Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale

Abstract

The Distributive and Procedural Justice scale is a psychological instrument developed by Sweeney and Mcfarlin in 1997 to measure employee perceptions of fairness within an organizational context. This two-factor scale operationalizes the core components of Organizational Justice: the fairness of outcomes (distributive justice) and the fairness of the processes used to determine those outcomes (procedural justice). The scale is composed of 24 items in total, utilizing 13 items for the procedural justice subscale and 11 items for the distributive justice subscale.

Keywords

Organizational Justice, Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, Employee Perception, Fairness, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Behavior, Self-Report Scale, Sweeney and Mcfarlin.

Authors

Patrick D. Sweeney, Dean B. Mcfarlin.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to provide researchers and practitioners with a reliable measure for assessing the extent to which employees perceive organizational procedures and resource allocations as equitable. Specifically, the instrument allows for the differentiation between fairness concerning the organizational structure and decision-making processes, and fairness concerning the actual rewards received.

The procedural justice subscale focuses on assessing the fairness of organizational processes related to key activities such as communication of policy changes, handling work-related problems, promotion criteria, and the review of performance feedback. The distributive justice subscale, conversely, aims to capture employee perceptions regarding the fairness of tangible outcomes, including raises, promotions, performance ratings, and general recognition.

Construct

The scale measures two distinct but related dimensions of Organizational Justice: Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice. These constructs are fundamental in organizational psychology for understanding employee motivation, retention, and satisfaction.

• Distributive Justice: This construct refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes or allocations received by employees. It addresses the “what” of justice—are rewards (pay, promotions, recognition) distributed based on merit, need, or equality, and is the resulting distribution perceived as fair?
• Procedural Justice: This construct relates to the perceived fairness of the processes, rules, and procedures used to arrive at decisions concerning resource allocation or outcome distribution. It focuses on the “how” of justice—are the methods used to assess performance or determine promotions applied consistently, accurately, and without bias?

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s validity was established through the original study by Sweeney and Mcfarlin (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated strong support for the two-factor structure, confirming that Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice are empirically distinct constructs, rather than facets of a single, undifferentiated fairness perception.

Furthermore, the scale exhibited strong evidence of criterion validity through its positive correlations with several critical organizational outcomes. Both subscales correlated positively with desirable employee characteristics such as higher employee pay level, greater intention to stay in a job, elevated job satisfaction, favorable supervisor evaluations of the employee, and increased organizational commitment. Additionally, the procedural justice subscale specifically showed positive correlations with employee tenure and being male, suggesting potential demographic differences in the assessment of procedural fairness.

Reliability

The internal consistency of both subscales was assessed using Coefficient Alpha ($alpha$) in the original 1997 study, demonstrating acceptable to good levels of reliability for use in organizational research.

The Procedural Justice subscale, consisting of 13 items, reported a Coefficient Alpha value of $0.84$. The Distributive Justice subscale, consisting of 11 items, reported an Alpha value of $0.81$. These values indicate that the items within each subscale are highly intercorrelated and reliably measure their respective constructs.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the scale was rigorously tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The results confirmed that the two dimensions of justice—distributive and procedural—load onto separate, distinct factors. This statistical separation is crucial as it supports the theoretical distinction between the fairness of outcomes and the fairness of the processes used to achieve those outcomes.

The distinct empirical nature of these two factors allows researchers to analyze their differential effects on organizational variables, such as comparing the impact of unfair pay (distributive) versus the impact of an unfair performance review process (procedural) on employee attitudes and behaviors.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire; Organizational Justice Scale

Format: Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Several items (denoted with R) are reverse-scored to mitigate response bias.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees/Organizational Personnel

Age Group: Adult working population

Population Details: Originally validated on organizational employees across various sectors.

Test Methodology: Paper-and-pencil or digital administration of a fixed-response questionnaire.

Keywords

Organizational behavior, Employee attitude, Fairness perception, Organizational commitment, Job retention, Performance appraisal, Coefficient Alpha, CFA.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was published in 1997. Items were reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons Limited, as indicated in the original publication source. Researchers interested in using the scale should consult the publisher of the Journal of Organizational Behavior (Wiley) regarding specific permissions and potential fees for commercial or large-scale academic use.

Reference’s

Sweeney, P. D., & Mcfarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 83-98. Items were taken from Appendix 1, pp. 97, 98. Copyright © 1997. Reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons Limited.

Items of the Distributive and Procedural Justice scale

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

Procedural justice items:

1. I am not sure what determines how I can get a promotion in this organization (R)
2. I am told promptly when there is a change in policy, rules, or regulations that affects me
3. It’s really not possible to change things around here (R)
4. There are adequate procedures to get my performance rating reconsidered if necessary
5. I understand the performance appraisal system being used in this organization
6. When changes are made in this organization, the employees usually lose out in the end (R)
7. Affirmative action policies have helped advance the employment opportunities in this organization
8. In general, disciplinary actions taken in this organization are fair and justified
9. I am not afraid to “blow the whistle” on things I find wrong with my organization
10. If I were subject to an involuntary personnel action, I believe my agency would adequately inform me of my grievance and appeal rights
11. I am aware of the specific steps I must take to have a personnel action taken against me reconsidered
12. The procedures used to evaluate my performance have been fair and objective
13. In the past, I have been aware of what standards have been used to evaluate my performance

Distributive justice items:

1. Promotions or unscheduled pay increases here usually depend on how well a person performs on his/her job
2. Under the present system, financial rewards are seldom related to employee performance (R)
3. There is a tendency for supervisors here to give the same performance ratings regardless of how well people perform their jobs(R)
4. Under the present system, supervisors here get a few tangible rewards for excellent performance (R)
5. Performance appraisals do influence personnel actions taken in this organization
6. My supervisor evaluated my performance on things not related to my job (R)
7. I will be demoted or removed from my position if I perform my job poorly
8. My performance rating presents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance
9. I will be promoted or given a better job if I perform especially well
10. My own hard work will lead to recognition as a good performer
11. I will get a cash award or unscheduled pay increase if I perform especially well

Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored.