt obligation
and trust resulting in part from employee trustworthiness will be
followed by actual reciprocation behaviors. We propose that one
way supervisors can reciprocate is by adhering to interpersonal
and informational justice rules.
Because the social exchange dynamic focuses on what Blau
(1964) termed ‘‘voluntary actions’’ (p. 91), we operationalized jus-
tice using interpersonal and informational justice. There are sev-
eral reasons why managers have more discretion in adhering to
interpersonal and informational justice rules than with procedural
and distributive justice rules (for a review, see Scott et al., 2009).
First, the four justice rules differ in the degree to which character-
istics of the organization constrain managerial discretion (Scott
et al., 2009). For example, formalized systems typically limit the
amount of discretion supervisors have over procedures used to
determine rewards (i.e., distributive and procedural justice rules).
Such constraints are less relevant to informational justice rules,
and not at all relevant to interpersonal justice rules (Scott et al.,
2009). In addition, some rules are enacted more frequently than
others, with increased frequency providing supervisors with more
discretion over them (Scott et al., 2009). For example, exchange-
based rules, such as distributive and procedural justice, require
an exchange context such as a resource allocation decision (Bies,
2005). In contrast, more encounter-based rules, such as interper-
sonal and informational justice, can occur in daily interactions be-
tween supervisors and employees (Bies, 2005). Thus, scholars tend
to agree that, ‘‘interpersonal and informational justice have a ‘day-
in day-out’ significance that the other justice dimensions may not
possess’’ (Scott et al., 2007, p. 1597).
According to the multiple needs model (Cropanzano, Byrne,
Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), justice is an important concern for individ-
uals because it helps to fulfill fundamental human needs such as
the need for belonging, described as a desire to form and maintain
lasting, positive interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary,
1995) and the need for positive self-regard, described as a desire
to create and maintain a positive view of oneself (Cropanzano
et al., 2001). Similarly, the group value/relational models (Lind &
Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992) suggest that justice is important
to employees partly because it conveys important information
about their standing or status with their supervisors. Information
that indicates high status within a group, such as the fact that one’s
supervisor adheres to interpersonal and informational justice rules
positively validates one’s identity or sense of self-worth, as well as
one’s sense of belonging (Festinger, 1954; Tyler & Lind, 1992). For
instance, when a supervisor is open and honest in communications
with an employee, and treats an employee with respect and propri-
ety, the underlying signal is that the employee is valued by the
supervisor. Taken together, this line of thinking suggests that ac-
tions indicating adherence to interpersonal and informational jus-
tice rules are particularly important reciprocation behaviors that a
supervisor can supply as a means of discharging obligations and
reciprocating the trust engendered by employee benevolence and
integrity. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3. Felt obligation is positively related to supervisor
interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence.
Hypothesis 4. Trust is positively related to supervisor interper-
sonal and informational justice rule adherence.
Although the importance of justice rule adherence should not
be understated, ultimately it is the recipient’s perceptions of jus-
tice rule adherence that acts as a key driver of employee attitudes
and behaviors. In fact, the vast majority of field studies in the jus-
tice literature utilize employee perceptions of supervisors adher-
ence to the various justice rules as the independent variable,
predicting a number of attitudinal and behavioral variables (for a
review, see Conlon et al., 2005). However, we are aware of no stud-
ies that have examined one of the most obvious antecedents of em-
ployee justice perceptions, namely a supervisor’s actual adherence
to, or violation of, justice rules. Put differently, employee justice
perceptions presumably result from supervisors’ adherence to, or
violation of, justice rules. In fact, there is some indirect evidence
suggesting a link between justice rule adherence and perceptions
of justice. For example, the rules we now ascribe to interpersonal
and informational justice were identified using open-ended ques-
tions concerning corporate recruiting practices (Bies & Moag,
1986). In that study, MBAs identified truthfulness, respect, propri-
ety of questions, and justification as ‘‘fairness criteria that they ex-
pected recruiters to follow’’ (Bies & Moag, 1986, p. 47, emphasis in
original). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5. Supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence is
positively related to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice.
Hypothesis 6. Supervisor informational justice rule adherence is
positively related to employee perceptions of informational justice.
Summary
The central thesis of our manuscript is that employee trustwor-
thiness (benevolence and integrity) positively affects interpersonal
and informational justice, through the social exchange mecha-
nisms of felt obligation and trust. According to social exchange the-
orists, one can exchange a wide variety of resources, both concrete
and symbolic (e.g., Blau, 1964; Foa & Foa, 1980). We argue that
trustworthiness is one such resource. For example, integrity, which
involves the demonstration of high word-deed alignment, as well
as upholding high moral standards (Mayer et al., 1995), and benev-
olence, which is characterized by demonstrations of caring and
concern for the supervisor (Mayer et al., 1995), constitute valuable
resources for supervisors.
If trustworthiness is a valuable resource for supervisors, then
according to social exchange theory, supervisors would want to
provide these employees with resources in an effort to sustain
the relationship. Research supports this line of thinking by demon-
strating that, in general, individuals that are seen as trustworthy
are more likely to receive beneficial resources than individuals
who are not seen as trustworthy (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009). For
example, when employees are perceived as demonstrating care
 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
and concern (i.e., benevolence), and seen as being reliable and
dependable (i.e., integrity), they tend to receive more assistance
in the form of citizenship behavior (McAllister, 1995). Previous re-
search has also shown that coworkers are more willing to share re-
sources with trustworthy employees (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2009). One
valuable resource that supervisors can provide trustworthy
employees is justice rule adherence. By providing increased
respectful treatment (i.e., interpersonal justice) and increased
truthfulness in explanations (i.e., informational justice), supervi-
sors can discharge the obligations produced by the provision of
benevolence and integrity, and thus ensure the continuation of fu-
ture resource exchanges. In sum, benevolence and integrity should
affect employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational
justice through a supervisor’s feelings of obligation and trust to-
ward the trustworthy employee, as well as the supervisor’s actual
justice rule adherence. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 7. The relationship between perceived employee
benevolence and employee perceptions of interpersonal justice is
mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor
interpersonal justice rule adherence.
Hypothesis 8. The relationship between perceived employee
benevolence and employee perceptions of informational justice is
mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor
informational justice rule adherence.
Hypothesis 9. The relationship between perceived employee
integrity and employee perceptions of interpersonal justice is
mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor
interpersonal justice rule adherence.
Hypothesis 10. The relationship between perceived employee
integrity and employee perceptions of informational justice is
mediated by felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor
informational justice rule adherence.
Method
Sample
A total of 187 supervisor-employee dyads participated in the
study. All participants were full-time employees from a variety of
industries, including financial services, information technology,
engineering, healthcare, banking, telecommunications, and phar-
maceuticals. The participants (employees and supervisors) were
on average 38 (SD = 13.06) and 45 (SD = 11.33) years old, and had
been with their organizations for an average of 5.9 (SD = 6.99)
and 3.5 (SD = 3.64) years, respectively. The sample was 79% Cauca-
sian, with other ethnicities as follows: Hispanic (5%), Asian/Pacific
Islander (9%), and African American (3%). Some participants chose
‘‘other’’ as their ethnicity (4%). The gender breakdown was as
follows: females (45%) and males (55%).
Procedure
To recruit a wide variety of occupations, we relied on the often-
used snowball sampling technique (Eddleston, Veiga, & Powell,
2006; Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002; Mayer, Kuenzi,
Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006). We asked undergraduate students enrolled in organiza-
tional behavior classes at a large southeastern university in the
United States to each recruit two potential research participants
as one potential option to fulfill a course requirement. In order to
meet the eligibility requirements, participants had to be willing
to fill out a brief online survey, as well as have an immediate super-
visor that was also willing to fill out an online survey. In exchange
for their participation, all employees and supervisors were entered
5
into a drawing for one of five $100 Visa gift cards. Out of 149 stu-
dents, a total of 117 (79%) agreed to participate. To maintain full
control of the data collection process, students were asked to pro-
vide us with business, not personal, email addresses for the poten-
tial participants. In an effort to ensure full credit, nineteen students
opted to provide us with more than two potential participants (one
student provided four email addresses, two students provided five
addresses, and the remaining students provided three addresses).
We directly contacted 258 employees. In order to address any po-
tential concern regarding the anonymity of participants’ responses,
participants were made aware of the fact that the website hosted
the survey via a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, which pro-
vides a high level of security for the transmission of survey data.
Participants were also informed that all identifying information
would be removed from the dataset. To increase our response rate,
we sent out reminder emails one and two weeks after initial con-
tact. In total, 239 employees (93%) responded while 202 supervi-
sors (85%) responded. Our relatively high response rate is a result
of students asking participants to participate before releasing a po-
tential participant’s email addresses. Once all data were collected,
we visually inspected the data for a combination of red flags, such
as personal email addresses, identical IP addresses within each em-
ployee-supervisor pair, multiple instances of careless reverse cod-
ing, and the length of time spent on the survey. Listwise deletion
resulted in a total of 187 employee-supervisor pairs.
Measures
To minimize potential order effects, we randomized the order of
the scales. Each participant was then randomly assigned to a
slightly different version of the survey. Any scales that were
adapted for this study are presented in the Appendix.
Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness
The three facets of trustworthiness were measured with items
from Mayer and Davis’s (1999) trustworthiness measure, adapted
to reference the supervisor’s employee. Supervisors were asked
to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement,
with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5
(‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The perceived ability scale consisted of six
items, including: ‘‘My subordinate is very capable of performing
his/her job’’ and ‘‘My subordinate is well qualified.’’ This scale
demonstrated a coefficient alpha of .91. Sample items from the
perceived benevolence scale included: ‘‘My subordinate really
looks out for what is important to me’’ and ‘‘My needs and desires
are very important to my subordinate.’’ This scale demonstrated a
coefficient alpha of .90. The perceived integrity scale consisted of
six items including: ‘‘I never have to wonder whether my subordi-
nate will stick to his/her word’’ and ‘‘Sound principles seem to
guide my subordinate’s behaviors.’’ This scale resulted in a coeffi-
cient alpha of .77.
Felt obligation
We measured felt obligation with three items from the Eisen-
berger, Armeli, Rexwinkle, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001) scale,
adapted to reference the supervisor’s felt obligation toward his or
her employee. Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to
which they agreed with each statement, with response scales
ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The
items included: ‘‘I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can
to help my subordinate achieve his/her goals,’’ ‘‘I owe it to my
subordinate to do what I can to ensure that s/he is well-served
and satisfied,’’ and ‘‘I would feel an obligation to take time from
my personal schedule to help my subordinate if s/he needed my
help.’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .72.
