Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale

Abstract

The Distributive and Procedural Justice scale, developed by Joy and Witt in 1992, is a highly parsimonious instrument designed to assess two core components of organizational justice within employee settings. Each dimension is measured using only three items. The procedural justice subscale evaluates the extent to which employees perceive they have a voice or input regarding critical organizational decisions, such as job assignments, duties, and performance appraisal processes.

Conversely, the distributive justice subscale focuses on the perceived fairness of the outcomes or decisions themselves concerning these same organizational elements. The measures are valuable for efficient assessment in organizational psychology research.

Keywords

Organizational justice, Distributive justice, Procedural justice, Job satisfaction, Performance appraisal, Employee voice, Organizational psychology, Joy and Witt.

Authors

V. L. Joy, L. A. Witt

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scales is to provide efficient, brief measures for researchers studying the impact of perceived fairness—both in terms of organizational processes and resulting outcomes—on employee attitudes and behaviors. These scales are particularly useful in organizational research settings where minimizing survey length while maintaining adequate psychometric quality is critical.

The instrument was originally utilized to investigate how the psychological variable of delay of gratification might moderate the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice, demonstrating its utility in complex theoretical modeling regarding fairness perceptions.

Construct

The instrument measures two distinct but related facets of organizational justice.

The first, Procedural Justice, refers to the perceived fairness of the processes and methods used to arrive at organizational decisions. This subscale specifically assesses an employee’s perceived level of voice or input regarding critical elements of their work life, including job duties, assignments, and performance evaluation procedures.

The second facet, Distributive Justice, concerns the perceived fairness of the actual outcomes or resources received. This subscale measures whether employees believe the resulting organizational decisions—specifically concerning job assignments, general treatment, and performance appraisals—are equitable and just.

Validity

The initial validation study by Joy and Witt (1992) demonstrated preliminary evidence of construct validity. Specifically, the two subscales, distributive justice and procedural justice, were found to be positively correlated, which aligns with established theory suggesting that perceptions of fair processes often contribute to perceptions of fair outcomes.

Furthermore, the study provided evidence for criterion-related validity by showing that the relationship between distributive and procedural justice was significantly moderated by an individual difference variable: delays in gratification. The correlation between the two forms of justice was observed to be smaller for employees who exhibited shorter delays in gratification, suggesting a nuanced interaction between justice perceptions and individual psychological traits.

Reliability

The internal consistency of both subscales was assessed using Coefficient alpha in the original 1992 study (Joy & Witt, 1992). Both measures exhibited acceptable to strong reliability given their parsimonious three-item structure.

• Internal consistency for the Distributive Justice subscale was reported as Coefficient alpha = 0.70.

• Internal consistency for the Procedural Justice subscale was reported as Coefficient alpha = 0.86.

Factor Analysis

The clear separation of the six items into two distinct, theoretically grounded subscales (Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice) strongly implies a two-factor structure. This structure supports the theoretical distinction between the fairness of processes (procedures) and the fairness of outcomes (distributions).

Given the low item count (three items per subscale), the measures are designed to function as highly specific, unidimensional indicators of their respective justice facets. The positive correlation between the two subscales confirms that while they load onto separate factors, they are related components of the broader construct of organizational justice.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: The instrument uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = definitely disagree to 5 = definitely agree. It is highly parsimonious, consisting of six items total (three per subscale).

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees in organizational settings

Age Group: Adult (Working population)

Population Details: The scale was developed and validated within an organizational sample, focusing on employee perceptions of job-related fairness.

Test Methodology: Standard survey administration (pencil-and-paper or digital).

Keywords

Organizational behavior, Employee fairness, Job duties, Performance evaluation, Parsimony, Internal consistency, Psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not Provided

Affiliation Email addresses: Not Provided

Correspondence Address: Not Provided

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1992

Permissions: The items were originally published in Group & Organization Management and were reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc. Researchers should adhere to standard academic fair use guidelines for non-commercial research and provide full citation to the source article.

Fee: Generally considered free for non-commercial academic research use, provided proper citation is maintained.

Reference’s

Joy, V. L., & Witt, L. A. (1992). Delay of gratification as a moderator of the procedural justice-distributive justice relationship. Group & Organization Management, 17(3), 297–308. Copyright© 1992 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Items of the Distributive and Procedural Justice scale

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

Procedural justice items:

1. I have considerable voice in determining my performance evaluation
2. I have considerable voice in determining my job duties
3. I have considerable voice in determining my job assignment

Distributive justice items:

1. Most of my job assignments have been fair
2. The treatment that I have generally received here at [company name] has been fair
3. I have received fair performance evaluations