Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.

12094

Gender and Organizational Justice Preferences

Jody Clay-Warner*, Elizabeth Culatta and Katie R. James
University of Georgia

Abstract
Despite evidence that women and men possess similar workplace values, debate continues regarding
gendered preferences for justice in the workplace. In particular, some have argued that women and
men have fundamentally different justice orientations, which lead men to value fair outcomes and
women to value fair procedures. Recent research nds that such beliefs may inuence managers to
reward men with greater monetary rewards than those provided to women. Here, we review this
literature and argue that men and women do not have fundamentally different justice orientations.
Instead, the few ndings of gender difference in preferences for procedural vs. distributive justice in
the workplace are a function of status differences between men and women.

Increases in womens labor force participation have given rise to a large literature examining
gender differences in work attitudes and preferences (see Singh et al. 2004 for review). In
general, this literature nds great similarity in the values that women and men place on
various workplace rewards, such as salary and recognition (e.g., Ross and Mirowsky 1996).
Women and men also have similar levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
with most of the same workplace and job characteristics predicting work attitudes for both
men and women (Mottaz 1988; Mueller and Wallace 1996; Phelan 1994).
Despite evidence of similarity in what men and women value at work, debate continues
regarding gendered preferences for justice in the workplace (Belliveau 2012; Jepsen and
Rodwell 2012; Ramamoorthy and Flood 2004). In particular, some have argued that women
place greater value on the fairness of workplace procedures than do men, while men value
equitable workplace rewards more than do women. This argument brings together two streams
of research: studies that conclude that women have a fundamental orientation toward
maintaining positive relationships (Gilligan 1982) and studies that support a relational model
of procedural justice in which fair procedures are valued because they communicate positive
group standing (e.g., Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler and Lind 1992). Empirical research, however,
does not support a gendered model of organizational justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001).
The persistence of the claim that women are focused on fair procedures and men on fair
outcomes may have signicant consequences. Belliveau (2012) contends that this pervasive
stereotype encourages managers to reward men with high salaries, while rewarding women
with procedures that conrm their value to the organization. Managers in Belliveaus study
reported that they would pay a female employee in a hypothetical raise scenario less when
they were given an opportunity to provide a justication to the employee, which is one
way that managers display procedural justice (Bies and Shapiro 1988), than when there
was not an opportunity to provide a justication. The opportunity to provide a justication
did not affect the pay for men, however. Belliveau also found that graduate business school
students believed that women would value receiving an explanation for unfairly low wages
more than would men. These ndings indicate that managers may shortchange female em-
ployees because they presume that women value fair procedures more than they do fair pay.

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Gender and Organizational Justice 1075

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether women and men possess different
justice orientations that translate into gendered justice preferences in the workplace. The
empirical literature on gendered justice preferences in the workplace is mixed: some studies
nd gender differences, while others nd that men and women equally value procedural
and distributive justice. Our critical review of the literature, however, indicates that the
few differences between men and women documented in this literature are not due to
gendered justice orientations but, instead, can be accounted for by mens higher status in
the workplace.
The gender approach and the status approach offer different accounts of organizational
justice preferences. According to the gender approach, differences in the ways in which men
and women are socialized results in fundamental personality differences that affect attitudes
and behaviors across situations. It is argued that gender socialization processes cause women
to value relationships, which results in their placing a higher value on fair procedures than on
fair outcomes across situations. Meanwhile, gender socialization causes men to prioritize out-
comes, causing them to value distributive justice (Gilligan 1982; Kahn et al. 1980).
In contrast, the status approach argues that differences in attitudes and behaviors between
men and women are situationally specic and due to mens greater prestige and access to
resources in certain contexts. In the workplace, status is determined by a number of factors,
including ones position in the organizational hierarchy, education, experience, and access to
networks. Tyler and Lind (1992; Bollen et al. 2012; Lind and Tyler 1988) propose that low-
status individuals likely value fair procedures even more than high-status individuals, as group
standing is particularly important to those with low status. This suggests that when women
have lower status than men in the workplace, which is often the case, that they will value
procedural fairness more than will men. Status differences also explain why some research
nds gender differences in allocations. Low-status women may allocate greater rewards to
men than to themselves due to the expectation that higher status people receive greater
rewards (Berger et al. 1972, 1985)
We begin with an overview of justice theory, highlighting the differences between distrib-
utive and procedural justice. We then discuss and critique Gilligans moral development the-
ory, which is a long-standing source of the assumption that women care more about
procedural fairness and men about outcome fairness. Next, we discuss the empirical literature
on mens and womens justice preferences and allocation behavior, before turning to the
literature on gender as a moderator of the effects of procedural and distributive justice on
work attitudes. Throughout, we argue that status differences between men and women
likely account for the few gender differences documented in the empirical literature. We
conclude by suggesting directions for future research.

Equitable outcomes vs. fair processes

Justice theory makes a fundamental distinction between distributive justice and procedural
justice (see Trnblom and Vermunt 2007 for overview). Distributive justice exists when
rewards have been allocated to a dened group of recipients according to an agreed upon
rule. The most common rules are equality, needs, and equity. According to the equality rule,
all recipients receive the same reward amount. The needs rule stipulates that reward amount
is determined by recipients requirements (Hegtvedt 2006). The equity rule dictates that in-
dividuals receive outcomes that are commensurate with their inputs in relation to the inputs
and outcomes of similar others. Equity comparisons may be to others in the local environ-
ment, such as workers of similar rank in the same organization (Adams 1965; Homans
1974) or those similarly placed in the larger referential structure (Berger et al. 1972). The

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
1076 Gender and Organizational Justice

equity rule generally applies in the workplace, where pay, benets, and perquisites are
expected to be distributed according to rank, productivity, and other criteria that distinguish
employee inputs (Ambrose and Arnaud 2005).
A second component of organizational justice is procedural fairness. Procedural justice
focuses on the fairness of the processes that relate to outcome decisions, including the inter-
personal treatment of employees (see Lind and Tyler 1988). Drawing from early work in
social exchange theory, Thibaut and Walker (1975) argued that procedural justice is valued
because it leads to fair distributions. In this formulation, procedural justice serves an instru-
mental purpose. Lind and Tyler (1988) challenged the instrumental focus of procedural
justice and instead proposed that people appreciate fair procedures because people interpret
fair procedures as an indication of value to the group. There is considerable support for this
argument, as research nds not only that perceptions of procedural justice affect self-esteem
and group identity but also that procedural justice predicts a variety of work attitudes and
behaviors above and beyond any real or perceived effect that procedures have on outcomes
(e.g., Greenberg 2000; Lind et al. 1990; Tyler et al. 1996). Tyler and Lind (1992) later
identied the elements of fair procedures, which they label relational components, thus
underscoring the link between fair procedures and relationship maintenance. In support of
their argument, research nds that when authorities are trustworthy, respectful, and unbi-
ased, people perceive that they have been treated in a procedurally fair manner, which con-
rms their perception of themselves as valued group members (see Tyler et al. 1997).

Gender, justice, and moral development

Gilligans (1982) moral development theory is a primary source of the argument that women
care more about workplace procedures and men about equitable outcomes (see also Haan
et al. 1968; Holstein 1976). Gilligan draws heavily from work by sociologist Nancy
Chodorow (1978) to argue that womens fundamental moral orientation is toward
maintaining positive relationships, which is a byproduct of girls growing identication with
their mothers as they advance into adolescence (Gilligan and Wiggins 1987). In contrast, a
boys psychosocial development requires separation from his mother and identication with
his father. Because the father is a powerful authority gure, identication with the father
forces boys to confront issues of inequality, leading to a concern for outcome justice.
Critics have challenged the premise of Gilligans theory, arguing that she bases her claims
on data drawn from small, non-representative samples (Colby and Damon 1983; Colby et al.
1983). There is also limited empirical support for Gilligans theory. Jaffee and Hydes (2000)
meta-analysis found that differences in moral orientation are not consistently associated with
gender and that when differences are found, effect sizes are small (e.g., Thoma 1986; Walker
1984, 1991). Recently, Ryan et al. (2004) reported that individuals use of particular forms of
moral reasoning was uid and determined not by gender but by the demands of the situation.
Despite scant evidence that women possess a fundamental orientation toward relationships
and process, while men possess a fundamental orientation toward outcome justice, this argu-
ment is widely invoked in the construction of gendered models of organizational justice.
Many rely on Gilligans theoretical foundation as described above (e.g., Foley et al. 2005;
Jepsen and Rodwell 2009; Lee et al. 2000), while others cite a similar childhood socialization
argument, noting that girls are socialized to value and cultivate relationships, while boys are
encouraged to focus on outcomes (e.g., Kahn et al. 1980; Sweeney and McFarlin 1997; see
Deaux and Major 1982; Eagly 1987). Researchers build from these theoretical foundations to
predict that women will value fair procedures over fair outcomes and that they will be less
likely to utilize the equity norm than will men.

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
 Gender and Organizational Justice 1077

Gender and preferences for workplace justice: empirical ndings

Justice values
One literature relevant to a gendered organizational justice model assesses the importance
that men and women say that they place on fair outcomes vs. fair procedures. Representative
of this literature is research by Tata and Bowes-Sperry (1996), who asked male and female
workers how likely they would be to take different forms of justice into account when eval-
uating the fairness of a pay raise (see also Tata 2000). Men reported being more likely to take
distributive justice into account than did women. There were also gender differences in a
measure of interactional justice, which included interpersonal components of procedural
justice, such as respect for rights and kindness. Women reported being more likely than
men to consider interactional justice in evaluating the fairness of pay. Because Tata and
Bowes-Sperry (1996) did not control for any job status variables, however, status and gender
were likely confounded. As a result, their ndings for gender differences may be a function of
gender differences in status. Major et al. (1989) also offered a status interpretation of their
nding that men scored higher on a workplace-equity sensitivity scale than did women.
Major et al. (1989) explain that womens preference for giving more than they receive
in the workplace may be a function of status differences between men and women that result
in objectively lower rewards for women despite similar inputs. Thus, the variance in equity
sensitivity scores may reect not gendered preferences but, instead, acquiescence on the part
of low-status individuals.
Mueller and Wynn (2000) examined the value that different workers place on fair pay in
18 datasets drawn from four countries. They found signicant gender differences in the value
placed on being rewarded fairly in the workplace in only six of the ten datasets in which in-
formation about participants gender was available. In each case, however, women were
found to value pay fairness more than were men, which directly contradicts the assumption
that men focus more on fair outcomes than do women. They note, however, that women
rated almost all of the various workplace rewards higher than did men and that their rankings
of distributive justice relative to other workplace rewards was virtually identical to mens. As
a result, Mueller and Wynn (2000) conclude that there are no real gender differences in the
stated value that men and women place on distributive justice in these data.

Allocation behavior
Another way to consider whether organizational justice preferences are gendered is to exam-
ine whether men and women vary in their allocation decisions. Though this research is
conducted in the laboratory and so does not examine organizational justice per se, it does
examine the basic social processes surrounding justice preferences that likely translate into
preferences in the workplace. Specically, this research examines whether men and women
both follow the equity norm when making allocation decisions or whether women follow
other justice norms that reect a relational focus.
In their classic research examining allocation behavior, Leventhal and Lane (1970) found
that men followed the equity rule, dividing rewards according to inputs. Women, on the
other hand, appeared to take into account their partners welfare. Women took an equal
amount of the reward if their inputs were higher than those of their partner but signicantly
less than their fair share if their inputs were less than those of their partner. Callahan-Levy
and Messe (1979) also concluded that women were more generous allocators, allocating less

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
1078 Gender and Organizational Justice

to self than did men. This nding has not been consistently replicated, however, with more
recent research nding few substantive differences in mens and womens allocation behavior
(e.g., Grifth et al. 1993; Kim et al. 1990; Messe and Callahan-Levy 1979; Miller and
Komorita 1995).
Contextual factors also affect allocation patterns, which suggest that gender stereotypical
allocations are not due to justice orientations (e.g., Inness et al. 2005; Kahn et al. 1980;
Martin and Osmond 1982). For example, Kidder et al. (1977) found that men and women
conformed to gender stereotypes, with women dividing resources equally and men equita-
bly, when they believed that their allocation decisions would be made public. When the
decisions were anonymous, however, the pattern reversed, with men allocating equally
and women equitably, indicating that the gender-stereotypical responses were a result of ex-
pectations for behavior (see also Major and Adams 1983). Similarly, Major et al. (1984) found
that women allocated less to themselves than did men only when they did not have informa-
tion about allocations that others had made. The authors suggest this was a result of women
taking what they expected a typical woman would take. The experimental task, itself, also
matters. Reis and Jackson (1981) reported differences in the degree to which men and
women followed the equity norm only when they were allocating resources generated by
a masculine-linked task (see also Jackson 1987).
In light of these ndings, sociologists have argued that observed gender differences in
allocation behavior are not due to dispositional differences between men and women but,
instead, are a function of status differences. According to reward expectation theory, people
expect high-status individuals to receive greater rewards than low-status individuals, because
high-status actors are presumed to contribute more to the completion of a task (Berger et al.
1972, 1985). Wagner (1995) applied this logic to argue that women and men differ in their
utilization of the equity rule because men, as high-status actors, expect to receive outcomes that
are at least commensurate to inputs (equity), while women, as low-status actors, expect that
they will not be equitably rewarded (see also Wagner and Berger 1997). To test this argument,
Wagner constructed an experimental situation in which male and female participants were
assigned high, low, or equal status relative to their same-sex partner based upon reported scores
on an ability task. They were then asked to allocate money earned from the experiment to
themselves and to their partners. Both men and women gave greater awards to the higher status
member of the dyad in status differentiated dyads and equal rewards in status-equal dyads, which
was consistent with the expected task contributions.

Gender as a moderator of the effects of justice on job attitudes

Complementing the allocation literature are studies examining whether there are gender dif-
ferences in the importance of procedural and/or distributive justice in predicting work atti-
tudes. Early research focused exclusively on distributive justice, beginning with Brockner and
Adsits (1986) study of satisfaction with Business Lead and Referral Clubs. These clubs are
networking organizations designed to increase members contacts within the business com-
munity. Because club members are expected to exchange information about contacts and
leads with one another, these clubs are a logical place for the study of outcome fairness.
Brockner and Adsit (1986) found that perceived equity was a stronger predictor of satisfac-
tion with the clubs for men than for women. The effects of equity on satisfaction, however,
were stronger for men involved in all-male referral clubs than for males in co-ed groups,
suggesting the potential importance of status factors, as men may have judged the leads
obtained from other men as more valuable. Their study, though, did not examine work

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
 Gender and Organizational Justice 1079

attitudes, as it measured satisfaction with a business club. Witt and Nyes (1992) 30 sample
meta-analysis, however, focused specically on job satisfaction. They concluded that there
were no gender differences in the role of either perceived pay equity or promotion equity
on job satisfaction. Thus, this research nds that job satisfaction is equally dependent upon
distributive justice for both men and women.
Subsequent studies examined gender differences in the importance of both procedural and
distributive justice on work attitudes. In a widely cited article, Sweeney and McFarlin (1997)
examined whether there were gender differences in the effects of perceived procedural fair-
ness and pay equity on intention to stay, job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, and orga-
nizational commitment among a large sample of federal employees. The authors reported
that distributive justice was a more important predictor of intention to stay, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment for men than for women, while procedural justice was a
more important predictor of intention to stay and organizational commitment for women
than for men. Though this article is often cited as supporting a gendered model of organiza-
tional justice (e.g., Lee and Farh 1999; Foley et al. 2005; Peterson 2004), Sweeney and
McFarlin (1997) offer a status interpretation of their ndings. They suggest that women
may value fair procedures because they lack access to mentors and informal networks that
men use to secure raises and other tangible outcomes. As a result, women may be forced
to rely on fair procedures as a result of their low status. Indeed, Sweeney and McFarlins
(1997) model does not allow for the disentangling of gender and status, as the primary con-
trols for status are a pay grade measure that collapses the 16 federal pay grades into a 5-level
ordinal scale and a similar ordinal scale of job tenure. Given womens lower status in the
workforce, particularly in 1980 when these data were collected, the potential conation of
gender and status is a signicant issue.
Other research has either found no evidence that gender moderates the effects of either
procedural or distributive justice on work attitudes (e.g., Fields et al. 2000; Inoue et al.
2012; Phelan 1994) or that there are very few gender differences (e.g., Foley et al. 2005;
Jepsen and Rodwell 2012). In fact, a number of studies nd gender difference in the direc-
tion opposite to predictions. For example, Lee and Farh (1999) tested for the interaction of
gender and procedural/distributive justice on several workplace attitudes in two samples of
US workers. The only signicant interaction indicated that distributive justice was a stronger
predictor of trust in supervisor for women than for men. Similarly, McDuff (2001; also
McDuff and Mueller 2002) found that distributive justice had a stronger effect on job satis-
faction for women than for men among a sample of protestant clergy, while Ramamoorthy
and Flood (2004) documented the same gendered effect for the role of distributive justice on
affective commitment. Likewise, Lee et al. (2000) reported that procedural justice was a more
important predictor of mens assessments regarding whether the organization had fullled
commitments made to employees than of womens assessments. Thus, this literature does
not provide consistent support for a gendered model of organizational justice.

Assessment of empirical literature

The idea that men are fundamentally outcome-focused and women are relationship-focused
continues to permeate both the academic and popular presses and has resulted in the wide-
spread perception that men place primary focus on equitable outcomes in the workplace,
while women are more oriented toward fair procedures (see Belliveau 2012). The empirical
literature, however, does not nd consistent differences in the value men and women place
on procedural and distributive justice in the workplace. The preponderance of the empirical
evidence nds that both men and women value equitable workplace outcomes (Mueller and

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
1080 Gender and Organizational Justice

Wynn 2000), allocate resources according to situational demands (e.g., Martin and Osmond
1982; Reis and Jackson 1981; Wagner and Berger 1997), and take both distributive and
procedural justice into account when evaluating their jobs and workplace organizations
(e.g., Fields et al. 2000; McDuff 2001). This literature indicates that women and men are
more similar than they are different in the value they place on distributive and procedural
justice in the workplace. This is consistent with research on gender and other work values,
which nds few differences in what men and women want from their jobs and organizations
(e.g., Mueller and Wallace 1996; Ross and Mirowsky 1996).
Because most studies reporting stereotype-consistent results do not include controls for job
sector, supervisory responsibilities, level of education, or other variables indicating ones
position in the organization and workforce, these studies likely reveal more about variation
in organizational justice preferences by status than by gender. Inoue et al. (2012) provide
recent evidence in support of this argument. They found that procedural injustice was signif-
icantly associated with psychological distress for non-permanent female workers, while there
were no procedural justice effects among permanent workers of either gender. Tellingly,
there were too few male non-permanent works in their sample for analysis. A status expla-
nation is also consistent with Lind and Tyler (1988) assertion that low-status persons place
particular value on fair procedures, because they desire afrmation of their group status. Empir-
ical research supports this claim, with research nding that procedural justice is more important
to high status than to low-status people in certain contexts (Bollen et al. 2012; Chen et al. 2003;
cf. Diekmann et al. 2007). Factors associated with low status, such as lack of autonomy and low
levels of belongingness, have also been found to amplify the importance of procedural justice
(De Cremer 2002; Van Prooijen 2009). Status differences also explain gender differences in
allocation behavior, as womens expectations for lower rewards due to their lower status
guide them toward allocations that deviate from the equity norm (Wagner 1995; Wagner
and Berger 1997). Thus, preferences for particular allocations and for procedural vs. distrib-
utive justice are context specic, varying by ones relative status in the situation and also,
perhaps, by situational norms.

Directions for future research

The recognition that gendered justice preferences are likely a function of status differences
suggests a variety of directions for future research. For example, research has not established
why gender or other status indicators might affect the relative importance of procedural and
distributive justice. Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) suggest that women may be particularly
focused on procedural justice because they perceive that fair procedures are an effective way
to address pay inequities in the long term. In contrast, the group-value model argues that
low-status people seek fair procedures primarily to increase their self-esteem via afrmation
of value to the group (Lind and Tyler 1988). While research has established the general primacy
of self-esteem goals over outcome goals in procedural justice (see Tyler and Lind 1992 for
review), it is possible that status complicates this relationship, particularly in cases of long-lasting
inequity. Low-status and high-status people may also care about procedural justice for different
reasons (Bollen et al. 2012), leading to considerable situational variation in the importance that
high-status and low-status persons place on fair procedures. This remains an open question,
however, as no study to our knowledge has attempted to tease out the mechanisms through
which status affects the relative importance of procedural and distributive justice.
It is also necessary to disentangle the effects of status from the effects of identication with
the organization. A fundamental assumption of the group-value model is that workplace
procedural justice is most important to those with strong identication to their work

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
 Gender and Organizational Justice 1081

organization, as these individuals derive a substantial portion of their self-esteem from being
valued by workplace authorities. Considerable research afrms this claim (e.g., Brockner
et al. 1992; Clay-Warner et al. 2005; Wiesenfeld et al. 2000). There may be conation of
status and identication, however, as those with high workplace status likely identify more
strongly with their work organization than do those with low status. If so, then there may
be countervailing forces at play, making it necessary to examine how status and group iden-
tity work together to alter the importance of procedural justice. Such a project would logi-
cally begin with a laboratory study in which status and group identity could be manipulated
independently. Longitudinal surveys of workers would complement a laboratory study,
enabling researchers to examine the relationship between status, group identity, and
procedural justice in real-world settings while maintaining time order.
Finally, there is need for additional research on how the stereotype that women value pro-
cedural over distributive fairness affects womens labor market outcomes. Belliveau (2012)
presents evidence suggesting that managers assume that women will accept fair procedures
in lieu of fair rewards, which ultimately leads them to allot lower salaries to men than to
women. This has signicant consequences not only for womens salary but also for womens
status, since people assume a link between low levels of reward and low levels of competence
(Berger et al. 1972). Belliveaus research, however, was a vignette study. Though vignettes
are frequently used in the organizational justice research and in social psychology more
broadly, research nds that emotional responses elicited by social exchange vignettes are less
intense than those elicited in laboratory experiments, which may both affect perceptions of
procedural fairness and lead to socially desirable responses (Collett and Childs 2011). Thus,
it is important to attempt replication in a laboratory setting, in which participants allocate real
monetary rewards to group members. Such an experiment could also move beyond current
research by separating the effects of employees status and gender to determine whether
authorities substitute fair procedures for fair rewards when allocating to low-status persons,
regardless of gender. If so, then the effects that Belliveau document have even more far-
reaching consequences for the perpetuation of workplace inequity.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant no. 0966536 awarded to
Jody Clay-Warner, Dawn T. Robinson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin.

Short Biographies
Jody Clay-Warner is Meigs Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Georgia.
Her research focuses on emotional and behavioral responses to injustice.
Elizabeth Culatta is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Georgia. She is interested in the relationship between identity and reactions to injustice. Recent
reports of her research can be found in the Journal of Marriage and the Family.
Katie R. James is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of
Georgia. Her research has investigated perceptions of fairness in the division of household labor,
and she is currently studying how movement in and out of elder care affects mental health and
labor force participation.
Note
* Correspondence address: Jody Clay-Warner, Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30606,
USA. E-mail: jclayw@uga.edu

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
1082 Gender and Organizational Justice

References
Adams, J. Stacey. 1965. Inequality in Social-Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2: 26799.
Ambrose, Maureen L. and Anke Arnaud. 2005. Are Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice Conceptually Distinct?
Pp. 6084 in Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason A. Colquitt. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belliveau, Maura A. 2012. Engendering Inequity? How Social Accounts Create vs. Merely Explain Unfavorable Pay
Outcomes for Women. Organization Science 23: 115474.
Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen and Morris Zelditch, Jr. 1972. Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status
Value Formulation. Pp. 11946 in Sociological Theories in Progress, Volume 2, edited by J. Berger, M. Zelditch, and
B. Anderson. Boston: Houghton Mifin.
Berger, Joseph, M. Hamit Fisek, R. Z. Norman and David G. Wagner. 1985. Formation of Reward Expectations in Status
Situations. Pp. 21561 in Status, Rewards, and Inuence, edited by Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch. San Francisco:
Fossey-Bass.
Bies, Robert J. and Debra L. Shapiro. 1988. Voice and Justication: Their Inuence on Procedural Fairness Judgments.
Academy of Management Journal 31: 67685.
Bollen, Katalien, Heidi Ittner and Martin C. Euwema. 2012. Mediating Hierarchical Laboro Conicts: Procedural
Justice Makes a Difference For Subordinates. Group Decision and Negotiation 21: 62136.
Brockner, Joel and Laury Adsit. 1986. The Moderating Impact of Sex on the Equity Satisfaction Relationship: A Field
Study. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 58590.
Brockner, Joel, Tom R. Tyler and Rochelle Cooper-Schneider. 1992. The Inuence of Prior Commitment to an Institution
on Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: The Higher They Are, the Harder They Fall. Administrative Science Quarterly
37: 24161.
Callahan-Levy, Charlene M. and Lawrence A. Messe. 1979. Sex Differences in the Allocation of Pay. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 37: 43346.
Chen, Ya-Ru, Brockner Joel and Jerald Greenberg. 2003. When is it a Pleasure to do Business with You? The Effects
of Relative Status, Outcome Favorability, and Procedural Fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 92: 1021.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clay-Warner, Jody, Karen A. Hegtvedt and Paul Roman. 2005. Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice: How Experiences
with Downsizing Condition Their Impact on Organizational Commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 89102.
Cohen-Charash, Yochi and Paul E. Spector. 2001. The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86: 278321.
Colby, A. and W. Damon. 1983. Listening to a Different Voice: A Review of Gilligans In a Different Voice. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly 29: 47381.
Colby, Anne, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Gibbs, Marcus Lieberman, Kurt Fischer and Herbert D. Saltzstein. 1983. A
Longitudinal Study of Moral Judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 48: 1124.
Collett, Jessica L. and Ellen Childs. 2011. Minding the Gap: Meaning, Affect, and the Potential Shortcomings of
Vignettes. Social Science Research 40: 51322.
De Cremer, David. 2002. Respect and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Importance of Feeling Included. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 133541.
Deaux, Katherine and Brenda Major. 1982. Individual Differences in Justice Behavior. In Equity and Justice in Social
Behavior, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Ron L. Cohen. New York: Academic Press.
Diekmann, Kristina A., Harris Sondak and Zoe I. Barsness. 2007. Does Fairness Matter More to Some Than to Others?
The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on the Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job
Satisfaction. Social Justice Research 20: 16180.
Eagly, Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdalw, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Fields, D., M. Pang and C. Chiu. 2000. Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Employee Outcomes in
Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 54762.
Foley, Sharon, Ngo Hang-Yue and Angela Wong. 2005. Perceptions of Discrimination and Justice: Are There Gender
Differences in Outcomes? Group and Organization Management 30: 42150.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gilligan, Carol and Grant Wiggins. 1987. The Origins of Morality in Early Childhood Relationships. Pp. 277305 in
the Emergence of Morality in Young Children, edited by J. Kagan and S. Lamb. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Greenberg, Jerald. 2000. Promote Procedural Justice to Enhance Acceptance of Work Outcomes. Pp. 18195 in A
Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior, edited by E. A. Locke. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Grifth, W. I., Jane Sell and M. J. Parker. 1993. Self-Interested Versus Third-Party Allocations of Rewards. Social
Psychology Quarterly 56: 14855.

