Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia © PI-ME, Pavia 2010 http://gimle.fsm.

it

Supplemento B, Psicologia 2010; Vol. 32, N. 3: B5-B9 ISSN 1592-7830

Marko Elovainio1, Tarja Heponiemi1, Timo Sinervo1, Nicola Magnavita2

Organizational justice and health; review of evidence

1

National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland 2 Institute of Occupational Medicine, Catholic University, Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT. Organizational justice is a construct defining the quality of social interaction at work. Organizational justice can be divided into three categories: procedural justice (fairness of the decision-making procedures), distributive justice (fairness of outcomes) and relational justice (equity and fairness in the interpersonal treatment of employees by their supervisors). Organizational justice is related to employees’ health and well-being. Low perceived justice has been shown to be associated with experienced stress reactions and related physiological and behavioral reactions, such as inflammation, sleeping problems, cardiovascular regulation and cognitive impairments, and with a high rate of work absenteeism. This paper is a review of the literature on organizational justice and its impact on workers’ health. Key words: work organization, fairness, health, well-being.

Major theoretical models of organizational justice Organizational justice is a construct defining the quality of social interaction at work (1-3). Organizational justice theorists have identified at least three different categories of events that can be evaluated in terms of justice. These categories are outcomes, processes, and interpersonal interactions. Following these categories, justice evaluations regarding to outcomes are specified as distributive justice, evaluations regarding to fairness of processes are named procedural justice, and justice regarding to interpersonal interactions are judged in terms of interactional or relational justice (4-5). The initial interest in the area of organizational justice considered distributive justice and perceptions of equity (6), but more recent research has emphasized procedural and relational justice (7). Procedural justice refers to the extent to which decision-making procedures are applied consistently, free from bias, accurate, correctable, ethical, and representative of all concerns (8). Relational justice refers to the quality of treatments employees experience in their interpersonal interactions during the completion of organizational processes; specifically, to polite and considerate treatments received from their supervisors (9).

RIASSUNTO. EFFETTI DELLA GIUSTIZIA ORGANIZZATIVA SULLA SALUTE: UNA REVISIONE DELL’EVIDENZA SCIENTIFICA. Il concetto di giustizia organizzativa definisce la qualità dell’integrazione sociale sul lavoro. La giustizia organizzativa si articola in tre categorie: giustizia procedurale (correttezza percepita del processo decisionale), giustizia distributiva (percezione dei risultati del processo decisionale) e giustizia relazionale (percezione di ricevere un trattamento franco e corretto da parte dei superiori). La giustizia organizzativa si correla con la salute e il benessere dei lavoratori. È stato osservato che un basso livello di giustizia si associa con la comparsa di reazioni fisiologiche e comportamentali allo stress, come flogosi, disturbi del sonno, alterazioni dell’omeostasi cardiovascolare e compromissione cognitiva, e con un alto tasso di assenteismo lavorativo. In questo lavoro viene riportata una revisione della letteratura riguardante la giustizia organizzativa e le sue ripercussioni sulla salute dei lavoratori. Parole chiave: organizzazione del lavoro, giustizia, salute, benessere.

The health effects of organizational justice Organizational justice has been related to emotional reactions (10), and low perceived justice has been shown to play an important role in the health and well-being of employees (11-13). It has been associated with job dissatisfaction, retaliation, workplace aggression, lower work commitment and withdrawal (14-17). Previous research also suggests that factors associated with justice perceptions, such as discrimination may be related to factors that influence susceptibility to illness, such as elevated unfavorable serum lipids and negative feelings (18-19). Low justice has also been shown to increase risk of mental distress, psychiatric disorders, sickness absence, and poor self-rated health status (20-22). In addition, epidemiological studies suggest that low organizational justice may also contribute to serious health problems, such as cardiovascular disease (23) and cardiovascular death (24).

fsm. As a consequence. Furthermore. we tried to specify this somewhat and. (27) showed that perceived unfair treatment at workplace is associated with increased risk of poor sleep quality in men and women. proposing that perception of injustice is caused by discrepancy between efforts and rewards.it Mechanisms linking organizational justice to health outcomes Potential mechanisms underlying the associations between low perceived organizational justice and health outcomes have also been studied. According to a more generalized uncertainty management model of fairness judgments. such as coronary heart disease and some respiratory and musculoskeletal diseases. The tension between the benefits of interdependence on the one hand and the risks associated with interdependence on the other has been termed the fundamental social dilemma (34). that when people do not have information about authority’s trustworthiness.8 times higher in employees with low justice than in employees with high justice (26). body mass index and depressive symptoms. this theory also suggests that when people do have direct.8 to 5. Elovainio et al. a plausible mechanism through which perceived organizational injustice may affect health is prolonged stress. behavioural risks. Uncertainty. fairness heuristic theory suggest. The key element is the salience of either the unpredictability of future events or the inconsistency between important cognitions. Furthermore.33) suggesting that people especially need fairness judgments when they are concerned about potential problems associated with social interdependence and socially-based identity processes. already in midlife (29). inductive reasoning and vocabulary. According to fairness heuristic theory. It has also been found. According to the results of Elovainio et al. or behaviors. A recent explanation for the strong effects of experiences of organizational justice on human reactions was offered by van den Bos. hypertension and job strain. According to van den Bos and Lind’s uncertainty management model (37). on the basis of previous literature. As for many other psychosocial factors at work. that the risk for increased lowfrequency band systolic arterial pressure variability was 3. In previous conceptions of the uncertainty management model. the range of uncertainty-provoking. Prolonged (chronic) inflammation is part of the atherosclerotic process and is a predictor of chronic conditions. In the current paper. firmly constructed fairness judgments either remove uncertainty or alleviate much of the discomfort that uncertainty would otherwise generate. Suppl B. According to the uncertainty management model. unpredictable situations was very broad. employment grade. This dilemma is concerned with the question of whether one can trust others (35). such as age. This results was based on the prospective Whitehall II cohort study of nearly 5000 British civil servants aged 35-55 years at study entry. depression. explicit information about authority’s trustworthiness they are less in need of procedural fairness as a heuristic substitute and less strong fair process effects should occur.(25). or confusion provide the stimulus for seeking and using fairness judgments. it is reasonable to assume that perceived injustice in an uncertain situation represents a greater health risk than in a more certain and predictable situation. Following this. Solid. but this association was not statistically significant. that provoke feelings of uncertainty. which is suggested to be a common indicator of prolonged negative emotional states and related physiological changes. organisational injustice is associated with increased long-term levels of inflammatory markers. Sleep represents the daily process of physiological restitution and recovery and lack of sleep has effects on immune system and metabolism. situations. whether social or not. 32:3. Disturbed sleep is another marker of prolonged stress. using the Whitehall II cohort. cardiovascular regulation and cognitive impairments. people become especially attentive to the information they need to form fairness judgments when they find themselves in unclear or unpredictable situations (36-38). Low perceived justice was also related to an 80% excess risk of reduced high-frequency heart rate variability compared to high perceived justice. because it helps them to deal with uncertainty. It has also been found. when forming fairness judgments people make predictable leaps of judgment to resolve uncertainties they encounter within the fairness judgment process. such as interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein. such as memory. it has been found that one potential mechanism through which justice at work may affect health is poor sleep quality (28).B6 G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010. These findings suggest that cardiac disregulation is one stress mechanism through which a low perceived justice of decision-making procedures and interpersonal treatment increases the risk of health problems. argue for . sleeping problems. who proposed that fairness matters to people. These associations were independent of covariates. such as age. re- sembles assumptions behind most of the classic occupational stress theories (30). occupational grade. experiences. and Lind (31). if people do not have information about the authority’s trustworthiness. they will react more positively towards the outcome they received from the authority when they believe that the authority had been employing fair as opposed to unfair procedures. On the other hand. such as inflammation. Perceived injustice has been shown to be associated with experienced stress reactions (12) and related physiological and behavioral reactions. and organizational justice The idea. This uncertainty model is based on the previous theory called fairness heuristic theory (32. fairness is important for people because fairness judgments are an effective and readily available device for handling the various uncertainties they face. doubt. Psicol http://gimle. procedural fairness serves as a heuristic substitute in the process of deciding how to judge the trustworthiness. that low long-term levels of perceived organisational justice are associated with impaired cognitive functions. Wilke. The long term associations were largely independent of covariates. job control.

attenuate or remove the source of threat. that is autonomy with regard to worktime (worker control over the duration. and procedural justice. there are results suggesting that unfair treatment may intensify health effects of other environmental stressors and that working in a high justice work environment may protect employee from health problems. besides health. According to the results.e. Important sources of uncertainty in modern work life include continuous and rapid changes.42). income. Competent decisions that enable the individual to control a potentially threatening situation are fundamental aspects of homeostasis. there is rapidly growing body of evidence suggesting that organizational justice is associated with wide variety of health outcomes of employees. procedural and interactional dimensions of organizational justice. negative changes in the psychosocial work environment have detrimental effects on the health of employees. quality of care in nursing homes (49) employees’ possibilities to connect work and family live (50) and attitudes towards retirement (51). We also extended previous research in studying whether working in high justice work place would protect from health effects following environmental stressors outside work (47). and negative changes at work) and organizational justice (i. Furthermore. A form of control that has been shown to relate with health at work is control over working times. and maintained the theoretical subdivision of the original questionnaire into sub-scales concerning relational. proposed by Jason A. The instrument showed very good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha= 0. organizational justice is important. distributive. Thus. which may be reduced in stress situations. these associations were dependent on experienced work-time control and perceived changes at work (46). and recent negatively experienced changes at work. was associated with the greatest risk of subsequent illness. and that these mechanisms are related to prolonged stress followed unfair treatment. We suggest that perceived negative changes in the work environment reflect a state in which employees are not able to affect things in predictable ways and. and distribution of his/her worktime) (40-42). In accordance with the uncertainty management model. In addition. thus increasing predictability and reducing uncertainty. It has been observed that the questionnaire may be useful and stimulating to enlarge the existing stress models and capturing new aspects of the psychosocial work environment (54). A recent cross sectional study showed an association between perceived low worktime control and poor health among women.083 male and 24. the dimension of work-time control is located at the work/nonwork interface.fsm. In sum. control over the beginning and end of a workday. control implies the power to reverse. such as predictability of the work environment or possibilities for participation in decision making. has been recently translated into Italian and validated (53). Italian studies We have also previously shown that.92). The Justice Measure 20-items questionnaire (JM20). Compared to other forms of job control 43). for the productivity of the organization (48). Colquitt (52). position. Studies about organizational justice are currently performed in Italy. We examined whether the combination of uncertainty (lack of work-time control. we studied the relationships between organizational justice and sickness-related absences both before and after a major life event among 25459 public sector employees working in 2551 work units. negative changes constitute one source of uncertainty at work. Using a prospective longitudinal design. and health behaviors low procedural and interactional justice were related to long sickness-absence spells. Low work-time control may hamper the successful combination of work-life demands with unavoidable nonwork responsibilities. Results of hierarchical regression models on 7. Controlling aversive situations make individuals believe that the consequence is created by their own response (39). in this way. among those who perceived the management practices in their work unit to be relatively unfair. Other outcomes of organizational justice. and are likely to reduce feelings of uncertainty. Their results showed that a combination of poor psychosocial work characteristics and an adverse change in some other psychosocial factor.it B7 operationalizing the work-related uncertainty through two sources: lack of control over working times. which refers to multiple dimensions of control within work (opportunities to participate and use skills). According to the findings of Vahtera and co-workers (45). A meta analysis has linked flexible scheduling. Low control of worktime at the occupational level has been linked with an increased risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular disease (41. .317 female Finnish public sector employees showed that after adjustment for age. the increase in sickness absences after the event was bigger and stayed at a higher level even 30 months after the event. Suppl B. The different dimensions of control may bear a varying relevance on health across individuals and across time. The concept of control refers to power or mastery of the environment as a means for maintaining homeostasis. Psicol http://gimle.G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010. with lower absenteeism (44). Sickness absences covered the period from 36 months prior to the event until 30 months after the event. 32:3. but not among men (40). thus creating a sense of uncertainty and unpredictability reaching beyond a working day. Similar patterns were found for each of the distributive. organizational justice may help to buffer the negative effects of poor health (51). justice of decisionmaking procedures and interpersonal treatment) contributes to sickness absence.. that there are plausible behavioral and physiological mechanisms linking justice perceptions to health outcomes. for example.