6 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
Trust
To measure trust, we used five items from a scale reported by
Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007). Supervisors were asked to
indicate the extent to which they agreed with each statement, with
response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5
(‘‘Strongly Agree’’). The items included: ‘‘I would be willing to let
my subordinate have complete control over a task that was impor-
tant to me,’’ ‘‘If my subordinate asked why a problem occurred, I
could speak freely even if I were partly to blame,’’ and ‘‘It is impor-
tant for me to have a good way to keep an eye on my subordinate
(R).’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .67.
Employee perceptions of justice
We measured the employee’s perception of interpersonal and
informational justice using Colquitt’s (2001) scale. For interper-
sonal justice, employees were asked to reflect on the interpersonal
treatment received from their supervisors. Sample items from the
four-item scales include: ‘‘Has he/she treated you in a polite man-
ner?’’ and ‘‘Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or com-
ments?’’ For informational justice, employees were asked to
reflect on the explanations and communications received from
their supervisors during decision-making procedures. Sample
items from the five-item scales include: ‘‘Has he/she been candid
when communicating with you?’’ and ‘‘Were his/her explanations
regarding procedures reasonable?’’ The coefficient alphas for these
scales were .89 and .87, respectively.
Supervisor self-reported justice rule adherence
We measured supervisor interpersonal and informational jus-
tice rule adherence using an adaptation of Colquitt’s (2001) scale.
Supervisors were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed
with each statement, with response scales ranging from 1 (‘‘To a
Very Small Extent’’) to 5 (‘‘To a Very Large Extent’’). For interper-
sonal justice rule adherence, supervisors were asked to reflect on
the interpersonal treatment of his or her employee. The four-item
scale included the following: ‘‘Do you treat this subordinate in a
polite manner?’’ ‘‘Do you treat this subordinate with dignity?’’
‘‘Do you treat this subordinate with respect?’’ and ‘‘Have you re-
frained from improper remarks or comments toward this subordi-
nate?’’ Unexpectedly, the scale demonstrated an unacceptable
alpha of .66 due to the impropriety item. In hindsight, supervisors
might view the term ‘‘improper remarks’’ as vague, and perhaps as
less relevant to justice. Thus, dropping this item results in a scale
that better captures the justice phenomenon of interest in this
manuscript, and has the added benefit of reducing random error
(coefficient alpha = .92). For informational justice rule adherence,
supervisors were asked to reflect on the explanations and commu-
nications given to the employee during decision-making proce-
dures. Sample items from the five-item scale are: ‘‘Are you
candid when communicating with this subordinate?’’ and ‘‘Are
your explanations to this subordinate regarding procedures rea-
sonable?’’ The coefficient alpha for this scale was .74.
Control variables
To control for individuals’ response tendencies on the depen-
dent variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we
controlled for employee neuroticism, because a general disposition
toward negative moods may bias perceptions of interpersonal and
informational justice (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). We used three items
from Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas’ (2006) scale to measure
this trait. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which
they agreed with each statement, with response scales ranging
from 1 (‘‘Strongly Disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly Agree’’). Sample items
include: ‘‘I have frequent mood swings,’’ and ‘‘I get upset easily.’’
The coefficient alpha for this scale was .73.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order
correlations among the variables in the study, with the coefficient
alphas for each scale shown on the diagonal.
Analysis
To provide support for the construct validity of our measures,
we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. All 45 factor loadings
were statistically significant. Fit statistics indicated acceptable fit
for the hypothesized ten-factor model and were as follows: v2
(900, N = 187) = 1,363.91; CFI = .90; IFI = .90; SRMR = .06. As ex-
pected, the ten-factor measurement model fit the data significantly
better than alternative measurement models as judged by a chi-
square difference test, including a model that combined employee
perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice rule adher-
ence into one interactional justice rule adherence factor (v2 diff
[9, N = 187] = 353.92, p < .05; CFI = .82; IFI = .83; SRMR = .08), a
model that combined supervisor perceptions of interpersonal and
informational justice rule adherence into one interactional justice
rule adherence factor (v2 diff[9, N = 187] = 192.15, p < .05;
CFI = .86; IFI = .86; SRMR = .08), a model that combined benevo-
lence and integrity into one character factor (v2 diff[9,
N = 187] = 151.89, p < .05; CFI = .87; IFI = .87; SRMR = .07), and a
model that combined supervisor perceptions of employee ability,
benevolence, and integrity into one perceived trustworthiness fac-
tor (v2 diff[17, N = 187] = 610.72, p < .05; CFI = .77; IFI = .77;
SRMR = .08). We therefore proceeded using the hypothesized ten-
factor model.
We should note that in order to adequately reduce the possibil-
ity of nonconvergence or improper solutions in a LISREL (Jöreskog
& Sörbom, 1996) analysis, Kline (2005) recommends obtaining at
least ten (and certainly no fewer than five) observations per free
parameter to be estimated. We report the results of a traditional
confirmatory factor analysis in order to confirm the relationships
between the manifest and latent variables. Although we use previ-
ously validated measures, these results should be interpreted with
caution given our sample size and number of parameters. In testing
our hypotheses, however, we opted to use a ‘‘partially latent’’ ap-
proach, in which scale scores were used as single indicators of
the latent variables with error variances set to (1-alpha)  variance
(Kline, 2005, p. 229) In light of Kline’s (2005) above mentioned rec-
ommendations, a ‘‘fully latent’’ approach in cases such as ours
would reduce the likelihood of achieving acceptable fit, even if
the hypothesized model were an accurate representation of reality
(Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009). This use of single indica-
tors reduces the number of paths to be freely estimated in our final
path model and alleviates concerns about such potentially impro-
per solutions.
