The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

PIJPSM
35,2 Organizational justice and
organizational commitment among
South Korean police officers
402
An investigation of job satisfaction as a
Received 28 October 2010 mediator
Revised 3 May 2011
Accepted 30 May 2011 Matthew S. Crow
School of Justice Studies and Social Work, University of West Florida,
Pensacola, Florida, USA
Chang-Bae Lee
Department of Police Science, College of Social Sciences, University of Ulsan,
Ulsan, South Korea, and
Jae-Jin Joo
Department of Police, Law, and Public Administration, Honam University,
Gwangju, Republic of Korea

Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management
Vol. 35 No. 2, 2012
pp. 402-423
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-951X
DOI 10.1108/13639511211230156
Abstract
Purpose – In spite of the importance of officers’ perception of organizational justice and its influence
on organizational commitment, the policing literature lacks information about the relationship
between the factors. Using job satisfaction as a mediator, this study aims to examine an indirect
influence of organizational justice on police officers’ commitment to their organization.
Design/methodology/approach – This study employed a survey of 418 police officers in South Korea
while on in-service training. In exploring the complex relationship among organizational justice (i.e.
distributive, procedural, and interactional), job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, the
researchers utilized structural equation modeling to overcome the weaknesses of linear regression models.
Findings – Officers’ perception of organizational justice was positively related with their level of
organizational commitment. In addition, perception of procedural and interactional justice had an
indirect impact on the officers’ organizational commitment through distributive justice. Lastly,
perception of organizational justice showed an indirect influence on organizational commitment
through job satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – Due to its cross-sectional design, the findings do not confirm
any causal relationship among the variables. In addition, the current study used a purposive sample of
police officers in South Korea, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the literature by examining organizational
commitment in light of officers’ perception of organizational justice and job satisfaction using
structural equation modeling to explore the complex relationship among the organizational factors.
Keywords Organizational justice, Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction, South Korean police,
Structural equation modelling, Organizations, Justice, Police, Republic of Korea
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The organizational commitment of police officers is related to several important issues,
including officer stress (Martelli et al., 1989), decision making (McConkey et al., 1996),
absenteeism (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), and potentially officer turnover (Lambert, Organizational
2007). Gaining a better understanding of the factors associated with organizational justice and
commitment among police officers is important in order to shape management
decisions, improve officer performance, and advance relationships between the police commitment
and the community. In short, employees who are committed to their organization are
likely to make better police officers.
Evidence suggests that organizational commitment among police officers decreases 403
as age and experience increase (Beck and Wilson, 1997; Van Maanen, 1975). Beck and
Wilson (1997) suggest that early experiences with police work cause police officers to
feel disenchantment with the organization. This lack of commitment to the
organization can have cascading effects, especially since experienced officers often
shape the attitudes and experiences of new recruits through the socialization process.
Yet, despite the importance of organizational commitment among police officers,
relatively little is known about the factors or processes that influence organizational
commitment, which include the officers’ perception of organizational justice. While a
number of studies in organizational psychology examined the influence of employee’s
perception of organizational justice on a variety of organizational factors (Dowden and
Tellier, 2004; Kwong and Leung, 2002; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990; Lines, 2005), very
few studies in policing observed its importance in organizational management (Farmer
et al., 2003). As such, prior research reported the significant relationship between job
satisfaction and other factors, whereas few of them looked into the mediator role of job
satisfaction for the association between organizational factors (Pelfrey, 2004, 2007).
The current study seeks to contribute to the literature by exploring the relationship
between organizational justice and organizational commitment, using structural
equation modeling, for any possible indirect relationship between the latent variables.
In addition, this study attempts to expand the literature by clarifying the role of job
satisfaction as mediator for the relationship between the two organizational factors
among police officers in South Korea.

Literature review
Organizational justice
Organizational justice has been a focus of research dating back over three decades
(Colquitt et al., 2001). The following review highlights the major findings of this research
throughout this history. Organizational justice is the theoretical concept regarding how
people are treated within an organization and is usually divided into two dimensions:
distributive and procedural justice (Muchinsky, 2008). Distributive justice refers to the
fairness with regard to the distribution of the outcomes to the members of an
organization (Jones, 1998). Distributive justice is said to exist when the distribution of
outcomes such as compensation, benefits, and other rewards meet employees’
expectations in relation to their inputs (Chou, 2009; Clay-Warner et al., 2005). Whereas
distributive justice focuses on outcomes procedural justice focuses on the process that
leads to the results (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991).
Prior research suggests several relationships between distributive and procedural
justice. For instance, members of an organization may perceive the outcome as being
unfair while he or she agrees with the process of the decision-making, or vice versa
(Tyler, 1990). In other words, it is possible that an individual’s perception or satisfaction
about the process and outcome may vary depending on circumstances. Others have
PIJPSM suggested that procedural justice is important because of its impact on distributional
35,2 justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988). According to this argument, “fair procedures are valued
because they ultimately lead to favorable outcomes” (Lipponen et al., 2004, p. 276). In
short, prior research indicates that individuals’ perception of fairness in outcome
distribution and their confidence in the process interact with each other and affect the
member’s commitment to the goals of the organization (Taxman and Gordon, 2009).
404 Bies and Moag (1986) suggested another construct, interactional justice, as the third
dimension of organizational justice. Interactional justice is a distinct perception of
fairness in the interpersonal treatment of employees by the organization while
procedural justice is related to the fairness of the procedures used for resolving
disputes and allocating outcomes (Bies, 2001; 2005; Bies and Moag, 1986; Pillai et al.,
1999). In essence, interactional justice concerns how individuals in charge of
“allocating resources and rewards in the workplace behave toward the recipients”
(Chou, 2009, p. 72). As far as they are concerned about outcomes (distribution) and
procedures, employees of an organization also evaluate whether they are treated by
others – including colleagues and supervisors – with respect and dignity. This
perception of interaction significantly affects employees’ level of job satisfaction
(Colquitt, 2001). Loi et al. (2009), for example, investigated the three types of
organizational justice (e.g. distributive, procedural, and interpersonal) for their
influence on daily job satisfaction. The result revealed that, along with distributive and
procedural justice, interpersonal justice was positively related to employees’ job
satisfaction on a daily basis. The organizational justice literature also indicates that
there are interactions among the three types of justice: procedural and distributive
(Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996); procedural and interactional (Skarlicki and Folger,
1997). People use their perception of procedural and interactional justice when they
evaluate or determine if the distribution of the outcome is fair (Brockner, 2002;
Brockner et al., 2008; Colquitt et al., 2001; Skitka, 2003; Leng et al., 2001).
Research suggests that perception of organizational justice is correlated with several
organizational factors, including job satisfaction (Dowden and Tellier, 2004),
organizational commitment (Kwong and Leung, 2002), trust (Lincoln and Kalleberg,
1990), and legitimacy (Lines, 2005). In spite of the growing body of literature on
organizational justice, a limited number of studies have examined organizational justice
in the criminal justice perspective, especially in law enforcement (Farmer et al., 2003;
Griffin and Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2003; Lambert et al., 2007; Taxman and Gordon,
2009). Farmer et al. (2003) examined the relationship between the fairness perception and
the organizational outcomes, such as job performance and job satisfaction, by surveying
271 law enforcement officers, and found that the officers’ perception of distributive and
procedural justice significantly influenced those organizational factors. Although
contributing to the literature on organizational justice, the research by Farmer et al.
(2003) has limited generalizability because the sample was drawn from a pool of officers
applied for an undercover assignment. Therefore, organizational justice needs to be
examined with a diverse population of police officers for its relationship with other
organizational behaviors (e.g. organizational commitment).

Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is usually defined as a psychological attachment of an
individual to an organization, which can be presented by different indicators, such as
having loyalty to the organization, internalizing the goals of the organization, and Organizational
dedicating oneself to the goals of the organization (Cook and Wall, 1980; Lambert, 2003; justice and
Mowday et al., 1979). Due to its significance in management, researchers in the private
sectors have examined a number of factors, both individual and organizational, related commitment
to the level of organizational commitment. Mowday et al. (1982), for example, identified
four dimensions of influencing factors for organization commitment: personal
characteristics (i.e. age, gender, education level), role characteristics (i.e. tenure, 405
rank/position, role conflict, promotion opportunities), structural characteristics (i.e.
organization size, span of control, existence of union, centralized authority), and work
experience (i.e. group attitude, recognition, support from peers).
In spite of difficulties in defining the construct because of its complexity (Meyer
et al., 1993), organization commitment is influential in that it may change the behaviors
of employees (Lambert, 2003). Previous studies found that a high level of
organizational commitment was correlated with positive work-related behaviors and
attitudes, including improved job performance (Meyer et al., 1989), openness to
innovation (Wycoff and Skogan, 1994), worker productivity (Clegg and Dunkerley,
1980), job satisfaction (Meyer et al., 1993; Ford et al., 2003), and positive social
responsibility (Witt, 1990) while a low level of commitment to an organization was
linked to negative work-related attitudes and behaviors such as turnover intentions
(Bashaw and Grand, 1994), occupational deviance (Haarr, 1997), and absenteeism
(Farrell and Stamm, 1988).
Despite its importance, the police literature has paid limited attention to factors that
influence organizational commitment. Of those studies that have examined
organizational commitment, independent variables have been retrieved mostly from
the organizational dimension (i.e. organizational/management support) (Brunetto and
Farr-Wharton, 2003; Currie and Dollery, 2006). Beck and Wilson (1997) surveyed a
sample of police officers in Australia regarding their opinion on how to improve
organizational commitment and about its relationship with other organizational
factors, including support, feedback, and investment among the members. The officers
considered recognition and feedback about their performance as well as involvement in
decision making as the most crucial factors that police managers should implement in
order to improve organizational commitment. A similar result was also found by
Aremu (2005, p. 611), who reported that credentialing – “the process of reviewing,
verifying, and evaluating a practitioner’s credentials” – was the strongest predictor of
career commitment of young police in Nigeria. Moreover, Jaramillo et al. (2005)
examined the influence of organization-related police stressors (i.e. role conflict, role
ambiguity, supervisor support, and promotion opportunities) on organizational
commitment among law enforcement officers in Florida. The result indicated that a
level of organizational commitment was positively related to supervisor support,
promotion opportunities and group cohesiveness. Law enforcement officers were more
committed to their organization when they had more support from their
supervisor/organization and when they were recognized and involved in the decision
making process of the organization (Jaramillo et al., 2005). Likewise, Currie and Dollery
(2006) found that officers’ perception of organizational support was positively related
to the level of organizational commitment in the New South Wales Police. Nonetheless,
still missing in the police literature are other organizational behaviors, like
organizational justice, that may influence officers’ commitment to an organization.
PIJPSM Job satisfaction as a mediator
35,2 Job satisfaction, and its significant influence on the effective function of an
organization, have long been recognized by scholars in the field of organizational
psychology (Cranny et al., 1992). The concept of job satisfaction is considered distinct
from organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is a subjective feeling about how
much an individual’s needs are met by a job and can be expressed as “the extent to
406 which people like their jobs” (Griffin et al., 2010; Spector, 1996, p. 214). Whereas
organizational commitment concerns an employee’s connection with the organization
as a whole (i.e. congruence between the individual’s and organization’s goals) (Mowday
et al., 1982), job satisfaction represents feelings regarding the specific duties and roles
associated with one’s specific job (Brooke et al., 1988). Although the two concepts are
related, according to Porter et al. (1974), job satisfaction develops more quickly than
organizational commitment and is less stable. Nevertheless, job satisfaction is
considered as the most fundamental factor leading to organizational citizen behaviors,
such acts as helping other employees’ tasks even when not required by the
organization, which in turn impacts the effectiveness of the organization (Kemery et al.,
1996). Griffin et al. (2010) reported that correctional staff’s level of job satisfaction had a
significant negative relationship with their emotional exhaustion and feeling of
reduced accomplishment. Supporting Cherniss (1980), the result indicated that job
satisfaction was a significant predictor for two dimensions of burnout of correctional
staff. As such, job satisfaction affects other organizational behaviors, like
organizational commitment. Lambert et al. (2007) also found that job satisfaction
had a significant impact on organizational commitment of correctional staff. While
controlling for the perception of organizational justice (i.e. distributive and procedural),
the level of job satisfaction was positively correlated with the staff’s level of
commitment in their organization. In addition, Martinussen et al. (2007) found a
significant relationship between job satisfaction of police officers and their
organizational behaviors with a survey of 223 Norwegian police officers. In detail,
the Norwegian officers’ level of job satisfaction was positively related to the level of
social support, professional efficacy, and organizational commitment but was
negatively associated with exhaustion, cynicism, psychosomatic complaints, and
intention to quit. Job satisfaction was found to have a relationship with the officers’
conformance with managerial decisions. In a study of 1,500 South Korean police
officers, Hwang (2008) discovered that the level of job satisfaction was positively
related to the level of officers’ conformance with the managerial decisions. Officers who
agreed with the decision of their supervisors were more likely to be satisfied with their
job than those who do not.
Whereas the literature reports a significant relationship between job satisfaction
and other organizational behaviors, very few studies tested mediation effects of job
satisfaction, particularly in the policing literature. Pelfrey (2004) examined job
satisfaction as a mediator for the influence of work assignment (community policing v.
traditional patrol) and experience on policing style, perception of impact, time
allocation, and information usage. The author reported that job satisfaction had a
limited influence as a mediator as it slightly reduced the significance of both key
independent variables. Pelfrey (2007) also investigated the mediating effect of job
satisfaction with a sample of police officers from six rural jurisdictions in South
Carolina. Examining multiple factors related to police performance and problem
solving policing, the results indicated that job satisfaction played a significant role as a Organizational
mediator in most of the models. These two studies provided mixed results about the justice and
mediator role of job satisfaction, yet point to a need to clarify the role of job satisfaction
as a potential mediating variable. commitment
Despite the dearth of research examining job satisfaction as a mediator within the
criminal justice literature, evidence of a job satisfaction as a mediating variable exists
within the organizational and psychology literatures. For example, Williams and Hazer 407
(1986) found strong support, using path analysis, that job satisfaction was an
antecedent to organizational commitment. Furthermore, Mathieu and Zajac (1990), in a
meta-analysis of the organizational commitment literature, report that job satisfaction
does moderate the relationship between various organizational variables and
organizational commitment. In a more recent study, Elangovan (2001) used
structural equation modeling to show that job satisfaction serves as a mediator
between job stress and organizational commitment.

Cultural context of the South Korean police

Previous studies found that there are more similarities than differences in
organizational behaviors of the police across countries (Bayley, 1991; Chan, 1996;
Lee, 2002; Moon, 2006; Waddington, 1999). For example, Nickels and Verma (2008)
reported appreciable similarities in the dimensions of organizational culture, such as
styles of policing and police priorities, in the police among Canada, India, and Japan.
According to their research, traditional police work (patrol and crime fighting) was a
significant dimension in police priorities among all three nations. Similarly, South
Korean police officers choose law enforcement as the primary role and consider the
clearance rate of crime as one of most important evaluation criteria for officers’
performance, which indicates universality between police officers in South Korea and
elsewhere (Lee, 2002; Moon, 2006). In addition, South Korean police departments have a
similar organizational structure to those of the US because the US military government
first established the South Korean police force in 1945 (Morash et al., 2008). Therefore,
examination of organizational commitment among South Korean police officers may
also inform the knowledge about police in other nations as well.
There is, however, a difference in the organizational culture of South Korea. The
organizational literature indicates that South Korean workers value strong social
relations and collective orientation within their organization like other Asian countries
(Cheung and Kwok, 1998; Han and Choe, 1994; Yoon and Lim, 1999). According to the
Confucian doctrine, dominant social values include seniority, respect for hierarchical
authority, and collectivity goals among South Korean workers (Mueller et al., 1999). In
other words, individual officer’s perception of their interaction with either their
colleagues or supervisors may affect their perception of organizational behaviors (i.e.
organizational commitment) than other types of organizational justice (Bies and Moag,
1986). Joo (2007), for example, surveyed a group of police officers in South Korea for the
influence of their perception of performance evaluation on the level of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior while controlling
for the influence of their perception of organizational justice. The results demonstrate
that all of the three types of organizational justice (i.e. distributive, procedural, and
interactional) significantly affected the officers’ level of organization commitment,
whereas job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, were affected by one
PIJPSM or two of the three types of organizational justice ( Joo, 2007). A few recent studies also
35,2 examined the factors influencing South Korean police officers’ commitment to
community oriented policing activities (Lee and Moon, 2010) and preventive police
activities (Lee et al., 2010) while there exists lack of information about the relationship
between organizational justice and organizational commitment with job satisfaction as
a mediator.
408
Theory and research objective
Previous studies have established a significant linear relationship among
organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Dowden and
Tellier, 2004; Griffin et al., 2010; Judge and Colquitt, 2004; Lambert et al., 2007);
however, very few studies have examined the effect of police officers’ perception of
organizational justice on organizational factors (Farmer et al., 2003). In addition, prior
studies have found mixed results with regard to the influence of job satisfaction as a
mediating variable, generally, and the role of job satisfaction as a mediator between
organizational justice and organizational commitment remains unexamined (Pelfrey,
2004, 2007). Moreover, prior research has conceptualized all organizational justice
variables as having independent effects on job satisfaction or organizational
commitment. Thus, more research is required to investigate the potentially complex
relationships among organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment in the police literature. The current study attempts to fill the gap in the
literature by examining the relationship between police officers’ perceptions of
organizational justice and organizational commitment with a survey of South Korean
police officers. Three types of organizational justice were examined:
(1) distributive;
(2) procedural; and
(3) interactional.

Whereas previous studies examined the direct, linear relationship among these factors,
the current study attempts to uncover more complex relationships by utilizing
structural models.
Several authors have reported on the complexity of the relationship between the
various dimensions of organizational justice (Brockner and Wiesenfeld, 1996; Skarlicki
and Folger, 1997). In their meta-analysis of over two decades of organizational justice
research, Colquitt et al. (2001, p. 438) argue that “more complex relationships may be
the key to improving” our understanding of how these variables interact to influence
outcomes. Two primary models exist that attempt to explain the why procedural
justice effects occur (Conlon, 1993). The first is the self-interest model (also known as
the instrumental model or personal outcomes model) (Clay-Warner et al., 2005; Lind
and Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1987). The self-interest model views procedural justices as
primarily important in its effects on one’s view of distributive justice. In other words,
employees who view the procedures of their organization as fair are likely to view the
outcomes of those procedures as fair and just. The second model, the group-value
model (Lind and Tyler, 1988), views procedural justice as important in that it conveys
information to employees regarding their position within a group (Lipponen et al.,
2004). Lind and Tyler (1988) argued that the two models are complimentary, rather
than competing, and together explain the overall role of procedural justice.
Furthermore, within the organizational justice literature, there is considerable debate Organizational
regarding the distinction between procedural justice and interactional justice
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Based on a meta-analysis of the organizational
justice and
literature, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001, p. 308) assert that the two measures of commitment
organizational justice are distinct and that perceptions of interactional justice may
“contribute to perceptions of distributive justice”.
The current study is guided by the self-interest model and Cohen-Charash and 409
Spector’s (2001) assertions and, therefore, posits that officers’ perception of how justice is
distributed is likely influenced by how they perceive the procedures of the organization
and their perceived relationship with their supervisors (Brockner, 2002; Brockner et al.,
2008; Colquitt et al., 2001; Skitka, 2003; Leng et al., 2001). In other words, officers are more
likely to feel that outcomes are fair if they view the process and their supervisors as
being fair. As stated by Lambert et al. (2007, p. 646), “for most employees, procedural
justice reflects the perceived fairness of the process by which distributive outcomes are
determined”. Thus, the current study breaks from prior research, which viewed the
different measures of organizational justice as having only additive effects.
Moreover, this study contributes to the literature by examining job satisfaction as a
mediator for the relationship between organizational justice and organizational
commitment of the officers. Prior research has recognized the effect of organizational
justice on job satisfaction and the effects of organizational justice on organizational
commitment while controlling for job satisfaction using separate OLS models (Lambert
et al., 2007). Thus, there is evidence that job satisfaction impacts organizational
commitment among criminal justice practitioners; however, criminal justice research
has yet to examine the potential moderating role of job satisfaction in these
relationships. Part of this gap in the criminal justice literature may relate to prior
studies’ reliance on OLS regression analysis. Structural equation modeling permits a
more complex modeling of these relationships. Theory and prior literature suggest
several relationships that have yet to be explored in the criminal justice context.
Specifically, the authors investigated the following hypotheses in the current study:
H1. Police officers’ perceptions of organizational justice are positively related to
their level of organizational commitment.
H2. Consistent with the self-interest model of organizational justice (Clay-Warner
et al., 2005; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1987), the effects of officers’
perceptions of procedural and interactional justice are indirect and influence
organizational commitment through perceptions of distributive justice.
H3. Consistent with the satisfaction-to-commitment mediation model (Porter et al.,
1974; Tett and Meyer, 1993), police officers’ level of job satisfaction plays a
role of a mediator for the relationship between organizational justice and
organizational commitment.

Methodology
Subjects
The respondents of this study were police officers employed by the Korean National
Police Agency (KNPA), a centralized police organization, and were given the
questionnaire while on in-service training provided by KNPA. The participants were
representative police forces for the regional police agencies, as the number for the
PIJPSM participants in each agency is determined by the national headquarter considering the
35,2 proportion of personnel. In the spring of 2007, the survey was administered to 463
officers based on voluntary and anonymous participation in the classroom of the
training sessions, including topics such as investigation skills, cyber crime,
white-collar crime, and violent crime. A total of 418 completed questionnaires were
collected after screening the surveys. The majority of the respondents were male
410 (almost 92 percent) and were married (88 percent) at the time of survey. Their length of
time in the KNPA averaged about 15 years with a minimum of less than a year and a
maximum of 32 years in the force, which indicates that the sample represents police
personnel with variation regarding their tenure in the organization.

Analysis
Previous studies on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in criminal justice
organizations are limited in two important ways. First, as mentioned previously, the bulk
of the research on these topics is limited to surveys of correctional officers. Second, and
perhaps more importantly, previous research examines organizational commitment and
job satisfaction using ordinary least squares regression, which limits the explanatory
models to direct, linear effects (see Lambert, 2007 for an exception). The current study
addresses these limitations by using a sample of police officers and by employing
structural equation modeling to better understand the complex relationships between
organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) has several advantages over traditional
regression, which are particularly beneficial to the current study (Gau, 2010). First, the
key constructs under examination here – organizational justice, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment – are not directly observable variables. Instead, these
unobserved, or latent, variables are derived from multiple survey questions. SEM
enables researchers to create and analyze latent variables, which is preferable to the
traditional use of scales to measure organizational justice, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment because latent variables allow for the assumption of
measurement error (Gau, 2010). Second, SEM allows researchers to simultaneously
model multiple dependent and mediating variables. Prior criminal justice research has
utilized separate models with job satisfaction as a dependent variable influenced by
organizational justice and separate models with organizational commitment as a
dependent variable influenced by organizational justice and job satisfaction (Lambert
et al., 2007). Furthermore, the three primary organizational justice variables – procedural
justice, distributive justice, and interactional justice – have previously been modeled in a
linear and direct manner using traditional regression. The use of SEM in the current
study enables the authors to model these variables in one model in a manner that better
reflects the complexity of the relationships (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt
et al., 2001; Lind and Tyler, 1988). Utilizing SEM, the current study examined two
different models to identify the relationship between organizational justice and
organizational commitment. The first model included the three organizational justice
variables and organizational commitment. The second model added job satisfaction as a
mediating variable. Diagnostic tests indicate that the variables in the models were within
acceptable ranges for both skewness and kurtosis and that collinearity, and outliers were
not problematic in the models presented. Table I displays the descriptive statistics of the
observed variables used to model the latent variables[1].
 Organizational
Standardized
factor justice and
Latent variable and item Mean SD loadings commitment
Procedural justice
Evaluation is fair regardless of social networks related to education and
location 2.43 0.93 0.760 411
Performance evaluation fairly reflects what employees have performed 2.53 0.89 0.841
Outside pressure does not influence performance evaluations 2.64 0.91 0.799
Standard criteria are used for evaluations 2.56 0.87 0.849
Employees and supervisors communicate during the evaluation period 2.31 0.92 0.605
Interactional justice
My supervisor respects my opinion 2.92 0.94 0.758
My supervisor avoids personal prejudice 2.87 0.89 0.769
My supervisor treats me kindly 3.04 0.91 0.851
My supervisor respects my rights as a subordinate 2.89 0.90 0.859
My supervisor tries to be honest with me 2.97 0.90 0.838
Distributive justice
I am rewarded for my work 2.61 0.93 0.653
Rewards are fair and fit with my previous work experience 2.60 0.91 0.685
I am rewarded fairly for what I do for the organization 2.67 0.87 0.758
Performance evaluations reflect my job responsibilities 2.56 0.93 0.794
Performance evaluations reflect my job difficulty 2.38 0.91 0.767
Job satisfaction
Overall, I am satisfied with my job 3.48 0.82 0.666
I like my job more than others do 3.61 0.78 0.724
I spend my time working hard 3.72 0.71 0.593
I feel rewarded in my job 3.51 0.81 0.759
I am proactive in my job 3.90 0.70 0.730
My job is important in my life 3.71 0.79 0.605
Organizational commitment
I identify strongly as a member of my organization 3.83 0.89 0.857
I feel attached to my organization 3.93 0.90 0.915 Table I.
My job is very meaningful to me 4.09 0.83 0.833 Latent variables
This organization is like a family and I am one of them 3.94 0.87 0.806 composition and
I hope to stay with this job until retirement 4.16 0.87 0.689 descriptive statistics

Findings
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for each of the latent variables to examine
the validity of the measures. The standardized factor loadings are presented in Table I.
Every factor loading was statistically significant ( p , 0.001) and greater than the
recommended value of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Figure 1 displays the result of the analysis of Model 1. Standardized parameter
estimates for the model are presented. The results indicated that the first hypothesis
was supported. Officers’ perceptions of distributive justice had a significant positive
relationship with organizational commitment. As indicated by the path coefficient, the
relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment was,
however, relatively weak ðb ¼ 0:16; p , 0.01). The results of Model 1 also support
the second hypothesis. The influence of both procedural justice and interactional
PIJPSM
35,2

412

Figure 1.
Organizational
commitment and
organizational justice

justice on organizational commitment was indirect. In other words, procedural justice

and interactional justice directly influenced distributive justice. The relationship
between procedural justice and distributive justice was relatively strong ðb ¼ 0:67;
p , 0.001), whereas the relationship between interactional justice and distributive
justice was somewhat weak ðb ¼ 0:13; p , 0.01). Finally, the model also provided
evidence that officers’ years of experience in policing had a small positive effect on
organizational commitment[2].
Prior studies recommend examining multiple model fit indices for SEM analyses
(Gau, 2010; McDonald and Ho, 2002; Schumacker and Lomax, 2004). The researchers
report three indices here. For Model 1, fit indices reflect a somewhat well-fitting model.
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) compares the SEM model with the null model and
measures how well the SEM model captures the covariance among the variables
(Bentler, 1990). Generally, a CFI of 0.95 or better indicates a very well-fitting model and
a CFI between 0.90 and 0.95 represents an acceptable model (Hu and Bentler, 1999;
Marsh et al., 2005; Marsh et al., 2004)[3]. The CFI for Model 1 was 0.92. Another
important measure of model fit is the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), which is based on degrees of freedom and controls for sample size. Adequate
model fit is indicated by RMSEA values less than or equal to 0.08 while good model fit
is represented by values less than or equal to 0.05 (Gau, 2010; Schumacker and Lomax,
2004). The RMSEA for Model 1 was 0.073. Finally, the chi-square/degrees of freedom
ratio is a third measure of fit recommended in the literature. By convention, ratios of 5.0
or less indicate relatively good fit of the model. Model 1 had a ratio of 3.24.
Model 2 examined the possibility that job satisfaction functioned as a mediator
variable between the organizational justice variables and organizational commitment.
Baron and Kenny (1986) proposed that for a variable to serve as a mediator, the Organizational
relationship between the predictor variable and dependent variable must be justice and
substantially reduced when the possible mediator is included. According to Baron
and Kenny (1986), if the originally significant relationship between the predictor
commitment
variable and dependent variable becomes non-significant when the mediator is
introduced, a complete mediation of the relationship is evidenced. Figure 2 displays the
results of this analysis. The non-additive effects of the organizational justice variables 413
remained consistent in Model 2. Perceptions of procedural and interactional justice still
exerted positive effects on distributive justice. Model 2, however, provides evidence
that the third hypothesis is supported. The effects of organization justice on
organizational commitment appear to be mediated through job satisfaction. In fact,
when job satisfaction was added to the model, the direct relationship between
organizational justice and organizational commitment became non-significant
(represented by the dashed line in Figure 2), indicating complete mediation of the
relationship. The standardized path coefficients displayed in Model 2 indicate a weak
to moderate relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction ðb ¼ 0:17;
p , 0.01) and a strong relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment ðb ¼ 0:76; p , 0.001).
The model fit indices provide limited evidence that adding job satisfaction
slightly improved the model compared to Model 1. While the CFI decreased
somewhat to 0.91, RMSEA improved to 0.069, and the chi-square/degrees of freedom
ratio improved to 2.97. It should be noted that these improvements are relatively
small in magnitude. Nevertheless, taken together with the significant and relatively
large coefficient for the path from job satisfaction to organizational commitment,
there is, at least, some evidence that incorporating job satisfaction into the model
was an improvement.

Figure 2.
Organizational
commitment, job
satisfaction, and
organizational justice
PIJPSM Discussion
35,2 Due to lack of information about the relationship between organizational justice and
organizational commitment among police officers (Farmer et al., 2003; Griffin and
Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2003; Lambert et al., 2007; Taxman and Gordon, 2009), the
current study explores the relationship between these two organizational factors,
including job satisfaction as a mediator. In order to better investigate the complex
414 relationship among the variables, the researchers estimate SEM models, which address
several of the weakness of traditional regression models used to examine
organizational commitment in the past. The research presented here provides
several important contributions to the literature on organizational commitment among
police officers.
First, this study expanded the investigation of organizational justice to police
officers, specifically to officers in South Korea, in order to observe if the officers’
perception of the three types of organizational justice affects their level of
organizational commitment. Consistent with the findings of prior studies (Farmer
et al., 2003; Joo, 2007; Taxman and Gordon, 2009), the findings of the current study
confirm the positive relationship between organizational justice and organizational
commitment among the officers, which supports the first hypothesis of this study, yet
point to a more complex relationship than suggested by prior research.
While previous studies reported a direct relationship between organizational
justice and organizational commitment (Farmer et al., 2003; Joo, 2007; Kwong and
Leung, 2002; Taxman and Gordon, 2009), the current study supports the self-interest
model (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1987), which posits that procedural justice and
interactional justice influence distributive justice, which then impacts other factors.
This study found that police officers’ perception of procedural justice and
interactional justice had an indirect influence on organizational commitment through
their perception of distributive justice. Whereas prior research has employed OLS
regression to model direct, linear relationships between the different measures of
organization justice and organizational commitment, the research presented here
suggests that the relationship between measures of organization justice are indirect.
This finding supports the second hypothesis of this study. According to the results
of SEM analyses, procedural justice and interactional justice were not found to have
any significant direct relationship with organizational commitment. In other words,
Model one demonstrates that officers who perceived the procedures used to evaluate
their work as being fair and those who felt they had a good relationship with their
supervisors had more positive views regarding the distribution of outcomes in their
organization. This positive perception regarding the distribution of outcomes, in
turn, increased officers’ level of commitment to their organization. This finding
represents an important clarification of the dynamics of the relationship among
these variables compared to prior studies that viewed the perceptions of
organization justice as having independent effects on organizational commitment
(Brockner, 2002; Brockner et al., 2008; Colquitt et al., 2001; Skitka, 2003; Leng et al.,
2001).
Last, the findings also support the third hypothesis of this study about the mediator
role of job satisfaction for the relationship between organizational justice and
organizational commitment. Consistent with Pelfrey’s (2007) work on perceptions of
community and problem-oriented policing, the SEM results indicate that officers’
perception of distributive justice had an indirect influence on their commitment to their Organizational
organization through their job satisfaction. The significant influence of distributive justice and
justice on organizational commitment became insignificant when job satisfaction was
added in the model as a mediator. That is, the relationship between distributive justice commitment
and organizational commitment should be interpreted with consideration of the
officers’ job satisfaction. This shows the crucial role of job satisfaction, not only as a
predictor or outcome variable, but also as a mediator variable, which provides a 415
meaningful impact on the relationship among other organizational factors.

Limitations and directions for future study

While the current study improves the understanding of the complicated relationship
among organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, there
are several limitations that should be mentioned. First, the researchers used a
cross-sectional research design in observing the relationship between organizational
justice and organizational commitment with job satisfaction as a mediating variable.
The analyses provided evidence of a significant influence of organizational justice on
organizational commitment through job satisfaction, but the relationship is not a
causal relationship as the research design was not longitudinal. Yet, this study
employed SEM to overcome the limitation of the traditional cross-sectional design
using linear regression for multivariate analysis, which allowed the researchers to
control for the measurement of errors for the latent variables. In addition, the SEM
approach enabled the researchers to analyze organizational justice, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment in one model that better reflects the complexity of the
relationships. Second, the findings of this study may have limited generalizability.
This study utilized judgmental sampling, one of the non-probability sampling
methods, and this may limit the generalizability of the findings to other general
populations of police officers. Nevertheless, the researchers consider the sampling
procedure was appropriate for the purpose of this study because a fairly representative
sample of South Korean police officers was drawn through the procedure. As such, it is
not known if these findings may apply to police officers in other countries, especially
for Western countries, such as, Australia, Canada, England, and US, and more studies
are called for the applicability of these findings to officers of other countries. Moreover,
future studies may consider including other organizational factors as a predictor or
outcome variable in investigating the mediator role of job satisfaction. The literature
indicates a lack of information about organizational justice in law enforcement (Farmer
et al., 2003; Griffin and Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2003; Lambert et al., 2007; Taxman
and Gordon, 2009), and future studies may observe additional variables, such as
organizational citizenship behavior (Joo, 2007), orientation to community policing
(Pelfrey, 2007), and strategic commitment (Ford et al., 2003) as being influential factors.
Despite these limitations, the findings presented here suggest that police
organizations may want to consider adopting policies and practices that improve
officers’ sense of fairness with regard to their evaluation procedures and in terms of the
interactions between supervisors and officers. The traditional model of
quasi-militaristic leadership and organizational structures in police agencies (Auten,
1981; Cowper, 2000; Franz and Jones, 1987) may require adjustment if departments
wish to improve the level of commitment among officers. As such, positive interactions
with coworkers and encouragements from supervisors will significantly improve
PIJPSM police officers’ commitment to their organization (Shin and Jang, 2003). Rather than
35,2 authoritative leadership, the administrators and supervisors should consider
persuasive leadership and more open communication with police officers in order to
improve their perception of procedural and interactional justice, which will lead to
better commitment to the organization (Hwang, 2008). In other words, supervisors
should foster good relationships with officers and work to ensure that the process for
416 evaluating officers is fair and based on clearly defined criteria. By doing so,
supervisors can positively impact officers’ perceptions of the fairness of outcomes
(i.e. distributive justice).
Furthermore, officers’ job satisfaction should be considered for the relationship
because their perception of organizational justice does not influence the organizational
commitment directly but has an indirect effect through job satisfaction. In other words,
in order for officers’ perception of organizational justice to improve their level of
organizational commitment, administrators should also strive to improve the officers’
job satisfaction as well (e.g. changing work conditions, salary, benefits, job security,
autonomy, etc.). Without job satisfaction, the officers’ sense of fairness about the
procedure, interaction with supervisors, and outcomes will not affect their
organizational commitment. That is, police officers that feel a sense of justice and
fairness within their organization are more likely to like their jobs, which in turn is
likely to improve their commitment to the organization. This is important because
there is also evidence to suggest that measures taken to improve organizational
commitment, such as better perception of organizational justice, less stress, and
improved job satisfaction, may reduce officer turnover and absenteeism (Elangovan,
2001; Lambert, 2007; Somers, 1995), thus saving police departments and communities’
money.

Notes
1. In order to measure the organizational constructs, the authors utilized previously developed
and published items regarding distributive justice (Moorman, 1991), procedural justice
(Leventhal, 1980; Do, 2002), interactive justice (Moorman, 1991; Jung, 2002), job satisfaction
(Lee, 2002), and organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1982; O’Reily and Chatman,
1986). All of these items were measured by five-point Likert-type responses (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 2 ¼ agree; 3 ¼ neutral; 4 ¼ agree; 5 ¼ strongly agree).
2. Other demographic variables, including gender, age, education, marital status, and rank,
were included separately and together in the model. Consistent with prior research, with the
exception of experience, none of the demographic variables achieved statistical significance
nor did they improve model fit.
3. While Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended increasing the stringency “rules of thumb”
regarding goodness of fit measures for SEM, research conducted prior to (Browne and
Cudeck, 1993; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993) and subsequent to (Marsh et al., 2004; Marsh et al.,
2005) Hu and Bentler’s work provides evidence that the more stringent cutoff values are too
restrictive, “have little statistical justification” (Marsh et al., 2004, p. 321) and that Hu and
Bentler “never suggested that their new guidelines should be interpreted as universal golden
rules, absolute cutoff values, or highly rigid criteria that were universally appropriate”
(Marsh et al., 2004, p. 322). These cautionary words are particularly applicable to studies
using multiple factors when each is measured with 5-10 items (Marsh et al., 2005) as is the
case in the current study.
References Organizational
Aremu, A.O. (2005), “A confluence of credentialing, career experience, self-efficacy, emotional justice and
intelligence, and motivation on the career commitment of young police in Ibadan, Negeria”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, commitment
pp. 609-18.
Auten, J.H. (1981), “The paramilitary model of police and police professionalism”, Police Studies,
Vol. 4, pp. 67-78. 417
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Bashaw, R. and Grand, E. (1994), “Exploring the distinctive nature of work commitments:
the relationship with personal characteristics, job performance, and propensity to leave”,
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 41-56.
Bayley, D. (1991), Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Beck, K. and Wilson, C. (1997), “Police officers’ views on cultivating organizational commitment
implications for police managers”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
& Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 175-95.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.
Bies, R.J. (2001), “Interactional (in)justice: the sacred and the profane”, in Greenberg, J. and
Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press, Palo
Alto, CA, pp. 85-108.
Bies, R.J. (2005), “Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct?”,
in Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 85-112.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,
Research in Negotiation in Organization, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 43-55.
Brockner, J. (2002), “Making sense of procedural justice: how high procedural fairness can reduce
or heighten the influence of outcome favorability”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 27, pp. 58-76.
Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), “An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120,
pp. 189-208.
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Fishman, A.Y. and Spiegel, S. (2008), “When does high procedural
fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes? The moderating effect of
prevention focus”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 187-200.
Brooke, P.P., Russell, D.W. and Price, J.L. (1988), “Discriminant validation of measures of job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 139-45.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 136-62.
Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2003), “The commitment and satisfaction of lower-ranked
police officers”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 26, pp. 43-63.
Chan, J. (1996), “Changing police culture”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 109-34.
PIJPSM Cherniss, C. (1980), Professional Burnout in Human Service Organizations, Praeger Publishers,
New York, NY.
35,2
Cheung, C. and Kwok, S. (1998), “Social studies and ideological beliefs in mainland China and
Hong Kong”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 2, pp. 217-36.
Chou, R.J.A. (2009), “Organizational justice and turnover intention: a study of direct care workers
in assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States”, Social Development Issues,
418 Vol. 31, pp. 69-85.
Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J. and Roman, P. (2005), “Organizational justice and job satisfaction:
a test of three competing models”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 18, pp. 391-409.
Clegg, S. and Dunkerley, D. (1980), Organization, Class, and Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 425-45.
Conlon, D.E. (1993), “Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of procedural justice:
evidence from an organizational appeal procedure”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36, pp. 1109-24.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New York attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need nonfulfillment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
Cowper, T.J. (2000), “The myth of the ‘military model’ of leadership in law enforcement”, Police
Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 228-46.
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (1992), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their
Jobs And How It Affects Their Performance, Lexington, New York, NY.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through
the maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-72.
Currie, P. and Dollery, B. (2006), “Organizational commitment and perceived organizational
support in the NSW police”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
& Management, Vol. 29, pp. 741-56.
Do, Y. (2002), “A study of the relationship among organizational justice, organizational culture,
individual characteristics, and supervisor trust as the determinants of organizational
effectiveness”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Baejae University, Seoul.
Dowden, C. and Tellier, C. (2004), “Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 32, pp. 1-47.
Elangovan, A.R. (2001), “Causal ordering of stress, satisfaction and commitment, and intention to
quit: a structural equations analysis”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 22, pp. 159-65.
Farmer, S.J., Beehr, T.A. and Love, K.G. (2003), “Becoming an undercover police officer: a note on
fairness perceptions, behavior, and attitudes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 373-88.
Farrell, D. and Stamm, C.L. (1988), “Meta-analysis of the correlates of employee absence”, Human
Relations, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 211-27.
Ford, J.K., Weissbein, D.A. and Plamondon, K.E. (2003), “Distinguishing organizational from Organizational
strategy commitment: linking officers’ commitment to community policing to job
behaviors and satisfaction”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 159-85.
justice and
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable commitment
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Franz, V. and Jones, D.M. (1987), “Perceptions of organizational performance in suburban police
departments: a critique of the military model”, Journal of Police Science and 419
Administration, Vol. 15, pp. 153-61.
Gau, J.M. (2010), “Basic principles and practices of structural equation modeling in criminal
justice and criminology research”, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 136-51.
Griffin, M.L. and Hepburn, J. (2005), “Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational
commitment among correctional officers”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 33, pp. 611-25.
Griffin, M.L., Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E.G., Tucker-Gail, K.A. and Baker, D.N. (2010), “Job
involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout
of correctional staff”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 239-55.
Haarr, R. (1997), “They’re making a bad name for the department: exploring the link between
organizational commitment and police occupational deviance in a police patrol bureau”,
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 786-802.
Han, G. and Choe, S. (1994), “Effect of family, region, and school network ties to interpersonal
intentions and the analysis of network activities in Korea”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C.,
Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism, Sage, Park, CA,
pp. 1-53.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6,
pp. 1-55.
Hwang, E. (2008), “Determinants of job satisfaction among South Korean police officers: the effect
of urbanization in a rapidly developing nation”, Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 694-714.
Jaramillo, F., Nixon, R. and Sams, D. (2005), “The effects of law enforcement stress on
organizational commitment”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
& Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 321-36.
Jones, F. (1998), “Pay procedures and voluntary turnover: does procedural justice matter?”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 83, pp. 475-82.
Joo, J. (2007), “A study about the influence of police officers’ perception of performance evaluation
justice on organizational effectiveness”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Dongguk
University, Seoul.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the
SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
Judge, T.A. and Colquitt, J.A. (2004), “Organizational justice and stress: the mediating role of
work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 395-404.
Jung, H. (2002), “Influence of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on trust toward
supervisor, perception about organization, and organizational citizenship behavior”,
unpublished PhD dissertation, Jeonnam University, Kwangju.
PIJPSM Kemery, E.R., Bedeian, A.G. and Zacur, S.R. (1996), “Expectancy-based job cognitions and job
affect as predictors of organizational citizen behaviors”, Journal of Applied Social
35,2 Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 635-51.
Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), “Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance”, Journal Applied Psychology, Vol. 76,
pp. 698-707.
420 Kwong, J.Y. and Leung, K. (2002), “A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and
outcome favourability: importance of the relationship”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 87, pp. 278-300.
Lambert, E.G. (2003), “The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff”, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 31, pp. 155-68.
Lambert, E.G. (2007), “A test of a turnover intent model: the issue of correctional staff satisfaction
and commitment”, in Duffee, D.E. and Maguire, E.R. (Eds), Criminal Justice Theory:
Explaining the Nature and Behavior of Criminal Justice, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 223-56.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N.L. and Griffin, M.L. (2007), “The impact of distributive and procedural
justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment”,
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35, pp. 644-56.
Lee, C.H. and Moon, J.S. (2010), “Effects of officers’ cynicism and their perception of managerial
leadership on COP activities among South Korean police officers”, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, (forthcoming).
Lee, C.H., Kim, J.M. and Kim, J.G. (2010), “Officer’s perception of organizational arrangements
and preventive policing practice: an open-system approach to South Korean police
department”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 410-30.
Lee, J. (2002), “Influence of distributive justice and procedural justice on organizational
effectiveness: an examination of incentives for government employees”, unpublished PhD
dissertation, Sejong University, Seoul.
Leng, K., Su, S. and Morris, M.W. (2001), “When criticism is not constructive: a cross-cultural
investigation of responses to supervisory feedback as function of interactional justice”,
Human Relations, Vol. 54, pp. 1155-87.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Lincoln, J. and Kalleberg, A. (1990), Culture, Control and Commitment: A Study of Work
Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York,
NY.
Lines, R. (2005), “The structure and function of attitudes toward organizational change”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, pp. 8-32.
Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M.E. and Myyry, L. (2004), “Personal value orientation as a moderator in
the relationships between perceived organizational justice and its hypothesized
consequences”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 17, pp. 275-92.
Loi, R., Yang, J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), “Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction:
a multilevel investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 770-81.
McConkey, K.M., Huon, G.F. and Frank, M.G. (1996), Practical Ethics in the Police Service: Ethics Organizational
and Policing, Report Series 125.3, National Police Research Unit, Adelaide.
justice and
McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.H. (2002), “Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7, pp. 64-82. commitment
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Grayson, D. (2005), “Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation
modeling”, in Maydeu-Olivares, A. and McArdle, J. (Eds), Psychometrics. A Festschrift to
Roderick P. McDonald, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 421
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T. and Wen, Z. (2004), “In search of golden rules: comment on
hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11,
pp. 320-41.
Martelli, T.A., Waters, L.K. and Martelli, J. (1989), “The police stress survey: reliability and
relation to job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 64,
pp. 267-73.
Martinussen, M., Richardsen, A.M. and Burke, R.J. (2007), “Job demands, job resources, and
burnout among police officers”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35, pp. 239-49.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,
pp. 171-94.
Meyer, J., Allen, N. and Smith, C. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
an extension and test of the three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J., Paunonen, S., Gellatly, I., Goffin, R. and Jackson, D. (1989), “Organizational
commitment and job performance: it’s the nature of commitment that counts”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 152-6.
Moon, B. (2006), “The influence of organizational socialization on police officers’ acceptance of
community policing”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies
& Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 704-22.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-55.
Morash, M., Kwak, D., Hoffman, V., Lee, C., Cho, S.H. and Moon, B. (2008), “Stressors, coping
resources and strategies, and police stress in South Korea”, Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 36, pp. 231-9.
Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-Organizational Linkage: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.
Muchinsky, P.M. (2008), Psychology Applied to Work: An Introduction to Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Hypergraphic Press, Summerfield, NC.
Mueller, C.W., Iverson, R.D. and Jo, D. (1999), “Distributive justice evaluations in two cultural
contexts: a comparison of US and South Korean teachers”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 7,
pp. 869-93.
Nickels, E.L. and Verma, A. (2008), “Dimensions of police culture: a study in Canada, India, and
Japan”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 186-209.
PIJPSM O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
35,2 behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Pelfrey, W.V. Jr (2004), “The inchoate nature of community policing: examining the differences
between community policing and traditional police officers”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 21,
pp. 579-601.
422 Pelfrey, W.V. Jr (2007), “Style of policing adopted by rural police and deputies: an analysis of job
satisfaction and community policing”, Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, Vol. 30, pp. 620-36.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Shin, H. and Jang, K. (2003), “A research for problems in police patrol division system activity”,
Korea and German Social Science Collection of Treatises, Vol. 13, pp. 259-80.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43.
Skitka, L.J. (2003), “Of different minds: an accessible identity approach to why and how people
think about justice”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7, pp. 286-97.
Somers, M.J. (1995), “Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: an examination of
direct and interaction effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 49-58.
Spector, P.E. (1996), Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice, John Wiley,
New York, NY.
Taxman, F.S. and Gordon, J.A. (2009), “Do fairness and equity matter? An examination of
organizational justice among correctional officers in adult prisons”, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 695-711.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 259-93.
Tyler, T. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Tyler, T.R. (1987), “Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural
justice: a test of four models”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 333-44.
Van Maanen, J. (1975), “Police socialization: a longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an
urban police department”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 207-28.
Waddington, P. (1999), “Police (canteen) sub-culture: an appreciation”, British Journal of
Criminology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 287-309.
Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T. (1986), “Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and
commitment in turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation
methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 219-31.
Witt, L. (1990), “Person-situation effects and sex differences in the prediction of social
responsibility”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 130, pp. 543-53.
Wycoff, M. and Skogan, W. (1994), “The effect of a community policing management style on Organizational
officers’ attitudes”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 40, pp. 371-83.
Yoon, J. and Lim, J. (1999), “Organizational support in the work place: the case of Korean hospital
justice and
employees”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 923-45. commitment

Further reading
Lee, Y. (2002), “A cross-national comparative study of police: criminal investigative policies and 423
practices in the US and South Korea”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

About the authors

Matthew S. Crow, PhD, is Associate Professor and Assistant Director in the School of Justice
Studies and Social Work at the University of West Florida. He received his PhD from Florida
State University. His primary research interests include sentencing policy, criminal justice
theory, policing in an environmental context, and police use of force. Dr Crow’s recent
publications have appeared in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, Women & Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, Criminal Justice Review,
and American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Chang-Bae Lee, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Police Science,
University of Ulsan, South Korea. His current research interests include organizational
commitment of police officers, a longitudinal study of recidivism for offenders charged with
driving while intoxicated, and incarcerated fathers’ perceptions about their children. His recent
works appeared in American Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Drug Issues, Journal of Social
Work in Public Health, and Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.
Chang-Bae Lee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: changbaelee@ulsan.ac.kr
Jae-Jin Joo, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Police, Law, and Public
Administration at the Honam University, South Korea. His current research interests include
police officers’ perception, trust, and organizational behaviors.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints