组织公正的关系方法:对社会交换和社会认同的不同作用进行元分析和实地检验。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1037/apl0001193
Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang, Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E Johnson
{"title":"组织公正的关系方法:对社会交换和社会认同的不同作用进行元分析和实地检验。","authors":"Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang, Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E Johnson","doi":"10.1037/apl0001193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-\"reciprocity\" underpinning social exchanges and \"oneness\" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (<i>N</i> = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1716-1741"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disentangling the relational approach to organizational justice: Meta-analytic and field tests of distinct roles of social exchange and social identity.\",\"authors\":\"Zhenyu Liao, Nan Wang, Jinlong Zhu, Tingting Chen, Russell E Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-\\\"reciprocity\\\" underpinning social exchanges and \\\"oneness\\\" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (<i>N</i> = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1716-1741\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001193\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001193","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以社会交换为基础的机制和以社会认同为基础的机制通常被并列作为研究组织公正的关系方法的两个关键代理机制。尽管它们有着不同的理论渊源,但人们对这两种近似机制是否以及如何在解释对关键结果的公正影响时相互补充却知之甚少。追溯到这两种机制不同的基本前提--支撑社会交换的 "互惠性 "和支撑身份建构的 "一体性"--我们试图厘清这两种机制的相对中介效应。我们的实证检验基于一项包含 105 个独立样本(N=29,868)的元分析研究,以及一项预先登记的经验取样研究,该研究在 3 周内对 147 对下属-主管进行了 1,941 次跨日观察。总体而言,我们发现基于交换的机制更能体现公正对任务绩效的间接影响,而基于身份的机制(尤其是相互依存的身份)更能体现公正对反工作行为的间接影响。关于对组织公民行为的间接影响,基于身份的机制(尤其是积极的自我评价)和基于交换的机制分别在这两项研究中发挥了巨大作用。通过对这两种突出机制的互补性和独特性进行细致入微的分析,我们的研究鼓励采用更细化的理论方法来研究组织公正效应。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disentangling the relational approach to organizational justice: Meta-analytic and field tests of distinct roles of social exchange and social identity.

Social exchange- and social identity-based mechanisms have been commonly juxtaposed as two pivotal proxies of the relational approach for studying organizational justice. Despite their distinct theoretical roots, less is known about whether and how these two proximal mechanisms complement one another in accounting for justice effects on key outcomes. Tracing back to their disparate fundamental premises-"reciprocity" underpinning social exchanges and "oneness" underpinning identity construction-we attempt to disentangle the relative mediating effects of these two mechanisms. Our empirical testing hinges on one meta-analytic study with 105 independent samples (N = 29,868), coupled with one preregistered experience-sampling study with 1,941 cross-day observations over 3 weeks from 147 subordinate-supervisor pairs. Overall, we find that exchange-based mechanisms account for more of the indirect effect of justice on task performance, whereas identity-based mechanisms (particularly interdependent identity) account for more of the indirect effect of justice on counterproductive work behavior. Regarding the indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior, identity-based mechanisms (particularly positive self-evaluations) and exchange-based mechanisms respectively present great utility between the two studies. By providing nuanced insight into the complementary yet distinct nature of these two prominent mechanisms, our research encourages a more granular theoretical approach for studying organizational justice effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信