All exogenous variables were allowed to covary in our tests. We
also allowed the disturbance terms for employee interpersonal and
informational justice rule adherence to covary, and for supervisor
interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence to covary,
in order to represent higher-order ‘‘interactional justice’’ factors.
Covarying disturbance terms are used to recognize that the endog-
enous variables likely share other common causes that are not in-
cluded in the present model (Kline, 2005; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
Scholars also point out, however, that prior research should be
used to determine whether such covariances are justified (Kline,
2005). Interpersonal and informational justice were first conceptu-
alized as a single interactional justice facet (Bies & Moag, 1986).
Scholars have recently argued on both conceptual and empirical
 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12 7

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Perceived employee ability 4.53 .53 (.91)
2. Perceived employee benevolence 4.14 .64 .44* (.90)
3. Perceived employee integrity 4.35 .51 .49* .61* (.77)
4. Felt obligation 4.45 .56 .28* .35* .29* (.72)
5. Trust 4.04 .51 .40* .56* .54* .38* (.67)
6. Supervisor interpersonal justice 4.62 .49 .33* .32* .36* .35* .26* (92)
7. Supervisor informational justice 4.14 .44 .30* .30* .39* .26* .29* .34* (.74)
8. Employee interpersonal justice 4.50 .63 .15* .13  .26* .14  .21* .26* .25* (.89)
9. Employee informational justice 4.03 .71 .16* .16* .23* .08 .19* .12 .46* .48* (.87)
10. Employee neuroticism 2.24 .71 .05 .10 .08 .09 .01 .05 .01 .11 .01 (.73)

Notes: N = 187. Coefficient alphas appear in parentheses on the diagonal.

*
p < .05, two-tailed.
 
p < .10, two-tailed.

grounds that this construct be separated into two correlated facets
(e.g., Bies, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001), an assertion supported fur-
ther by tests of our data, discussed below. Similarly, we allowed
the disturbance terms for the mediators of felt obligation and trust
to covary, in accordance with Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) recom-
mendation for such multiple mediator models.
We controlled for employee neuroticism by including paths to
employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice.
To test our mediation predictions, we also included direct effects
from supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness (i.e.,
ability, benevolence, and integrity) to employee perceptions of
interpersonal and informational justice (MacKinnon, Lockwood,
Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). Fit statistics indicated good
model fit: v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97, p < .05; CFI = .96; IFI = .96;
SRMR = .08.1 Fig. 2 illustrates all paths included in this model, noting
estimates resulting from our tests.
Hypothesis 1a predicted that perceived employee benevolence
and integrity were positively related to supervisor felt obligation.
As expected, our results demonstrated significant effects of per-
ceived benevolence on felt obligation (b = .26) while perceived
integrity did not have a significant effect on felt obligation
(b = .11, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 1a was partially supported. Hypoth-
esis 1b predicted that perceived employee benevolence and integ-
rity were positively related to supervisor trust. As expected,
benevolence and integrity demonstrated significant effects on trust
(b = .35 and b = .30, respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was
supported.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that the effects of perceived employee
benevolence and integrity on supervisor felt obligation would be
significantly more positive than the effects of perceived employee
ability while Hypothesis 2b made the same prediction for supervi-
sor trust. As expected, employee ability was not significantly
related to either felt obligation or trust (b = .13 and b = .11, respec-
tively) providing indirect support for Hypotheses 2a and b. To more
directly compare perceived employee ability, benevolence, and
integrity, we used dominance analysis (Azen & Budescu, 2003;
Budescu, 1993), a method that is particularly useful when evaluat-
ing the relative importance of correlated predictors (LeBreton,
Ployhart, & Ladd, 2004). Specifically, we computed the general
dominance statistic (the average increase in R2 for each predictor
1
We also conducted the analysis including a path from supervisor informational
justice rule adherence to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice and a path
from supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence to employee perceptions of
informational justice (v2 [14, N = 187] = 49.12; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .07), but it
did not alter our findings. The path for supervisor informational justice rule
adherence to employee perceptions of interpersonal justice was significant (b = .15,
p < .05), but the path between supervisor interpersonal justice rule adherence and
employee perceptions of informational justice was not (b = .10, ns).
across all possible subset regression models) using Dominance
Analysis 4.4 (James LeBreton). To provide an index of average
importance for each predictor, we rescaled the general dominance
statistic by dividing it by the total variance explained in the out-
come (note that the columns representing rescaled dominance
sum to 100). As Table 2 indicates, perceived ability accounts for
26.32% of the predictable criterion variance of felt obligation, com-
pared to the 48.05% accounted for by perceived benevolence and
25.63% accounted for by perceived integrity. Thus, Hypothesis 2a
was partially supported. With trust as a dependent variable, we
found that perceived ability accounts for 17.58% of the predictable
criterion variance of trust, compared to the 44.66% accounted for
by perceived benevolence and the 37.76% accounted for by
perceived integrity. Hypothesis 2b was therefore supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicts a positive relationship between supervi-
sor felt obligation and supervisor-reported interpersonal and
informational justice rule adherence. As Table 3 demonstrates, felt
obligation was significantly related to supervisor reported inter-
personal and informational justice (b = .36 and b = .16, respec-
tively), providing support for Hypothesis 3. Similarly, Hypothesis
4 predicts a positive relationship between supervisor-reported
trust and supervisor-reported interpersonal and informational
justice rule adherence. This hypothesis was also supported, as both
paths were significant (b = .21 and b = .26, respectively).
