Time will tell 1
Time will tell:
Temporal perspective and fairness-related events at work
Irina Cojuharenco
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Michael Bashshur
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
David Patient
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
May 2009
Time will tell
2
Abstract
Drawing on memory and cognition research we develop hypotheses concerning the effects of
temporal perspective on the salience of specific fairness-related events at work. We predict
that workplace distributive injustice will be more salient in future and more distant temporal
horizons, whereas procedural and interactional injustice in past and more proximate. Two
experiments involving 165 managers in Portugal and 416 full-time employees in the US
confirm our predictions. We discuss implications for the elicitation of employee fairness
concerns and the management of fairness perceptions at work.
2
Time will tell
3
Receiving a performance appraisal in which one is rated below an underperforming
colleague or the exclusion from an important project of a pregnant woman are examples of
fairness-related events that happen in the workplace on daily basis.
Fairness-related events not only lead to immediate reactions in the workplace, but
underlie the formation of work-related attitudes and affect behaviors that derive from those
attitudes (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Hollensbe, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008). A
growing body of literature relates perceptions of the fairness of outcomes (such as bonuses or
reprimands) and procedures (such as the rules as to how decisions are made) to organizational
commitment, identification and job satisfaction (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Masterson,
Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment, on the other
hand, are associated with commitment to one’s co-workers, perceived supervisory support
and citizenship and counterproductive behaviors targeted at specific individuals in the
workplace (Bies & Moag, 1986; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008). Implementation of
performance-based pay, establishment of grievance procedures or adoption of ethics codes
are measures that can be taken to neutralize sources of injustice in the workplace. However,
what managerial action is most appropriate will depend on which fairness-related events draw
the most attention.
In this manuscript, we argue that employees do not worry about the full plethora of
fairness related events with equal intensity at all times. Given limited information-processing
and attentional resources, they focus selectively on some fairness-related events. We explore
how concerns about fairness become affected by the temporal perspective taken on one’s
employment relationship. We propose that two important dimensions of temporal
perspective matter. Temporal orientation, or whether a person considers past versus future,
and temporal distance, or whether the period of time considered is near/recent (e.g., in a few
weeks) or more distant (e.g., in a year’s time).
3
Time will tell
4
Previous research has examined why outcomes, procedures and interpersonal treatment
can be differentially salient as fairness concerns. Findings to date point to the importance of
the availability of counterfactuals (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), psychological needs
(Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001), perceived source of (in)justice (Bies & Moag,
1986; Masterson et al., 2000), the concept of self (Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006), identity
(Skitka, 2003), personality (Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006), culture (Kim & Leung,
2007), work-related or general feelings of uncertainty (van den Bos, 2001), and direct
experience (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003). The effects of temporal perspective have never
been considered. Yet, individuals certainly have a future-focus at stages of contract
negotiation and early organizational socialization, and look back into the past when they need
to repair trust or learn from experience. Research in social psychology and memory and
cognition suggests that temporal perspective has important effects on attention and reasoning
(Trope & Liberman, 2003; Robinson & Clore, 2002a; Robinson & Clore, 2002b). Thus, it
may exert powerful effects on how individuals attend to fairness-related events.
In what follows, we first discuss the effects of temporal perspective on conceptions of
employment. We then develop the hypotheses regarding the effects of temporal orientation
and temporal distance on the salience of specific fairness-related events at work. Finally, our
hypotheses are tested by means of a field experiment with 165 managers in Portugal (Study
1) and 416 full-time employees in the US (Study 2). We conclude by discussing the
implications of the effects of temporal perspective.
A temporal perspective on employment
Research in social psychology and memory and cognition suggests that when future
(versus past) and distant (versus proximate) temporal horizons are considered, people rely
disproportionately on abstract conceptions of social phenomena (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995;
4
Time will tell
5
Robinson & Clore, 2002a,b; Trope & Liberman, 2003; Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope,
2002). Thus, abstract conceptions of employment will play a particularly important role in
directing attention to specific types of fairness-related events in work settings over time.
Work experiences are potentially complex, involving outcomes, procedures, exchanges
of information and interpersonal relationships. However, the ability to “transcend the here
and now” and either evaluate past experiences or anticipate future circumstances builds on
the capacity for abstract processing of information (Liberman & Trope, 2008). Abstract
conceptions are similar to dictionary definitions. They are reductionist, containing few
aspects that distinguish one set of experiences from another.
Importantly, abstract conceptions of employment emphasize the exchange of effort for
material outcomes. Rousseau (2001), in discussing the importance of employment schemas
for the development of psychological contracts between individuals and organizations, points
out that at the highest level of abstraction, employment is often conceived of in accordance
with familiar, legalistic standards, e.g., the clauses of labor contracts. Contrary to what can
be observed for contracts in other domains, such as marriage, clauses of labor contracts center
around material and not socioemotional outcomes. Moreover, labor contracts are between an
individual and an organization, rather than between an individual and specific organizational
actors, such as supervisors or co-workers (Reichers, 1985), which further de-emphasizes
socioemotional aspects of work settings. Indeed, Sanchez-Burks, Nisbett, and Ybarra (2000)
find that recall for socioemotional aspects of workgroup interactions is inferior to recall for
task-related events in both an Anglo-American (US) and Latin (Mexico) culture, in spite of
significant differences between the two cultures. They interpret this as evidence to the fact
that socioemotional aspects of work settings are less central to employment schemas.
Similarly, dictionary definitions of employment emphasize material outcomes, such as pay,
stating that employment is “an occupation by which a person earns a living”
5
Time will tell
6
(dictionary.com), “the state of being provided with a paying job” (Merriam-Webster student
thesaurus online), or “when someone is paid to work for a company or organization”
(Cambridge dictionaries online).
Research hypotheses
When certain aspects of employment (e.g., material outcomes) are salient,
counterfactual scenarios involving those aspects are brought to mind more easily (Kahneman
& Miller, 1986). Thus events where treatment on those aspects could, would and should have
been different (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001), draw most attention. Differential salience of
aspects of employment in different timeframes is the basis for our hypotheses.
Temporal perspective and distributive injustice
Our previous discussion of how employment is viewed at different levels of abstraction,
suggests that unfair outcomes (e.g., pay, bonuses, reprimands) will be more salient in distant
rather than proximate temporal horizons. This is because distributive aspects are central to
abstract conceptions of employment that govern attention when individuals consider distant
temporal horizons. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1: Temporal distance will relate positively to the proportion of recalled and
anticipated events that involve unfair outcomes.
Note that we do not discuss the effects of temporal distance separately for past- and
future-oriented fairness reasoning. Significant research evidence suggests that effects of
temporal distance on reasoning are symmetric for both orientations, and are largely the result
of moving away from the present (Spreng & Levine, 2006), which instantiates psychological
distance (Liberman & Trope, 2008; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). Thus, experiences
in distant past and distant future are more distant psychologically. Consequently, fairness
reasoning about them will build on more abstract conceptions of employment.
6
Time will tell
7
Another source of psychological distance that we consider is hypotheticality and
uncertainty of future versus past experiences (Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007; Wakslak,
Trope, Liberman, & Aloni, 2006). Thus, anticipation of fairness-related events will be
guided by more abstract conceptions of employment, whereas recollection of unfair events by
more concrete. As a result,
Hypothesis 2: Future anticipated injustice will concern events involving unfair
outcomes more often than will past injustice recalled.
Temporal perspective and interactional injustice
Socioemotional aspects of the workplace, such as the nature of interpersonal treatment
and information exchanges at work, are part of more concrete conceptions of employment.
Because specific organizational actors are often the source of interpersonal treatment,
explanations and justifications, the concern with interactional injustice is naturally more
salient when employment is conceived of in more concrete terms. Given that temporal
distance makes conceptions of employment more abstract rather than more concrete, we
expect that:
Hypothesis 3: Temporal distance will relate negatively to the proportion of recalled and
anticipated events that involve interactional injustice.
Temporal orientation will have effects of its own. Much like temporal distance, a future
temporal perspective triggers more abstract conceptions of employment. Thus,
Hypothesis 4: Past injustice recalled will concern events involving unfair interactions
more often than will future injustice anticipated.
Temporal perspective and procedural injustice
Effects of temporal perspective on the differential salience of procedures has to do
with two fundamental reasons underlying concerns with procedures more generally.
7
Time will tell
8
On the one hand, structural aspects of procedures are indicative of the likelihood that
outcome allocations will be fair. Procedures describe “how” outcome allocations will be
made and represent a more concrete picture of distributive justice in the workplace. Second,
fair procedures may be important irrespective of outcome allocations, because they recognize
moral rights and the social status of individuals (Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler & Blader, 2003).
To the extent to which relational aspects of employment are less salient in the abstract,
concerns about procedures will be less salient too. Thus, concerns about fairness-related
events happening at greater temporal distance will less likely involve unfair procedures.
Hypothesis 5: Temporal distance will relate negatively to the proportion of recalled and
anticipated events that involve procedural injustice.
When people look back in time rather than forward, their attention is drawn to “how”
and relational aspects of employment. Unfair procedures are more salient then. So,
Hypothesis 6: Past injustice recalled will concern events involving unfair procedures
more often than will future injustice anticipated.