Owens JF. 19) Räikkonen K. 24) Elovainio M. 20) Kivimäki M. job control. Cropanzano R. Arch Intern Med 2005. Kivimäki M. J Pers SocPsychol 1999. Psychol Bull 1996. 76: 845-855. 84: 786-794. 5) Colquitt JA. Psychol Med 2003. Effects of procedural and distributive justice reactions to pay raise decisions. 120: 189-208. Suppl B. 36: 626-637. Marmot MG. Advances in organization justice. 2006 Elovainio et al. Bobocel DR. ed. 22) Tepper BJ. Justice at work and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. 1988. Kivimäki M. Leino-Arjas P. Palo Alto. Brunner E. Shipley MJ. J Appl Psychol 2001. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. 76: 104-113. Vahtera J. J Appl Psychol 2001. Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees: the Whitehall II Study. Matthews KA. Organizational justice: evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. 86: 278-321. and sickness absence Psychiatric disorders Moorman’s procedural justice Moorman’s procedural and relational justice Kivimäki. 32: 115-130. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. . 21) Kivimäki M. Flory JD. 13) Elovainio M. Vahtera J. Acad Manag J 1992. pessimism. S. Singh-Manoux A. Tyler TR. 4) Cohen-Charash Y. 14) Folger R. In: Greenberg J. Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. Byrne ZS. 6) Adams J. no for relational justice Yes Tepper 2001 sample 1) employees of a large public organization sample 2) residents of a moderate-sized city Civil servants aged 35-55 Factory workers Middle-aged civil servants Prospective Psychological distress Distributive and procedural justice Kivimäki et al. Shipley M. Cropanzano R. Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. 19: 393-398. 12) Elovainio M. 2002 Sample Female hospital employees Study design Cross-sectional Outcome measure(s) Type of justice measure Health effect Yes Self-rated health. 18) Richards JC. 32:3. New York. The social psychology of procedural justice. 7) Cropanzano R. Hof A. De Vogli R. Stanford University Press. Sweeney PD. Occup Environ Med 2003. 86: 418-424. Psicol http://gimle. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. eds. Elovainio. 15) Masterson SS. 3) Lind EA. Vahtera J. Vahtera J. Am J Public Health 2002. 2001. Ferrie JE.it Table I. psychiatric morbidity. Wiesenfeld BM. Association between organizational inequity and incidence of psychiatric disorders in female employees. J Psychosomatic Res 2006. Porter CO. Gimeno D. 89-118. Wesson MJ. and relational justice and recorded absences due to sickness Self-rated health. Advances in organization justice. Elovainio M. Gump BB. Helkama K. 10) Weiss HM. 86: 425-445. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J Appl Psycholy 1991. Leino-Arjas et al. 1967. Inequity in social exchange. minor Moorman’s procedural psychiatric disorders. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 2001. J Manag 2000. Goldman BM. Ng KY. J Appl Psychol 1999. Kivimäki M. Vahtera. Health Psychol 2000. 165: 2245-2251. et al. 23) Kivimaki M. In: Greenberg J. Organisational justice and markers of inflammation: the Whitehall II study. 119-151. Virtanen M. 11) Brockner J. Alvarenga M. Rupp DE.fsm. Virtanen & Stansfeld 2003 Female hospital employees Prospective cohort study Prospective Yes Yes for procedural justice. Stansfeld SA. Kivimäki M. Stanford University Press. Organization justice evaluations. 86: 197-215. social entities. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Stanford University Press 2001. 58: 164-209. Organisational justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med 2010. 61: 271-274. fairness heuristics. J Vocat Behavior 2001. Brunner E. Acad Manag J 2000. Elovainio. Ambrose ML. 2010 Prospective Prospective Prospective Risk of incident CHD Cardiovascular death long-term levels of inflammatory markers Relational justice One item measure of experienced justice Relational justice Yes Yes Yes References 1) Greenberg J. 25) Elovainio M. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Ferrie JE. Spector PE. 43: 738-748. Studies examining an association between organizational justice and health Author(s) and year Elovainio et al. Suckow K. 60: 27-34. 67: 78-83. Vahtera J. Acad Manag J 1989. 33: 319-326. Taylor MS.. Plenum. Conlon DE. Vahtera J. Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Ferrie JE.B8 G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010. Serum lipids and their relationships with hostility and angry affect and behaviors in men. and other denizens of organizational justice. Advances in organization justice. 26: 489-511. 2) Konovsky MA. and trait anxiety on ambulatory blood pressure and mood during everyday life. Org Beh Hum Dec Proc 2001. eds. 16) McFarlin DB. Moral virtues. In: Berkowitz L. New York. 92: 105-108. 17) Moorman RH. Effects of optimism. International (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Cropanzano R. 2005 Elovainio. Academic Press. 8) Cropanzano R. Konovsky MA. Hospital employees Vahtera & Ferrie 2003 Kivimäki. Advances in experimental social psychology. and occupational strain. Lewis K. Elovainio M. Ca. Head J. Cropanzano R. 9) Bies RJ. 2: 267-299.

J Person Soc Psychol 2001. 30: 498-507. Kouvonen A. ed. et al. 84: 496-513. 38) Van den Bos K.it 26) Elovainio M. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Social Science & Medicine 2005. Theorell T. Lind E. Effect of change in the psychosocial work environment on sickness absence: a seven year follow up of initially healthy employees. 54) Magnavita N. Behav Res Ther 1979. Lind EA. M. Leiden University Press. et al. Lawrence Erlbaum.E-mail: nicolamagnavita@gmail. Linna A. evidence and theory. Elovainio M. 1995. Lind EA. “Agostino Gemelli” Hospital. 30(1 Suppl A): A87-97. Theorell T. Academic Press. Kivimäki M. Linna A. Occup Environ Med 2006. Pekkarinen L. In: Zanna MP. ed. Gemelli 8. Adm Sci Q 1979. In Cropanzano R. 28) Elovainio M. 34: 1-60. Psicol http://gimle. Occup Environ Med 2009. Stanford University Press. Wright JA. 32:3. De Vogli R. Kivimäki M. 30(3) 2 Suppl: 449-450. J Appl Psychol 1999. 2001. Vahtera J. 51) Heponiemi T. Noro A. 36: 387-398. 66(1): 32-7 30) Vermunt R. 50) Heponiemi T. 35) Tyler TR. Catholic University of Rome. 54: 484-493. Steensma H. ed. 33) Van den Bos K. J Person Soc Psychol 1998. eds. 34) Lind EA. Halila H. Vahtera J. psychosocial factors and retirement intentions among Finnish physicians. Publishers. 71: 334-340. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2002. Pentti J. Elovainio L. 37) Van den Bos K. Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice. 75: 1449-1458. Lo studio della giustizia sul lavoro. Vänskä J. Kivimäki M. Uncertainty Management: The Influence of Uncertainty Salience on Reactions to Perceived Procedural Fairness. Spetz CL. Int J Epidemiol 1985. 23: 277-284. 17: 3067-3073. 14: 378-388. In: Greenberg J. 1992. 2001. Gimeno D. Kevin MV. Sinervo T. Laine J. Advances in experimental social psychology. Miedema J. In: Zanna MP. I-00168 Rome. 19: 240-246. 86(3): 386-400. Organizational injustice and impaired cardiovascular autonomic regulation among female employees. Theorell T. San Diego. Kivimäki M. The effects of job demands and low job control on work-family conflict: The role of fairness in decision-making and management. 49) Pekkarinen L. Vahtera J. Shipley M. Ala-Mursula L. 29) Elovainio M. 61: 2501-2512. 27) Elovainio M.Institute of Occupational Medicine. 39) Miller SM. Advances in organization justice. Italy . Pentti J. The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. J Comm Psychol 2008. Singh-Manoux A.com . Job characteristics and the incidence of myocardial infarction. Does Organizational Justice Protect from Sickness Absence Following a Major Life Event? Finnish Public Sector study. Lind EA. Sinervo T. Psychosomatic Medicine 2009. Kivimäki M. 25: 115-191. 48) Heponiemi T. Alfredsson L. OccupMed (London) 2008. Ferrie JE. Toward Understanding Why Fairness Matters: The Influence of Mortality Salience on Reactions to Procedural Fairness. A relational model of authority in groups. Cropanzano R. Kouvonen A. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008 Jan-Mar. Brockner J. Productivity and employee’s organizational justice perceptions in long-term care for the elderly. 22: 287-293. 31) Van den Bos K. Marmot MG. CA: Academic Press. job decision latitude. Sinervo T. 32) Lind EA. Implication for job redesign. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. 47) Elovainio M. Sinervo T. 45) Vahtera J. 17: 287-304. 79: 355-366. Drug use and pressure ulcers in long-term care units: do nurse time pressure and unfair management increase the prevalence? J Clin Nurs 2008. Health. Neuman GA.fsm. Shipley MJ. Finne-Soveri H. Suppl B. Kivimaki M. . Social conflict and social justice: lessons from the social psychology of justice judgments. Health Psychol 2003. Brunner EJ. 42) Hammar N. J Appl Psychol. et al. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria.G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010. Kivimäki M. Virtanen M. Pentti J. Cumulative exposure to high-strain and active jobs as predictors of cognitive function: the Whitehall II study. Gimeno D. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. 2001 Jun. Keltikangas-Järvinen L. Organizational justice and sleeping problems: The Whitehall II study. Noro A. 36) Van den Bos K. Wilke HAM. Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice. ed. et al. Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employees. Largo A. The Netherlands.D. 24: 285 44) Baltes BB. 2: 27-48. 52) Colquitt JA. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2009. Type of occupation and near-future hospitalization for myocardial infarction and some other diagnoses. 53) Magnavita N. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. and mental strain. J Person Soc Psychol 2000. Greenberg J. Pohjonen T. 2002. Controllability and human stress: Method. Briggs TE. Van den Bos K.Phone: +39-349-3300367. In: Cropanzano R. et al. Leiden. 56: 272-278. Puttonen S. De Vogli R. 2001: 56-88. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008. Employee control over working times: associations with subjective health and sickness absences. Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and health. Questionnaires for psychosocial risk assessment at work. Elovainio M. Fax: +39-06-61909399 . Reprint request: Nicola Magnavita. 43) Karasek RA. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2000. Kivimäki M. Eccles M. Stress and justice in organizations: An exploration into justice processes with the aim to find mechanisms to reduce stress. Pekkarinen L. 46) Elovainio M. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology. B9 40) Ala-Mursula L. Validazione della versione italiana del JM20 di Colquitt. 2: 49-66. Bergamaschi A. Wilke HAM. Lindholm H. Brunner EJ. 58: 406-412. Res Nurs Health 2007. Int J Epidemiol 1994. Huff JW. Ferrie JE. 41) Alfredsson L. Van den Bos J. Job demands. 63: 141-144. 80: 931-941.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful