Journal of Applied Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association

2012, Vol. 97, No. 1, 1–15 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0025208

Explaining the Justice–Performance Relationship:

Trust as Exchange Deepener or Trust as Uncertainty Reducer?

Jason A. Colquitt Jeffery A. LePine

University of Georgia Arizona State University

Ronald F. Piccolo Cindy P. Zapata

Rollins College Georgia Institute of Technology
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Bruce L. Rich
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

California State University San Marcos

Past research has revealed significant relationships between organizational justice dimensions and job
performance, and trust is thought to be one mediator of those relationships. However, trust has been
positioned in justice theorizing in 2 different ways, either as an indicator of the depth of an exchange
relationship or as a variable that reflects levels of work-related uncertainty. Moreover, trust scholars
distinguish between multiple forms of trust, including affect- and cognition-based trust, and it remains
unclear which form is most relevant to justice effects. To explore these issues, we built and tested a more
comprehensive model of trust mediation in which procedural, interpersonal, and distributive justice
predicted affect- and cognition-based trust, with those trust forms predicting both exchange- and
uncertainty-based mechanisms. The results of a field study in a hospital system revealed that the trust
variables did indeed mediate the relationships between the organizational justice dimensions and job
performance, with affect-based trust driving exchange-based mediation and cognition-based trust driving
uncertainty-based mediation.

Keywords: justice, trust, social exchange, uncertainty, performance

Research in the justice literature has linked fair treatment to a
number of beneficial employee attitudes and behaviors (for a
historical review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,
2005). For example, research has linked justice perceptions to all
three facets of job performance, including task performance, citi-
zenship behavior, and counterproductive behavior (e.g., Master-
son, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Moorman, Blakely, &
Niehoff, 1998; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Tekleab, Takeuchi, &
Taylor, 2005; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). Some of
those studies have focused on distributive justice, which reflects
the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965;
Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976). Other studies have focused on
procedural justice, which reflects the perceived fairness of
decision-making processes (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker,
This article was published Online First September 12, 2011.
Jason A. Colquitt, Department of Management, University of Georgia;
Jeffery A. LePine, Department of Management, Arizona State University;
Ronald F. Piccolo, Department of Management, Rollins College; Cindy P.
Zapata, Department of Organizational Behavior, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology; Bruce L. Rich, Department of Management, California State
University San Marcos.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jason A.
Colquitt, University of Georgia, Department of Management, Terry Col-
lege of Business, 412 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA 30602-6256. E-mail:
colq@uga.edu
1975). Still other studies have focused on interpersonal justice,
which reflects the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment
received as procedures are enacted (Bies & Moag, 1986; Green-
berg, 1993).
What explains the significant connection between justice and
job performance? One potential mediator that has been examined
in past research is trust, defined as confident, positive expectations
about the words, actions, and decisions of another in situations
entailing risk (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; McAllister, 1995). The
notion that trust serves as a mediator of justice effects is partially
responsible for an increased integration of the justice and trust
literatures in recent years. A number of studies have included both
justice and trust in their investigations (e.g., Ambrose &
Schminke, 2003; Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Begley, Lee, &
Hui, 2006; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Folger & Kon-
ovsky, 1989; Frazier, Johnson, Gavin, Gooty, & Snow, 2010;
Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Pillai,
Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999; Stinglhamber, De Cremer, &
Mercken, 2006). Moreover, meta-analytic reviews have revealed
moderately positive correlations among justice and trust concepts
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Por-
ter, & Ng, 2001; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Despite that empirical integration, there remain many questions
about the justice–trust connection (Colquitt & Mueller, 2008;
Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson, 2005), two of which are relevant
to understanding the justice–job performance relationship. First,

1
 2 COLQUITT ET AL.
the functional relevance of trust has varied in much of the theo-
rizing utilized in justice research. Social exchange theory argues
that trust is vital to the development and deepening of social
exchange relationships (i.e., relationships where unspecified favors
are exchanged over an indefinite time horizon) because it reduces
uncertainty about a partner’s reciprocation while fostering a sense
of obligation (Blau, 1964). When trust is present, exchange part-
ners are more likely to discharge their obligations, in part because
they believe that such efforts will be reciprocated down the line.
Trust functions in a similar manner in fairness heuristic theory,
which argues that trust guides decisions about whether to cooper-
ate with authorities when there is uncertainty about potential
exploitation (Lind, 2001; van den Bos, 2001a; van den Bos, Lind,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
& Wilke, 2001). However, the functional relevance of trust is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
decidedly different in uncertainty management theory—a direct
successor to fairness heuristic theory (Lind & van den Bos, 2002;
van den Bos & Lind, 2002). That theory argues that high levels of
justice can mitigate or reduce the effects of virtually any form of
uncertainty, including (but not limited to) concerns about trust and
reciprocation. From this perspective, the sense that an authority is
fair and trusted may engender a reciprocation of obligations, but it
may also instill a sense of comfort that mitigates uncertainty in a
much more general sense.
Second, justice scholars have neglected to incorporate some of
the distinctions drawn by trust scholars between different types of
trust. As Lewicki et al. (2005) noted, “No assessments of the
justice–trust link in the justice literature provide a fine-grained
understanding or analysis of the rich trust literature. None explore
the emerging research suggesting multiple forms of trust (Lewicki
& Bunker, 1995, 1996; McAllister, 1995)” (p. 254). McAllister
(1995) distinguished between affect-based trust, which reflects a
confidence rooted in emotional investments, expressions of genu-
ine care and concern, and an understanding of reciprocated senti-
ments, and cognition-based trust, which reflects a confidence
rooted in someone’s track record and reputation for dependability,
reliability, and professionalism. Lewicki and Bunker (1995, 1996)
drew a similar distinction in their discussion of identification-
based trust and knowledge-based trust. Because justice scholars
have treated trust as a unidimensional construct in their studies, it
remains unclear which form of trust is related to justice and which
form of trust mediates relationships with job performance.
With these two questions in mind, we conducted this study to
gain a more fine-grained understanding of the role of trust in the
justice–job performance relationship. In particular, we built and
tested a comprehensive model of trust mediation in which proce-
dural, interpersonal, and distributive justice predicted both affect-
and cognition-based trust, with those trust forms fulfilling two
different mediating functions.1 One function was that of “exchange
deepener,” where trust fosters a deeper sense of obligation within
an exchange relationship. We operationalized that function using
normative commitment, which reflects a sense of obligation to
one’s employer (Meyer & Allen, 1997). The other function was
that of “uncertainty reducer,” where trust serves to mitigate a
general sense of work uncertainty. We operationalized that func-
tion using perceived uncertainty, which reflects the general sense
that an employee lacks the information or situational understand-
ing needed to accurately predict the future (van den Bos & Lind,
2002). Our model of trust mediation is shown in Figure 1. The
sections to follow describe trust concepts in more detail before
offering hypotheses about the specific linkages in our model.
Justice and Affect- vs. Cognition-Based Trust
As noted above, an increasing number of studies have integrated
justice and trust concepts, often in an attempt to explain relation-
ships between justice and various performance behaviors (e.g.,
Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Aryee et al., 2002; Begley et al.,
2006; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Frazier
et al., 2010; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;
Pillai et al., 1999; Stinglhamber et al., 2006). Given that trust
scholars have criticized some of this work for its casual or sim-
plistic approach to conceptualizing trust (Lewicki et al., 2005),
some more extensive definitional discussion is warranted. There
are at least three approaches to defining and conceptualizing trust
in the extant literature: (a) trust as unidimensional confident,
positive expectations; (b) trust as multidimensional confident, pos-
itive expectations; and (c) trust as the willingness to be vulnerable
(see Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, for more discussion
of such definitional distinctions).
Trust as unidimensional confident, positive expectations is a
perspective found in many of the seminal trust measures in the
organizational sciences. Roberts and O’Reilly (1974) operational-
ized trust by asking employees how they would expect their
supervisor to act in various situations, such as when they needed to
discuss work problems or when the supervisor needed to make a
decision that was contrary to employee interests. Gabarro and
Athos (1976) assessed trust by asking employees whether they
expected their supervisors to have good motives and intentions, to
be open and upfront, and to act in an honest and predictable
manner. Cook and Wall (1980) measured trust by asking employ-
ees whether their supervisor was efficient, made sensible deci-
sions, and made concerted attempts to protect employee interests
in an honest manner. Variations of these measures have been
utilized by a number of justice scholars (e.g., Aryee et al., 2002;
Begley et al., 2006; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Folger & Konovsky,
1989; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), making
the unidimensional confident, positive expectations perspective the
default framework in studies of the justice–trust connection.
Trust as multidimensional confident, positive expectations is a
perspective that gained prominence in the mid-1990s. Drawing in
part on earlier theorizing by Lewis and Weigert (1985), McAllister
(1995) suggested that conceptualizations of trust were actually
1
Our hypothesized model casts the justice dimensions as antecedents of
affect- and cognition-based trust. Although this causal ordering matches
the conventional wisdom in the literature, it does—at first glance—seem
inconsistent with Tyler and Lind’s work on the group-value and relational
models (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Those models include
a concept—sometimes labeled “trust” (Tyler, 1989), sometimes labeled
“trustworthiness” (Tyler, 1994), and sometimes labeled “trust in benevo-
lence” (Lind, Tyler, & Huo, 1997)—that is viewed as an antecedent of
fairness perceptions. However, a close inspection of the definition and
operationalization of that construct shows that it has little in common with
the trust variables in our study, despite its labeling. Instead, the construct
tends to assess efforts to be fair (Lind et al., 1997; Tyler, 1989, 1994) and
the provision of voice (Lind et al., 1997; Tyler, 1994). Such operational-
izations serve as indicators of procedural justice rather than trust.
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Affect- and cognition-based trust as mediators of justice–performance effects.
tapping two distinct concepts, with affect-based trust reflecting
expectations of reciprocal care and concern and cognition-based
trust reflecting expectations of reliability and dependability. Draw-
ing on earlier theorizing by Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin
(1992), Lewicki and Bunker (1995, 1996) drew a similar distinc-
tion, with identification-based trust reflecting expectations of a
reciprocal understanding of wants and knowledge-based trust reflect-
ing expectations of predictability. Given that there remain no pub-
lished measures of Lewicki and Bunker’s trust types, McAllister’s
trust scales have become the most common operationalization of the
multidimensional version of trust. These scales have been used in two
studies integrating justice and trust. Unfortunately, one study col-
lapsed across affect- and cognition-based trust (Ambrose &
Schminke, 2003) and the other omitted affect-based trust altogether
(Stinglhamber et al., 2006).
Trust as the willingness to be vulnerable is a perspective rooted
in Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (1995) integrative model of
trust. Mayer et al. defined trust as the willingness of a trustor to be
vulnerable to a trustee based on positive expectations about the
trustee’s actions. Those positive expectations, which were used to
capture trust in the perspectives described above, were instead
used to capture three components of “trustworthiness”: (a) benev-
olence, which captures expectations about caring and supportive
motives; (b) ability, which captures expectations about compe-
tence and skills; and (c) integrity, which captures expectations
about a consistent adherence to sound principles. Although the
Mayer et al. and McAllister (1995) perspectives differ in the way
they define the trust concept itself, it is important to acknowledge
that benevolence has much in common with affect-based trust,
whereas ability and integrity have much in common with
cognition-based trust. Our study utilizes McAllister’s conceptual-
ization because the confident, positive expectations version of trust
has been used more frequently by justice scholars (see Colquitt and
Mueller, 2008, for a conceptual discussion of justice and Mayer et
3
al.’s trust conceptualization). However, all of our affect-based trust
predictions could also be made for benevolence, and all of our
cognition-based trust predictions could also be made for ability
and integrity.
Predictions for Justice and Trust
Although the various justice dimensions are fostered by the
adherence to distinct sets of justice rules, there are conceptual
reasons to expect all of the dimensions to be positively related to
both affect- and cognition-based trust, albeit for different reasons.
Procedural justice is fostered when authorities provide employees
with input into key decisions and when authorities utilize proce-
dures that are consistent, accurate, unbiased, correctable, represen-
tative of group concerns, and ethical (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut &
Walker, 1975). Many of those procedural rules are likely to be
especially relevant to cognition-based trust, as an emphasis on
consistency and accuracy should create the kind of predictable and
dependable track record that underlies that trust form. Procedurally
just decision making also instills a sense of legitimacy to organi-
zational authorities (Tyler & Lind, 1992), which should help
promote a sense of professionalism and regard. With respect to
affect-based trust, an emphasis on allowing employee input and
learning about group concerns should foster the sort of mutual
investment and sharing of information that underlies that trust
form. Procedurally just decision making also fulfills key psycho-
logical needs on the part of employees, injecting a sense of
belonging into organizational relationships (Cropanzano, Byrne,
Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001).
Interpersonal justice is fostered when authorities treat employ-
ees with dignity and respect and refrain from improper remarks or
comments during the enactment of procedures (Bies & Moag,
1986; Greenberg, 1993). These interpersonal rules are likely to be
particularly relevant to affect-based trust, as it would be difficult
 4 COLQUITT ET AL.
for a sense of reciprocal care and concern to develop in a context
where communications were rude, disrespectful, or inappropriate.
Indeed, such actions are associated with a number of negative
emotions, including anger and hostility (Barclay, Skarlicki, &
Pugh, 2005; Rupp & Spencer, 2006). The relevance of interper-
sonal justice rules is perhaps less immediately apparent to
cognition-based trust. However, it is important to note that many
organizations have climates that emphasize (or at least espouse to
emphasize) social relations, supportiveness, morale, and warmth
(Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003). From this perspective,
violations of interpersonal justice rules would be indicative of a
lack of professionalism— one component of cognition-based trust.
Distributive justice is fostered when authorities utilize appropri-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ate allocation norms when doling out key outcomes (Leventhal,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1976). In most business contexts, the appropriate norm is equity,
where outcomes are allocated in accordance with relevant inputs
(Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976). Distributive justice is likely to be
relevant to affect-based trust because equity has important affec-
tive consequences. Adams suggested that inequitable allocations
will trigger a sense of equity distress, with anger resulting from
underpayment inequity and guilt resulting from overpayment in-
equity. Those negative emotions are associated with action ten-
dencies such as retaliation or withdrawal (Lazarus & Cohen-
Charash, 2001), both of which could undermine the development
of reciprocal sentiments and investments. Distributive justice
should also be relevant to cognition-based trust. Making decisions
about performance evaluations, salary increases, bonuses, job as-
signments, and informal spot rewards represents a key job duty for
many organizational authorities. As such, failing to make such
decisions in an equitable fashion could lead to doubts about an
authority’s competence, dedication, reliability, and professional-
ism.
Ambrose and Schminke’s (2003) field study of employees in
several different industries provides some empirical support for the
predictions laid out above, as procedural and interpersonal justice
had significant unique effects on an index combining affect- and
cognition-based trust (though distributive justice lacked any sig-
nificant effect). In addition, Stinglhamber et al.’s (2006) field
study of telecommunications employees revealed a significant
linkage between interpersonal justice and cognition-based trust
(though the effects of procedural justice were not modeled and
data were not gathered on distributive justice or affect-based trust).
Aside from these two studies, much of the research linking justice
and trust concepts has utilized the unidimensional confident, pos-
itive expectations perspective and has included only one or two
justice dimensions (Begley et al., 2006; Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999). One exception to that
latter observation is Aryee et al.’s (2002) field study of employees
of an Indian coal company, which showed that procedural, inter-
personal, and distributive justice all had significant unique effects
on a unidimensional form of trust. We therefore hypothesized
Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice is positively related to
affect- and cognition-based trust.
Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal justice is positively related to
affect- and cognition-based trust.
Hypothesis 3: Distributive justice is positively related to
affect- and cognition-based trust.
Trust as Exchange Deepener or Trust as Uncertainty
Reducer?
Even if the relationships between justice and affect- and
cognition-based trust can be used to explain effects on job perfor-
mance, a key question remains: What exactly is it about trust that
explains those effects? As noted above, the mediating role of trust
could be explained by two distinct functional mechanisms: trust as
an exchange deepener and trust as an uncertainty reducer.
Trust as an Exchange Deepener
In his discussion of exchange relationships, Blau (1964) de-
scribed the unique character of social exchanges:
Social exchange, whether it is in this ceremonial form or not, involves
favors that create diffuse future obligations, not precisely specified
ones, and the nature of the return cannot be bargained about but must
be left to the discretion of the one who makes it . . . . Since there is no
way to assure an appropriate return for a favor, social exchange
requires trusting others to discharge their obligations. (pp. 93–94)
Blau’s (1964) description of social exchanges gained more visi-
bility in the justice literature when Organ (1990) used it to describe
why procedural justice might be associated with increased levels
of citizenship behavior. Organ suggested that fair treatment would
be viewed as a favor on the part of a supervisor that deserved
reciprocation by the employee. That citizenship, in turn, would
constitute a favor on the part of the employee that deserved
reciprocation by the supervisor. The reciprocation-inducing effects
of fair treatment can be described from two perspectives. First,
high levels of the various justice dimensions may be the exception
rather than the rule in some organizations, giving fairness a dis-
cretionary feel that warrants reciprocation. Alternatively, injustice
may short-circuit the natural or default levels of reciprocation in
many work units.
Konovsky and Pugh (1994) operationalized Organ’s (1990)
assertions in one of the first studies that integrated justice and trust.
They noted that trust provides the basis for social exchange rela-
tionships and serves as the key element in the emergence and
deepening of such relationships. Trust is particularly vital during
periods where one party’s contributions outweigh the other’s, as
trust provides some assurance that obligations will balance out
over the long term. Konovsky and Pugh suggested that trust would
predict citizenship because an employee would be more willing to
go the extra mile when the leader could be trusted to balance the
scales down the road. Subsequent studies have continued to use
trust as a means of operationalizing social exchange effects (Aryee
et al., 2002; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Pillai et al., 1999; Stingl-
hamber et al., 2006), with trust emerging as a definitional compo-
nent of such exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore,
Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006). In their review of the litera-
ture, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) referred to such studies as the
relationship-based perspective in the trust literature, given that the
work focuses on how followers come to understand the nature of
their relationship with their manager.
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
Despite the relevance of trust to Blau’s (1964) theorizing, any
study that shows trust to be a mediator of justice–performance
effects can only assume that such mediation represents a social
exchange mechanism. Barring an explicit operationalization of the
exchange-deepening function that trust is purported to foster, that
assumption remains unsubstantiated. The key question therefore
becomes, which construct could best serve as an operationalization
of that exchange dynamic? Blau’s description suggests that the
obligation concept lies at the core of social exchange. Blau (1964)
described social exchange reciprocations as “given and repaid
under obligation” (p. 89), noting that it “is a necessary condition of
exchange that individuals, in the interest of continuing to receive
needed services, discharge their obligations for having received
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
them in the past” (p. 92). One construct that reflects such obliga-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tion is normative commitment, which Meyer and Herscovitch
(2001) described as “the mind-set of obligation” (p. 317). Justice
scholars have suggested that normative commitment could serve as
a construct-valid representation of the exchange dynamic
(Colquitt, Greenberg, & Scott, 2005).
We are not aware of any research linking trust and normative
commitment, as Meyer and colleagues have typically focused on
socialization experiences or organizational investments as anteced-
ents of that commitment form (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer,
Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). However, Blau’s
(1964) theorizing includes a number of ideas that support signif-
icant relationships between affect- and cognition-based trust and
the sense of obligation represented by normative commitment.
With respect to affect-based trust, Blau described how the steady
expansion of mutual investments in a relationship can engender the
sort of trust that encourages obligation. With respect to cognition-
based trust, an authority that provides services such as advice, aid,
or assistance signals that he or she is dependable and reliable,
which makes the discharging of one’s obligations more customary.
Indirect support for these assertions can be taken from Colquitt,
Scott, and LePine’s (2007) suggestion that an authority’s benevo-
lence and ability can serve as exchange currencies that foster a
motivation to reciprocate. In a meta-analytic test, Colquitt et al.
showed that benevolence and ability predicted social exchange
when operationalized as affective commitment, noting that too few
studies focused on obligation-based forms of commitment to in-
clude them in their review. We therefore hypothesized
Hypothesis 4: Affect- and cognition-based trust are positively
related to normative commitment.
Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) model of commitment can be
used to ground predictions regarding normative commitment and
job performance (see also Meyer & Allen, 1991). Meyer and
Herscovitch suggested that the “mind-set of obligation” binds one
to courses of action that benefit the entity to which one is com-
mitted. In particular, they argued that the sense of obligation would
increase efforts to fulfill the focal behaviors of one’s work role.
The sense of obligation can also increase discretionary behaviors,
especially when those behaviors benefit the target of the obliga-
tion. Empirically speaking, studies of normative commitment have
lagged behind studies of affective commitment. Meta-analyses of
the few studies that have been conducted have illustrated that
normative commitment has a moderately strong positive relation-
ship with citizenship aspects of job performance and weaker
5
relationships with task performance aspects (Meyer et al., 2002).
On the basis of Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) theorizing, we
predicted
Hypothesis 5: Normative commitment is positively related to
job performance.
Trust as an Uncertainty Reducer
Whereas trust is somewhat of a behind-the-scenes player in
Blau’s (1964) discussion of social exchange theory, it is clearly
front and center in discussions of fairness heuristic theory (Lind,
2001; van den Bos, 2001a; van den Bos et al., 2001). Fairness
heuristic theory’s propositions are rooted in the “fundamental
social dilemma” faced by all employees working for authority
figures in organizations (Lind, 2001). This dilemma acknowledges
that an employee’s outcomes are ultimately maximized by coop-
erating with authorities and fully participating in organizational
activities. However, choosing to do so also opens the door to
potential exploitation, as authorities may abuse their power by
asking employees to perform assignments that will never be re-
warded. This fundamental social dilemma therefore creates a sense
of uncertainty that pervades working life, particularly early on in
one’s tenure and during times of organizational change (Lind,
2001).
Fairness heuristic theory suggests that employees should, ide-
ally, cope with this uncertainty by gauging their trust in authorities
(Lind, 2001; van den Bos, 2001a; van den Bos et al., 2001). That
theoretical premise is reminiscent of Luhmann’s (1979) conceptu-
alization of trust as a reducer of complexity. Luhmann noted that
individuals face an ever increasing level of complexity when
navigating the social world, with complexity defined as an over-
load of possible events and threats to stability. Trust reduces that
complexity by minimizing certain dangers (e.g., exploitation,
breach) while highlighting possibilities for action that would oth-
erwise have been impractical. Also along the lines of Luhmann’s
theorizing, fairness heuristic theory acknowledges that trust must
be learned. That learning process is difficult, however, because the
building blocks of trust may be ambiguous or unobservable. In
response to that difficulty, fairness heuristic theory argues that
employees evaluate the fairness of the authority’s actions, using
justice as a heuristic for guiding decisions about trust and coop-
eration. In practice, those justice evaluations may be grounded in
procedural, distributive, or interpersonal justice, depending on
which form of justice is first encountered in an organizational
relationship and which is most easily interpreted (Lind, 2001; van
den Bos, 2001a; van den Bos et al., 2001). Regardless, justice is
used as a means of gauging trust, with trust used to help cope with
the uncertainty regarding authority actions.
Uncertainty management theory, cast as the successor to fairness
heuristic theory, broadened the importance of justice, noting that it
could be used to help manage uncertainty in a much more general
sense, whether rooted in authority dynamics, organizational events, or
a pervading sense of anxiety or lack of control (Lind & van den Bos,
2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002). In fact, previous research has
demonstrated that fairness can help manage a wide range of uncer-
tainty forms, including a general sense of being uncertain or not in
control (van den Bos, 2001b) or even a sense of being uncertain about
one’s own mortality or disruptions in one’s own personal life (van den
 6 COLQUITT ET AL.
Bos & Miedema, 2000). The connection between justice and general
uncertainty is purported to exist despite any real association between
the uncertainty experienced and the treatment received. According to
Lind and van den Bos (2002), the connection between fairness and
uncertainty “is so fundamental . . . that it occurs whether there is a
logical link between the fair treatment and the source of the anxiety or
not” (p. 193). Thus, in addition to authority uncertainty, justice and
subsequent trust can help individuals manage more general work
uncertainty.
The theorizing described above does not draw a distinction
between affect- and cognition-based trust, leaving open the ques-
tion of whether one form is more relevant to uncertainty than the
other. Are both trust forms uniquely relevant to an employee’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sense that his or her work life is predictable and foreseeable? A
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sense that an authority’s behavior is predictable lies at the core of
cognition-based trust, as such predictability is fostered by a track
record of dependability and reliability (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995,
1996; McAllister, 1995). When employees view authorities as
dedicated and competent, they can feel more confident that key
organizational decisions and events will be handled in an effective
manner. The relevance of affect-based trust to uncertainty may be
less apparent than the relevance of cognition-based trust. Still, the
sense that an authority has made emotional investments of recip-
rocal care and concern into a relationship should signal that em-
ployee needs will be protected under conditions of risk, whatever
these may prove to be (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995, 1996; McAllister,
1995). When employees sense that authorities legitimately care for
them, that sense may provide comfort that mitigates even unrelated
sources of anxiety or confusion. We therefore predicted
Hypothesis 6: Affect- and cognition-based trust are nega-
tively related to uncertainty.
Finally, there are a number of conceptual reasons to expect per-
ceptions of uncertainty to predict job performance. First, employees
who experience uncertainty should have less cognitive energy avail-
able to dedicate to job performance. As described by trust scholars,
the presence of uncertainty necessitates off-task allocations of time
and attention. Mayer and Gavin (2005) noted that uncertainty can
cause employees to restrict their behaviors, eschew potentially risky
actions, and focus their attention on contingency plans rather than job
success. Similarly, McAllister (1995) suggested that uncertainty cre-
ates a need for monitoring and defense behaviors as individuals
attempt to protect their interests. In other words, uncertainty and
worry should result in decreased focus of attention, which can detract
from job performance. In addition, the literature on stress and strain
provides arguments for a relationship between uncertainty and job
performance. Models in that literature often frame uncertainty as a
stressor that can place significant strain on an employee, eventually
harming job performance (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). We therefore
predicted
Hypothesis 7: Uncertainty is negatively related to job perfor-
mance.
Summary
In sum, our model of trust mediation, shown in Figure 1, provides
two different mechanisms whereby trust can explain the relationships
between justice dimensions and job performance. The exchange deep-
ener mechanism travels through normative commitment, suggesting
that justice fosters trust, which is important because trust instills a
sense of obligation in exchange relationships (Blau, 1964). The un-
certainty reducer mechanism travels through uncertainty perceptions,
suggesting that justice fosters trust, which is important because trust
reduces the sense of uncertainty that employees can feel in their
organizational lives. Taken together, those linkages result in the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8: The relationship between justice and job per-
formance is mediated by trust (both affect and cognition
based) and normative commitment.
Hypothesis 9: The relationship between justice and job per-
formance is mediated by trust (both affect and cognition
based) and uncertainty.
Method
Sample
Participants were 195 employees of a hospital network located
in the southeastern United States. The sample was predominantly
female (86%). One hundred participants were Caucasian, 79 were
African American, six were Hispanic, and three were Asian Amer-
ican, and the remainder indicated multiple ethnicities. Organiza-
tional tenure averaged 6.93 years. The sample was diverse in terms
of pay grade (13) and functional background (nursing, medical
technology, physical plant, customer service, records, laboratory
testing, and information systems).
Procedure
Data were collected as part of a training evaluation conducted
for the human resource management department of the hospital
network. We used a longitudinal design with two data collections
separated by 3-month intervals. The first data collection included
the measures of justice, affect- and cognition-based trust, norma-
tive commitment, and uncertainty. Participants received $10 to
complete the survey and return it in a self-addressed stamped
envelope. The second data collection gathered information on job
performance from archival data taken from company records.
Missing data on one or more variables resulted in a final usable
sample size of 156 employees.
Measures
The survey items used to measure the justice, trust, normative
commitment, and uncertainty variables are shown in Table 1.
Justice. The justice dimensions were measured with
Colquitt’s (2001) scales, with all items using response anchors of
1 ⫽ To a Very Small Extent to 5 ⫽ To a Very Large Extent. The
procedural justice scale asked participants to consider the proce-
dures their supervisor uses to make decisions about evaluations,
promotions, and rewards. Its coefficient alpha was .90. The inter-
personal justice scale asked participants to consider how they were
treated by their supervisor during the implementation of proce-
dures. Its coefficient alpha was .95. Finally, the distributive justice
scale asked participants to consider the outcomes they received
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
Table 1
Survey Items and Factor Loadings
Survey item
Procedural justice
1. Are you able to express your views during those
procedures?
2. Can you influence the decisions arrived at by those
procedures?
3. Are those procedures applied consistently?
4. Are those procedures free of bias?
5. Are those procedures based on accurate information?
6. Are you able to appeal the decisions arrived at by those
procedures?
7. Do those procedures uphold ethical and moral
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
standards?
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Interpersonal justice
1. Has he/she treated you in a polite manner?
2. Has he/she treated you with dignity?
3. Has he/she treated you with respect?
4. Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or
comments?
Distributive justice
1. Do those outcomes reflect the effort that you have put
into your work?
2. Are those outcomes appropriate for the work you have
completed?
3. Do those outcomes reflect what you have contributed to
your work?
4. Are those outcomes justified, given your performance?
Affect-based trust
1. My supervisor and I freely share our ideas and feelings.
2. I can talk freely to my supervisor about difficulties I
am having at work.
3. We would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was
transferred.
4. My supervisor responds caringly when I share my
problems.
5. My supervisor and I have invested a lot in our working
relationship.
Cognition-based trust
1. My supervisor approaches his/her job with dedication.
2. I see no reason to doubt my supervisor’s competence
for the job.
3. I can rely on my supervisor not to make my job more
difficult.
4. Most people trust and respect my supervisor as a
coworker.
5. My peers consider my supervisor to be trustworthy.
6. If people knew more about my supervisor, they would
be more concerned and monitor his/her performance
more closely. (R)
Normative commitment
1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current
employer. (R)
2. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would
be right to leave my organization now.
3. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
4. This organization deserves my loyalty.
5. I would not leave my organization right now because I
have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
6. I owe a great deal to my organization.
Uncertainty
1. There is a lot of uncertainty at work right now.
2. Many things seem unsettled at work currently.
3. If I think about work, I feel a lot of uncertainty.
4. I cannot predict how things will go at work.
Note. n ⫽ 156. (R) ⫽ reverse-worded items.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
7
from their supervisor, including their evaluations, promotions, and
rewards. The coefficient alpha for distributive justice was .96.
One concern when utilizing self-report measures of the justice
Loading dimensions is whether such subjective appraisals truly capture
differences in the objective qualities of treatment. For example, are
procedural justice perceptions truly rooted in objective differences
.75ⴱ in the amount of voice, the accuracy of information, the availabil-
ity of appeals, and so forth? Three different types of data suggest
.73ⴱ
that self-report appraisals do pick up true variance in objective
.84ⴱ
.80ⴱ treatment. First, laboratory studies in the justice literature routinely
.84ⴱ yield strong relationships between objective manipulations of jus-
tice concepts and self-report manipulation checks (e.g., Brockner
.74ⴱ et al., 2007; De Cremer & Tyler, 2007; De Cremer, Van Knippen-
.86ⴱ berg, Van Knippenberg, Mullenders, & Stinglhamber, 2005; Rupp
& Spencer, 2006; Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, & Garden,
.96ⴱ 2005). Second, laboratory versus field breakdowns in meta-
.98ⴱ analyses have shown that self-report justice measures yield out-
.98ⴱ
come relationships that are similar to relationships with manipu-
.88ⴱ lated justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Finally, research
on justice climate illustrates that multiple employees within work
units hold similar appraisals of the way their supervisor or orga-
.92ⴱ nization treats the unit (Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz,
.93ⴱ 2003; Johnson, Korsgaard, & Sapienza, 2002; Liao & Rupp, 2005;
Naumann & Bennett, 2000, 2002; Sinclair, 2003).
.98ⴱ Trust. Affect- and cognition-based trust were measured with
.97ⴱ McAllister’s (1995) scales, with all items using response anchors
of 1 ⫽ Strongly Disagree to 5 ⫽ Strongly Agree. The affect-based
.93ⴱ
trust items were designed to capture the emotional investment,
.93ⴱ mutual concern, and deep sentiments that characterize that form of
trust. These items had a coefficient alpha of .93. The cognition-
.75ⴱ based trust items were designed to capture the sense of profession-
.93ⴱ alism and dedication that characterize that form of trust. These
items had a coefficient alpha of .88.
.88ⴱ Normative commitment. Normative commitment was mea-
sured with Meyer and Allen’s (1997) scale, which is a revised
.82ⴱ
version of the original Allen and Meyer (1990) measure. All items
.93ⴱ used response anchors of 1 ⫽ Strongly Disagree to 5 ⫽ Strongly
Agree. The items reflected a sense of obligation toward one’s
.86ⴱ employer and the sense that a debt is owed to the organization. The
scale had a coefficient alpha of .75.
.91ⴱ
.92ⴱ Uncertainty. A measure created for this study was used to
assess general perceptions of work uncertainty, in accordance with
uncertainty management theory (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van
.39ⴱ den Bos & Lind, 2002). The items incorporate the elements of
uncertainty described by van den Bos and Lind (2002), Milliken
.20ⴱ (1987), and Sitkin and Pablo (1992), including the inability to
predict or control future events, the existence of environmental
.57ⴱ volatility, and a sense of environmental complexity or heteroge-
.65ⴱ neity. Note that the items were not referenced to any particular
.70ⴱ
target (e.g., the supervisor), because the theory clearly states that
.88ⴱ its focal construct is very broad and general. The items used a scale
.75ⴱ of 1 ⫽ Strongly Disagree to 5 ⫽ Strongly Agree and had a
coefficient alpha of .91.
.90ⴱ
Job performance. Archival data were used to measure job
.95ⴱ
.91ⴱ performance. The organization’s contact person provided the over-
.76ⴱ all job performance ratings for the participants during the year in
which they completed the survey, once all surveys had been
completed. These ratings were kept in the organization’s People-
soft software system and had a scale of 1 ⫽ Unacceptable, 2 ⫽
 8 COLQUITT ET AL.

Needs Improvement, 3 ⫽ Effective, and 4 ⫽ Outstanding. On
average, 100 days had elapsed between the participant’s comple-
tion of the justice scales and his or her supervisor’s completion of
the performance rating in Peoplesoft. This supports some degree of
temporal precedence for the justice–performance relationships that
underlie our model.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on our survey
measures to verify their factor structure and to provide some
evidence of construct validity. We conducted this analysis using
LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 1996). Our default seven-
factor model provided a good fit to the data: ␹2(573) ⫽ 847.37,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
measurement repetition, no coefficient alpha was available for job
performance. In a recent study of organizational justice and cus-
tomer service attitudes, Ambrose, Hess, and Ganesan (2007) sug-
gested that a .90 alpha be utilized for single-item measures that are
factually based and a .70 alpha be utilized for single-item measures
that represent subjective beliefs. We utilized a coefficient alpha of
.80 for job performance because it was a compromise between
those two levels and represented a more conservative choice than
the .70 value. It should be noted, however, that the choice of alpha
had little impact on our results.
We allowed the exogenous justice dimensions to covary to
represent unmeasured common causes, such as a higher order
organizational justice factor. We also allowed the disturbance

terms for affect- and cognition-based trust to covary, again to

p ⬍ .001, comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ .98, standardized root
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

represent unmeasured common causes, such as a higher order trust

mean residual (SRMR) ⫽ .07, root-mean-square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA) ⫽ .05. All factor loadings were statistically
significant and are shown in Table 1. Given the typically high
correlations between the justice dimensions and between affect-
and cognition-based trust, we compared our default measurement
model with models that collapsed across those dimensions. A
model combining procedural, interpersonal, and distributive jus-
tice into a single justice factor provided a significantly worse fit to
the data: ␹2(584) ⫽ 1,687.01, p ⬍ .001, ⌬␹2(11) ⫽ 839.64, p ⬍
.001. Similarly, a model combining affect- and cognition-based
trust into a single trust factor provided a significantly worse fit to
the data: ␹2(579) ⫽ 945.14, p ⬍ .001, ⌬␹2(6) ⫽ 97.77, p ⬍ .001.
Our hypotheses were therefore tested following the structure in
Table 1.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations
among the study variables are shown in Table 2. Coefficient alphas
are reproduced on the diagonal.
Tests of Hypotheses
Given our sample size, we tested the model in Figure 1 using a
“partially latent” approach in which scale scores were used as
single indicators of the latent variables with error variances set to
(1 ⫺ alpha) * variance (Kline, 2005). Given the absence of
factor. We also included direct effects from the justice dimensions
to job performance, because such paths are needed to test our
mediation predictions (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002). The resulting model provided a good fit to the data:
␹2(9) ⫽ 20.44, p ⬍ .05, CFI ⫽ .99, SRMR ⫽ .05, RMSEA ⫽ .09.
The unstandardized path coefficients from the default LISREL
output are shown in Figure 2.
Hypotheses 1–3 predicted that procedural, interpersonal, and
distributive justice would be significantly related to affect- and
cognition-based trust, respectively. As shown in Figure 2, all three
hypotheses were supported. Procedural justice was a significant
predictor of affect-based trust (b ⫽ .33) and cognition-based trust
(b ⫽ .34). Interpersonal justice was also a significant predictor of
affect-based trust (b ⫽ .26) and cognition-based trust (b ⫽ .32).
Similarly, relationships with distributive justice were significant
for affect-based trust (b ⫽ .29) and for cognition-based trust (b ⫽
.22). Taken together, these results suggest that the justice dimen-
sions are relevant to both trust forms.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that affect- and cognition-based trust
would be positively related to normative commitment. This hy-
pothesis was partially supported, as affect-based trust was a sig-
nificant predictor of normative commitment (b ⫽ .51) but
cognition-based trust was not. Hypothesis 5 predicted that norma-
tive commitment would be positively related to job performance.
This hypothesis was supported, as normative commitment was a
significant predictor of job performance (b ⫽ .38). Hypothesis 6
predicted that affect- and cognition-based trust would be nega-
tively related to uncertainty. This hypothesis was partially sup-

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Procedural justice 3.32 0.91 (.90)

2. Interpersonal justice 4.17 0.98 .55ⴱ (.95)
3. Distributive justice 3.24 1.19 .50ⴱ .37ⴱ (.96)
4. Affect-based trust 3.45 1.09 .55ⴱ .65ⴱ .49ⴱ (.93)
5. Cognition-based trust 3.59 1.00 .55ⴱ .67ⴱ .43ⴱ .77ⴱ (.88)
6. Normative commitment 3.06 0.76 .22ⴱ .22ⴱ .33ⴱ .31ⴱ .23ⴱ (.75)
7. Uncertainty 3.02 1.06 ⫺.28ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ ⫺.43ⴱ ⫺.47ⴱ ⫺.55ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱ (.90)
8. Job performance 3.31 0.48 .15ⴱ .25ⴱ .27ⴱ .28ⴱ .24ⴱ .23ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ (.80)