Two findings in the literature on organizational justice are consistent with our
research hypotheses. Ambrose & Cropanzano (2003) showed that procedural (versus
distributive) justice becomes less important long after a fairness-related event than directly
preceding or directly following the event. They argued it takes time to form a judgment
about outcome fairness. Note, however, that the effect is consistent with the effects of
temporal perspective we stipulate. In a study of anticipatory injustice, Kirkman, Shapiro,
Novelli and Brett (1996) asked employees for their concerns about fairness as a result of the
move to self-managing work teams. In their sample concerns about distributive injustice
predominated, and it narrowed the scope of the authors’ original interest in exploring the full
plethora of types of anticipatory injustice. They concluded that distributive injustice was the
8
Time will tell
9
main fairness concern in self-managing work teams. We suggest this conclusion may have
been different had they asked experienced employees about past fairness-related events in
self-managing work teams. Clearly, the studies discussed have not been purposely designed
to test the effects of temporal perspective. In what follows, we offer a first such test.
Study 1
Method
Participants and procedure
A hundred and sixty-five managers recruited through the alumni network of a
Portuguese business school participated in an online survey. 54% of the sample were male,
average age was 37, highly educated (everyone had a university degree, 33% had a Master’s,
and three participants a PhD). Average work experience was 14 years with an average of 8
years with the current employer and an average number of subordinates of 17.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and asked to
recall/imagine and describe an unfair event at work: a. at least 1 year ago (distant past
condition), b. within last two weeks (recent past), c. at least a year in the future (distant
future), or d. within next two weeks (near future). We measured event-related emotion and
work-related attitudes/behaviors to check whether standard emotional and behavioural
correlates of workplace injustice apply. A variety of demographic variables were also
measured.
Measures
Justice perceptions. Event-related justice perceptions were measured using Colquitt’s
(2001) organizational justice scales. Four facets of justice (procedural, distributive,
informational and interpersonal) were assessed using the four items with the highest factor
9
Time will tell
10
loadings from each subscale. Participants responded using a Likert type scale ranging from 1
“not at all” to 5 “completely”.
Emotion, organizational commitment, and behaviors. Emotion at the time of the event
and at the time of the survey was reported using the Self-Assessment Manikin (Bradley &
Lang, 1994).
Affective organizational commitment was assessed through self-report
referring to the time of the event and to the time of the survey, using 3 items of the Meyer,
Allen, & Smith (1993) scale. Citizenship and deviance behaviors were measured using items
from Dalal, Sims, and Spencer (2003). Items for job withdrawal, which pertains to both
behavior related to quitting and intentions to quit, were taken from Hanisch and Hulin (1990,
1991).
Results
Classification and characteristics of unfair events
Using Colquitt’s (2001) definitions of justice facets, unfair events described by
participants were independently coded by the three authors. Descriptions of events that were
unfortunate rather than unfair, and failures to provide event descriptions were coded as nonclassifiable, and constituted 50% of the sample. In 23% of remaining cases, at least two
authors disagreed about the coding. Agreement was reached in a subsequent roundtable
discussion of the problematic cases. Logit analysis revealed no regularities in the incidence
of non-classifiable events across experimental conditions.
As is standard in the literature on organizational justice, events reported represented
negative emotional experiences that made participants consider quitting their jobs (data
available upon request).
Distributive justice and the temporal perspective
Consistent with hypothesis 1, temporal distance led to greater recall of events
involving unfair outcomes. In the recent past condition, 24% of events reported involved
10
Time will tell
11
unfair outcomes, whereas in distant past the percentage rose to 53% (z=-1.88, p<0.05).
Similarly, in the near future condition 70% of all events involved unfair outcomes, whereas in
distant future the percentage rose to 91% (z=-1.72, p<0.05). The effects of temporal
orientation were as predicted in Hypothesis 2. Anticipated future injustice concerned events
involving unfair outcomes more often than did past injustice recalled (81% versus 38%,
z=4.01, p<0.01).
Interactional justice and the temporal perspective
There were more unfair events involving interactional injustice events in recent past
(20%) versus distant past (15%), however, contrary to Hypothesis 3, there was no significant
difference between the two conditions (z=0.59, n.s.). Moreover, no interactional injustice
events were reported in the future conditions, making the statistical test of Hypothesis 3 for
anticipated unfair events impossible. In accordance with Hypothesis 4, however, events
involving interactional injustice were considered more often in retrospect rather than
anticipation (35% versus 0%, z=4.21, p<0.01).
Procedural justice and the temporal perspective
Events involving unfair procedures were considered more often in recent past rather
than distant past (38% versus 16%, z=1.58, p<0.10). There were also more events involving
procedural injustice in near future rather than distant future (30% versus 9%, z=1.72,
p<0.05), supporting our prediction in Hypothesis 5. Although the proportion of events
involving unfair procedures was greater in retrospect than in anticipation, as stipulated in
Hypothesis 6, the difference was not statistically significant (28% versus 19%, z=0.91, n.s.).
The findings reported above suggest that, qualitatively, we predicted differences in the
salience of specific fairness concerns in distant versus recent past and as compared to distant
versus near future. Results concerning the salience of procedural and interactional injustice
did not always reach statistical significance. Figure 1 summarizes our findings.
11
Time will tell
12
Study 2
Study 2 was conducted to test the robustness of our findings using a US-based sample
and to further explore mechanisms underlying the effects of temporal perspective.
In addition to Study 1 hypotheses, we tested whether the effects of temporal
perspective would differ depending on the degree to which employment is viewed as an
economic versus social exchange (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006). Economic
exchanges are defined as exchanges that do not require a long-term orientation or open-ended
obligations, but emphasize financial agreements (e.g., pay and benefits). In spite of the fact
that a temporal perspective seems implied in definitions of economic and social exchanges, it
is reasonable to expect that the more one views employment as an economic exchange the
more likely one’s abstract conception of employment would emphasize material outcomes.
At the same time, the more one views employment as a social exchange the more likely one
is to emphasize supportive interpersonal relationships, and disagree with standard dictionary
definitions of employment. Thus,
Hypothesis 7: Effects of temporal orientation and temporal distance will be stronger
the more a given individual views employment as an economic exchange and the less the
individual views employment as a social exchange.
In addition, we examined whether a preference for abstract versus concrete mental
representation of behaviors would have effects on salient fairness concerns similar to the
effects of future temporal orientation and temporal distance. Vallacher and Wegner (1989)
refer to individuals with a preference for abstract over concrete mental representation of
behaviors as high in “level of personal agency”. Such individuals think of their behaviors
more in terms of motives and larger meanings, whereas low-level agents think of their
behaviors in terms of details or means of action. We hypothesize that high-level agents think
of employment in terms of its abstract definitional aspects, and focus on events that involve
12
Time will tell
13
such aspects. Low-level agents, on the other hand, are more concerned with “how” aspects of
employment and fairness-related events that involve a more concrete picture of employment.
Thus,
Hypothesis 8: A preference for abstract mental representation of behaviors will be
associated with increased salience of events that involve unfair outcomes and decreased
salience of events that involve interactional or procedural injustice.
Finally, if abstract conceptions of employment affect the nature of fairness concerns
in future and distant temporal horizons, then we should also find the following. First, unfair
events contemplated in distant temporal horizons and future timeframes are more likely to
contain a single prototypical type of injustice (distributive), rather than multiple facets.
Second, event descriptions should be more parsimonious when compared to descriptions
provided in more proximate temporal horizons and past, as opposed to future timeframes.
Third, event descriptions should more often omit the mention of specific organizational
actors as sources of unfair treatment compared to descriptions of events in more proximate
temporal horizons and past timeframes. Hypothesis 9 summarizes these conditions to help us
test the mechanism underlying the effects of temporal perspective:
Hypothesis 9: Descriptions of unfair events in distant, as opposed to proximate, and
future, as opposed to past, temporal horizons will be i) less multifaceted, ii) more
parsimonious, and iii) less specific regarding the source of injustice.
Method
Participants and procedures
Four hundred sixteen US-based full-time employees with at least two years of work
experience were recruited online through MarketTools, Inc. 47% of the sample were male,
average age was 40. 76% had a junior college degree at a minimum, including 15% who have
completed graduate studies. The majority of participants were Caucasian (85.3%). African-
13
Time will tell
14
Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans constituted 4.6%, 3.3% and 2.9% of the sample
respectively. Average work experience amounted to 19 years. Average tenure with current
employer was 7 years. A variety of occupations was represented, the most frequent being
office and administrative support (15%), sales (11%), business and financial operations
(10%), and management (8%).
As in Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and
asked to recall/imagine and describe an unfair event at work: a. at least 1 year ago (distant
past condition), b. within last two weeks (recent past), c. at least a year in the future (distant
future), or d. within next two weeks (near future).
Measures
Social and economic exchange. Beliefs about the nature of exchange involved in the
employment relationship were measured using the social and economic exchange scale
(Shore et al., 2006). The items of the scale were described as statements about employment
in general.
Preference for abstract over concrete mental representation of behaviors. Preference
for abstract over concrete mental representation of behaviors was measured using 15 items of
the Behavior Identification Form (BIF, Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) with the highest itemtotal correlation.
Results
Classification of events
As in Study 1, unfair events described by participants were coded using Colquitt’s
(2001) definitions of justice facets. Non-classifiable events constituted 41% of the sample.
For the remaining events (N=246), the first author and an undergraduate psychology student
who served as an external coder agreed about the facet of dominant justice concern in 88% of
14
Time will tell
15
cases (Cohen’s kappa=0.81, p<0.01). The coding of the external coder who was blind to
research hypotheses was used in data analysis for cases where coders disagreed.
Events were additionally coded for facets of injustice involved, wordiness and the
specificity of the source of injustice. For the latter, a 1 to 4 scale was used where “1” meant
that the source of injustice is identified concretely, such as “my supervisor” or “my
colleague”, 2 that the source of injustice is a larger administrative body or organizational
group, such as “the board of directors” or “clients”, 3 that the source of injustice is identified
in abstract terms, such as “they”, and 4 that the source of injustice is not identified, such as in
“rude treatment”. There was no disagreement about the coding of the source of injustice.
Distributive, interactional, procedural justice and the temporal perspective
As in Study 1, proportion tests of differences in the frequency of fairness concerns
about distributive and interactional injustice indicated that concerns with distributive injustice
were more common in distant as opposed to proximate, and future as opposed to past
temporal horizons, whereas the opposite was largely true of concerns with interactional
injustice (with the exception of recent/distant future comparison for distributive injustice, and
recent/distant past comparison for interactional injustice). Results did not change after the
exclusion of concerns about layoffs, the prevalence of which in future thinking could be
interpreted as due to the economic crisis at the time of the study rather than the effects of
temporal perspective (see Table 1). Hypotheses about the salience of concerns with
procedural injustice were supported only for differences between recent past and distant past
timeframes. Figure 2 summarizes our findings.
With 41% of events categorized as non-classifiable, our analysis could benefit from
the explicit modeling of sample selection. Sequential logit analysis offers the possibility to
examine the likelihood of reporting a specific type of event conditional on reporting an unfair
event. Participants are thus taken to decide in step 1 about reporting versus not, and in step 2,
15
Time will tell
16
about reporting a specific type of event. The same independent variables were examined at
each step because no theoretical basis existed for eliminating any of the variables from step 1.
Importantly, effects of experimental conditions could be now examined controlling for
perceptions of overall organizational justice and demographic variables. Distributive
injustice was the baseline type of event. Results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 in
the odds ratio form, i.e. effects of independent variables are given as the odds of reporting vs.
not reporting a fairness concern in step 1, and the odds of reporting procedural vs. distributive
injustice or interactional vs. distributive injustice in step 2. Odds ratios above 1 mean that the
independent variables have a positive effect on the odds, whereas odds ratios below 1 mean
that the effect is negative, e.g. either reporting of a fairness concern is less likely in step 1 or,
in step 2, reporting of a specific type of injustice is less likely compared to the reporting of
distributive injustice.
Consistent with our hypotheses regarding the differential salience of distributive,
procedural and interactional injustice in different timeframes, sequential logit analysis
showed that a reported fairness concern involved interactional rather than distributive
injustice less likely given a future temporal orientation and at greater temporal distance.
Similar effects were observed for concerns about procedural injustice, although the effect of
temporal distance was statistically significant at only 10% significance level.
Estimation results show additionally that factors inhibiting the report of fairnessrelated events included i) high perceptions of overall organizational justice, ii) psychological
proximity (as opposed to distance in future and distant temporal horizons), iii) a recent
change of job, and that older vs. younger, and male vs. female, employees were less likely to
express a concern about fairness.
16
Time will tell
17
Results concerning the effects of social and economic exchange
Sequential logit analysis is also informative about the moderating effects of beliefs
about employment (see descriptive statistics for scores on economic and social exchange
scale and other key variables in Table 3). Contrary to Hypothesis 7, the degree to which
people saw employment as a social and economic exchange did not affect the magnitude of
the effects of temporal perspective. Yet, consistent with the definition of economic exchange
being a relationship focused on near-term rather than long-term, respondents scoring high on
viewing their employment as an economic exchange were more likely to report a fairnessrelated event, especially when considering temporally proximate and past, rather than futureoriented timeframes.
Results concerning the effects of preference for abstract over concrete mental
representation of behaviors
Preference for abstract over concrete mental representation of behaviors affected the
salience of interactional injustice in the same way as greater temporal distance and future
temporal orientation. Participants were less likely to report on interactional injustice versus
distributive when they had a preference for abstract mental representation of behaviors. This
is consistent with Hypothesis 8 and our discussion of how abstract conceptions of
employment are more likely to feature outcomes rather than types of interpersonal treatment
and information exchanges at work. Yet, there were no significant effects on the salience of
procedural injustice, suggesting that procedures may, to a greater degree, be present in
abstract conceptions of employment.
Analysis of process measures
Analysis of process measures was largely supportive of Hypothesis 9, suggesting that
concerns with distributive injustice are indeed more salient (and concerns with interactional
and procedural injustice less salient) when conceptions of employment are more abstract.
17
Time will tell
18
In particular, descriptions of anticipated unfair events were less multifaceted than
descriptions of unfair events recalled (Wilcoxon rank-sum z = -3.27, p<0.01). For unfair
events recalled, descriptions of events from distant past were less multifaceted (z = -1.43,
p<0.10). However, no significant difference existed in the case of unfair events anticipated in
near versus distant future (z = 0.11, n.s.).
Events were described using a greater number of words (M = 18, SD = 14) when
recalled, and a fewer number of words (M = 11, SD = 10) when anticipated (t(206) = 4.72,
p<0.01), although similar effects were not found for temporal distance.
Finally, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests showed that the source of injustice was less specific
in events having occurred in distant, rather than recent past (z=1.77, p<0.05), and future,
rather than past events (z=3.75, p<0.01), with no significant differences in source specificity
between near and distant future (z=-.24, n.s.).
The absence of statistically significant differences for temporal distance may be due to
the fact that abstract thinking is not the only factor that contributes to the effects of temporal
distance. For example, pay and promotions, as well as some other forms of recognition, may
generally occur over larger spans of time than interactions with colleagues. These differences
in the scaling of outcomes as opposed to the scaling of interpersonal communication may in
itself make outcomes more salient over more distant temporal horizons. Yet, no similar
argument applies when it comes to examining the effects of temporal orientation, e.g., when
fairness-related events recalled from past two weeks are compared to those anticipated in the
next two weeks. Our present analysis shows that a greater salience of concerns with
distributive injustice in future as opposed to past temporal horizons is indeed associated with
greater abstractness of those concerns. Importantly, a re-analysis of Study 1 events in view
of the multiplicity of facets, parsimony and the specificity of source of injustice had led to
18
Time will tell
19
similar findings (data available upon request). This is evidence in favour of the mechanism
for the effects of temporal perspective we advocate.
General Discussion
Very little scholarly attention has focused on the way in which temporal processes can
affect the content of fairness concerns in the workplace. We explored how a temporal
perspective relates to the type of fairness-related events that are salient to employees. As is
well known in the literature on organizational justice, these events affect attitudes and
behaviours at work (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, &
Ng, 2001; Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakovski, 2005). Managerial action is likely to be motivated
by predominant concerns about fairness and, as we show, would be targeted at different
organizational problems depending on the temporal perspective taken by those who report
their concerns.
First, we found that at greater temporal distance events involving unfair outcomes
were more likely to be recalled or anticipated than at closer temporal distance. When events
are temporally closer, then interactional and procedural injustice may be more salient.
Second, we found that temporal orientation (past versus future) also influences the salience of
different types of injustice. For future events anticipated, distributive injustice is far more
salient than procedural or interactional justice, whereas the types of injustice were more
equally represented in past events recalled. In both Study 1 and Study 2, concerns about
interactional and procedural injustice predominated in recent past timeframes.
In essence, we adopted the perspective of the organizational actor, who observes
organizational processes without the periodicity and scope characteristic for researchers, and,
at the moment of forming a concern about fairness, becomes affected by the psychological
distance from actual experiences. Identifying the effects that time and the resulting
19
Time will tell
20
psychological distance may have on the formation of fairness concerns has managerial
implications.
First, managers may be able to emphasize fairness concerns by influencing aspects of
employment that individuals use in defining their employment relationship. Although we
have surveyed employees from a variety of occupations about fairness concerns “at work”, it
is reasonable to expect that unfair events recalled and anticipated within a specific
organization/occupation, e.g. “at Google”, will be affected by conceptions of those
organizations/occupations rather than the more generic conceptions of employment. Second,
managers may make certain fairness concerns, such as concerns about distributive injustice
(versus procedural and interactional) less salient, if they emphasize more recent time
horizons, in which a broader range of aspects concerning employment will draw employee
attention. Third, our results show that employees will tend to be more concerned in advance
with distributive injustice than they will be when looking back at past events. Managers must
be careful not to over rely on employee reported concerns regarding future events, as this can
lead to overestimating the importance of outcomes and underestimating the importance of fair
procedures and treatment.
Although our study has produced interesting results, there are several limitations.
First, in examining fairness-related events, we focused on the salience of unfair events
primarily, whereas we did not examine whether effects of temporal perspective will apply to
the recall and anticipation of fair events. Partly, this was because of the very nature of
fairness reasoning which is more likely to be activated in response to negative circumstances
(Greenberg, 2001). Further, unfair versus fair events are likely to exert more powerful effects
on workplace attitudes and behaviors as humans are naturally more attuned to negative rather
than positive information about their environments (Skowronski & Carlston, 1987). Yet,
20
Time will tell
21
examining the effects of temporal perspective on the recall and anticipation of fair events is a
logical next step.
Second, we have tested whether beliefs regarding the nature of exchange in work
settings (economic and social) affected conceptions about employment and could moderate
the effects of temporal perspective. Although results were consistent with the definitions of
economic and social exchange, the measure did not moderate the effects of temporal
perspective. In future research, we believe it would be useful to develop a measure that
would help researchers differentiate conceptions of employment at different levels of
abstraction. In this sense, we join the call in the literature for additional research into the
employee-organization relationship (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007).
Third, our study responds to the call in the management literature for examining the
effects that time can have on organizational processes (George & Jones, 2000). It is
important to note, however, that temporal orientation and temporal distance, characterizing
specific temporal perspectives, produce effects because of a psychological distance that they
establish between the organizational actor and those phenomena. Social psychologists have
pointed out that temporal distance is one kind of psychological distance, and that social and
spatial distance, as well as uncertainty and hypotheticality, can also lead to psychological
distance (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007). As Liberman and Trope (2008, p.1204) write:
“…abstract thinking is used to transcend the present and expand one’s mental horizon by
thinking farther into time and space and considering remote social targets and unlikely
possibilities”. We have used the latter argument in developing hypotheses concerning the
effects of future temporal orientation. However, further implications can be derived. For
example, we can expect different types of fairness-related events to be salient when
organizational actors consider personal experience versus examine the experience of another,
perhaps socially distant, employee, at a remote company location. The propensity to think in
21
Time will tell
22
abstract terms when psychological distance is great can lead to a failure to consider the
multiple facets of injustice that become important in experience.
Clearly, the effects of temporal perspective that we explored are not the only effects
that time has on concerns about fairness, and much work remains to be done. Our belief is
that theories of organizational justice can be only enriched by looking beyond our traditional
boundaries for suitable approaches and interesting research questions. To the extent that we
are interested in not only how injustice events are immediately processed and responded to,
but also in how they are recalled and anticipated, this is an area that merits further empirical
and theoretical attention.
22
Time will tell
23
Table 1. Percentage of types of fairness-related events in total events reported (Study 2).
Distributive
Distributive (Layoffs)
Procedural
Informational
Interpersonal
Distant Past
(N=64)
42
3
28
8
19
Recent Past
(N=48)
27
0
46
12
15
Near Future
(N=61)
44
15
25
3
13
Distant Future
(N=78)
51
16
32
1
0
Table 2. Sequential logit analysis of fairness concerns in Study 2.
Step 1: Likelihood of
reporting
a fairness concern
Independent variables
Odds
Ratio
95% Conf.
Interval
Step 2: Likelihood
of reporting
a specific type
of fairness concern
Procedural vs.
Distributive
Odds
95% Conf.
Ratio
Interval
Future orientation
1.84** 1.18 -2.85 0.44** 0.24 -0.84
Distant horizon
1.77** 1.12 -2.77 0.66*
0.35 -1.24
BIF score
1.01
0.95 -1.07 1.04
0.95 -1.13
Social exch. score
0.90
0.55 -1.46 1.38
0.63 -3.00
Economic exch. score 2.23** 1.26 -3.95 1.55
0.58 -4.15
Future*Social
0.93
0.50 -1.71 0.39** 0.16 -0.95
Distant*Social
1.18
0.65 -2.17 1.20
0.50 -2.91
Future*Economic
0.44** 0.22 -0.86 0.63
0.23 -1.72
Distant*Economic
0.37** 0.19 -0.74 0.72
0.26 -2.02
Overall org. justice
0.71** 0.60 -0.83 1.02
0.83 -1.26
Tenure
1.00
0.97 -1.03 1.01
0.96 -1.06
Age
0.98** 0.96 -1.00 0.99
0.96 -1.02
Male
0.61** 0.39 -0.97 0.70
0.37 -1.34
Changed jobs
0.52** 0.26 -1.06 1.26
0.46 -3.49
Note. N=412, Log-likelihood -462.96, χ2 (42) = 116.93, p<0.01.
Interactional vs.
Distributive
Odds
95% Conf.
Ratio
Interval
0.13**
0.37**
0.92*
1.21
1.28
0.46
1.41
0.69
1.05
1.00
0.98
0.97
0.36**
2.14
0.05 -0.35
0.15 -0.90
0.82 -1.03
0.51 -2.90
0.40 -4.15
0.12 -1.69
0.44 -4.47
0.16 -2.99
0.25 -4.38
0.75 -1.32
0.91 -1.07
0.93 -1.02
0.13 -0.99
0.55 -8.39
* one-tailed p<0.10; ** one-tailed p<0.05.
23
Time will tell
24
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for overall organizational justice, exchange relationship and
preference for abstract over concrete representation of behaviors (measured using BIF) in
Study 2a.
Variable
Mean (SD)
1
1. Overall organizational justice
5.25 (1.66) (.97)
2. Social exchange
2.43 (.74)
.42**
3. Economic exchange
3.22 (.65)
-.01
4. Behavior Identification Form (BIF)
9.09 (3.83) .05
Note. Coefficient alphas are indicated in parenthesis.
a
2
3
4
(83)
.08
.12*
(75)
.03
(.81)
N=416.
* p<0.05; ** p<0.01.
24
Time will tell
25
Figure 1.
Percentage of types of fairness-related events in total events reported (Study 1).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Distant Past (N=19)
Recent Past (N=21)
Distributive
Procedural
Near Future (N=20)
Informational
Distant Future (N=22)
Interpersonal
Figure 2.
Percentage of types of fairness-related events in total events reported (Study 2).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Distant Past (N=64)
Recent Past (N=48)
Distributive
Procedural
Near Future (N=61)
Informational
Distant Future (N=78)
Interpersonal
25
Time will tell
26
References
Ambrose, M. & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness:
an examination of reaction to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 266-275.
Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In
R. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bradley, M. & Lang, P. (1994). Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the
semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25,
49-59.
Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J., Scott, B., Judge, T., & Shaw, J. (2006). Justice and personality: Using
integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.
Colquitt, J., Wesson, M., Porter, C., Conlon, D. & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium:
A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice
affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg &
J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 301-327). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
26
Time will tell
27
Coyle-Shapiro, J. & Shore, L. (2007). The employee-organization relationship: where do we
go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166-179.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z., Bobocel, D., & Rupp, D. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
Dalal, R. S., Sims, C. S., & Spencer, S. (2003). An assessment of the structure of work
behavior. Presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Orlando, FL).
Fassina, N., Jones, D., & Uggerslev, K. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between
organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and sharedvariance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828.
Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J.
Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–56).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
George, J. & Jones, G. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of
Management, 26, 657-684.
Greenberg, G. (2001). The seven loose can(n)ons of organizational justice. In J. Greenberg
and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 245–273).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hanisch, K. & Hulin, C. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination
of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 37, 60-78.
Hanisch, K. & Hulin, C. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An
evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128.
27
Time will tell
28
Hollensbe, E., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and
organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions.
Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1099-1117.
Johnson, R., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept
meet. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175-201.
Kahneman, D. & Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.
Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
Kim, T. & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall organizational fairness
perception: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 104, 83-95.
Kirkman, B., Shapiro, D., Novelli, L., & Brett, J. (1996). Employee concerns regarding selfmanaging work teams: a multi-dimensional justice perspective. Social Justice
Research, 9, 47-67.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of
mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523-534.
Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now.
Science, 322, 1201-1205.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B., & Taylor, M. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
28
Time will tell
29
McFarlin, D. & Sweeney, P. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 626-637.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Reichers, A. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 465–476.
Reyna V. & Brainerd C. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and
Individual Differences, 7, 1-75.
Robinson, M. & Clore, G. (2002a). Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model
of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934-960.
Robinson, M. & Clore, G. (2002b). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional selfreport: Evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 198-215.
Rousseau, D. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
511-541.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R., & Ybarra, O. (2000). Cultural styles, relational schemas,
and prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
174-189.
Shore, L., Tetrick, L., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic
exchange: construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36 , 837-867.
29
Time will tell
30
Skitka, L. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 286 - 297.
Skowronski, J. & Carlston, D. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: the role of
cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity and extremity biases. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 689–699.
Spreng, R. & Levine, B. (2006). The temporal distribution of past and future
autobiographical events across the lifespan. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1644-1651.
Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance:
Construal and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 43, 473-482.
Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological
distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.
Tyler, T. & Blader, S. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349361.
Tyler, T. & Lind, E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25), 115–191. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Vallacher, R. & Wegner, D. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action
identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on
reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 931-941.
30
Time will tell
31
Wakslak, C., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Aloni, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is
unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 135, 641-653.
Weiss, H. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). An affective events approach to job satisfaction. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp.
1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31