Distributive and Procedural Justice Measurement

Abstract

The Distributive and Procedural Justice measure was developed by Parker, Baltes, and Christiansen in 1997 to assess employee perceptions of organizational fairness. This comprehensive instrument is divided into two primary subscales. The Distributive Justice component utilizes three items focused on the perceived fairness in the allocation of organizational rewards and recognition. The Procedural Justice component employs four items designed to gauge employee input and involvement in organizational decisions, encompassing both the “voice” and “choice” aspects of fair procedure. Crucially, this measure evaluates overall organizational judgments of fairness rather than specific, localized policies or practices.

Keywords

Organizational Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, employee perceptions, fairness, work attitudes, organizational loyalty, recognition, industrial-organizational psychology.

Authors

C. P. Parker, B. B. Baltes, N. D. Christiansen.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to quantitatively assess employee perceptions concerning the fairness experienced within their organization. By separating justice into its distributive (outcome fairness) and procedural (process fairness) components, researchers can gain insight into how employees judge both the outcomes they receive and the processes used to determine those outcomes.

Specifically, the measure aims to link these justice perceptions to broader organizational outcomes and attitudes, such as satisfaction with work, loyalty, and support for policies like affirmative action/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). It provides a standardized method for capturing subjective judgments of organizational treatment.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Organizational Justice, which is a key concept in industrial and organizational psychology. This construct is operationalized through two distinct dimensions:

• Distributive Justice (3 items): This dimension measures the perceived fairness of outcomes, allocations, or rewards (e.g., pay, promotions, recognition). High scores indicate that employees believe outcomes are equitable across the organization.
• Procedural Justice (4 items): This dimension measures the perceived fairness of the processes and procedures used to arrive at decisions. It specifically addresses the extent to which employees feel they have “voice” (input into decisions) and “choice” (involvement in the decision-making process), reflecting the extent of organizational transparency and employee consideration.

Validity

The validity of the measure was established through correlational and confirmatory analyses across four independent subsamples in the original study (Parker et al., 1997). The scales demonstrated strong evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity.

Specifically, both procedural justice and distributive justice exhibited significant positive correlations with desirable work attitudes, including increased satisfaction with work, greater perceived career development opportunities, and enhanced organizational loyalty. This positive relationship confirms the expected theoretical linkage between fairness perceptions and positive organizational outcomes.

Furthermore, confirmatory analysis showed that the two justice factors were empirically distinct not only from each other but also from related constructs such as judgments about career opportunities, job satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational support for affirmative action/EEO programs. This distinctiveness supports the conceptual clarity and independence of the two-factor structure.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Coefficient Alpha, yielding acceptable to strong results for both subscales in the original 1997 study (Parker et al., 1997).

• For the Distributive Justice subscale (3 items), the Coefficient Alpha was reported as .88. This robust value indicates excellent internal consistency among the items measuring the fairness of outcomes and allocations.
• For the Procedural Justice subscale (4 items), the Coefficient Alpha was reported as .74. This value meets standard thresholds for acceptable reliability in psychological research, demonstrating that the items reliably measure the fairness of organizational processes and employee involvement.

Factor Analysis

The scale structure is based on the foundational two-factor model of organizational justice. Although the source content does not detail an exploratory factor analysis, the study utilized confirmatory analysis to rigorously test the hypothesized structure (Parker et al., 1997). The underlying model posits that the items load onto two separate, correlated factors corresponding to the theoretical differentiation between distributive outcomes and procedural processes.

The confirmatory findings confirmed that this two-factor model was statistically sound, establishing that distributive justice and procedural justice are related constructs but remain empirically separable components of overall organizational fairness perceptions. This supports the use of the two subscales independently when analyzing specific aspects of employee judgments regarding organizational treatment.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale (Survey)

Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital survey format utilizing a Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original publication language)

Population Group: Employees and organizational members.

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: The measure is designed for use across diverse organizational settings. The original research focused on examining differences across gender and racial-ethnic groups within organizational samples, confirming its applicability across varied adult employee demographics.

Test Methodology: Participants respond to seven total items (three for distributive justice, four for procedural justice). Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree, reflecting their overall judgment of the organization.

Keywords

Organizational behavior, I-O psychology, employee involvement, fairness perceptions, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, EEO, reward allocation.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 1997. The original items were published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Use of the items may require permission from the American Psychological Association (APA), as the copyright for the publication is held by the APA (Copyright© 1997).

Reference’s

Parker, C. P, Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 376–389. Items were extracted from Table 1, p. 381. Copyright© 1997 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.

Items of the Distributive and Procedural Justice measure

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Procedural justice items:

1. People involved in implementing decisions have a say in making the decisions
2. Members of my work unit are involved in making decisions that directly affect their work
3. Decisions are made on the basis of research, data, and technical criteria, as opposed to political concerns
4. People with the most knowledge are involved in the resolution of problems

Distributive justice items:

5. If a work unit performs well, there is appropriate recognition and rewards for all.
6. If one performs well, there is appropriate recognition and reward.
7. If one performs well, there is sufficient recognition and rewards