Hypothesis 5 predicts that supervisor-reported interpersonal
justice is positively related to employee perceptions of informa-
tional justice, while Hypothesis 6 predicts that supervisor-reported
informational justice is positively related to employee perceptions
of informational justice. As indicated in Table 3, supervisor-re-
ported interpersonal justice was significantly related to employee
perceptions of interpersonal justice (b = .32), thus providing sup-
port for Hypothesis 5. Supervisor-reported informational justice
was significantly related to employee perceptions of informational
justice (b = .49), thus providing support for Hypothesis 6.
We tested our four mediation hypotheses using the product of
coefficients approach discussed by MacKinnon et al. (2002). The
product of coefficients approach requires modeling both direct
and indirect effects, with mediation resulting in a statistically sig-
nificant indirect effect. Therefore, we report the direct, indirect,
and total effects for our model in Table 4. Hypothesis 7 predicts
that felt obligation, trust, and ultimately supervisor interpersonal
justice mediate the relationship between supervisor perceptions
of employee benevolence and employee perceptions of interper-
sonal justice. Hypothesis 8 makes the same prediction in terms
of informational justice. As seen in Table 4, LISREL’s effect decom-
position demonstrates that the indirect effects of supervisor per-
ceptions of employee benevolence on employee perceptions of
interpersonal and informational justice were statistically signifi-
cant (.05 and .06, respectively), supporting Hypotheses 7 and 8.
8 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12

Fig. 2. The hypothesized model and results. v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .08. Values shown are unstandardized regression coefficients. p < .05, one-
tailed. Hypothesized paths are illustrated with thick lines. Significant paths are illustrated with solid lines, while non-significant paths are illustrated with dotted lines.

Table 2 of interpersonal justice. Hypothesis 10 makes the same prediction

Dominance analysis results. for informational justice. As seen in Table 4, LISREL’s effect decom-
Predictable criterion variance explained position demonstrates that the indirect effects of perceived
Predictors Felt obligation (%) Trust (%)
integrity on interpersonal and informational justice were statisti-
cally significant (.03 and .05, respectively). However, as we did
Perceived employee ability 26.32 17.58
not previously find a significant effect of perceptions of employee
Perceived employee benevolence 48.05 44.66
Perceived employee integrity 25.63 37.76 integrity on felt obligation in our test of Hypothesis 1, this indirect
effect is likely transferred primarily through the trust mediator.
Notes: Predictable criterion variance explained was computed by dividing the
Therefore, we interpret the results of this test in conjunction with
general dominance statistic for each predictor (or the average increase in R2 for each
predictor across all possible subset regression models) by the total variance in the the results of our tests of Hypothesis 1 as partial support for
outcome explained by all predictors. Hypotheses 9 and 10.

Discussion
Hypothesis 9 predicts that felt obligation, trust, and ultimately
supervisor-reported interpersonal justice mediate the relationship In addition to proposing employee trustworthiness, conceptu-
between perceived employee integrity and employee perceptions alized as perceived benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995),

Table 3
Structural equation modeling results.

Variables Felt obligation Trust Supervisor self-reported justice rule adherence Employee perceptions of justice
Interpersonal Informational Interpersonal Informational
Perceived employee ability .13 .11 – – .08 .11
Perceived employee benevolence .26* .35* – – .11 .06
Perceived employee integrity .11 .30* – – .26* .09
Felt obligation – – .36* .16* – –
Trust – – .21* .26* – –
*
Neuroticism – – – – .22 .01
Supervisor interpersonal – – – – .32* –
Supervisor informational – – – – – .49*
R2 .17* .43* .24* .13* .19* .24*

Notes: The model included all indirect paths described and direct paths from perceived trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity) to employee perceptions of
interpersonal and informational justice. v2 (16, N = 187) = 53.97; CFI = .96; IFI = .96; SRMR = .08. The path coefficients shown are unstandardized path coefficients.
*
p < .05, one-tailed.
 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
Table 4
Effect Decomposition for Justice Perceptions.
Effect decomposition Total effect Indirect effect
On employee perceptions of interpersonal justice
Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness
Ability .06 .02
Benevolence .06 .05*
*
Integrity .29 .03*
Employee neuroticism .22* – .22*
On employee perceptions of informational justice
Supervisor perceptions of employee trustworthiness
Ability .09 .02
Benevolence .00 .06*
Integrity .13 .05*
Employee neuroticism .01 – .01
Notes: Values shown are unstandardized path coefficients.
*
p < .05, one-tailed.
as a new predictor of supervisor justice rule adherence, our study
used the dominant lens in the justice effects literature, namely
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), to provide a cognitive expla-
nation for why supervisors adhere to more discretionary justice
rules. For social exchange relationships to flourish, each party
must feel obligated to reciprocate the benefits provided by the
other and trust the other to reciprocate in kind (Blau, 1964).
According to Blau (1964), felt obligation and trust result from
the receipt of valued benefits. We reasoned that benevolence
and integrity were two potential benefits employees can provide
to their supervisors (Blau, 1964). Therefore, we predicted that
supervisors would be more likely to trust and feel obligated to-
ward employees that they perceived to have higher benevolence
and integrity, and subsequently to reciprocate with increased
adherence to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Fur-
ther, we proposed that supervisory adherence to justice rules
would affect employee perceptions of interpersonal and informa-
tional justice.
As expected, our results demonstrated that supervisor percep-
tions of employee benevolence were positively associated with
employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice
through supervisor feelings of obligation and trust, as well as
supervisor adherence to interpersonal and informational justice
rules. Thus, when employees are seen as demonstrating caring
and concern for the supervisor (Mayer et al., 1995), supervisors’
feelings of obligation and trust in the employee do in fact lead to
increased respect, propriety, truthfulness, and justification (i.e.,
interpersonal and informational justice), which in turn result in
higher employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational
justice.
We also found similar results for employee integrity, in that a
supervisor’s perceptions of employee’s integrity were related to
employee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice
through trust and supervisor justice rule adherence. However, we
did not find a significant effect of integrity on felt obligation.
Although we certainly expected the results for integrity to mirror
the results found for benevolence, in hindsight there may be rea-
sons why trust was a more powerful mediator of the effects of
integrity than felt obligation. Often, adherence to informational
or interactional justice rules requires supervisors to share sensitive
information with their employees. This sharing is facilitated when
supervisors trust the employees concerned, and perceived integrity
is a strong predictor of trust (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Mayer & Gavin,
2005). Whereas demonstrations of integrity and benevolence are
discretionary, the former is directed at a wider range of targets,
including the task and the supervisor, whereas benevolence is
9
more directly targeted at the supervisor. That difference may ac-
count for the stronger effects of benevolence on felt obligation than
Direct effect of integrity on felt obligation.
While our primary focus was on the benevolence and integrity
dimensions of trustworthiness, we also contrasted them to the
.08 effects of ability. As expected, benevolence had significantly stron-
.11 ger positive effects on supervisor felt obligation and trust than did
.26*
ability. However, while integrity had a significantly stronger posi-
tive effect on trust than did ability, the two did not differ signifi-
cantly in strength of effect on felt obligation. Although integrity
.11 and ability are certainly valuable resources, benevolence, by defini-
.06 tion, seems likely to evoke stronger supervisory feelings of obliga-
.09 tion and trust. Given that benevolence entails demonstrating
support for one’s supervisor, trust and feelings of obligation should
naturally result on the part of the supervisor when benevolence is
perceived to be high. After all, as mentioned previously, benevo-
lence is target-specific (e.g., demonstrating loyalty), while integrity
and ability are more general in nature.
In support of our assertions, Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata,
and Rich (2012) recently argued that although both affect and cog-
nition-based trust demonstrate beneficial effects on outcomes such
as employee performance, they likely do so through different
mechanisms. Specifically, their results demonstrated that affect-
based trust (benevolence) led to increased obligations in the form
of normative commitment whereas cognition-based trust (ability
and integrity) decreased perceptions of uncertainty. Given our fo-
cus on social exchange and felt obligation in particular, our results
demonstrating a stronger effect of benevolence on obligation and
trust are consistent with Colquitt et al.’s (2012) results. It is also
important to note that while our assessments of these constructs
are supervisor-reported and thus same-source, these differential
results should not be attributed to common method variance
(see Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Our findings regarding the links between supervisory assess-
ments of justice rule adherence and employee perceptions of
justice contribute a test of a common assumption in the justice
literature. Up until this point, there has been an assumed link be-
tween actual justice rule adherence and employees’ subsequent
perceptions of justice. Our data corroborate this link, by demon-
strating a significant effect between supervisors’ self-perceived
interpersonal and informational justice rule adherence and em-
ployee perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice.
Though we are unaware of any studies measuring perceptions
of justice rule adherence from both perspectives (i.e., the employ-
ee and the supervisor), our results are consistent with past re-
search in related literatures. For example, Heidemeier and
Moser (2009) demonstrated an uncorrected meta-analytic corre-
lation of .22 between self-reported and supervisory ratings of
job performance, which is consistent with previous meta-analyses
(see also Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). In addition, meta-analytic
data on leader-member exchange relationships suggests moder-
ate agreement (r = .29 uncorrected) between employee and super-
visor perceptions of leader-member exchange quality (Gerstner &
Day, 1997).
Interestingly, our results demonstrate stronger effects for
informational justice than interpersonal justice. This result is rea-
sonable if one considers the nature of interpersonal and informa-
tional justice rule adherence. When compared to interpersonal
justice, informational justice may be less subjective in nature. For
example, informational justice rules should demonstrate a stron-
ger effect than interpersonal justice rules because a supervisor
objectively either provides or withholds explanations from his or
her employees, whereas a supervisor’s demonstrated level of
sensitivity and concern toward his or her employees (i.e., interper-
sonal justice) is more subjective in nature.
10 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
Practical implications
Taken together, our results offer a number of practical implica-
tions. Because of the importance of employees’ perceptions of
justice to a wide variety of outcomes, justice scholars have begun
to examine ways to increase those perceptions. For instance, a
handful of studies have demonstrated that justice training results
in an increase in employees’ perceptions of justice (for a review,
see Skarlicki & Latham, 2005). However, this area of research
focuses primarily on the role that supervisors play in employees’
perceptions of justice. As stated previously, there are very few
studies that have examined the effects of employees’ characteris-
tics and behaviors on justice perceptions. For example, Korsgaard
et al. (1998) evaluated employee assertiveness, while Scott et al.
