Social Justice Research, Vol. 17, No.

3, September 2004 (

C 2004)

Uncertainty, Fairness Perceptions, and Job

Satisfaction: A Field Study
Kristina A. Diekmann,1,3 Zoe I. Barsness,2 and Harris Sondak1

Following uncertainty management theory, we argue that when people face in-
creased uncertainty, fairness becomes more important to them and judgments of
fairness affect their reactions more strongly. The organizational field study re-
ported here examines the effects of uncertainty about performance standards and
appropriate behaviors on the relationship between fairness and job satisfaction.
Results reveal that uncertainty moderates the positive relationship between fair-
ness perceptions and job satisfaction such that the more uncertain people are about
performance standards and appropriate behaviors, the stronger the relationship
between fairness and job satisfaction. Further results reveal a significant moderat-
ing effect of uncertainty specifically for procedural fairness and interactional fair-
ness. We discuss the implications of our findings for the uncertainty management
model.
KEY WORDS: fairness; uncertainty; job satisfaction.

. . . fairness and uncertainty are so closely linked that it is in fact

impossible to understand the role of one of these concepts in organi-
zational psychology without reference to the other.
Lind and Van den Bos, 2002, p. 181

The crucial link between fairness and uncertainty has been recently artic-
ulated in a new model of fairness—the uncertainty management model (Lind
1 Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2 Universityof Washington, Tacoma, Washington.
3 All correspondence should be addressed to Kristina Diekmann, David Eccles School of
Business, University of Utah, 1645 E. Campus Center Dr., Salt Lake City, Utah 84112; e-mail:
diekmann@business.utah.edu.

237
0885-7466/04/0900-0237/0

C 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation
238 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

and Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). Previous research has
shown that fairness (i.e., fair procedures, fair interpersonal treatment, and fair out-
comes) is a critical factor influencing a wide range of employees’ attitudes, such
as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to stay, and that it
promotes useful behavior such as organizational citizenship behavior (Masterson
et al., 2000; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Tyler and Blader, 2000). The uncer-
tainty management model claims that these effects may depend on the degree of
uncertainty the individual faces (see Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos
and Lind, 2002). While recent experimental research has examined this assertion
by manipulating whether uncertainty is made salient and has found that uncer-
tainty moderates the effects of procedural fairness on individual’s reactions (e.g.,
positive and negative affect and outcome satisfaction), there is little evidence that
these same processes occur in real organizational settings. Furthermore, it has
been argued that these moderating effects should occur for all forms of fairness
(i.e., procedural, interactional, and distributive fairness), but this claim has not
been empirically tested.
In this paper, we tested the predictions of the uncertainty management
model by means of a field study and examined how uncertainty affects the
relationship between fairness perceptions and job satisfaction in a real organi-
zation. We focused on uncertainty concerning performance standards and ap-
propriate behaviors, which we argue is especially relevant for fairness percep-
tions in contemporary organizations. We examined, in particular, whether in-
creased uncertainty accentuates overall fairness such that when individuals per-
ceive greater uncertainty concerning performance standards and appropriate be-
haviors, the positive relationship between individuals’ overall fairness percep-
tions and job satisfaction is stronger. We also examined this same process for
the three separate forms of fairness (procedural, interactional, and distributive
fairness).
This research contributes in several important ways to a greater under-
standing of fairness in relation to organizational behavior. First, it contributes
to the psychology of fairness by illustrating the important role that uncertainty
plays. Specifically, this research supports the uncertainty management model,
which claims that uncertainty makes fairness more important and that fairness
is a means through which individuals manage uncertainty (Lind and Van den
Bos, 2002; Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). Furthermore, this research exam-
ines the claims of the uncertainty management model, that the moderating ef-
fects of uncertainty occur for all facet of fairness, (including procedural, in-
teractional, and distributive fairness), and the reasons previously articulated for
why managing uncertainty is important and for why uncertainty moderates fair-
ness. Moreover, we examine a specific form of uncertainty that is particularly
relevant to fairness perceptions in organizations—uncertainty concerning per-
formance standards and appropriate behaviors—as opposed to the general state
Uncertainty and Fairness 239

of being uncertain, in its broadest sense, which has been the focus of previ-
ous research (see Van den Bos and Lind, 2002); this study thereby contributes
more broadly to the literature that examines the various ways people man-
age organizationally-relevant uncertainty in organizational settings (Ashford and
Cummings, 1983; Kramer, 2001). Finally, this research validates and extends the
previous experimental research on uncertainty management to the field and to a real
organization.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIRNESS

Numerous studies have shown that fairness has positive effects in organiza-
tions. For example, fairness is an important factor in determining: how employees
react to layoffs (Brockner et al., 1992; Brockner and Greenberg, 1990; Konovsky
and Folger, 1991); whether employees accept assigned tasks and goals and vol-
untarily comply with supervisor instructions (Earley and Lind, 1987; Tyler and
Lind, 1992); how satisfied employees are and how committed they are to the
organization (Huo et al., 1996; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992); and the extent to
which employees engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Masterson et al.,
2000; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Tyler, 1999). In short, fair-
ness (whether fair process, fair interpersonal treatment, or fair outcomes) tends
to be positively associated with important work-related attitudes and behaviors in
organizations.

THE ROLE OF UNCERTAINTY

While there are numerous empirical studies showing strong fairness effects,
other recent studies have identified social contextual factors that may strengthen or
weaken the relationship between fairness and attitudinal or behavioral reactions.
Studies of fairness heuristic theory and the newly developed uncertainty manage-
ment model of fairness, for instance, identify factors associated with uncertainty
that moderate the effects of fairness (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). Uncertainty
arises whenever a person is unable to predict the future or there is an incon-
sistency between different cognitions, cognitions and experiences, or cognitions
and behavior (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). While previous models of fairness
(including the group value model, the relational model of authority, and fairness
heuristic theory) have uncertainty implicit in them, the uncertainty management
model makes explicit the role of uncertainty (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Van
den Bos and Lind, 2002). This model claims that managing uncertainty, in its
most general sense, is a basic human motive and that the primary function of
fairness may be to provide individuals a way to manage uncertainty (Lind and Van
240 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

den Bos, 2002). The uncertainty management model builds on both instrumental
(Thibaut and Walker, 1975) and group value (Tyler and Lind, 1992) approaches
to fairness and suggests that fairness helps people manage uncertainty because it
both reassures them that they can expect to receive good outcomes and because it
reduces their anxiety about being excluded from or exploited by their groups or
organizations (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002).
Recent empirical findings suggest that uncertainty is indeed important for the
psychology of procedural fairness in particular. Van den Bos and his colleagues
conducted several laboratory experiments, manipulating procedural fairness (typ-
ically by giving participants voice opportunities or not) and some element of
uncertainty. For example, Van den Bos et al. (1998a) found weaker effects on sat-
isfaction for procedural fairness when participants had explicit information about
the trustworthiness of an authority than when participants did not know whether
they could trust the authority. Similarly, Van den Bos et al. (2002) found in a study
of parents’ attitudes toward their children’s daycare center that perceptions of
procedural fairness had a stronger effect on parents’ perceptions of the reliability
of the daycare center when they were uncertain about whether or not they could
trust the daycare center. In another laboratory study, Van den Bos et al. (1998b)
found that the presence of social comparison information affected the degree to
which fair or unfair procedures influenced individuals’ satisfaction with outcomes.
When participants had information comparing their outcomes to those received
by others, they were less affected by procedural fairness than when they had other
information such as how their outcomes compared to their own expectations. Van
den Bos and colleagues argue that people do not need and are less affected by
procedural fairness when they can compare their outcomes to those of others or
know that they can trust the authority.
Van den Bos and colleagues have examined uncertainty even more explicitly
in two recent papers by examining factors that increase its salience. In line with the
uncertainty management model, they propose that people especially need fairness
when they are uncertain about things that are important to them. Van den Bos and
Miedema (2000) manipulated mortality salience (by having people think about
their own deaths), which they argue is a basic kind of human uncertainty. Their
results reveal that people have stronger affective reactions to fair versus unfair
procedures when their mortality is highly salient. Van den Bos (2001) manipulated
uncertainty salience more directly by asking people to think about issues related to
uncertainties in their lives. He found that making uncertainty salient led to stronger
effects of procedural fairness on affective reactions than when uncertainty was not
made salient. Van den Bos (2001) concludes that when people are uncertain, they
especially need fairness and that fairness helps people manage their uncertainty.
While these examples focus primarily on procedural fairness, the uncertainty
management model clearly asserts that uncertainty should moderate not just the
effects of procedural fairness, but effects of all three forms of fairness (procedural,
Uncertainty and Fairness 241

interactional, and distributive fairness). According to Lind and Van den Bos (2002),
“it is not just the belief that one has encountered fair procedures, nor just fair
interactional experiences, nor just receiving fair outcomes, but instead a global
impression of fair treatment based on information from procedures, interactions,
and outcomes that is the key to managing uncertainty” (p. 196). They further
suggest that perceptions of any one of these three dimensions of fairness alone
could generate a global impression of fair treatment, which could then be used to
manage uncertainty.
While previous experimental research has provided numerous examples
where the effects of procedural fairness are stronger under various conditions
of uncertainty, we argue that additional research is needed, particularly for un-
derstanding these processes in organizational settings and for understanding these
processes when examining all three forms of fairness. With the exception of
the study of parents’ perceptions and attitudes conducted in a daycare center
by Van den Bos and colleagues (2002), previous studies of the moderating
effects of uncertainty were laboratory experiments that focused on procedu-
ral fairness under conditions in which the fairness of procedures was manipu-
lated (e.g., whether or not participants had voice in decision making), as were
factors affecting perceived uncertainty. While experimental control is impor-
tant for establishing causality and understanding basic psychological processes,
we believe that it is also important to study these processes in real organiza-
tional settings by examining the effects of uncertainty and procedural, interac-
tional, and distributive fairness on important attitudinal reactions by employees in
organizations.
In addition, previous researchers who have examined the moderating effects
of uncertainty (Van den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos and Miedema, 2000) have often
examined a very abstract, general conception of uncertainty (e.g., subjects were
instructed to “think about things in your life that make you uncertain”). Indeed,
they have examined uncertainty in its broadest sense, defined as the inability to
predict the future or a high degree of inconsistency among different cognitions,
experiences, and behaviors (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002). We believe that it is
also important to consider specific, organizationally relevant types of uncertainty.
Uncertainty about performance standards and appropriate behaviors may be par-
ticularly pertinent in organizations because there is often uncertainty about both
the appropriateness of specific behaviors and about how goal-directed behavior
will be evaluated and rewarded by others (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). For ex-
ample, a new assistant professor concerned with achieving tenure may be uncertain
about the standards by which he or she will be evaluated and whether to focus
exclusively on conducting research and writing papers or on improving teach-
ing and attending departmental seminars and meetings. Being uncertain about
performance standards and appropriate behaviors has been shown to have im-
portant effects on individuals’ work-related attitudes and behaviors including job
242 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

satisfaction, psychological strain, and turnover intentions (O’Driscoll and Beehr,

1994).
Furthermore, the changing nature of work, as organizations shift from
production-based to knowledge-based markets in which value creation depends in-
creasingly on information management, ideas, and innovation (Kim and
Mauborgne, 2003; Stewart, 1998), may make this form of uncertainty particularly
salient. Knowledge creation and sharing are important activities that are difficult
to supervise and cannot be forced; thus organizations in many industries rely in-
creasingly on employees’ voluntary contributions (Davenport, 1999; Pfeffer, 1994;
Stewart, 1998). Given the lack of clearly identifiable and replicable work processes
in knowledge-based organizations and the inherent difficulty associated with mea-
suring knowledge-based work products (Davenport, 1999; Stewart, 1998), work-
ers today may frequently experience uncertainty about performance standards and
appropriate behaviors and work strategies. We therefore believe that this type of
uncertainty is especially relevant to contemporary organizations.
In the current organizational field study, we attempt to address the limitations
of previous research by examining the moderating effect of uncertainty about
performance standards and appropriate behaviors on the relationship between
fairness (including procedural, interactional, and distributive fairness) and job
satisfaction. We focus on job satisfaction for several reasons. Job satisfaction
is clearly a relevant and important work-related attitude (Pfeffer, 1994). It is
significantly correlated with a wide range of other work-related attitudes and
behaviors that are important to organizations (Brooke et al., 1988), and it is
positively related to fairness perceptions (Colquitt et al., 2001; Huo et al., 1996;
Masterson et al., 2000; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). Job satisfaction is of interest
to scholars and practitioners because of its relevance to managerial effectiveness
and the experience of individuals working in organizational contexts.
Following and building on the work of Van den Bos and colleagues, we
propose that uncertainty concerning performance standards and appropriate be-
haviors moderates the positive relationship between fairness and job satisfaction.
We expect that as uncertainty increases so does the importance of fairness in
encouraging this positive work-related attitude.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

This study was conducted at an internet retailing firm headquartered in the

southwestern United States. All members of the organization (N = 148) received a
general workplace survey. Supervisors were also asked to evaluate the performance
of their direct reports. Participation in the study was voluntary and confidential.
The response rate for the general workplace survey was 66% (N = 98) and for the
Uncertainty and Fairness 243

supervisor survey the response rate was 83% (N = 29). We collected complete
data from 91 pairs of subordinates and their immediate supervisors. Demographic
data were obtained from organizational records. Average age among respondents
was 33.2 years old (SD = 8.74). Sixty-nine percent of the respondents were fe-
male. The average length of organizational tenure was 0.73 years (SD = 0.87)
and 18% (SD = 0.38) of respondents had experienced a job change. An examina-
tion of company statistics for the work force as a whole indicated no significant
differences between respondents and nonrespondents on any of the demographic
variables included in the study.

Measures

Uncertainty

We measured uncertainty concerning performance standards and appropriate

behaviors (Ashford, 1986; Ashford and Cummings, 1983). To measure uncertainty,
we used a slightly shortened version of Ashford’s (1986) scale, which included
the following 3 items: “It is unclear to me exactly what I should do in order to
perform my job better”; “I really get little useful information about performance
standards within my department”; and “People around here give pretty consistent
information about what we can do to perform better in our jobs” (reverse-scored)
(α = 0.78). The items for uncertainty ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). A high score therefore indicated that the individual experienced
a high level of uncertainty.

Fairness Measure

Given the claims of the uncertainty management model that the moderating
effects of uncertainty should hold for an overall impression of fair treatment based
on the fairness of formal procedures, interpersonal treatment, and outcomes (Lind
and Van den Bos, 2002), we used a composite measure of fairness that included
procedural fairness, interactional fairness, and distributive fairness. Procedural
fairness refers to the perceived fairness of the processes by which decisions
are made, including formal policies and procedures. Seven items were drawn
from Folger and Konovsky (1989) and assessed the key elements identified by
Leventhal (1980) and Leventhal et al. (1980), including items such as: “There
are procedures currently in place at [the firm] that allow employees the chance
to have ‘a say’ and express their concerns regarding company decisions.” In-
teractional fairness refers to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment received
(typically from the supervisor). Six items assessed respondents’ perceptions of
the interpersonal treatment by their supervisor. These items were developed by
244 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

Moorman (1991) and included items such as “My supervisor treats me with kind-
ness and consideration.” Distributive fairness refers to the fairness of outcomes
received. Three items, adopted from Skarlicki and Folger (1997), assessed re-
spondents’ perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes they received at work and
included items such as “The overall pay I receive is fair.” All the fairness items
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We averaged the 16 items
into a single overall fairness scale (α = 0.94). A high score on the scale indicated
stronger perceptions of fairness. We also created three fairness subscales, which
included procedural (α = 0.91), interactional (α = 0.91), and distributive fairness
(α = 0.85) respectively.

Job Satisfaction

We adopted a 3-item scale from the Index of Organizational Reactions

(Dunham and Smith, 1979) to measure job satisfaction. This scale included items
such as “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” (α = 0.82). The items on this scale
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A high score on this scale
indicated greater job satisfaction.

Control Variables

We included respondents’ age, sex (male coded as 1), and organizational

tenure in the analyses to control for potential demographic effects that have been
shown to be associated with job satisfaction (Brockner and Adsit, 1986; Riordan
and Shore, 1997; Tsui et al., 1992; Turban and Jones, 1988). We also included job
change as a control variable, because job change is related to uncertainty (Feldman
and Brett, 1983) and has the potential to affect work-related attitudes. Any job
change since joining the organization was coded as 1 while no job change was
coded as 0.
Finally, we included job performance (as evaluated by the supervisor) as an
additional control variable. Some psychological models of fairness include ac-
tual outcomes as an alternative predictor of work-related attitudes and reactions
(McFarlin and Sweeny, 1992; Tyler, 1989). Because truly objective measures of
performance were unavailable, we relied on supervisory ratings to measure job
performance. We asked supervisors to evaluate their direct subordinates’ perfor-
mance, using Wayne and Liden’s (1995) 4-item scale, which included items such
as “How would you rate the overall level of performance that you observe for this
subordinate?” (α = 0.95). Items on this scale ranged from 1 (unacceptable/very
ineffective) to 6 (outstanding/very effective). A high score therefore indicated
better job performance. As many researchers have noted, “the vast majority of
performance ratings come directly from the immediate supervisor” (Bretz et al.,
1992, p. 331; see also Scullen et al., 2000). Supervisory ratings are considered to
Uncertainty and Fairness 245

be valid reflections of actual performance (Arvey and Murphy, 1998) and are thus
likely to be positively correlated with outcomes such as compensation (Kiker and
Motowidlo, 1999).

RESULTS

Table I provides the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among

the key variables. To assess the effects of uncertainty and fairness on work-related
attitudes and behaviors, we used hierarchical regression analysis, with predictor
variables entered in the following order for each regression: (1) control variables,
(2) main effects, and (3) interaction effects. To correct for the multicollinearity
that arises when testing moderated relationships among continuous variables, we
centered each of the independent variables by subtracting the sample mean from
each variable before generating interaction terms (Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen
and Cohen, 1983). The resulting adjusted variables each have a mean of zero, but
their sample distribution remains unchanged.
Table II presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses testing
the moderating effects of uncertainty on the relationship between overall fairness
and job satisfaction. We predicted that uncertainty would moderate the positive
relationship between fairness and job satisfaction so that higher uncertainty would
increase the importance of fairness. Results reveal that overall fairness was pos-
itively associated with job satisfaction (see Model 2, Table II). Furthermore, un-
certainty was found to moderate the relationship between overall fairness and job
satisfaction. The interaction term for uncertainty and overall fairness was positive
and significant, as were the Change and Overall F statistics for the full model (see
Model 3, Table II). To interpret the interaction between uncertainty and overall
fairness, we calculated estimated values of the dependent variable (job satisfac-
tion) based on the values of the independent variables (uncertainty and overall
fairness) found at one standard deviation below the centered mean (low) and at
one standard deviation above the centered mean (high) (see Fig. 1). As expected,
when individuals experienced high uncertainty compared to low uncertainty, the
relationship between overall fairness and job satisfaction was stronger.
To investigate further the interaction of uncertainty and fairness on job sat-
isfaction, and to test the assertion of the uncertainty management model that all
three dimensions of fairness (procedural, interactional, and distributive fairness)
should show the same pattern of results, we conducted three separate regression
analyses, one for each type of fairness. Table III presents the results of the hi-
erarchical regression analyses testing the moderating effects of uncertainty on
the relationships between procedural fairness, interactional fairness, distributive
fairness, and job satisfaction.
Results for procedural fairness reveal that procedural fairness was positively
associated with job satisfaction (see Model 2, Table III). Furthermore, uncertainty
 246

Table I. Summary Statistics, Correlations, and Scale Reliabilitiesa

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Age 33.21 8.74 —

2. Sex 0.31 0.46 −0.13 —
3. Organizational tenure 0.73 0.87 0.11 −0.08 —
4. Job change 0.18 0.38 0.11 −0.12 0.60∗∗∗ —
5. Job performance 4.77 0.97 0.14 −0.19 −0.20∗ −0.11 (0.95)
6. Uncertainty 2.74 0.96 −0.06 −0.12 0.10 0.23∗ −0.26∗∗ (0.78)
7. Overall fairness 3.57 0.78 −0.04 0.14 −0.32∗∗ −0.16 0.35∗∗∗ −0.61∗∗∗ (0.94)
8. Procedural fairness 3.34 0.85 −0.08 0.21∗ −0.32 ∗∗ −0.22∗ 0.20∗ −0.52∗∗∗ 0.88∗∗∗ (0.91)
9. Interactional fairness 3.86 0.88 0.03 0.06 −0.20∗ −0.04 0.44∗∗∗ −0.59∗∗∗ 0.87∗∗∗ 0.60∗∗∗ (0.91)
10. Distributive fairness 3.53 1.12 −0.05 0.08 −0.29∗∗ −0.16 0.27∗∗ −0.45∗∗∗ 0.80∗∗∗ 0.57∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ (0.85)
11. Job satisfaction 4.34 0.68 −0.03 0.03 −0.01 0.01 0.32∗∗∗ −0.49∗∗∗ 0.69∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗∗ 0.69∗∗∗ 0.55∗∗∗ (0.82)

Note. All tests of variables are two-tailed (N = 91).

a Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) in parentheses.
∗ p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.001.
Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak
Uncertainty and Fairness 247

Table II. Results of Regression Analysis of Job Satisfaction on Overall Fairness

and Uncertaintya
1 2 3

Control variables
Age −0.09 −0.06 −0.03
Sex 0.09 −0.05 −0.04
Organizational tenure 0.05 0.22∗ 0.28∗∗
Job change 0.03 0.02 −0.02
Job performance 0.37∗∗∗ 0.11 0.11
Main effects
Uncertainty −0.08 −0.10
Fairness 0.67∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗
Interaction Effects
Uncertainty × fairness 0.24∗∗
Model F 2.40∗ 13.32∗∗∗ 14.13∗∗∗
F 35.67∗∗∗ 9.79∗∗
R2 0.13 0.53 0.58
R 2 0.41 0.05
Adjusted R 2 0.07 0.49 0.54

Note. All tests of variables are two-tailed.

a Beta coefficients are standardized. N = 91.
∗ p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.001.

was found to moderate the relationship between procedural fairness and job satis-
faction. The interaction term for uncertainty and procedural fairness was positive
and significant as were the Change and Overall F statistics for the full model (see
Model 3, Table III). Again, to interpret this interaction we calculated estimated
values of the dependent variable based on the values of the independent variables
found at one standard deviation below the centered mean (low) and at one standard

Fig. 1. The interactive effects of overall fairness and uncertainty on job satisfaction.
 248

Table III. Results of Regression Analyses of Job Satisfaction on Procedural, Interactional, and Distributive Fairness and Uncertaintya
Controls Procedural fairness Interactional fairness Distributive fairness
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Control Variables
Age −0.09 −0.08 −0.06 −0.08 −0.07 −0.07 −0.05
Sex 0.09 −0.04 −0.03 −0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.00
Organizational tenure 0.05 0.13 0.22∗ 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.14
Job change 0.03 0.11 0.08 −0.02 −0.05 0.10 0.10
Job performance 0.37∗∗∗ 0.21∗ 0.22∗∗ 0.06 0.07 0.18∗ 0.18∗
Main Effects
Uncertainty −0.26∗∗ −0.25∗ −0.13 −0.16 −0.30∗∗ −0.31∗∗
Fairness 0.42∗∗∗ 0.45∗∗∗ 0.62∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗∗ 0.41∗∗∗ −0.01
Interaction Effects
Uncertainty × fairness 0.25∗∗ 0.20∗ 0.44
Model F 2.40∗ 8.34∗∗∗ 9.05∗∗∗ 11.90∗∗∗ 11.66∗∗∗ 8.70∗∗∗ 8.08∗∗∗
F 20.43∗∗∗ 8.59∗∗ 31.32∗∗∗ 5.48∗ 21.52∗∗∗ 2.56
R2 0.13 0.42 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.43 0.44
R 2 0.29 0.06 0.38 0.03 0.30 0.02
Adjusted R 2 0.07 0.37 0.42 0.46 0.49 0.38 0.39

Note. All tests of variables are two-tailed.

a Beta coefficients are standardized. N = 91.
∗ p ≤ 0.05; ∗∗ p ≤ 0.01; ∗∗∗ p ≤ 0.001.
Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak
Uncertainty and Fairness 249

Fig. 2. The interactive effects of procedural fairness and uncertainty on job satisfaction.

deviation above the centered mean (high). As seen in Fig. 2, the relationship be-
tween procedural fairness and job satisfaction was stronger under high uncertainty
than under low uncertainty.
Results for interactional fairness also reveal that interactional fairness was
positively related to job satisfaction (see Model 4, Table III). Again, uncertainty
was found to moderate the relationship between interactional fairness and job
satisfaction. The interaction term for uncertainty and interactional fairness was
positive and significant as were the Change and Overall F statistics for the full
model (see Model 5, Table III). As above, we calculated estimated values of
the dependent variable based on the values of the independent variables found
at one standard deviation below the centered mean (low) and at one standard
deviation above the centered mean (high) (see Fig. 3). As with procedural fairness,
when individuals experienced high uncertainty compared to low uncertainty, the
relationship between interactional fairness and job satisfaction was stronger.
Finally, results for distributive fairness reveal that it was positively associated
with job satisfaction (see Model 6, Table III). However, in contrast with the other
two forms of fairness, uncertainty did not appear to moderate the relationship
between distributive fairness and job satisfaction, though the pattern of results
is similar. Neither the regression weight for the interaction term, nor the model
Change F were significant; β = 0.44, p = 0.11, Change F = 2.56, p = 0.11 (see
Model 7, Table III).

DISCUSSION

Our findings reveal that uncertainty concerning performance standards and

appropriate behaviors moderates the relationship between an aggregated notion
250 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

Fig. 3. The interactive effects of interactional fairness and uncertainty on job satisfaction.

of fairness and job satisfaction as well as relations between both procedural and
interactional fairness and job satisfaction. In general, the more uncertain individ-
uals were in this study, the stronger the relationship between fairness perceptions
and job satisfaction.
These findings support the claims of the uncertainty management model that
people care more about fairness when they are uncertain about things that are
important to them, as when they are uncertain about performance standards and
appropriate behaviors. These findings are consistent with previous experimental
research that has focused on procedural fairness and has found that people are
more strongly influenced by procedural fairness when they are uncertain about
whether or not they can trust an authority (Van den Bos et al., 1998a, 2002),
about how their outcomes compare to those of others (Van den Bos, 1998b), and
whether uncertainty in general is made salient (Van den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos
and Miedema, 2000). Although our data are cross-sectional in nature, our results,
in conjunction with similar results from previous controlled experimental studies,
are consistent and compelling.
The uncertainty management model suggests that perceptions of any one
of the three elements of fairness alone could generate a global impression of fair
treatment, which could then be used to manage uncertainty (Lind and Van den Bos,
2002); our results suggest this clearly to be the case for procedural and interactional
fairness. While distributive fairness was directly and positively related to job
satisfaction, the interaction with uncertainty was not significant. It may be the
case, therefore, that by asserting that uncertainty moderates the effect of all three
types of fairness on attitudes and behaviors, uncertainty management scholars are
overemphasizing the role of individuals’ instrumental concerns as an underlying
Uncertainty and Fairness 251

psychological explanation. To the extent that people care about fairness in the
face of uncertainty primarily because of concern for future outcomes, it seems
that uncertainty would moderate the effects of distributive fairness. In contrast, it
may be that uncertainty heightens even more individuals’ insecurity about group
membership and status—another underlying psychological explanation identified
in the uncertainty management model—and procedural and interactional fairness
help assuage those concerns.
The notion that it is procedural and interactional fairness in particular which
help people manage uncertainty is consistent with the subjective uncertainty re-
duction model of social identity processes (Hogg and Mullin, 1999; Jetten et al.,
2000), and by extension, the group value model of fairness (Lind and Tyler,
1988; Tyler and Blader, 2000). According to the uncertainty reduction model,
uncertainty drives people to affiliate and identify with a group as a means to
reduce this uncertainty. According to the group value model, people care about
their membership in groups and are very attentive to information, such as pro-
cedural and interactional fairness, which communicates information about their
position and identity in the group. Taken together, the more uncertainty one ex-
periences, the more one identifies with the group, and therefore the more proce-
dural and interactional fairness matter because it communicates identity-relevant
information.
Our findings of a clear moderating effect for uncertainty on the procedural and
interactional fairness-job satisfaction relationships, but less clear moderation of the
distributive fairness-job satisfaction relationship, suggest an important focus for
future research. The implications of these findings for the uncertainty management
model advise a closer examination of the processes underlying the relationship
between uncertainty, fairness, and work-related attitudes and behaviors to deter-
mine whether both concerns for future outcomes and for group membership and
status explain how fairness helps people manage uncertainty.
This study goes beyond previous research by examining these processes
in a real organizational setting. To date, previous research (other than the Van
den Bos et al. (2002) study conducted in a daycare center) comprised laboratory
experiments, where procedures and factors affecting uncertainty were manip-
ulated, which is important for understanding causal relationships among these
variables. By showing that the moderating effect of uncertainty on the relation-
ship between fairness and work-related attitudes occurs in a real organization,
this study both supports the earlier findings and shows that for procedural and
interactional fairness, they are robust in uncontrived and uncontrolled contexts.
The field setting also allowed us to measure the actual perceived uncertainty
that is particularly relevant to individuals working in organizational contexts,
namely uncertainty concerning performance standards and appropriate behaviors,
as opposed to manipulating a very broad sense of uncertainty in a simulated
situation.
252 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

While we focused on uncertainty concerning performance standards and

appropriate behaviors, there are numerous other sources of uncertainty in orga-
nizations. Future research should examine whether different types of uncertainty
have different effects on these processes. As Van den Bos and Lind (2002) have
argued, not all uncertainties are likely to be the same, nor can they be expected
to have the same effects. By identifying those forms of uncertainty most critical
in moderating the various effects of fairness, organizations may be better able to
target those sources of uncertainty to make people less reactive to perceptions
of fairness. By providing needed information about performance standards and
specifying expected behaviors to meet those standards, organizations can reduce
the uncertainty faced by their workers. By doing so, organizations can support
workers’ positive attitudes and behaviors beyond the effects of fairness. In addi-
tion, by examining the effects of various types of uncertainty, our understanding
of the psychological processes underlying the effects of fairness and the role of
uncertainty will be further improved.
Our results reinforce the importance for organizations to ensure fair pro-
cedures, interpersonal treatment, and outcomes given the relationships between
these three elements of fairness and job satisfaction. Some forms of uncertainty
may be particularly difficult to avoid, thereby making fairness even more crit-
ical. In many organizations, for instance, performance criteria may be neces-
sarily vague or subjective. It may also be difficult to identify accurately or to
attribute fully the specific individual contributions responsible for development
of a creative idea or innovations in organizational processes. If such sources
of uncertainty are not amenable to control by management given the nature of
the work environment, our findings suggest that fair procedures and interper-
sonal treatment may help organizational members manage those uncertainties
more effectively and thus promote attitudes that are critical to organizational
performance.
It is clear that uncertainty in some form plays an important role in determining
the strength of the relationship between fairness and resulting attitudes. Taking
a step backward, one may be able to make specific predictions about various
factors that affect the degree of uncertainty an individual faces and thereby affect
the strength of the relationship between perceived fairness and resulting attitudes.
Van den Bos and colleagues suggest studying the relationship between uncertainty
and individual level variables such as self-esteem, confidence, and control (Van
den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos and Lind, 2000). It may also be important to examine
other structural factors that may make people more uncertain, such as their status in
the organization and the differing types and levels of information to which people
have access because of their formal or informal positions in the organization’s
social networks. Conducting such research may contribute to a more complete
understanding of the relationship between uncertainty, fairness, and work-related
attitudes in organizational contexts.
Uncertainty and Fairness 253

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Joel Brockner, Adam Galinskey, Margaret Neale, Pri
Shah, and Tom Tyler for their helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L., and West, S. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Arvey, R. D., and Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
49: 141–168.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). “Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Acad.
Manage. J. 29: 465–487.
Ashford, S. J., and Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies
of creating information. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 32: 370–398.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., Milkovich, G. T., and Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal
research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. J. Manage. 18: 321–352.
Brockner, J., and Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating effect of sex on the equity-satisfaction relationship:
A field study. J. Appl. Psychol. 71: 585–590.
Brockner, J., and Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice
perspective. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45–75.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., and Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an
institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Adm.
Sci. Q. 37: 241–261.
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., and Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of
job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 73: 139–
145.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd edn., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
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. J. Appl.
Psychol. 86: 425–445.
Davenport, T. O. (1999). Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest It, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Dunham, R. B., and Smith, F. J. (1979). Organizational Surveys, Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Earley, P. C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The role of
control in mediating justice judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 1148–1160.
Feldman, D. C., and Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and
job changers. Acad. Manage. J. 26: 258–272.
Folger, R., and Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay
raise decisions. Acad. Manage. J. 32: 115–130.
Hogg, M. A., and Mullin, B. A. (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty
reduction and group identification. In Abrams, D., and Hogg, M. A. (eds.), Social Identity and
Social Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford, England. pp. 249–279.
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup
identification and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem, is assimilation the answer? Psychol.
Sci. 7: 40–45.
Jetten, J., Hogg, M. A., and Mullin, B. (2000). In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective
uncertainty. Group Dynam. Theory, Res. Pract. 4: 184–198.
Kiker, D. S., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and contextual perfor-
mance on supervisory reward decisions. J. Appl. Psychol. 84: 602–609.
254 Diekmann, Barsness, and Sondak

Kim, W. C., and Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard
Bus. Rev. 75: 65–75.
Konovsky, M. A., and Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level
on victims’ layoff reactions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21: 630–650.
Kramer, R. M. (2001). Identity and trust in organization: One anatomy of a productive but problematic
relationship. In Hogg, M. A., and Terry, D. J. (eds.), Social Identity Processes in Organizational
Contexts, Psychology Press, NY, pp. 167–180.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in relationships. In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M. S., and Willis, R. H. (eds.), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, NY, pp. 27–55.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences.
In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, NY, pp. 167–218.
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, NY.
Lind, E. A., and Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty
management. In Staw, B. M., and Kramer, R. M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 24, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 181–223.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., and Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationship. Acad.
Manage. J. 43: 738–748.
McFarlin, D. B., and Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Acad. Manage. J. 35: 626–637.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J. Appl. Psychol. 76: 845–855.
O’Driscoll, M. P., and Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. J. Organ. Behav. 15: 141–155.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive Advantage Through People, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Riordan C. M., and Shore L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical
examination of relational demography within work units. J. Appl. Psychol. 82: 342–358.
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., and Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance
ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 85: 956–970.
Skarlicki, D. P., and Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, proce-
dural, and interactional justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 82: 434–443.
Stewart, T. A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Bantam Books,
New York.
Thibaut, J., and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., and O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Adm. Sci. Q. 37: 549–579.
Turban, D. B., and Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mecha-
nisms. J. Appl. Psychol. 73: 228–234.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 57: 830–838.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperative with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 201–246.
Tyler, T. R., and Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and
Behavioral Engagement, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. P.
(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
pp. 115–191.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions
to perceived procedural fairness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80: 931–941.
Van den Bos, K., and Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In
Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34, Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, pp. 1–60.
Uncertainty and Fairness 255

Van den Bos, K., and Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence
of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79: 355–366.
Van den Bos, K., Van Schie, E. C. M., and Colenberg, S. E. (2002). Parents’ reactions to child day
care organizations: The influence of perceptions of procedures and the role of organizations’
trustworthiness. Soc. Justice Res. 15: 53–62.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., and Lind, E. A. (1998a). When do we need procedural fairness?
The role of trust in authority. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75: 1449–1458.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., and Vermunt, R. (1998b). Evaluating outcomes by
means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction
judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74: 1493–1503.
Wayne, S. J., and Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A
longitudinal study. Acad. Manage. J. 38: 232–260