Note. n ⫽ 156. Values along diagonal are coefficient alphas. SD ⫽ standard deviation.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05, two-tailed.
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 2. Unstandardized path coefficients from structural equation modeling results.
ported, as cognition-based trust was a significant predictor of
uncertainty (b ⫽ ⫺.66) but affect-based trust was not. Hypothesis
7 predicted that uncertainty would be negatively related to job
performance. This hypothesis was supported, as uncertainty was a
significant predictor of job performance (b ⫽ ⫺.32).
Hypothesis 8 predicted that the relationship between justice and
job performance would be mediated by trust and normative com-
mitment. Hypothesis 9 made the same prediction, substituting
uncertainty in place of normative commitment. We tested media-
tion using the “product of coefficients” approach described by
MacKinnon et al. (2002), in which mediation is demonstrated by a
statistically significant product of independent variable 3 medi-
ator and mediator 3 outcome relationships (i.e., a statistically
significant indirect effect). There are a number of variants of the
product of coefficients approach, with the Sobel (1982) test being
the best known. We specifically utilized LISREL’s effect decom-
position statistics to derive the indirect and total effects of the
justice dimensions on job performance. One benefit of using
LISREL’s statistics is that they can calculate the statistical signif-
icance of indirect effects with three stages (i.e., where justice leads
to trust, trust leads to normative commitment and uncertainty and
normative commitment and uncertainty lead to performance) and
indirect effects that involve multiple mediators (in the case of
normative commitment and uncertainty). The traditional “causal
steps” approach described by Baron and Kenny (1986) does not
provide a direct estimate of the indirect effect, nor does it test the
effect’s statistical significance (MacKinnon et al., 2002). It is also
not designed for models with three stages or with multiple medi-
ators. Finally, the Baron and Kenny approach contains unneces-
sary steps that cause it to have lower statistical power than most
product of coefficients approaches (MacKinnon et al., 2002).
LISREL’s effect decomposition statistics are summarized in
Table 3. As shown in the top panel, all three justice dimensions
had significant indirect effects on job performance, with values of
.11, .09, and .08 for procedural, interpersonal, and distributive
justice, respectively. Mediation was only partial for procedural
9
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
justice, as evidenced by the fact that it maintained a statistically
significant direct effect on job performance when the mediators
were also modeled (b ⫽ .25). For purposes of clarity, note that the
indirect and direct effects sum to the total effects, with the total
effects indicating what would occur if job performance was re-
gressed onto the three justice dimensions.
To tease apart the dual components of the trust mediation, we
attempted to isolate the exchange- and uncertainty-based media-
tion mechanisms. In particular, we tested a model in which the
uncertainty 3 job performance path was constrained to be 0,
forcing the justice dimensions to exert their indirect effects only
through normative commitment. This model provided a signifi-
cantly worse fit to the data than the structure in Figure 2: ␹2(10) ⫽
39.44, p ⬍ .001, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 19.00, p ⬍ .001. As shown in the
middle panel of Table 3, the magnitude of the indirect effects was
reduced by around 60%, with interpersonal justice no longer
having a significant indirect effect on job performance. This pat-
tern suggests that a considerable portion of trust’s mediating
impact is due to effects on uncertainty. We also tested a model in
which the normative commitment 3 job performance path was
constrained to be 0, forcing the justice dimensions to exert their
indirect effects only through uncertainty. This model also provided
a significantly worse fit to the data than the structure in Figure 2:
␹2(10) ⫽ 49.47, p ⬍ .001, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 29.03, p ⬍ .001. As shown
in the bottom panel of Table 3, the magnitude of the indirect
effects was reduced by around 40%, though all three justice
dimensions retained their significant indirect effects. This pattern
suggests that a substantial portion of trust’s mediating impact is
due to effects on normative commitment.
Discussion
One potential explanation for the continued popularity of justice
as a topic of study is the relationship between the justice dimen-
sions and job performance. However, the theoretical and practical
value in such effects depends, to some extent, on understanding
 10 COLQUITT ET AL.
Table 3
Effect Decomposition Results for Mediation Tests
Justice dimension
Exchange and uncertainty-based mediation
(the structure in Figure 2)
Procedural justice
Interpersonal justice
Distributive justice
Exchange-based mediation only
(uncertainty 3 performance constrained to 0)
Procedural justice
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Interpersonal justice
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Distributive justice
Uncertainty-based mediation only
(normative commitment 3 performance constrained to 0)
Procedural justice
Interpersonal justice
Distributive justice
Note. n ⫽ 156.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
exactly why they exist. Scholars have suggested that trust can act
as a mediator of justice-performance effects (e.g., Aryee et al.,
2002; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999), and social
exchange theory has been offered as a theoretical explanation for
trust mediation (Blau, 1964). However, the social exchange rele-
vance of trust has only been assumed in such studies, and those
studies fail to account for the other potential reason for trust’s
importance: uncertainty reduction (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van
den Bos & Lind, 2002). With those issues in mind, our study tested
a model that included both exchange-based and uncertainty-based
mechanisms for trust mediation. In so doing, we also answered
Lewicki et al.’s (2005) call for more research linking justice to
multiple trust types by operationalizing both affect- and cognition-
based trust (McAllister, 1995).
Our results showed that procedural, interpersonal, and distribu-
tive justice were each significantly related to affect- and cognition-
based trust. We reasoned that the consistency and accuracy aspects
of procedural justice could instill the sort of legitimacy needed to
foster cognition-based trust, whereas the voice and representative-
ness aspects could foster the sort of mutual communication and
investment that underlies affect-based trust. In the case of inter-
personal justice, we reasoned, dignified and proper communication
could allow reciprocal care and concern to develop, encouraging
affect-based trust, while signaling an adherence to professional
norms and climates, encouraging cognition-based trust. Finally,
distributively just outcomes prevent the anger and guilt that could
undermine affect-based trust while highlighting the sort of effec-
tive role fulfillment that underlies cognition-based trust in organi-
zational authorities. These results show that justice is relevant to
trust for both “hot” and “cold” reasons. It can foster a sense of
mutual emotional investment while also signaling that authorities
are reliable and dependable.
Aside from the specific linkages with affect- and cognition-
based trust, what stands out most from our results is that the
exchange-deepening and uncertainty-reducing mechanisms both
Effects on job performance
Indirect effect Direct effect Total effect
.11ⴱ .25ⴱ .36ⴱ
.09ⴱ .09ⴱ .18ⴱ
.08ⴱ .11ⴱ .19ⴱ
.05ⴱ .27ⴱ .32ⴱ
.03ⴱ .15ⴱ .18ⴱ
.04ⴱ .22ⴱ .26ⴱ
.07ⴱ .27ⴱ .34ⴱ
.07ⴱ .11ⴱ .18ⴱ
.05ⴱ .21ⴱ .26ⴱ
had significant mediating roles in the justice–performance rela-
tionship. When combined into the structure in Figure 2, they
resulted in significant indirect effects for all three justice dimen-
sions. Indeed, interpersonal and distributive justice failed to exert
significant direct effects when the exchange and uncertainty-based
trust effects were controlled. That the procedural justice direct
effect remained significant represents an interesting avenue for
future research. It may be that procedural effects are also trans-
mitted through mechanisms from other theoretical perspectives.
For example, Moorman and Byrne (2005) suggested that justice
could impact performance behaviors though social-identity-based
mechanisms, such as group identification or group pride. Regard-
less, our results showed that the exchange- and uncertainty-based
mechanisms were both needed to fully capture the mediating
effects of trust. Removing either mechanism from the structure in
Figure 2 resulted in a significantly worse fitting model and less of
a trust-based indirect effect of justice on performance.
Looking more closely at our results for trust as an exchange
deepener, it is important to note that affect-based trust had a
significant relationship with normative commitment but cognition-
based trust did not. Drawing on Blau’s (1964) theorizing, we had
reasoned that affect-based trust would reflect the sort of mutual
investment that instills a mind-set of obligation among exchange
partners, with cognition-based trust signaling an abundance of the
instrumental services that Blau described. We suspect that the
more significant effects of affect-based trust can be explained by
its more reciprocal nature. McAllister’s conceptualization (1995)
emphasizes a mutual sharing of ideas, a mutual sharing of work-
related difficulties, and a mutual sense of caring and investment.
That sense of reciprocation is echoed in Blau’s discussion of the
social exchange dynamic, which emphasizes a mutual sense of
obligation, owing, debt, and loyalty. It is also worth noting that
both McAllister and Lewicki and Bunker (1995, 1996) viewed
affect-based trust as signaling a more mature and established
relationship. Indeed, they described affect-based trust as building
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
on a foundation of cognition-based trust in much the same way that
Blau described social exchanges as supplanting economic ex-
changes. Regardless, these results suggest that much of the social-
exchange-based mediation observed in past research may be due
primarily to the affect-based aspect of trust.
In contrast, cognition-based trust had a significant relationship
with uncertainty but affect-based trust did not. We had suggested
that the dependability and reliability inherent in cognition-based
trust would give employees a sense of confidence when thinking
about future circumstances, with affect-based trust signaling that
employee needs would be protected as a show of care and concern.
It may be that a dependable track record is simply more salient in
uncertain situations than a sense of emotional investment. In
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
indirect support of that premise, past research has suggested that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
trustee ability is a stronger driver of risk-taking decisions than
is trustee benevolence (Colquitt et al., 2007). Alternatively, it may
be that the effects of the two trust forms would differ if the
uncertainty was made more specific. Lind and van den Bos de-
scribed a number of different forms of uncertainty in their writings
on uncertainty management theory (Lind & van den Bos, 2002;
van den Bos & Lind, 2002). Consistent with their explications, our
measure of uncertainty perceptions was intentionally global, re-
flecting a general sense that work events were unpredictable.
However, one might expect cognition-based trust to matter more
during times of organizational crisis, whereas affect-based trust
might matter more during political struggles or times of relation-
ship conflict.
Taken together, these results offer three important theoretical
contributions to the justice literature. First, they reinforce Lewicki
et al.’s (2005) suggestion that justice scholars should adopt a more
nuanced view of trust in their theorizing. It may be that the past
reliance on the unidimensional confident, positive expectations
perspective has obscured some potentially important distinctions
that can explain exactly why justice impacts performance behav-
iors. We would therefore suggest that scholars continue to assess
both affect- and cognition-based trust (or, alternatively, the
benevolence-, ability-, and integrity-based forms of trustworthi-
ness described by Mayer et al., 1995) in order to further explore
those nuances (see also Colquitt & Mueller, 2008).
Second, our results show that social exchange theory should not
be the only theoretical lens used to explain the effects of justice on
performance behaviors. A combination of exchange-based mech-
anisms and mechanisms rooted in uncertainty management theory
was needed to more fully explain why trust served as a mediator of
justice effects. Supplementing social-exchange-based mechanisms
with more uncertainty-based mechanisms could complement re-
cent research that examines justice from a workplace stress lens
(e.g., Greenberg, 2006). Given that work uncertainty is framed as
a stressor in many stress models, justice could be viewed as having
a buffering role that is similar to the functioning of supervisor or
coworker support in the stress literature (Sonnentag & Frese,
2003).
Third, our results illustrate the value in integrating multiple
theories when examining justice phenomena. The mechanisms in
different theories may often be complementary to one another by
emphasizing different aspects of the psychological experience of
justice—aspects that may uniquely explain subsequent reactions.
That observation is particularly relevant to the literatures on fair-
ness heuristic theory and uncertainty management theory. We
11
noted earlier that uncertainty management theory was cast as a
successor to fairness heuristic theory. The discussions of uncer-
tainty management theory ascribe no special importance to trust
(Lind & van den Bos, 2002; van den Bos & Lind, 2002), and tests
of the theory do not operationalize any trust-related constructs (van
den Bos, 2001b; van den Bos & Miedema, 2000). Moreover, the
introduction of uncertainty management theory seems to have had
a dampening effect on studies that apply fairness heuristic theory
to ground predictions or that use its mechanisms to inspire the
choice of independent or mediating variables. Our results suggest
that fairness heuristic theory remains a valuable conceptual lens
because it simultaneously emphasizes the importance of trust and
of uncertainty. As a result, there may be value in viewing fairness
heuristic theory as a complement to uncertainty management the-
ory, rather than as an ancestor that has lost its usefulness. More-
over, there may be value in moving beyond the global uncertainty
that is described and tested in uncertainty management theory, to
see if a more nuanced operationalization would shed new insights.
For example, there could be value in articulating a taxonomy of
work and nonwork-related uncertainty, to see if those facets con-
tribute beyond a global form, or to see if justice is uniquely
relevant to some facets more than others.
Limitations
This study has some limitations that should be noted. One
limitation is the use of self-report scales for the justice, trust,
normative commitment, and uncertainty variables. The reliance on
self-reports raises the possibility that the relationships among those
variables are inflated by common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, it should be noted
that the relationships with job performance were not same source,
given the use of archival data. Common method variance could
have contributed to some of the high correlations between our
predictors, especially affect- and cognition-based trust. Such sig-
nificant multicollinearity raises questions about the robustness of
the results for those predictors in Figure 2. Fortunately, a domi-
nance analysis supported the relative importance of those predic-
tors for normative commitment and uncertainty (Azen & Budescu,
2003; Lebreton, Ployhart, & Ladd, 2004).2
Another limitation concerns the correlational nature of our data.
The term mediation conveys a causal quality to the examined
relationships that cannot be inferred from correlational data
(Stone-Romero & Rosopa, 2004). Although our job performance
data were collected several months after our self-report variables,
we would have needed to collect experimental or cross-lagged data
to test the causal nature of the relationships among justice, trust,
and performance. In the absence of such data, the only means of
judging the validity of our causal order is to compare the structure
in Figure 2 with structures with alternative orderings of the justice,
trust, and mediator linkages. We investigated five such alterna-
tives. Four provided a worse fit to the data, three of those to a
statistically significant degree (full details of this analysis are
available from the first author upon request). The fifth alternative
provided an equivalent fit and cast normative commitment and
uncertainty as antecedents of the trust dimensions and the trust
2
Those analyses are available from the first author upon request.
 12 COLQUITT ET AL.
dimensions as antecedents of the justice dimensions. However, we
are not aware of any theories that would support that structure,
unlike our a priori structure in Figure 2.
Other limitations concern our use of normative commitment to
operationalize the exchange-deepening dynamic in our study. We
chose to use normative commitment because it captures the notion
of obligation, which is central to Blau’s (1964) description of
social exchange relationships. Other common operationalizations
of social exchange, such as Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkle,
Lynch, and Rhoades’s (2001) perceived support (e.g., Masterson et
al., 2000; Moorman et al., 1998; Tekleab et al., 2005; Wayne et al.,
2002), Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) leader–member exchange
(e.g., Masterson et al., 2000; Wayne et al., 2002), and Meyer and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Allen’s (1991, 1997) affective commitment (e.g., Shore & Tetrick,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1991; Shore & Wayne, 1993) do not reference a sense of obliga-
tion in any way. However, four of the six items in Meyer and
Allen’s (1997) normative commitment scale bound the obligation
to the desire to remain, which is only one aspect of reciprocation.
A better operationalization of the exchange-deepening dynamic
might therefore have been Eisenberger et al.’s felt obligation
construct, which represents a more all-encompassing sense of
reciprocation. Alternatively, we could have utilized Morrison and
Phelps’s (1999) felt responsibility scale, or we could have concep-
tualized obligation as a broadening of role definitions, along the
lines of McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, and Turban (2007). Our
normative commitment measure was also referenced to the orga-
nization, whereas our justice and trust measures were referenced to
the supervisor. Although we believe that employees can recipro-
cate for beneficial supervisory treatment with attitudes and behav-
iors that support the organization— because the supervisor is an
agent of the organization—a supervisor-targeted measure of obli-
gation would have yielded a cleaner test. We therefore suspect that
the path coefficients involving normative commitment would have
been stronger if supervisory normative commitment (or felt obli-
gation toward one’s supervisor) had served as our operationaliza-
tion of the exchange dynamic.
Practical Implications
Despite those limitations, our results offer a number of practical
implications. First and foremost, the justice effects observed in our
data reinforce the practical value in sensitizing managers to justice
concerns. Fortunately, a stream of research has shown that man-
agers can be successfully trained to adhere to justice rules (for a
review, see Skarlicki & Latham, 2005). Such training could be-
come an aspect of the managerial and executive development
programs that are already so common in today’s organizations. We
would further suggest pairing such programs with annual survey
assessments of justice and trust variables. Many organizations
already conduct annual attitude surveys, but often those surveys
focus more on general job attitudes than on specific justice or trust
variables. Such survey efforts would allow individuals to identify
the departments or work units in which justice or trust is particu-
larly low, making justice training a more immediate priority. Our
results for affect-based trust illustrate the value in initiatives that
increase the frequency and transparency of communications with
employees, as the frequent sharing of ideas and information is a
key component of that trust form (McAllister, 1995). Finally, our
results for cognition-based trust reinforce the importance of staff-
ing and training strategies, all of which can be leveraged to
improve the competence and reliability of organizational employ-
ees (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Rynes, 1991). Fostering
affect- and cognition-based trust in these manners should help
employees cope with uncertain periods in their organizational lives
while they maintain their focus on their work obligations.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Ambrose, M. L., Hess, R. L., & Ganesan, S. (2007). The relationship
between justice and attitudes: An examination of justice effects on event
and system-related attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 103, 21–36. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.001
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a
moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional
justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory support. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.2.295
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness
of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation
features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234 –245. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.2.234
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of
a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–
285. doi:10.1002/job.138
Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for
comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8,
129 –148. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129
Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of
emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 629 – 643. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.629
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., & Hui, C. (2006). Organizational leadership as a
moderator of the relationship between justice perceptions and work-
related reactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 705–721.
doi:10.1002/job.388
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman
(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., Reb, J., Goldman, B., Spiegel, S., & Garden,
C. (2007). Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of
an authority’s responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1657–
1671. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1657
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate
perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate,
cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605– 619. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.4.605
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in orga-
nizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 86, 278 –321. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
386 – 400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng,
K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25
years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 425– 445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Scott, B. A. (2005). Organizational justice:
Where do we stand? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The
handbook of organizational justice (pp. 589 – 619). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is
organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A.
Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Colquitt, J. A., & Mueller, J. B. (2008). Justice, trustworthiness, and trust:
A narrative review of their connections. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner,
& D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Justice, morality, and social responsibility (pp.
101–123). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness,
and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships
with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 909 –927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, orga-
nizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 53, 39 –52.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral
virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organi-
zational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164 –209. doi:
10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 –900. doi:
10.1177/0149206305279602
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social
exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice.
Group & Organization Management, 27, 324 –351. doi:10.1177/
1059601102027003002
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and
procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
639 – 649. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639
De Cremer, D., Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders,
D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair proce-
dures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
3–12. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3
Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003).
The impact of community violence and an organization’s procedural
justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 46, 317–326. doi:10.2307/30040625
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic
findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 611– 628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkle, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L.
(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distrib-
utive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32, 115–130. doi:10.2307/256422
Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J., & Snow, D. B. (2010).
Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and trust: A multifoci examina-
tion. Group & Organization Management, 35, 39 –76. doi:10.1177/
1059601109354801
Gabarro, J. J., & Athos, J. (1976). Interpersonal relations and communi-
cations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
13
leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec-
tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. doi:10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90036-5
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and infor-
mational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),
Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource
management (pp. 79 –103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice: Attenu-
ating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with supervisory
training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
58 – 69. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.58
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London,
England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Johnson, J. J., Korsgaard, M. A., & Sapienza, H. J. (2002). Perceived
fairness, decision control, and commitment in international joint venture
management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1141–1160.
doi:10.1002/smj.277
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Kernan, M. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor reactions to reorganiza-
tion: Antecedents and consequences of procedural, interpersonal, and
informational justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 916 –928.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.916
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation mod-
eling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social
exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656 – 669. doi:10.2307/
256704
Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in orga-
nizational life. In R. Payne & C. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work (pp.
45– 81). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lebreton, J. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Ladd, R. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo
comparison of relative importance methodologies. Organizational Re-
search Methods, 7, 258 –282. doi:10.1177/1094428104266017
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in
groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Ad-
vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen,
M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory
and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of
development and decline. In B. B. Banker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict,
cooperation, and justice (pp. 133–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust
in working relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. M. Tyler (Eds.), Trust
in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114 –139).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2005). What is the role
of trust in organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 247–270). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces,
63, 967–985. doi:10.2307/2578601
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice
orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.2.242
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal
cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56 – 88). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
 14 COLQUITT ET AL.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural
justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and
culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 767–780. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.767
Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Towards a
general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M.
Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181–
223). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York, NY: Wiley.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other
intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi:
10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair
procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 43, 738 –748. doi:10.2307/1556364
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20,
709 –734.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and perfor-
mance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874 – 888. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2005.18803928
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations
for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 24 –59. doi:10.2307/256727
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007).
Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion,
instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200 –1211. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.5.1200
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review,
1, 61– 89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11,
299 –326. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the
environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 12, 133–143.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived
organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural jus-
tice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 351–357. doi:10.2307/256913
Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice
affect organizational citizenship behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A.
Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355–380).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole
efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal,
42, 403– 419. doi:10.2307/257011
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice
climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 881– 889. doi:10.2307/1556416
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2002). The effects of procedural justice
climate on work group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 361–
377. doi:10.1177/10496402033003004
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness percep-
tions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional lead-
ership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897–933.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500606
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational com-
munication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326. doi:10.1037/
h0036660
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so
different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 23, 393– 404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social
exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci
organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 89, 925–946. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5
Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effects
of customer interactional justice on emotional labor and the mediating
role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971–978.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.971
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences:
A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 399 – 444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a
handshake. Negotiation Journal, 8, 365–377. doi:10.1111/j.1571-
9979.1992.tb00679.x
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the
survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 76, 637– 643. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and
economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837– 867. doi:10.1111/j.0021-
9029.2006.00046.x
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior:
Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
774 –780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.774
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005).
The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship
between work-life conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 13–24. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.13
Sinclair, A. L. (2003). The effects of justice and cooperation on team
effectiveness. Small Group Research, 34, 74 –100. doi:10.1177/
1046496402239578
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of
risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17, 9 –38.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to
foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 499 –522). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological method-
ology 1982 (pp. 290 –312). Washington, DC: American Sociological
Association.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
 JUSTICE, TRUST, AND PERFORMANCE
Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 453– 491). Hobo-
ken, NJ: Wiley.
Stinglhamber, F., De Cremer, D., & Mercken, L. (2006). Perceived support as
a mediator of the relationship between justice and trust. Group & Organi-
zation Management, 31, 442– 468. doi:10.1177/1059601106286782
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2004). Inference problems with
hierarchical multiple regression-based tests of mediating effects. In J.
Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources manage-
ment (Vol. 23, pp. 249 –290). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending the chain
of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and
employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 48, 146 –157. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993162
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological
analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
830 – 838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Anteced-
ents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 850 – 863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.850
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in
groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
ogy (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
van den Bos, K. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing the infor-
mation to which people are reacting has a pivotal role in understanding
organizational justice. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.),
15
Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp.
63– 84). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
van den Bos, K. (2001b). Uncertainty management: The influence of
uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.80.6.931
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means
of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1– 60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology
of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of
fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the work-
place: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 49 – 66). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why
fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to
procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
355–366. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.355
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The
role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational
support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 590 –598. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590
Received February 1, 2008
Revision received June 20, 2011
Accepted June 27, 2011 䡲