(2007) examined employee charisma. However, assertiveness
and charisma may be less mutable than benevolence and integrity.
Our findings suggest that employees may be able to influence
their supervisors’ adherence to interpersonal and informational
justice rules by demonstrating high levels of benevolence and
integrity.
Scholars suggest that perceptions of benevolence take time to
develop through employees’ demonstrations of loyalty and altru-
ism toward their supervisors (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman
et al., 2007). Further, such demonstrations must not be perceived
to be motivated by extrinsic rewards, but rather by a personal
attachment and a genuine desire to help the supervisor (Mayer
et al., 1995). Also, research in the area of integrity has proposed
specific behaviors that can increase perceptions of one’s level of
integrity (e.g., Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). For
example, Simons (2002) has argued that the alignment of one’s
words and deeds is critically important to building a reputation
of behavioral integrity. Similarly, Dasgupta (1988) has emphasized
the importance of keeping promises as a way of increasing percep-
tions of one’s integrity. Thus, by increasing supervisory perceptions
of their integrity by acting reliably and consistently (e.g., meeting
agreed-upon deadlines, keeping your word, etc.), employees may
be able to influence the kind of treatment they receive from their
supervisors (i.e., increased interpersonal and informational justice
rule adherence).
Importantly, our findings suggest that rather than being passive
recipients of justice from supervisors, employees can influence their
own justice climate at work through demonstrations of benevolence
and integrity. While this does not absolve supervisors from a moral
obligation to adhere to justice rules, it suggests that employees may
be more empowered than previously assumed in effectuating their
experience of justice. While employees usually cannot choose their
supervisors, they can choose to engage in behaviors that foster per-
ceptions of their benevolence and integrity.
Limitations
As with all studies, there are some limitations which should
be noted. First, our measures of employee trustworthiness, trust,
and felt obligation were same-source, raising concerns about
potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However,
using the supervisor as the source for both constructs seemed
most appropriate, and is consistent with prior research. For
example, past research tends to evaluate trustworthiness from
the perspective of the trustor rather than self-reported by the
trustee (e.g., Levin et al., 2006; Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Of course,
one might argue that ability and integrity can be measured
objectively, such as with IQ or integrity tests. However, the
trust literature emphasizes the importance of perceptions of
trustworthiness as predictors of trust and ultimately risk-taking
(Mayer et al., 1995). In addition, felt obligation and trust are
conceptualized as one’s own perceptions about another, in this
case, the supervisor’s feelings of obligation toward and trust in
his or her employee. Because social exchange assumes unspeci-
fied obligations, it is important to measure felt obligations from
the reciprocator’s perspective. Similarly, since trust is in the eyes
of the beholder, it is important to measure it from the supervi-
sor’s perspective in our model. To minimize concerns regarding
common method bias, we used different sources when theoreti-
cally appropriate. More importantly, our main independent and
dependent variables, supervisor perceptions of employee trust-
worthiness and employee perceptions of interpersonal and infor-
mational justice, were not same source. Therefore, the mediation
effects demonstrated in our data should not be an artifact of
method variance. In addition, we should also note that we theo-
rized and found significant differences between perceptions of
ability and benevolence on supervisor felt obligation and trust.
These results are also not attributable to common method
variance.
A second limitation of our study is that we did not include the
supervisor’s trust propensity (i.e., a general tendency to trust
[Mayer et al., 1995]) in our controls. Given its relationship with
perceptions of trustworthiness and trust, it should be included
in future research on the effects of trust-related constructs on so-
cial exchange processes. Another potential limitation concerns
the cross-sectional nature of our data. According to Pedhazur
and Schmelkin (1991), causation cannot be inferred without
manipulating the independent variable. In a similar vein, Stone-
Romero and Rosopa (2004) have asserted that longitudinal or
experimental data is needed to confirm mediation. Although con-
ceptualizing employee ability, benevolence, and integrity as ante-
cedents to justice is more theoretically appropriate than
suggesting the reverse, future research should utilize either
experimental or cross-lagged data to establish causation
empirically.
Suggestions for future research
While the current study suggests that employees are not
merely passive recipients of justice, future research should also
examine the effects of supervisor characteristics on justice.
Although we know of no published studies examining supervisor
characteristics as antecedents of justice, justice scholars have be-
gun to propose some potentially important traits. For example,
Patient and Skarlicki (2005) suggested supervisor empathy as
an important characteristic that might influence interpersonal
justice. Specifically, supervisors who are sensitive to the emo-
tions of others should be more likely to treat employees with re-
spect and propriety. In addition to trustworthiness, other
employee characteristics and behaviors, such as proactivity,
may also influence employees’ experiences of justice through
their effects on supervisory perceptions, and should be explored
in future research.
Although it is likely that both supervisor and employee
characteristics have independent effects on justice, it may prove
fruitful to examine supervisor-employee characteristics concur-
rently. Research in the area of person-supervisor (PS) fit—or the
congruence between the goals, values, or personalities of an
employee and his or her supervisor—suggests that employee-
supervisor congruence positively affects one’s satisfaction with
his or her supervisor (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,
2005). Research in the area of relational demography has resulted
 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
in similar conclusions. In fact, similarity on a wide variety of
factors, such as age, race (for a review, see Riordan, 2000),
personality (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004), and functional
background (Randel & Jaussi, 2003) can affect work attitudes
and behaviors (e.g., satisfaction with one’s supervisor; Vecchio
& Bullis, 2001). Researchers could examine how justice-related
processes may explain these findings.
Appendix A. Adapted scales used in this study
Felt obligation (items drawn from Eisenberger et al., 2001;
a = .72)
1. I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to help my
subordinate achieve his/her goals.
2. I owe it to my subordinate to do what I can to ensure that
s/he is well-served and satisfied.
3. I would feel an obligation to take time from my personal
schedule to help my subordinate if s/he needed my help.
Trust (items drawn from Schoorman et al., 2007)
1. My subordinate keeps my interests in mind when making
decisions.
2. I would be willing to let my subordinate have complete
control over a task that was important to me.
3. If my subordinate asked why a problem occurred, I could
speak freely even if I were partly to blame.
4. It is important for me to have a good way to keep an eye on
my subordinate.
5. Increasing my vulnerability to criticism by my subordinate
would be a mistake.
Supervisor justice rule adherence (items adapted from
Colquitt, 2001)
Interpersonal (a = .92)
The questions below refer to the way you treat this particular
subordinate when carrying out decision-making
procedures. To what extent:
1. Do you treat this subordinate in a polite manner?
2. Do you treat this subordinate with dignity?
3. Do you treat this subordinate with respect?
4. Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or
comments?
Informational (a = .74)
The questions below refer to the explanations and
communications you give this particular subordinate about
decision making procedures. To what extent:
1. Are you candid when communicating with this
subordinate?
2. Have you thoroughly explained decision-making proce-
dures to this subordinate?
3. Are your explanations to this subordinate regarding proce-
dures reasonable?
4. Have you communicated details to this subordinate in a
timely manner?
Have you tailored communications to meet this subordinate’s
individuals’ needs?
Neuroticism (items drawn from Donnellan et al., 2006;
a = .73)
1. I have frequent mood swings.
2. I am relaxed most of the time.
3. I get upset easily.
Note: The coefficient alphas (a) listed were computed from the present study’s
sample.
11
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing
predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129–148.
Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis
of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
286–295.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 85–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of
fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.). Research on
negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of
relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin,
114, 542–551.
Butler, J. K. (1995). Behaviors, trust, and goal achievement in a win-win negotiating
role play. Group Organ Manage, 20, 486–501.
Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J.
Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 1–41).
New York: Academic Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,
287–321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct
validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational
justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The
handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 526–547). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining
the justice-performance relationship: Trust as social exchange or trust as
uncertainty reduction? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1–15.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational
justice affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 301–328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling
through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 317–372). New York: Wiley.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and
breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dirks, K. R., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
611–628.
Dirks, K. R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). The relationship between being perceived as
trustworthy by coworkers and individual performance. Journal of Management,
35, 136–157.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP
scales: Tiny yet effective measures of the big five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Eddleston, K. A., Veiga, J. F., & Powell, G. N. (2006). Explaining sex differences in
managerial career satisfier preferences: The role of gender self-schema. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 437–445.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 42–51.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2,
335–362.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117–140.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange.
In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.
12 C.P. Zapata et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 121 (2013) 1–12
Gabarro, L. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A. G.
Athos & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and
understanding in relationships (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member
exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827–844.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational
classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:
Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self- supervisor, self-peer,
and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 48, 151–160.
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self-other agreement in job performance
ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 353–370.
Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior
and macromotives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social
behavior (pp. 261–284). New York: Plenum.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Moorseville, IN:
Scientific Software, Inc..
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The
role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers’ interactional fairness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731–744.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
LeBreton, J. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Ladd, R. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo comparison of
relative importance methodologies. Organizational Research Methods, 7,
258–282.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting
forms of contextual performance. Evidence of differential relationships with big
five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 326–336.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and
organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.). Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches
to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R.
Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New
York: Plenum Press.
Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of
knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 1163–1171.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. C. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee
dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969–1000.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the relationship
between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 399–409.
Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational
justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice
behaviors. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), What
motivates fairness in organizations? (pp 79–103). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on
work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on
trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84, 123–136.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who
minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 874–888.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low
does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 24–59.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design
and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.
Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers don’t always do the right thing
when delivering bad news: The role of empathy, self-esteem, and moral
development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P.
Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp.
149–178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An
integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Randel, A. E., & Jaussi, K. S. (2003). Functional background identity, diversity, and
individual performance in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 763–774.
Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments,
contradictions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.). Research in personnel
and human resources Management (Vol. 19, pp. 131–173). New York: JAI Press.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of
organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review,
32, 344–354.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice
rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 756–769.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent
variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and
informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1597–1609.
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between
managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor
union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
161–169.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice
to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 617–633.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster
organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2004). Inference problems with hierarchical
multiple regression-based tests of mediating effects. In J. Martocchio (Ed.).
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 23, pp. 249–290).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain of
relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee
reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
146–157.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66,
541–566.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vecchio, R. P., & Bullis, R. C. (2001). Moderators of the influence of supervisor-
subordinate similarity on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 884–896.
Weiner, B., Frieze, L. H., Kukia, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971).
Perceiving the causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding
managerial trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 23,
513–530.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation
modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy
of Management Annals, 3, 543–604.