E

O

JT

Jm

La

b

c

ARRA

KOOO

MJJC

1

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelRAP-325; No. of Pages 10

Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirectwww.sciencedirect.com

riginal article

ustice and employee attitudes during organizational change:he mediating role of overall justice

ustice et attitudes des travailleurs lors d’un changement organisationnel : le rôleédiateur de la justice globale

. Marzuccoa,∗, G. Mariqueb, F. Stinglhamberb, K. De Roeckc, I. Hanseza

Faculty of psychology and educational sciences, université de Liège, boulevard du Rectorat, 5 (B32), 4000 Liège, BelgiumInstitute of psychological sciences, université catholique de Louvain, place Cardinal Mercier, 10 boîte L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumIÉSEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), 3, rue de la Digue, 59000 Lille, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 April 2013eceived in revised form 13 August 2014ccepted 26 August 2014

eywords:rganizational justiceverall justicerganizational change

a b s t r a c t

Introduction. – Several studies have investigated the mediating role of overall justice (OJ) in the rela-tionships between specific dimensions of justice and employee attitudes. However, prior research hasneglected to examine OJ during the process of organizational change, as suggested in fairness heuristictheory (FHT).Objective. – This study aims to replicate the results of previous studies and expand them by examining,in two contexts of organizational change implementation, the mediating role of OJ in the relationshipsbetween procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (PJ, ITJ, and IFJ, respectively) and employeeattitudes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and organizational commitment).Methodology. – We surveyed 537 employees experiencing a company reorganization (Study 1) and 188employees experiencing a merger (Study 2).Results. – Each dimension of justice is related to OJ, which in turn is associated to employee attitudes.Furthermore, bootstrap results indicated that OJ mediates the effects of PJ, ITJ, and IFJ on job satisfactionand turnover intentions (in both studies), and on affective, normative, and continuance commitment (inStudy 2).Conclusion. – Our findings show the importance of fairness during organizational change. Treatingemployees fairly in times of change is crucial for managers.

© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

ots clés :ustice organisationnelleustice globalehangement organisationnel

r é s u m é

Introduction. – Plusieurs études ont investigué le rôle médiateur de la justice globale (JG) dans les relationsentre les dimensions spécifiques de la justice et les attitudes des travailleurs. Cependant, les étudesantérieures ont négligé d’examiner la JG durant le processus de changement organisationnel, commesuggéré par la théorie heuristique de la justice (THJ).Objectifs. – Cette étude a pour but de répliquer les résultats des études précédentes et de les élargir, enexaminant, dans deux contextes de changement organisationnel, le rôle médiateur de la JG dans les rela-tions entre la justice procédurale, interpersonnelle et informationnelle (JP, JIT et JIF, respectivement) et

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating roleof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.004

les attitudes des travailleurs (satisfaction au travail, intention de quitter et engagement organisationnel).Méthode. – Nous avons administré un questionnaire à 537 travailleurs faisant l’expérience d’une réorgan-isation (Étude 1) et 188 travailleurs vivant une fusion (Étude 2).Résultats. – Chaque dimension de justice est liée à la JG, laquelle est associée aux attitudes des travailleurs.En outre, les résultats du bootstrap indiquent que la JG médie les effets de JP, JIT et JIF sur la satisfactionau travail et l’intention de quitter (dans les deux études), et sur l’engagement affectif, normatif et decontinuité (Étude 2).

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: l.marzucco@ulg.ac.be (L. Marzucco), geraldine.marique@uclouvain.be (G. Marique), florence.stinglhamber@uclouvain.be (F. Stinglhamber),

ihansez@ulg.ac.be (I. Hansez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.004162-9088/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

2 L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Conclusion. – Nos résultats montrent l’importance de l’équité durant un changement organisationnel.Traiter les travailleurs de manière équitable lors d’un changement est crucial pour les managers.

coonanNbtrsoo(2

2d(e2rasaajn(jpdSLjc(

O2c(ljOpmicur

tMao

Research has largely demonstrated that organizational justicean potentially create powerful benefits for both employees andrganizations (e.g., Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007). Indeed,rganizational justice has been found to be an important determi-ant of several employee attitudes and behaviors at work, suchs job satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust, or orga-izational citizenship (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &g, 2001). Over the last decades, organizational justice has thusecome a key concept in the organizational behavior literature andhe importance of its role has been widely recognized. Althoughesearch on the different dimensions of justice has been fruitful,ome scholars have argued that employees form their impressionsf justice in a holistic manner and that consequently the real impactf justice judgments depends on an overall perception of fairnesse.g., Lind, 2001a; Lind, 2001b; Lind & van den Bos, 2002; Shapiro,001).

In line with this view, fairness heuristic theory (FHT; Lind,001a) posits that individuals use information pertaining to theifferent justice dimensions to form perceptions of overall justiceOJ), and that OJ, rather than specific justice dimensions, influencesmployee attitudes. Empirical evidence (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke,009; Jones & Martens, 2009) has been found for the mediatingole of OJ in the relationships between specific justice dimensionsnd employee attitudes. However, the strength of the relation-hips between specific dimensions of justice and OJ has variedcross studies. For instance, Jones and Martens (2009, Study 1nd 2) found that interpersonal, informational, and distributiveustice were strong predictors of OJ, while procedural justice didot explain variance in OJ. In Ambrose and Schminke’s first study2009), distributive justice, interactional justice but also proceduralustice had significant direct effects on OJ. In their second study,rocedural and interactional justice were found to significantly pre-ict OJ whereas distributive justice did not, contrary to their owntudy 1 and to Jones and Martens’ (2009) results. Finally, Kim andeung (2007) found that distributive, procedural, and interactionalustice explained significant variance in OJ. Given this apparent dis-repancy in results, scholars have urged to further explore this areae.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Holtz & Harold, 2009).

Moreover, prior studies on the formation and reactions towardJ perceptions (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens,009; Kim & Leung, 2007) have neglected to examine justice per-eptions during the process of organizational change.1 Yet, Lind2001a) argues that times of organizational change (i.e., neweadership, restructuring, or merger) can trigger utilization ofustice-relevant information (i.e., dimensions of justice) to developJ perceptions. This important tenet of FHT, neglected so far, canrobably explain the inconsistency of the results in the afore-entioned studies. Lind and van den Bos (2002) also posit that

t is particularly relevant to integrate justice issues in contexts of

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.

hange, since sensitivity to justice increases in such situations ofncertainty. We therefore believe that the study of the mediatingole of OJ in the relationships between specific justice dimensions

1 Indeed, Ambrose and Schminke (2009) and Kim and Leung (2007) did not men-ion any particular change event in the organizations they surveyed. Jones and

artens (2009) conducted their research in an organization, which had undergone merger; however, they actually surveyed employees four and five years after therganizational change.

© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

and employee attitudes should be given more consideration duringthe process of change (i.e., when the change is actually occurringand people are experiencing the change) – as suggested in FHT.

The present research aims to replicate the results of aforemen-tioned studies and expand them by examining, through two studiesconducted during the implementation of the change, the extent towhich employees’ perceptions of specific dimensions of justice (i.e.,procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice) are associatedto OJ perceptions and how, in turn, OJ is related to several employeeattitudes at work (i.e. job satisfaction, turnover intentions, andorganizational commitment).

1. Theoretical background and hypotheses

1.1. Fairness heuristic theory (FHT) and the mediating role ofoverall justice (OJ)

Literature on organizational justice has grown impressively overthe last 25 years (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Justice scholarshave mainly focused on the dimensionality of organizational justiceand proposed a four-factor structure (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al.,2001) encompassing distributive justice (DJ – fairness of decisionoutcomes), procedural justice (PJ – fairness of the processes thatlead to decision outcomes), interpersonal justice (ITJ – respect andpropriety of treatment) and informational justice (IFJ – adequacy ofexplanations). However, several researchers suggest that focusingon specific justice dimensions only may not be the best way to reacha complete understanding of individuals’ justice experiences (e.g.,Lind, 2001a; Shapiro, 2001).

More precisely, FHT (Lind, 2001a) posits that employees face afundamental social dilemma when they are confronted with a deci-sion to cooperate with an authority: while such cooperation canprovide personal benefits to employees, it can also expose themto the risk of being exploited. Employees resolve this dilemma byusing a fairness heuristic (i.e., a cognitive shortcut) which helpsthem decide whether to cooperate or not. Lind and van den Bos(2002, p. 196) refer to this fairness heuristic as “a global impres-sion of fair treatment”. Based on Lind’s (2001a) description, Rodelland Colquitt (2009) suggested that this global judgment of fairtreatment can be distinguished from the traditional justice dimen-sions in two respects. First, OJ is an overarching judgment, whereasjustice dimensions focus on specific matters (e.g., outcome dis-tribution, decision-making procedures, interpersonal treatment,or communication aspects). Second, OJ typically refers to a socialentity (e.g., supervisor, organization) as a whole, whereas justicedimensions are more typically connected to a specific event (e.g.,performance appraisal, merger, etc.; cf. entity vs. event distinction,Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Building on FHT, somejustice scholars (e.g., Jones & Martens, 2009) have argued that over-all perceptions are central to understanding people’s experiencesof justice. Lind (2001a) suggests that OJ perceptions are formedquickly during a “judgmental phase” by drawing information fromprocedural, distributive and interpersonal elements. Once OJ per-ceptions are formed, people enter a “use phase” in which OJ guides

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role1016/j.erap.2014.08.004

social decisions and influences employee attitudes and behaviors.As such, FHT explicitly suggests that overall justice plays a mediat-ing role in the relationship between the dimensions of justice andemployee attitudes and behaviors.

ING ModelE

e psyc

1

aCj&iAc“indtrdjtgf(

aed–IjcRatAaas

hc

•

•

•

r(2t

sao

ARTICLERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne d

.2. Justice and organizational change

While justice perceptions have been studied in numerous situ-tions such as hiring, performance appraisal, or downsizing (e.g.,ropanzano et al., 2007), several scholars argue that the study of

ustice really takes its full meaning in context of change (e.g., Oreg van Dam, 2008). Lind and van den Bos (2002) suggest that it

s particularly appropriate to study justice in context of change.ccording to these authors, a situation of organizational changelearly represents high levels of uncertainty (Lind, 2001a), andfairness and uncertainty are so closely linked that it is in factmpossible to understand the role of one of these concepts in orga-izational psychology without reference to the other” (Lind & vanen Bos, 2002, p. 181). Through FHT, Lind (2001a) specifically positshat organizational change (e.g., change in leadership, merger orestructuring) can trigger utilization of dimensions of justice toevelop OJ. Organizational change would likely push people into

udgmental mode to have a fresh look at justice-relevant informa-ion. The following processes are thus expected in times of change:athering and processing of specific dimensions of justice, quickormation of a new OJ judgment, and then transition to “use phase”Lind, 2001a).

Building on FHT, we may reasonably assume that the study of OJnd its mediating role between specific dimensions of justice andmployee attitudes is more accurate during change, and thereforeeserves more attention in such context. We therefore examined

during the implementation of organizational change – how PJ,TJ, and IFJ2 are associated to OJ and how, in turn, OJ is related toob satisfaction, turnover intentions, and commitment. These out-omes are particularly relevant in such contexts of change. Indeed,afferty and Griffin (2006, cited in Rafferty & Restubog, 2010)sserted that job satisfaction and turnover intentions are impor-ant indicators of employees’ adjustment to organizational change.mbrose and Schminke (2009) and Colquitt and Shaw (2005) alsorgued that global attitudes such as commitment would be moreppropriately determined by an overall measure of justice thanpecific dimensions of justice.

Based on these theoretical underpinnings, we specificallyypothesized that, during the implementation of organizationalhange:

hypothesis 1: OJ mediates the relationships between PJ and (a) jobsatisfaction, (b) turnover intentions, (c) affective commitment,(d) normative commitment and (e) continuance commitment;hypothesis 2: OJ mediates the relationships between ITJ and(a) job satisfaction, (b) turnover intentions, (c) affective com-mitment, (d) normative commitment and (e) continuancecommitment;hypothesis 3: OJ mediates the relationships between IFJ and(a) job satisfaction, (b) turnover intentions, (c) affective com-mitment, (d) normative commitment and (e) continuancecommitment.

By testing these hypotheses and as explained above, ouresearch aims at replicating the results of previous studies

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung,007) and expanding them by examining the relationships betweenhe variables during organizational change.

2 Following Colquitt and Shaw’s (2005) recommendations, DJ was not includedince this dimension was not relevant to contexts of change implementation. Indeed,t the time of the studies, participants were experiencing the process of change andutcomes were not yet visible.

PRESShologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

We conducted two studies, which enabled us to test the gen-eralizability of our hypotheses (Grunberg, Anderson-Connoly, &Greenberg, 2000; Kline, 2011).

2. Study 1

Study 1 was designed to examine Hypotheses 1a–b, 2a–b, and3a–b, which hold that OJ mediates the relationships between spe-cific justice dimensions (i.e., PJ, ITJ, and IFJ) on the one hand, andjob satisfaction and turnover intentions on the other hand.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Sample and procedureFive hundred and thirty-seven senior managers from a

Belgian organization returned usable questionnaires (responserate = 42.6%). The company, active in the public transport sector,was undergoing a reorganization when the electronic survey wassent out to the professional e-mail addresses of all senior managers.The link to the electronic survey was included in an e-mail explain-ing the purpose of the study and stressing the confidentiality of theresponses. Two follow-up requests to participate were sent beforethe deadline. Males comprised 79.5% of the sample. Among the par-ticipants, 28.3% were 35 years old or less, 25.5% were between 36and 45 years old, 24.3% were between 46 and 55 years old, 21.4%were 56 years old or more and 0.5% did not answer. The majorityof respondents (38%) had 21 years’ seniority or more in the samecompany and 14.3% had 21 years’ seniority or more in the samefunction. The majority (49.5%) had worked in the same function forless than five years.

2.1.2. MeasuresThe translation-back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980) was

used as data were collected in both French- and Dutch-speakingcontexts.

2.1.2.1. Overall justice. The six-item scale developed by Ambroseand Schminke (2009) was used to measure OJ (e.g., “Overall, I’mtreated fairly by my organization”). For this measure, a 7-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree) was used.

2.1.2.2. Procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.Employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the change processwere assessed with scales developed by Colquitt (2001). On thebasis of recommendations made by Greenberg (1993) and Colquitt(2001), our justice scales measured how employees felt they aretreated during the change process. Seven items (e.g., “Proceduresused during the change have been applied consistently”) assessedPJ. Four items (e.g., “During the change, I was treated in a politemanner”) assessed ITJ. Five items (e.g., “During the change, theprocedures were explained thoroughly”) assessed IFJ. For thismeasure and the measures of job satisfaction and turnover inten-tions, a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree) was used.

2.1.2.3. Job satisfaction. Employees’ job satisfaction was measuredusing the three items of Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh(1983; e.g., “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”).

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

2.1.2.4. Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessedusing the three items of Cammann et al. (1983; e.g., “I often thinkabout quitting my job”).

ING ModelE

4 e psyc

2bsontos

2

lc2haotiltc(tajaf(d1SPtnit2

2

1wtth(irat.

2

ta

2

stBt

sional approach in the study of organizational commitment hasbeen demonstrated (Meyer & Allen, 1991). These authors identi-fied three distinct components in commitment; these reflected a

ARTICLERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne d

.1.2.5. Covariates. Based on the full partial method recommendedy Little (2013), we accounted for the influence of covariates bypecifying paths from all socio-demographic variables included inur survey to all endogenous and exogenous variables. After run-ing this initial model, we removed the non-significant effects. Wehus controlled statistically for age, language, organizational andccupational tenure, these being the socio-demographic variablesignificantly related with our variables.

.2. Results

As suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), data were ana-yzed following a two-stage process. First, we conducted a series ofonfirmatory factor analyses with LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom,006) to assess the measurement model. Second, we assessed theypothesized relationships among latent variables using the SEMpproach. As the number of indicators was large relative to theverall sample size, we reduced the number of indicators per factoro limit the number of estimated parameters. Using the balanc-ng technique (i.e., constructing parcels by alternating high andow loadings), we reduced the number of indicators per factor tohree. This parceling strategy allows us to preserve the commononstruct variance while minimizing unrelated specific varianceLittle, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013). Finally, we usedhe bootstrapping technique to specifically test the indirect effectsnd examine the mediating role of OJ in the relationships betweenustice dimensions and employee attitudes. Indeed, although medi-tion hypotheses are frequently posited in psychological research,ormal significance tests of indirect effects are rarely conductedPreacher & Hayes, 2004) and when they are, these questions areealt with the traditional and commonly used Sobel test (Sobel,982). Yet, several authors have pointed out the limitations of theobel test (Hayes, 2009; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004;reacher & Hayes, 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) and recommendhe use of new statistical tools such as the bootstrapping tech-ique for studying relations in mediation models. Bootstrapping

s now widely recommended. It has become the preferred inferen-ial method for testing indirect effects in mediation analysis (Hayes,012).

.2.1. Test of the measurement modelIn line with the approach proposed by Bentler and Bonnett,

980, we compared the fit of the hypothesized measurement modelith that of a series of alternative nested models. For the jus-

ice items, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assesshe fit of our theorized four-factor model (PJ, ITJ, IFJ, and OJ). Theypothesized four-factor model provided a good fit to the data�2 (48) = 148.20, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06) and was signif-cantly better than all more constrained models. Fit indices andesults of Chi2 difference tests are presented in Table 1. Moreover,ll the items (both justice and attitude items) loaded reliably onheir predicted factors, with standardized loadings ranging from70 to .98.

.2.2. Relationships among variablesMeans, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consis-

ency reliabilities are reported in Table 2. Cronbach’s alphas werecceptable, ranging from .82 to .93.

.2.3. Test of the structural model and indirect effectsWe compared the fit of the hypothesized structural model and a

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

eries of alternative models containing additional paths that wereheoretically plausible (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; James, Mulaik, &rett, 1982). Fit indices are presented in Table 3. As indicated byhe Chi2 difference test, the alternative model 2 – which adds paths

PRESShologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

between (a) PJ and job satisfaction and (b) PJ and turnover inten-tions – accurately explained the data and was significantly superiorto the hypothesized model and other alternative models.

Standardized parameter estimates for the final model are shownin Fig. 1. For the sake of clarity, the effects of the four covariatesare described in the text. Language (French coded 1 and Dutchcoded 2) was positively related to ITJ (� = .17, p < .001) and nega-tively related to OJ (� = −.13, p < .01). Age was positively related toIFJ, OJ, and job satisfaction (� = .21, p < .001; � = .14, p < .001; � = .12,p < .01; respectively), and negatively related to turnover intentions(� = −.16, p < .01). Organizational tenure was negatively related toturnover intentions (� = −.16, p < .01) and occupational tenure wasnegatively related to IFJ (� = −.17, p < .01). Controlling for thesevariables, PJ, ITJ, and IFJ were positively associated to OJ (� = .34,p < .001; � = .20, p < .001; and � = .17, p < .001, respectively) which, inturn, was positively associated to job satisfaction (� = .42, p < .001)and negatively associated to turnover intentions ( ̌ = −.27, p < .001).PJ was also positively related to job satisfaction and negativelyrelated to turnover intentions (� = .20, p < .001 and � = −.11, p < .05,respectively), indicating that OJ only partially mediates these rela-tionships. When testing the indirect effect of PJ, ITJ, and IFJ on jobsatisfaction and turnover intentions (via OJ) using the bootstrap-ping method, no confidence interval included 0, which indicatesthe significance of all the indirect effects (p < .05). Results are dis-played in Table 4. In line with Hypotheses 1a–b, 2a–b and 3a–b, ourfindings indicate that OJ mediates the influence of PJ, ITJ, and IFJ onjob satisfaction and turnover intentions.

2.2.4. Ancillary analysesWe examined whether PJ, ITJ, and IFJ contribute equally to

explain the variance in OJ. We ran three additional models in whichpath coefficients between the three justice dimensions and OJ wereconstrained to be equal. Chi2 difference tests were performed inorder to compare these models with the alternative model 2 inwhich the path coefficients were allowed to differ. The alternativemodel 2 provides a better fit (�2 = 1202.59) than models in whichthe path between PJ and OJ was constrained to be equal to (a) thepath between ITJ and OJ (�2 = 1208.09, ��2 (�df) = 5.5 (1), p < .05)and (b) the path between IFJ and OJ (�2 = 1206.78, ��2 (�df) = 4.19(1), p < .05), indicating that PJ is a stronger predictor of OJ than ITJand IFJ. Conversely, the alternative model 2 did not significantlydiffer from a model in which the path between ITJ and OJ was con-strained to be equal to the path between IFJ and OJ (�2 = 1202.64,��2 (�df) = .05 (1), p > .05), indicating that ITJ and IFJ are equalpredictors of OJ.3

3. Study 2

Study 2 was designed to assess Hypotheses 1a–e, 2a–e, and3a–e that hold that justice dimensions (i.e., PJ, ITJ, and IFJ) arerelated to five employee attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, turnoverintentions, affective, normative, and continuance commitment)through OJ. Study 2 extends Study 1 by examining the rela-tionships between OJ and the three dimensions of commitment.Up to now, studies focusing on OJ have only investigated itsimpact on a global measure of commitment or a measure ofits affective dimension (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones& Martens, 2009), whereas the need to adopt a multidimen-

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

3 Using Process (Hayes, 2013), we also tested for the interaction effects amongthe dimensions of justice on OJ. Results show that all the interaction effects arenon-significant (p > .05).

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

Table 1Confirmatory factor analyses.

Model �2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA [IC] ��2 (�df) Model comparison

Study 1 (n = 537)Hypothesized: four-factor model 148.20 48 .98 .99 .06 [.05–.07] – –Alt.1: three-factor model (PJ and OJ in one factor, ITJ in a

second factor, and IFJ in a third factor)884.56 51 .89 .91 .20 [.19–.21] 736.36 (3) *** Alt. 1 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 2: three-factor model (ITJ and OJ in one factor, PJ in asecond factor, and IFJ in a third factor)

1530.01 51 .80 .85 .26 [.25–.27] 1381.81 (3) *** Alt. 2 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 3: three-factor model (IFJ and OJ in one factor, PJ in asecond factor, and ITJ in a third factor)

1037.98 51 .87 .90 .19 [.18–.20] 889.78 (3) *** Alt. 3 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 4: two-factor model (all of the specific justice itemsin one factor and the OJ items in a second factor)

1018.60 53 .87 .90 .21 [.20–.22] 870.4 (3) *** Alt. 4 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 5: one-factor model 1879.10 54 .77 .81 .26 [.25–.27] 1730.9 (3) *** Alt. 5 vs. Hypothesized

Study 2 (n = 188)Hypothesized: four-factor model 128.10 48 .94 .96 .09 [.07–.11] – –Alt.1: three-factor model (PJ and OJ in one factor, ITJ in a

second factor, and IFJ in a third factor)287.21 51 .85 .88 .17 [.15–.18] 159.11 (3) *** Alt. 1 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 2: three-factor model (ITJ and OJ in one factor, PJ in asecond factor, and IFJ in a third factor)

328.31 51 .83 .86 .17 [.15–.19] 200.21 (3) *** Alt. 2 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 3: three-factor model (IFJ and OJ in one factor, PJ in asecond factor, and ITJ in a third factor)

325.26 51 .83 .87 .17 [.16–.19] 197.16 (3) *** Alt. 3 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 4: two-factor model (all of the specific justice itemsin one factor and the OJ items in a second factor)

532.90 53 .71 .77 .25 [.23–.26] 404.8 (5) *** Alt. 4 vs. Hypothesized

Alt. 5: one-factor model 704.38 54 .62 .69 .28 [.27–.30] 576.28 (6) *** Alt. 5 vs. Hypothesized

P l justiR*

dao

3

3

gr

TD

VOA*A

J: procedural justice; ITJ: interpersonal justice; IFJ: informational justice; OJ: overalMSEA [IC]: Root Mean Square Error Approximation [interval of confidence].

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

esire (affective commitment), a need (continuance commitment)nd an obligation (normative commitment) to remain with therganization.

.1. Method

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.

.1.1. Sample and procedureThe final sample comprised 188 employees from two Bel-

ian hospitals undergoing a merger during the survey (responseate = 25.06%). All employees received the questionnaire via their

able 2escriptive statistics and intercorrelations between variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4

Study 1 (n = 537)1. LANGUAGE – – –2. AGE – – −.03 –3. ORG-TEN – – −.00 .76*** –4. OCC-TEN – – .01 .56*** .59** –5. PJ 2.81 0.65 .00 .05 .06 −.08

6. ITJ 3.59 0.77 −.17*** .04 .04 −.05

7. IFJ 2.95 0.79 −.03 .10* .08* −.05

8. OJ 4.40 1.06 .07 .16*** .10* −.03

9. JS 3.98 0.69 .01 .20*** .15*** −.01

10. TI 1.93 1.00 −.01 −.33*** −.32*** −.14**

Study 2 (n = 188)1. AGE 37.29 10.24 –2. OCC-TEN 12.90 10.20 .79*** –3. PJ 2.86 0.39 .19* .10 –4. ITJ 3.53 0.61 .29*** .16* .28*** (.73)5. IFJ 3.06 0.63 .22** .05 .45*** .46***

6. OJ 3.37 0.69 .18* .15 .37*** .39***

7. JS 3.68 0.86 .07 −.02 .20** .23**

8. TI 1.88 0.97 −.24** −.22** −.12 −.22**

9. ACO 3.38 0.69 .36*** .28*** .28*** .33***

10. NCO 2.99 0.71 .24** .11 .26*** .19**

11. CCO 3.17 0.75 .28*** .24** −.02 .03

alues on the diagonal are internal consistency reliability estimates. LANGUAGE = languCC-TEN: occupational tenure; PJ: procedural justice; ITJ: interpersonal justice; IFJ: infoCO: affective commitment; NCO: normative commitment; CCO: continuance commitme

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.bsence of means and standard deviations for age, organizational and occupational tenur

ce; df: degree of freedom; NNFI: Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index;

head of department. Completed questionnaires were collected insealed envelopes, in the human resources department letterbox.Among the participants, 68.08% were females. Respondents rangedin age from 22 to 58 years (M = 37.29, SD = 10.24), they had beenemployed by the hospital on average for 12.20 years (SD = 10.63)and the average occupational tenure was 12.90 years (SD = 10.20).

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role1016/j.erap.2014.08.004

In the sample, 40.4% were nurses, 10.6% were assistant nurses,21.8% were paramedics, 7.4% had an administrative function, 1.6%were workmen, 4.3% had other positions, and 13.8% did not answerthe question.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(.83).56*** (.93).73*** .65*** (.90).47*** .39*** .45*** (.90).39*** .32*** .35*** .49*** (.83)−.28*** −.22*** −.29*** −.38*** −.57*** (.93)

(.91).36*** (.87).20** .48*** (.81)−.14* −.35*** −.56*** (.87).28*** .44*** .43*** −.49*** (.83).23** .36*** .26*** −.37*** .47*** (.76).16* .16* .02 −.21** .17* .39*** (.70)

age (French coded 1, Dutch coded 2); AGE: age; ORG-TEN: organizational tenure;rmational justice; OJ: overall justice; JS: job satisfaction; TI: turnover intentions;nt.

e because the answers were beforehand categorized in the questionnaire.

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and employee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating roleof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.08.004

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

6 L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3Fit indices for nested structural models (Study 1).

Model �2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA [IC] AIC ��2 (�df) Model comparison

Hypothesized 1221.56 191 .92 .94 .098 [.092–.103] 1297.50 18.97 (2) *** Hypothesized vs. Alt. 2Alt. 1: path added between PJ and JS 1207.45 190 .92 .94 .097 [.091–.103] 1277.13 4.86 (1) * Alt. 1 vs. Alt. 2Alt. 2: alt. 1 + path added between PJ and TI 1202.59 189 .92 .94 .096 [.091–.102] 1268.12 – –Alt. 3: alt. 2 + path added between ITJ and JS 1200.72 188 .92 .94 .097 [.091–.103] 1271.01 1.87 (1) Alt. 3 vs. Alt. 2Alt. 4: alt. 2 + path added between ITJ and TI 1202.52 188 .92 .94 .098 [.091–.103] 1269.61 .07 (1) Alt. 4 vs. Alt. 2Alt. 5: alt. 2 + path added between IFJ and JS 1202.59 188 .92 .94 .097 [.091–.103] 1270.21 0 (1) Alt. 5 vs. Alt. 2Alt. 6: alt. 2 + path added between IFJ and TI 1200.51 188 .92 .94 .097 [.091–.103] 1269.05 2.08 (1) Alt. 6 vs. Alt. 2

n = 537. PJ: procedural justice; ITJ: interpersonal justice; IFJ: informational justice; OJ: overall justice; ACO: affective commitment; NCO: normative commitment; CCO:continuance commitment; JS: job satisfaction; TI: turnover intentions; df: degree of freedom; NNFI: Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA [IC]: RootMean Square Error Approximation [interval of confidence]; ECVI: Expected Cross-Validation Index.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Inte rpersonal justice

Informati onal justice

Proceduraljustice

Overall justice

Turnover intenti ons

Job sati sfacti on.34***

.20***

.17***

-.11*.20****

-.27***

.42***

Fig. 1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Study 1. Completely standardized path coefficients for the retained model (alternative model 2). For the sake of clarity, only structuralrelationships are shown.

Table 4Mediation of the effects of organizational justice dimensions on organizational outcomes through overall justice.

Study 1 Study 2

Effect SE Percentile 95% CI Effect SE Percentile 95% CI

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Procedural justiceAffective commitment – – – – .1264 .0597 .0408 .2900Normative commitment – – – – .1468 .0645 .0521 .3178Continuance commitment – – – .1316 .0622 .0401 .2929Job satisfaction .1025 .0259 .0583 .1611 .2332 .0904 .0914 .4547Turnover intentions −.1103 .0305 −.1817 −.0598 −.2259 .0964 −.4875 −.0838

Interpersonal justiceAffective commitment – – – – .0731 .0350 .0227 .1681Normative commitment – – – – .0849 .0419 .0236 .1963Continuance commitment – – – – .0762 .0371 .0218 .1726Job satisfaction .0579 .0190 .0243 .0997 .1350 .0583 .0430 .2790Turnover intentions −.0623 .0234 −.1166 −.0239 −.1307 .0584 −.2821 −.0413

Informational justiceAffective commitment – – – – .0556 .0328 .0075 .1385Normative commitment – – – – .0646 .0368 .0082 .1522Continuance commitment – – – – .0579 .0310 .0099 .1337Job satisfaction .0463 .0208 .0084 .0906 .1026 .0534 .0140 .2233Turnover intentions −.0541 .0260 −.1135 −.0101 −.0994 .0513 −.2187 −.0153

SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; 10,000 bootstrap samples.

ING ModelE

e psyc

3

tw1

u

3u(

3ut

3mAtIno

3w

3

3

1wtthdsaoo.

3

ta

3

m3(onat

iaIr(lO

overall justice on employee attitudes, we believe that overall justiceconstitutes an important construct to take into account. As such, OJshould be considered as a complementary line of inquiry in the

ARTICLERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne d

.1.2. MeasuresBecause the study was conducted in a French-speaking context,

he standard translation-back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980)as used. For all measures, a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used.Procedural, interpersonal, informational, and overall justice. We

sed the same scales as in Study 1.

.1.2.1. Job satisfaction. Employees’ job satisfaction was measuredsing four items of Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch1997; e.g., “All in all, I am very satisfied with my current job”).

.1.2.2. Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessedsing three items of Jaros (1997; e.g., “I often think about quittinghis organization”).

.1.2.3. Commitment. To assess the three dimensions of commit-ent, we used the revised scales of Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993).ffective commitment (e.g., “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to

his organization” [R]), continuance commitment (e.g., “I feel that have too few options to consider leaving this organization”), andormative commitment scales (e.g., “I would feel guilty if I left myrganization now”). Each scale comprised six items.

.1.2.4. Covariates. Based on the full partial method (Little, 2013),e controlled statistically for age and occupational tenure.

.2. Results

.2.1. Test of the measurement modelIn line with the approach proposed by Bentler and Bonnett,

980, we compared the fit of the hypothesized measurement modelith that of a series of alternative nested models. For the jus-

ice items, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assesshe fit of our theorized four-factor model (PJ, ITJ, IFJ, and OJ). Theypothesized four-factor model provided an acceptable fit to theata (�2 (48) = 128.10, NNFI = .94, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09) and wasignificantly better than all more constrained models. Fit indicesnd results of Chi2 difference tests are presented in Table 1. More-ver, all the items (both justice and attitudes items) loaded reliablyn their predicted factors, with standardized loadings ranging from

60 to .93.

.2.2. Relationships among variablesMeans, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consis-

ency reliabilities are reported in Table 2. Cronbach’s alphas werecceptable, ranging from .70 to .91.

.2.3. Test of the structural model and indirect effectsTable 5 presents fit indices for the hypothesized structural

odel and 13 alternative models. The fit of the alternative model – which adds paths between (a) PJ and normative commitment,b) ITJ and affective commitment, and (c) PJ, IFJ, and ITJ on thene hand and continuance commitment on the other – was sig-ificantly superior to that of the hypothesized model and otherlternative models. We thus retained the alternative model 3 ashe best depiction of the data.

Standardized parameter estimates for this model are shownn Fig. 2. For the sake of clarity, the effects of the two covari-tes are described in the text. Age was positively related to PJ,TJ, and IFJ (� = .22, p < .01; � = .30, p < .001; and � = .55, p < .001,

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

espectively). Occupational tenure was negatively related to IFJ� = −.35, p < .01) and job satisfaction (� = −.20, p < .001). Control-ing for these variables, PJ, ITJ, and IFJ were positively associated toJ (� = .35, p < .001; � = .27, p < .001; and � = .18, p < .05, respectively)

PRESShologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

which, in turn, was positively associated to job satisfaction, affec-tive, normative, and continuance commitment ( ̌ = .53, p < .001;� = .40, p < .001; ̌ = .45, p < .001; ̌ = .29, p < .01, respectively) andnegatively associated to turnover intentions ( ̌ = −.45, p < .001).Moreover, PJ was positively related to normative commitmentand negatively related to continuance commitment (� = .17, p < .05;and � = −.20, p < .05, respectively), ITJ was positively associated toaffective commitment and negatively associated to continuancecommitment (� = .17, p < .05; and � = −.16, p < .05, respectively), andIFJ was positively associated to continuance commitment (� = .28,p < .001), indicating that OJ only partially mediates these relation-ships. When testing the indirect effect of PJ, ITJ, and IFJ on jobsatisfaction, turnover intentions, affective, normative, and contin-uance commitment (through OJ), using the bootstrapping method,no confidence intervals included 0, indicating that the three jus-tice dimensions are related to all five employee attitudes, throughOJ. Indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals are presented inTable 4. These results support Hypotheses 1a–e, 2a–e and 3a–e.

3.2.4. Ancillary analysesWe examined whether PJ, ITJ, and IFJ contribute equally to

explain the variance in OJ. We ran three additional models in whichpath coefficients between the three specific justice dimensions andOJ were constrained to be equal. Chi2 difference tests were usedin order to compare these models with the alternative model 3in which the path coefficients were allowed to differ. The alterna-tive model 3 (�2 = 893.16) did not significantly differ from a modelin which the path between PJ and OJ was constrained to be equalto (a) the path between ITJ and OJ (�2 = 895.63, ��2 (�df) = 2.47(1), p > .05), (b) the path between IFJ and OJ (�2 = 896.34, ��2

(�df) = 3.18 (1), p > .05), and from a model in which the pathbetween ITJ and OJ was constrained to be equal to the path betweenIFJ and OJ (�2 = 893.48, ��2 (�df) = .32 (1), p > .05), indicating thatPJ, ITJ, and IFJ are equal predictors of OJ.4

4. Discussion

FHT (Lind, 2001a) suggests that OJ perceptions are central tounderstand employees’ justice experiences. More precisely, thistheory asserts that specific dimensions of justice form OJ percep-tions, which, in turn, affect employee attitudes. Recent studies havethus examined this FHT assertion (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke, 2009;Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007). However, Lind’s centralproposition that OJ should be studied in times of change has beenneglected so far.

In the present study, we therefore built on FHT framework andprevious studies to examine the mediating role of OJ in the rela-tionships between specific dimensions of justice and employeeattitudes, during the process of organizational change. Our find-ings confirm previous results by demonstrating that, based onthe perceived fairness of procedures, interpersonal treatment, andcommunications, employees formed an OJ judgment, which, inturn, was related to their attitudes. Our results also expand pre-vious research (a) by studying the mediating role of OJ duringthe implementation of organizational change, (b) by including thethree dimensions of organizational commitment that have beenneglected so far, and (c) by confirming indirect effects using thebootstrapping technique. Demonstrating the significant impact of

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

4 Similarly to Study 1, we tested for the interaction effects among the dimensionsof justice on OJ. Results show that all the interaction effects are non-significant(p > .05).

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

8 L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 5Fit indices for nested structural models (Study 2).

Model �2 df NNFI CFI RMSEA [IC] AIC ��2 (�df) Model comparison

Hypothesized 916.15 355 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1038.97 22.99 (5) *** Hypothesized vs. Alt.3Alt. 1: path added between PJ and NCO 910.38 354 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1036.70 17.22 (4) ** Alt. 1 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 2: alt. 1 + path added between ITJ and ACO 905.19 353 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1036.48 12.03 (3) ** Alt. 2 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 3: alt. 2 + path added between PJ and CCO,

ITJ and CCO, IFJ and CCO893.16 350 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1036.88 – –

Alt. 4: alt. 3 + path added between PJ and ACO 890.45 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1037.58 2.71 (1) Alt. 4 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 5: alt. 3 + path added between ITJ and NCO 893.15 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1038.89 .01 (1) Alt. 5 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 6: alt. 3 + path added between IFJ and ACO 892.88 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1038.85 .28 (1) Alt. 6 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 7: alt. 3 + path added between IFJ and NCO 892.69 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1037.56 .47 (1) Alt. 7 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 8: alt. 3 + path added between PJ and JS 893.14 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1038.84 .02 (1) Alt. 8 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 9: alt. 3 + path added between PJ and TI 892.00 349 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1036.65 1.16 (1) Alt. 9 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 10: alt. 3 + path added between ITJ and JS 892.98 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1038.19 .18 (1) Alt. 10 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 11: alt. 3 + path added between ITJ and TI 893.13 349 .90 .92 .089 [.081–.096] 1038.89 .03 (1) Alt. 11 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 12: alt. 3 + path added between IFJ and JS 890.98 349 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1036.85 2.18 (1) Alt. 12 vs. Alt. 3Alt. 13: alt. 3 + path added between IFJ and TI 891.84 349 .90 .92 .088 [.081–.096] 1037.01 1.32 (1) Alt. 13 vs. Alt. 3

n: 188. PJ: procedural justice; ITJ: interpersonal justice; IFJ: informational justice; OJ: overall justice; ACO: affective commitment; NCO: normative commitment; CCO:continuance commitment; JS: job satisfaction; TI: turnover intentions; df: degree of freedom; NNFI: Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA [IC]: RootMean Square Error Approximation [interval of confidence]; ECVI: Expected Cross-Validation Index.* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Inte rpersonal justice

Informati onal justice

Procedural justice

Overall justice

Turnover intenti ons

Continuance commit ment

Normati ve commit ment

Affec tive commit ment

Job sati sfacti on

.45** *

.29**

-.45***

.18 *

.27***

.35***

.53***

-.16*

-.20*

.17 *

.17*

.28** *

.40***

F cientsr

aaiVt2tjSs2tc

stm

ig. 2. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Sample 2. Completely standardized path coeffielationships are shown.

rea of justice research (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Indeed, over-ll justice more accurately reflects individuals’ justice experiencesn the workplace (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Tornblom &ermunt, 1999). Moreover, overall justice can provide a better pic-

ure of how justice influences other variables (Ambrose & Arnaud,005; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005). In addition, overall jus-ice is particularly useful in questions considering the impact ofustice compared to other organizational constructs (Ambrose &chminke, 2009). Finally, overall justice is relatively easy to mea-ure, compared to the specific justice dimensions (Colquitt et al.,005). Therefore, OJ judgments undoubtedly offer a new way ofhinking about justice and its impact on employee attitudes, espe-ially in times of organizational change.

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

Each dimension of justice was consistently related to OJ in bothtudies. Interestingly, the results of Study 1 revealed that, amonghe three dimensions of justice included in our research, PJ was

ore strongly related to OJ. This suggests that the fairness of the

for the retained model (alternative model 3). For the sake of clarity, only structural

processes by which decisions are made is highly related to thedevelopment of employees’ overall perceptions of fairness. Theseresults are in line with Ambrose and Schminke’s findings (2009),but are contrary to Jones and Martens’ results (2009) that showedthat PJ did not explain variance in OJ. Conversely, the results ofour Study 2 indicated that PJ, ITJ, and IFJ are equally related to OJ.This suggests that the fairness of the processes, the degree to whichemployees are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by themanagement, and the adequacy of the explanations are equallyassociated to employees’ overall perceptions of fairness. We sug-gest that these divergent findings are due to the difference in thesample size of both studies (n = 537 in Study 1 vs. n = 188 in Study2). Indeed, it is expected from a large sample size to have more

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

statistical power compared to a smaller sample size, which wouldexplain why results from ancillary analyses are significant for PJ inStudy 1. We therefore conducted ancillary analyses on 188 obser-vations randomly selected out of Study 1’s sample. PJ was not found

ING ModelE

e psyc

aj�pbpas�ptdsao

aw&a&(2dntteaett

boitfwpMsaalGahmtTrsns2

wmaatsawK

ARTICLERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne d

s a stronger predictor of OJ anymore compared to the two otherustice dimensions. Specifically, the alternative model 2 (n = 188;2 = 567.17) did not significantly differ from a model in which theath between PJ and OJ was constrained to be equal to (a) the pathetween ITJ and OJ (�2 = 567.28, ��2 (�df) = .11 (1), p > .05), (b) theath between IFJ and OJ (�2 = 567.63, ��2 (�df) = .46 (1), p > .05),nd from a model in which the path between ITJ and OJ was con-trained to be equal to the path between IFJ and OJ (�2 = 568.49,�2 (�df) = 1.31 (1), p > .05), indicating that PJ, ITJ, and IFJ are equal

redictors of OJ. Therefore, the difference between sample sizes, i.e.he statistical power, seems to be a plausible reason to explain theifference in the results from ancillary analyses in both studies. Asuch, we believe that a greater sample in Study 2 would reveal PJ as

stronger predictor of OJ compared to the two other dimensionsf justice.

Furthermore, the significant relationships found between OJnd outcomes support the results of other studies in which OJas found to be positively related to job satisfaction (Ambrose

Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung, 2007)nd affective commitment (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones

Martens, 2009), and negatively related to turnover intentionsAmbrose & Schminke, 2009; Jones & Martens, 2009; Kim & Leung,007). Results obtained in Study 2 also extend previous research byemonstrating the positive relationships between OJ and affective,ormative, and continuance commitment – since the inclusion ofhe three dimensions of commitment has been neglected so far inhe study of the mediating role of OJ. This provides evidence thatmployees’ OJ judgments are positively related to their affectivettachment to the organization, the obligation they feel to continuemployment within the organization, and their need to remain inhe organization. Therefore, global fair treatment is certainly a wayo enhance organizational commitment.

Moreover, our findings indicated several direct relationshipsetween specific justice dimensions and employee attitudes. Therganizational behavior literature assumes that fairness is anmportant predictor of employee attitudes and behaviors andhere are numerous mechanisms, other than OJ, through whichairness perceptions may be related to attitudes and behaviorsithin the organization, such as perceived organizational sup-ort or leader-member exchange. Specifically, as suggested byanogran, Stauffer, and Conlon’s findings (1994), we can rea-

onably assume that the relationships we found between ITJ andffective commitment, between ITJ and continuance commitment,nd between IFJ and continuance commitment are mediated byeader-member exchange. Similarly, based on Masterson, Lewis,oldman and Taylor’s (2000) findings, it appears reasonable tossume that the relationships we found between PJ on the oneand, and job satisfaction, turnover intentions (in Study 1), nor-ative commitment and continuance commitment (in Study 2) on

he other hand, are mediated by perceived organizational support.aken together, these studies suggest that justice perceptions areelated to employee attitudes because of the quality of employees’ocial exchange relationships (i.e., relationships with the orga-ization through perceived organizational support, and with theupervisor through leader-member exchange, Masterson et al.,000).

As mentioned above, each dimension of organizational justiceas found to have a significant influence on continuance commit-ent in Study 2. However, the direction of the relationships varies

ccording to the justice dimension, i.e. a negative association for PJnd ITJ and a positive association for IFJ. There are several reasonso believe that the negative relationships found can be explained as

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

uppression effects. First, the correlations between PJ and continu-nce commitment, and between ITJ and continuance commitmentere respectively equal to −.02 and .03 (n.s.), and according toline (2011), a near-zero correlation between variables is related

PRESShologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

to suppression effects. Moreover, these relationships both becamesignificantly negative in the structural model. The introduction of OJmay be viewed as a suppressor. Indeed, a suppressor is defined as athird variable that increases the regression coefficient between theindependent and dependent variables by its inclusion in a regres-sion equation (Conger, 1974, cited by Cheung & Lau, 2008). Becauseof a suppression effect, the relationship between X and Y couldappear to be of opposite signs (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, cited byCheung & Lau, 2008), as shown here in the relationship betweenITJ and continuance commitment. Finally, according to Shrout andBolger (2002, p. 432): “suppression effects are observed when thedirect effect is opposite in sign to the indirect effect”, which ourresults indicate. Globally, it is certainly worth further investigatingthe relationships between justice and continuance commitment infuture research.

4.1. Limitations and future research directions

A first limitation of the two studies included in the presentpaper is the use of self-reported data, which may lead to commonmethod bias. Correlations may have been inflated due to methodseffect (Meade, Watson, & Kroustalis, 2007). Nevertheless, the prob-lem of common method variance was partially addressed since theresults of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a single-factormodel showed a poor fit to the data (i.e. Harman’s single-factor test;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, cross-sectional designs were used in these studies, preventing causalinferences. Longitudinal designs with repeated measures wouldenable us to check the direction of our relationships and to betterunderstand how OJ perceptions develop. Another potential concernis the extent to which our results are generalizable to other contextsof organizational change. The role of context would deserve addi-tional research. As suggested by Ambrose and Schminke (2009),it would be useful to undertake a future examination of con-textual variables like structure or climate on the relationshipsbetween specific justice dimensions and OJ. Jones and Martens(2009) also suggested investigating the role of context in the pro-cess of fairness perceptions in future research (e.g. they proposed aqualitative approach for a more thorough assessment of data collec-tion contexts). To conclude, both studies were conducted in Belgiansettings. The cultural impact should therefore not be neglected.

4.2. Implications for practice

Organizational change can have profound effects on everyone inthe organization, generating strong reactions that can affect bothorganizational outcomes and employee well-being (Oreg & vanDam, 2008). Indeed, research has shown that the consequencesof change are generally harmful for employees, who tend to reactnegatively to such change (e.g., less satisfaction and motivation, andhigher intention to leave; De Zanet, Hansez, Bossut, Vandenberghe,& De Keyser, 2004). One of the major problems emphasized bythese authors is the lack of justice during organizational changes.As demonstrated in the present research, justice perceptions, andmore specifically OJ, play a crucial role in the prediction of employeereactions in situation of change. Indeed, employee attitudes areclearly related to OJ perceptions. Fair treatment influences theexperience of change, and is therefore associated to employee atti-tudes. For managerial practice, our findings show the importance offairness in times of organizational change. Looking at the increas-

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

ing frequency of organizational change implemented in businesses(workplace, colleagues or supervisor changes, merger, acquisition,downsizing, etc.), treating employees fairly is more crucial for man-agers than ever.

ING ModelE

1 e psyc

D

c

R

A

A

A

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

G

G

H

H

H

H

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ARTICLERAP-325; No. of Pages 10

0 L. Marzucco et al. / Revue européenne d

isclosure of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest con-erning this article.

eferences

mbrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Distributive and procedural justice: Constructdistinctiveness, construct interdependence, and overall justice. In J. Greenberg,& J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59–84). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

mbrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments inorganizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology,94, 491–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013203

nderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,411–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411

entler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fitin the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

rislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material.In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp.398–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

ammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Michigan OrganizationalAssessment Questionnaire. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cam-mann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, andpractices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

heung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects oflatent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 11, 296–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343

ohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations:A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,278–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

olquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A con-struct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386

olquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y.(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years oforganizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425

olquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice: Where do westand? In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice(pp. 589–619). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

olquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured?In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp.113–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

ropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The managementof organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 34–48.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.27895338

ropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairnessheuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791

e Zanet, F., Hansez, I., Bossut, M., Vandenberghe, C., & De Keyser, V. (2004).Analyse du discours de travailleurs confrontés à des changements organisation-nels : Une perspective transactionnelle [Analysis of the discourse of workersconfronted with organizational changes: A transactional perspective]. TravailHumain – Human Work, 67, 257–281.

isenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organiza-tional support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 812–820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.5.812

reenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informationalclasses of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace:Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

runberg, L., Anderson-Connolly, R., & Greenberg, E. S. (2000). Surviving layoffs: Theeffects on organizational commitment and job performance. Work and Occupa-tions, 27, 7–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0730888400027001002

ayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation anal-ysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

ayes, A. F. (2012). Mediation and moderation: Modern method and approaches. Coursepresented at the Stats Camp organized by Kansas University. KS, United States:Lawrence.

ayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional pro-

Please cite this article in press as: Marzucco, L., et al. Justice and emplof overall justice. Rev. Eur. Psychol. Appl. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1

cess analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The GuilfordPress.

oltz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2009). Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinalinvestigation of overall justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,1185–1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015900

PRESShologie appliquée xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models,and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-componentmodel of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 51, 319–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1553

Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and themoderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: The formationand use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30, 1025–1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.577

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with thesimplis command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104,83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.004

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Third edition.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Lind, E. A. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitionsin organizational relations. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances inorganizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A. (2001b). Thinking critically about justice judgment. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 58, 220–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1793

Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theoryof uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X

Little, T. D. (2013). Specifying and interpreting a longitudinal panel model. In T.Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Longitudinal structural equation modeling (chap. 6) (pp.180–208). New York, NY: Guilford.

Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the itemsversus parcels controversy need not be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033266

MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirecteffect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behav-ioral Research, 39, 99–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901 4

Manogran, P., Stauffer, J., & Conlon, E. J. (1994). Leader-member exchange as a keymediating variable between employees’ perceptions of fairness and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Dallas, TX: Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAcademy of Management.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrat-ing justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair proceduresand treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43,738–748.

Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2007). Assessing commonmethods bias in organizational research. New York, NY: Paper presented atthe 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization oforganizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–98.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occu-pations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 538–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538

Oreg, S., & van Dam, K. (2008). Organisational justice in the context of organisa-tional change. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 65, 127–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03080135

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirecteffects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, andComputers, 36, 717–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2010). The impact of change process and contexton change reactions and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management, 36,1309–1338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309341480

Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. (2009). Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The roleof anticipatory justice in an organizational change context. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94, 989–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015351

Shapiro, D. (2001). The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the“wheels” already invented and the voices of the injustice victims. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 58, 235–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1795

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperi-mental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,7, 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422

Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structuralequations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312).

oyee attitudes during organizational change: The mediating role016/j.erap.2014.08.004

Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on socialjustice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and neg-ative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 39–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023226307252