CHAPTER 8 Measuring Justice and Fairness Jason A. Colquitt and Jessica B. Rodell Abstract This chapter reviews the measurement approaches used in the justice literature. We begin by describing fundamental issues involved in constructing measures, such as item content, focus, context, and experience bracketing. We then introduce a 2 x 2 taxonomy wherein measurement approaches are distinguished by (a) whether they emphasize more descriptive perceptions of justice rule adherence or more evaluative perceptions of fairness, and (b) whether they distinguish among particular justice dimensions. The chapter concludes by reviewing a number of emerging measurement issues, including anticipations and expectations, within-person methodologies, the use of multiple sources, and the explicit operationalization of injustice. Key Words: justice, fairness, measurement, construct validity, time “I often say that when you can measure what you If the ability to measure something does reflect are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you what is known about a phenomenon, then schol- know something about it; but when you cannot ars have increased their knowledge of justice measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, across the decades. Early studies tended to use ad your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory hoc scales with a handful of items (e.g., Earley & kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but Lind, 1987; Folger, Rosenfield, Grove, & you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the Corkran, 1979; Tyler, Rasinski & Spodick, 1985). stage of science whatever the matter might be.” Subsequent studies introduced more comprehen- —William Tomson [Lord Kelvin], 1891, p. 80. sive measures that began to be widely used by other scholars (Moorman, 1991; Sweeney & McFarlin, A number of scholars have theorized about 1993). More recently, scholars introduced addi- why employees care about justice (Folger, 2001; tional scales that kept pace with conceptual devel- Lind, 2001; Tyler & Lind, 1992), how cognitions opments and trends in the literature (Ambrose & and emotions shape justice perceptions (Barsky & Schminke, 2009; Blader & Tyler, 2003; Colquitt, Kaplan, 2007; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Lind, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). 2001), and how those perceptions impact subse- Te purpose of this chapter is to review the mea- quent attitudes and behaviors (Lind, 2001; Tyler surement approaches used in the justice literature & Blader, 2003). Without measurement, such the- (see Colquitt & Shaw, 2005, for an earlier review). orizing remains just that: theoretical. Measuring We begin by describing some of the fundamental justice by expressing it in numbers allows scholars issues involved in justice measurement, including to conduct empirical tests of conceptual propo- item content, focus, context, and experience brack- sitions, thereby advancing our knowledge of the eting. Next, we introduce a taxonomy that distin- justice landscape. guishes whether measures emphasize descriptive 187 oxfordhb-9780199981410-Cropanzano.indd 187 1/18/2015 2:39:04 AM perceptions of justice rule adherence or evaluative Regardless of whether scholars focus on jus- perceptions of fairness, and whether measures dis- tice or fairness, a certain degree of “convertibil- tinguish between multiple dimensions. Finally, we ity” is often needed when constructing measures conclude by reviewing emerging issues that affect (Greenberg, 2010). Such conversions ensure that the measurement of justice, including anticipations the measure matches the research question and and expectations, within-person methodologies, the operative theoretical lens. Te first conversion the use of multiple sources, and the explicit opera- decision concerns the focus of the measure. Just tionalization of injustice. as attitudes like commitment, perceived support, trust, obligation, and identification can be refer- Fundamental Issues in Measuring Justice enced to either an organization or a supervisor, so As with other constructs, measuring justice too can justice and fairness (Blader & Tyler, 2003; requires an understanding of construct definitions. Colquitt, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Tus, Construct validity reflects the correspondence organization-focused justice reflects the degree to between a definition and a measure (Schwab, 1980), which one’s company or top management is per- and a construct’s definition can form the founda- ceived to act consistently, equitably, respectfully, tion for the generation of survey items (Hinkin, and truthfully in decision contexts. In contrast, 1995, 1998). Reviews of the literature have tended supervisor-focused fairness reflects the degree to to describe justice as the perceived fairness of deci- which one’s manager is perceived to be fair. sion events (e.g., Colquitt, 2012; Cropanzano & How are such focus decisions made, in practice? Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, 2010). Tat defini- Sometimes the focus is dictated by the research tional tradition illustrates that the terms justice and question. For example, a study on the effects of fairness tend to be used interchangeably in the liter- large scale organizational changes on justice might ature. Tus, one measure may reference a condition focus measures on the organization (e.g., Brockner assumed to evoke fairness (e.g., consistency, equity, et al., 2007; Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, respect, truthfulness), whereas another references 1995; Daly & Geyer, 1994). A study on training perceptions of fairness themselves (Colquitt & managers to be more just would, instead, focus Shaw, 2005). Tis same operational flexibility can measures on the supervisor (Skarlicki & Latham, be seen in the job satisfaction literature, where one 1996, 1997). Sometimes the focus is dictated by measure may reference a condition that gives rise to the theoretical lens. For example, social exchange satisfaction (e.g., interesting work, smart cowork- theory argues that beneficial treatment from one ers, knowledgeable supervisors, high pay) whereas exchange partner will result in reciprocation on the another references satisfaction directly (Ironson, part of the other exchange partner (Blau, 1964). Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989; Smith, Tat theoretical logic functions more seamlessly Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). when the focus of the benefit matches the target of Although the interchangeability of justice and fair- the reciprocation. Tus, organization-focused jus- ness has served the literature well in many respects, tice might be used to predict organization-targeted we see value in distinguishing them definitionally citizenship behavior, with supervisor-focused jus- in this chapter. After all, more and more scholars tice predicting supervisor-targeted citizenship are operationalizing justice and fairness as separate behavior (Horvath & Andrews, 2007; Karriker & constructs in their models (Ambrose & Schminke, Williams, 2009; Lavelle et al., 2009; Liao & Rupp, 2009; Choi, 2008; Kim & Leung, 2007; Rodell & 2005; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). Colquitt, 2009). Tus, we define justice as the per- Although the practice of matching the focus of ceived adherence to rules that reflect appropriateness the justice to the target of the reciprocation is logi- in decision contexts. Tose rules are summarized in cal and attractive conceptually (Lavelle, Rupp, & Table 8.1 and reflect procedural (Leventhal, 1980; Brockner, 2007), a recent meta-analysis suggests that Tibaut & Walker, 1975), distributive (Adams, 1965; it makes little difference empirically (Colquitt et al., Leventhal, 1976), interpersonal (Bies & Moag, 1986; 2013). Colquitt et al.’s (2013) review examined 36 Greenberg, 1993), and informational concepts (Bies justice-outcome relationships to see if “focus match- & Moag, 1986; Greenberg, 1993). Fairness, in turn, ing” correlations (e.g., supervisor-focused procedural is defined here as a global perception of appropri- justice and supervisor-targeted citizenship) were statis- ateness. In this formulation, fairness is theoretically tically significantly higher than non-focus-matching “downstream” from justice (Ambrose & Schminke, correlations (e.g., supervisor-focused procedural jus- 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007). tice and organization-targeted citizenship). Only 3 188 MEASURING JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS oxfordhb-9780199981410-Cropanzano.indd 188 1/18/2015 2:39:04 AM of the 36 correlations revealed stronger effect sizes separation, and change contexts (Colquitt & for “focus matching.” Instead, the results suggested Greenberg, 2003). In most cases, existing justice that supervisor-focused justice tends to be associ- and fairness scales can be easily tailored to the con- ated with stronger effects in general, regardless of text in question. Occasionally, however, the context whether the reciprocation is targeted at supervisors introduces a new rule that captures some unique or organizations. Colquitt et al. (2013) speculated aspect of appropriateness. For example, Gilliland that supervisor-focused justice may simply be more (1993) argued that selection tests were procedurally salient, observable, and interpretable than the actions just not only when they were administered consis- of the broader company or top management. Tus, tently and without bias but also when their content when it comes to converting the source of a mea- was job relevant. Subsequently, Bauer et al. (2001) sure, the bottom line is that matching one’s outcome introduced a measure of “selection procedural jus- has conceptual benefits that may not be realized tice” that incorporated context-specific rules.