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
 Gender and Organizational Justice 1083

Haan, Norma, M. Brewster Smith and Jeanne Block. 1968. The Moral Reasoning of Young Adults: Political-Social
Behavior, Family Background and Personality Correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10: 183201.
Hegtvedt, Karen A. 2006. Justice Frameworks. Pp. 4669 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, edited by Peter J.
Burke. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Holstein, Candace B. 1976. Irreversible, Stepwise Sequence in the Development of Moral Judgement: A Longitudinal
Study of Males and Females. Child Development 47: 5161.
Homans, George C. 1974. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Inness, Michelle, Serge Desmarais and Arla Day. 2005. Gender, Mood State, and Justice Preference: Do Mood States
Moderate Gender-Based Norms of Justice? British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 46378.
Inoue, Akiomi, Norito Kawakami, Kanami Tsuno, Kimiko Tomioka and Mayuko Nakanashi. 2012. Organizational
Justice and Psychological Distress Among Permanent and Non-Permanent Employees in Japan: A Prospective Cohort
Study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 20: 26576.
Jackson, Linda A. 1987. Gender and Distributive Justice: The Inuence of Gender-Related Characteristics on Allocations.
Sex Roles 17: 7391.
Jaffee, Sara and Janet Shibley Hyde. 2000. Gender Differences in Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological
Bulletin 126: 703.
Jepsen, Denise M. and John Rodwell. 2009. Justice in the Workplace: The Centrality of Social versus Judgmental Pre-
dictors of Performance Varies by Gender. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20: 20662083.
Jepsen, Denise M. and John Rodwell. 2012. Female Perceptions of Organizational Justice. Gender, Work and Organization 19: 72340.
Kahn, Arnold, Virgina OLeary, Judith E. Krulewitz and Helmut Lamm. 1980. Equity and Equality: Male and Female
Means to a Just End. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1: 17397.
Kidder, Louise H., Gerald Bellettirie and Ellen S. Cohn. 1977. Secret Ambitions and Public Performances. Journal of
Experimental Psychology 13: 7080.
Kim, Ken I., Hun-Joon Park and Nori Suzuki. 1990. Reward Allocations in the United States, Japan, and Korea: A
Comparison of Individualistic and Colectivistic Cultures. Academy of Management Journal 33: 18898.
Lee, C. and J. L. Farh. 1999. The Effects of Gender in Organizational Justice Perception. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 20: 13343.
Lee, C., M. Pillutla and K. S. Law. 2000. Power-Distance, Gender and Organizational Justice. Journal of Management
26: 685704.
Leventhal, Gerald S. and Douglas W. Lane. 1970. Sex, Age, and Equity Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 15: 3126.
Lind, E. Allan and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.
Lind, E. Allan, Ruth Kanfer and P. Christopher Earley. 1990. Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and
Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 952.
Major, Brenda and Jeffrey B. Adams. 1983. Role of Gender, Interpersonal Orientation, and Self-Presentation in
Distributive-Justice Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 598608.
Major, Brenda, Wayne H. Bylsma and Catherine Cozzarelli. 1989. Gender Differences in Distributive Justice Preferences: The
Impact of Domain. Sex Roles 21: 48797.
Major, Brenda, Dean B. McFarlin and Diana Gagnon. 1984. Overworked and Underpaid: On the Nature of Gender
Differences in Personal Entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 1399412.
Martin, Patricia Y. and Marie W. Osmond. 1982. Gender and Exploitation: Resources, Structure, and Rewards in
Cross-Sex Social Exchange. Sociological Focus 15: 40316.
McDuff, Elaine M. 2001. The Gender Paradox in Work Satisfaction and the Protestant Clergy. Sociology of Religion 62: 121.
McDuff, Elaine M. and Charles W. Mueller. 2002. Gender Differences in the Professional Orientations of Protestant
Clergy. Sociological Forum 17: 46591.
Messe, L. A. and C. Callahan-Levy. 1979. Sex and Message Effects in Reward Allocation Behavior. Academic Psychology
Bulletin 1: 12933.
Miller, Charles E. and S. S. Komorita. 1995. Reward Allocation in Task-Performing Groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 69: 8090.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1988. Determinants of Organizational Commitment. Human Relations 41: 46782.
Mueller, Charles W. and J. E. Wallace. 1996. Justice and the Paradox of the Contented Female Worker. Social Psychology
Quarterly 59: 33849.
Mueller, Charles W. and Tor Wynn. 2000. The Degree to Which Justice is Valued in the Workplace. Social Justice Research 13: 124.
Peterson, Dane K. 2004. The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational
Commitment. Business and Society 43: 296319.
Phelan, Jo. 1994. The Paradox of the Contented Female Worker - An Assessment of Alternative Explanations. Social
Psychology Quarterly 57: 95107.
Ramamoorthy, N. and P. C. Flood. 2004. Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational Justice
Perceptions. British Journal of Management 15: 24758.

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094
1084 Gender and Organizational Justice

Reis, Harry T. and Linda A. Jackson. 1981. Sex Differences in Reward Allocation: Subjects, Partners, and Tasks. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 46578.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1996. Economic and Interpersonal Work Rewards: Subjective Utilities of
Mens and Womens Compensation. Social Forces 75: 22345.
Ryan, Michelle K., Barbara David and Katherine J. Reynolds. 2004. Who Cares? The Effect of Gender and Context on
the Self and Moral Reasoning. Psychology of Women Quarterly 28: 24655.
Singh, Parbudyal, Dale Finn and Laurel Goulet. 2004. Gender and Job Attitudes: A Re-Examination and Extension.
Women in Management Review 19: 34555.
Sweeney, Paul D. and Dean B. McFarlin. 1997. Process and Outcome: Gender Differences in the Assessment of Justice.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 8398.
Tata, Jasmine. 2000. Inuence of Role and Gander on the Use of Distributive Versus Procedural Justice Principles. The
Journal of Psychology 134: 2618.
Tata, Jasmine and Lynn Bowes-Sperry. 1996. Emphasis on Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice: Differential
Perceptions of Men and Women. Psychological Reports 79: 132730.
Thibaut, John W. and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thoma, S. J. 1986. Estimating Gender Differences in the Comprehension and Preference of Moral Issues. Developmental
Review 6: 16580.
Trnblom, Kjell and Ril Vermunt (eds) 2007. Distributive and Procedural Justice: Research and Social Application. Hampshire,
England: Ashgate.
Tyler, Tom R. and E. Allan Lind. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 25: 11591.
Tyler, Tom R., Robert Boeckmann, Heather J. Smith and Yuen J. Huo. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Tyler, Tom T., Peter Degoey and Heather Smith. 1996. Understanding Why the Justice of Group Procedures Matters:
A Test of the Psychological Dynamics of the Group-Value Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 91330.
Van Prooijen, Jan-Willem. 2009. Procedural Justice as Autonomy Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
96: 116680.
Wagner, David G. 1995. Gender Differences in Reward Preference: A Status-Based Account. Small Group Research
26: 35371.
Wagner, David G. and Joseph Berger. 1997. Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts.
Sociological Perspectives 40: 132.
Walker, Lawrence J. 1984. Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review. Child
Development 55: 67791.
Walker, Lawrence J. 1991. Sex Differences in Moral Reasoning. Pp. 33364 in Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development, vol. 2, Research, edited by W. M. Kurtines and J. L. Gewirts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiesenfeld, Batia M., Joel Brockner and V. V. Thibault. 2000. Procedural Fairness, Managers Self-Esteem, and
Managerial Behaviors Following a Layoff. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83: 132.
Witt, L. Alan and Lendell G. Nye. 1992. Gender and the Relationship Between Perceived Fairness of Pay or Promotion
and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 9107.

2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 7/12 (2013): 10741084, 10.1111/soc4.12094