The personality basis of justice: The five-factor model as an...

The Personality Basis of Justice: The Five-factor Model asan Integrative Model of Personality and Procedural

Fairness Effects on Cooperation

ALAIN VAN HIEL1*, DAVID DE CREMER2 and JEROEN STOUTEN3

1Department of Developmental Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University,Ghent, Belgium

2Department of Psychology, Center of Justice and Social Decision Making, Tilburg University,Tilburg, The Netherlands

3Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Building upon the self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), the present

study investigates the relationship between the five-factor model (FFM) and cooperation.

Study 1 (N¼ 56), an experiment conducted in the laboratory, and Study 2 (N¼ 116), a field

study conducted in an organisational context, yielded a moderator effect between

neuroticism and procedural fairness in explaining cooperation. Study 3 (N¼ 177) showed

that this moderator effect was mediated by the self-uncertainty and relational variables

proposed by the self-based model of cooperation. It is concluded that the FFM is useful in

explaining cooperation and contributes to a better understanding of (procedural) fairness

effects. Moreover, the necessity to build integrative, multi-level models that combine core

and surface aspects of personality to explain the effects of fairness on cooperation is

elaborated upon. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: personality scales and inventories; organisational psychology; social groups

Procedural justice—the degree of fairness in making decisions and allocating outcomes

(Leventhal, 1980)—is a crucial aspect of decision making in settings as diverse as the

courtroom and the workplace, with pervasive effects on cognitions, emotions and

behaviour regarding the group and the enacting authority (for overviews, see De Cremer &

Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). Most importantly, studies

focusing on procedural fairness have demonstrated that fairness engenders cooperation.

That is, procedural fairness facilitates positive behaviour that group members display such

European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 22: 519–539 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.691

*Correspondence to: Alain Van Hiel, Department of Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University,Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, H. Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 13 March 2008

Revised 11 June 2008

Accepted 21 June 2008

as exerting themselves on the job and supporting the group by contributing individual

effort, time and resources. By devoting extra time, energy and effort that benefit the

organisation, the group is able to reach its goals (see, De Cremer & Tyler, 2005).

According to the self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005) individual

differences with respect to the relational self, such as high belongingness and social

reputation needs (cf. Tyler & Lind, 1992), and individual differences variables with respect

to the uncertainty of the self, such as high self-doubt and self-esteem instability (De Cremer

& Sedikides, 2005; cf. Van den Bos & Lind, 2002) make people more sensitive to

procedural fairness information. However, little is known to date about the relationship

between broad personality traits—like those comprised in the five-factor model (FFM) of

personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990)—and procedural fairness.

In order to meet these limitations in the current literature, two research questions were

addressed. Firstly, in Studies 1 and 2, the combined effects of procedural fairness and the

five core personality dimensions of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience,

agreeableness and conscientiousness on cooperation were assessed. Secondly, in Study 3 a

theoretical framework is tested in which the FFM dimensions are conceptualised as deeper

level trait and the self-relevant variables (i.e. self-uncertainty and relational self) are

considered to be surface traits. In this model, the deeper level trait at a more general level

(i.e. the FFM dimensions) are expected to translate itself as specific needs and motivations

at the surface level (i.e. the uncertainty and relational variables) thereby enhancing or

diminishing cooperation as a function of procedural fairness.

In the following parts of the introduction we will elaborate in depth on the issues of

procedural fairness, self-relevant individual differences and personality. That is, we first

pay close attention to the self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005).

Next, we discuss a range of studies suggesting that core personality may act as a moderator

of procedural fairness effects.

THE SELF-BASED MODEL OF COOPERATION: THE IMPACT OF THE

RELATIONAL SELF AND SELF UNCERTAINTY

The self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005) is an integration of the

uncertainty management model (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002) and the relational model of

authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), which are two dominant perspectives in current procedural

fairness literature. According to the self-based model of cooperation, individual

differences with respect to the relational self, such as high belongingness and social

reputation needs (cf. Tyler & Lind, 1992), and individual differences variables with respect

to the uncertainty of the self, such as high self-doubt, self concept unclarity and self-esteem

instability (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; cf. Van den Bos & Lind, 2002) increase people’s

sensitivity to procedural fairness.

De Cremer and Sedikides (2005) demonstrated the moderating effects of procedural

justice manipulations and individual differences related to self-uncertainty, including self-

esteem instability (the labile self-esteem scale (LSES); Dykman, 1998), self-doubt

(Oleson, Poehlmann, Yost, Lynch, & Arkin, 2000) and self-concept clarity (Campbell,

Trapnell, Heine, Katz, Lavallee, & Lehman, 1996). Their results showed that people with

unstable self-esteem, high self-doubt and low self-concept clarity are more sensitive to

information conveyed by procedural justice (as evinced, for example, by cooperation

rates), whereas this was less the case for those with stable self-esteem, low self-doubt and

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 22: 519–539 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/per

520 A. Van Hiel et al.

high self-concept clarity. Building upon these findings, Thau, Aquino, and Wittek (2007)

more recently also showed that because of unfair treatment people high in social

comparison orientation (who are assumed to be more uncertain about themselves) are more

likely to engage in antisocial work behaviour.

Concerning the role of the relational self, research shows that when people have a strong

need to belong they are more attentive towards relational information (Pickett, Gardner, &

Knowles, 2004) which may be conveyed by procedural fair treatment (De Cremer &

Alberts, 2004; De Cremer & Blader, 2006). Indeed, De Cremer and Blader (2006) have

shown that procedural justice has a stronger impact on people’s responses when they have a

high need to belong as opposed to when this need is low. In line with this relational

perspective, De Cremer and Sedikides (2008) also reported that people with a high concern

for social reputation were more responsive towards procedural justice manipulations than

those scoring low on concern for social reputation.

Altogether the available evidence thus convincingly shows that individual differences

pertaining to self-uncertainty and relational self moderate the effects of procedural

fairness. However, the relationship between these individual difference variable and core

personality has hardly been explored. Therefore, we are still uncertain whether we would

be able to locate the self-uncertainty and relational variables in the multidimensional,

comprehensive FFM-personality space. Scales referring to self-uncertainty such as self-

esteem lability, self-doubt and self-concept clarity seem to be manifestations of one

underlying dimension, namely neuroticism. Indeed, previous studies have reported strong

interrelations between self-esteem lability, self-concept clarity and self-doubt (e.g. Kernis,

Greenier, Herlocker, Whisenhunt, & Abend, 1997), and it has also been shown that self-

esteem lability, for example, goes together with neuroticism related variables such as the

experience of depressive symptoms (e.g. Kernis et al., 1998).

We are aware of only one study that reports correlations between the self-relevant

variables such as the need to belong and the concern for reputation and the FFM

dimensions. Cornelis, Van Hiel, and De Cremer (2008) were able to show that the self-

relevant variables correlated most strongly with neuroticism, and to a lesser extent with

agreeableness. In line with these findings, Denissen and Penke (in press) reported that

people high in neuroticism were especially attentive to relational information. A relevant

question arising here is whether the moderator variables of the self-based model are

particular reflections of higher order traits, and, as suggested by De Cremer et al.’s findings,

that particularly the FFM dimension of neuroticism may moderate the procedural fairness

effect on cooperation.

MODERATOR EFFECTS OF CORE PERSONALITY ON COOPERATION

AND NON-COOPERATION

What dowe know concerning the role of personality in affecting procedural fairness effects

on cooperation? To our knowledge, besides the research conducted within the self-based

model of cooperation, only a limited number of studies focused specifically on the

moderating role of personality and fairness on cooperation (and non-cooperation).

Interestingly, all these studies also included the FFM personality dimensions or variables

closely related to some of the FFM factors. Colquitt, Scott, Judge, and Shaw (2006), for

example, administered a set of individual differences variables derived from several

fairness theories, including trust propensity, risk aversion, morality and equity sensitivity.


DOI: 10.1002/per

The five-factor model and procedural fairness 521

In the case of procedural fairness only the moderation effect for risk aversion attained the

conventional significance levels. More specifically, the beneficial effect of procedural

fairness on cooperation (as indexed by increased task performance and decreased levels of

counterproductive behaviour) was greater for risk aversive people. Importantly, the FFM

personality dimensions did not yield any significant main or moderator effects.

On the basis of a scenario study, Scott and Colquitt (2007) reported significant

moderation effects between procedural fairness and exchange ideology for (imagined) task

performance and withdrawal behaviour, whereas these effects were not significant for

organisational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive behaviour. The effects of

fairness were stronger for individuals with a strict exchange ideology than for those scoring

low on exchange ideology. Again, the FFM personality dimensions did not moderate the

effects of fairness on any of the outcome variables, although some main effects of

agreeableness were noted.

In a field study, Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluk (1999) found that negative affectivity—a

proxy of neuroticism—as well as agreeableness moderated fairness effects on retaliatory

behaviour in an organisational context. More specifically these authors reported that people

high in negative affectivity are more severely impacted by level of fairness than people

scoring low on this trait. Those low in agreeableness were also more influenced by fairness

than the more agreeable individuals. In conclusion, although these previous studies focused

on moderator effects of personality their results were quite inconsistent with respect to the

impact of core personality. That is, the studies by Colquitt and colleagues were not

particularly successful in providing evidence for the impact of the FFM personality

dimensions, whereas the study by Skarlicki et al. (1999) did provide some supportive

evidence for the role of neuroticism and agreeableness.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

As shown by our brief overview a variety of personality and individual differences

measures that may play a part in people’s reactions to fairness have been examined.

However, these studies did not lead to a progressive accumulation of findings, making that

at present there is still no consensus on which measures are important in the procedural

fairness context. Given the current state of the field, we believe that in order to probe for

potentially relevant individual differences variables, the FFM—as a general framework of

personality—and the self-relevant variables proposed by De Cremer and Tyler (2005) are

well suited as a starting point.

We conducted three studies. In Study 1, in an experimental lab context, and in Study 2, in

a field setting, we directly assessed the moderating effect of the FFM dimensions and

procedural fairness on cooperation. Study 3—using experimental vignettes—tested

whether the self-relevant variables proposed by the self-based model of cooperation (De

Cremer & Tyler, 2005) mediate the moderation effect of neuroticism and procedural

fairness on cooperation (i.e. a mediated moderation effect was tested, see Muller, Judd, &

Yzerbyt, 2005).

STUDY 1

Study 1 applied a laboratory experiment to investigate the moderating of the FFM

personality dimensions. Procedural fairness was manipulated by accuracy of decision


DOI: 10.1002/per


procedures. Accuracy of decision procedures is considered an important procedural justice

rule that people use to evaluate the fairness of allocation decisions (Leventhal, 1980).

Accuracy refers to the extent towhich authorities base their decisions on all the information

they receive or only on part of it. In experiments (e.g. De Cremer, 2004; Van den Bos,

Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997), participants are usually informed that their performance on a

task or an assessment will be checked either in an accurate manner (i.e. all items will be

evaluated to reach a decision) or inaccurate manner (i.e. only some items will be evaluated

to reach a decision). The experimental task and the procedure to introduce the ‘accuracy’

manipulation in this experiment was based on De Cremer (2004).

Method

Participants and design

Fifty-six Dutch-speaking Belgian undergraduate students (44 women and 7 males, 5

participants did not indicate their gender; mean age¼ 18.73 years, SD¼ 1.10) participated

in exchange for partial course credit. They were randomly assigned to a 2 (accuracy of

decision procedure: Accurate vs. inaccurate) between subjects design.

Procedure and material

Students participated in groups of 6. Upon arrival at the laboratory, they first received

instructions and were then seated behind computers that were placed on some distance

from each other. Before the start of the experiment, students performed an unrelated task

and completed a number of questionnaires, one of which contained the NEO-FFI items.

Participants were then informed that they would perform a group task with the other five

‘team members’. This task was to be completed by interacting through an instant

messaging system. Virtually all participants indicated that they were familiar with the use

of this kind of communication. The experiment employed the MSNmessenger# system as

a tool of group communication. This system allows several people (‘contacts’) to interact in

instant one-to-one typed conversation.

Participants could see the other five participants in their list of ‘contacts’, where they

were assigned seemingly random names such as ‘team member 184’ and ‘team member

139’. They were only allowed to communicate through the MSN system. There was also an

‘experimenter’ contact who assigned tasks and told each team member what to do next.

Although participants had the impression they were able to interact with the other

participants, in fact they could only interact with the experimenter, who also controlled the

other ‘team member’ accounts visible to the participants.

At the start of the experiment, participants were informed that the experimenter had

randomly appointed one of the other group members (team member 279) as group leader.

Participants first had to solve a set of problems which allowed them to earn points. These

points would benefit the group in the subsequent group task. They were informed that

the group leader’s task would be to score their answers to this set of problems and to

coordinate a group task which would be explained later. After reading the instructions

related to this task provided by the bogus group leader, they each solved a set of 4 difficult

verbal analogy problems, introduced as a test of verbal reasoning capability. The analogies,

adapted from the Dutch verbal analogy test (Drenth & Van Wieringen, 1969), had the

format ‘X is related to Y as Z is related to’? and participants chose which of the five

alternatives presented would correctly complete the blank.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Participants received the set of problems from the ‘group leader’, and they sent their

answers back via the messaging system. After completing this problem-solving task, the

experimental manipulation of accuracy was introduced. Regardless of their answers on the

task, in the accurate procedure condition they received a message from the group leader

stating (the original messages in Dutch included errors to mirror typical fast-typed instant

messages):

‘Ok—I will look at your answers in a minute and for each correct answer you will

receive one bonus point’.

In the inaccurate procedure condition they received a message from the group leader

saying:

‘Ok—I will look at your answers in a minute but I will only check one of the four

problems to determine if you get the bonus points’.

Following this manipulation, participants (while they were supposedly waiting for the

group leader to finish rating the analogies task), completed the dependent measures and

manipulation check items. Participants then were informed there was not enough time to

proceed with the group task and thanked for their participation. Debriefing took place after

all sessions had been run, and most participants expressed surprise when it was revealed

that they had not been interacting among themselves, but only with the experimenter. The

minority of participants who were aware of the deception indicated they had figured it out

during post-experimental discussions among participants.

Measures

Manipulation check

To check for the effectiveness of the accuracy manipulation, we asked participants to

indicate on a scale—ranging from 1¼ not at all to 7¼ completely—to what extent the

group leader rated each answer to decide the allocation of bonus points, to what extent the

group leader fully rated the complete set of answers provided, and to what extent the group

leader correctly rated all answers provided (a¼ .87).

NEO-FFI

Participants completed the authorised Dutch translation (Hoekstra, Ormel, & De Fruyt,

1996) of the NEO personality inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) on a five-point Likert

scales anchored by certainly disagree and certainly agree. Cronbach’s as of the NEO-FFI

domain scales were satisfactory (neuroticism, a¼ .82, M¼ 34.64, SD¼ 6.98; extraver-

sion, a¼ .84, M¼ 45.37, SD¼ 6.33; openness to experience, a¼ .66, M¼ 41.49,

SD¼ 5.71; agreeableness, a¼ .77, M¼ 44.75, SD¼ 4.57 and conscientiousness,

a¼ .80, M¼ 40.51, SD¼ 6.04).

Cooperation

To measure cooperation intentions, we presented the participants with a scale containing 6

self-developed items that were demonstrated to be sensitive to procedural fairness

manipulations in a pilot study. These items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale

anchored by 1 (certainly not agree) and 7 (certainly agree). Participants indicated the

extent to which (1) they would like to cooperate with the group leader in a next task, (2)

were willing to help with the subsequent group task, (3) they were willing to provide help


DOI: 10.1002/per


on an additional task, (4) they wished to continue the rest of the experiment individually,

(5) they did not want to continue working on the group task with this leader and (6) did not

want to work on a subsequent task with the group leader (last three items reverse coded).

Cronbach’s a for the scale was satisfactory (.92), with M¼ 4.36 and SD¼ 1.43.

Results

Manipulation checks

An ANOVA on the average accuracy score revealed a significant effect of the accuracy

manipulation, F(1, 53)¼ 73.03, p< .001, h2¼ .58. In the accurate procedure condition,

participants indicated that the group leader examined all their answers more completely

and correctly (M¼ 4.94, SD¼ 1.37) than in the inaccurate procedure condition (M¼ 1.98,

SD¼ .1.18).

Relationships between NEO-FFI dimensions and cooperativeness

Hierarchical regression analyses of the centred scores of the independent variables (IVs)

were conducted (see Aiken & West, 1991). The procedural fairness and the individual

difference variablewere entered in the first step. In the second step, the two-way interaction

between the centred IVs was introduced. Table 1 gives a summary of these analyses for

each of the FFM dimensions, indicating a significant moderator effect between procedural

fairness and neuroticism on cooperation, DF(1, 51)¼ 5.06, p< .05. The moderator effects

between procedural fairness and the other NEO-FFI dimensions were non-significant.

The significant moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness (see

Figure 1) was further probed by looking at simple slope tests (Aiken &West, 1991), which

showed a significant effect of procedural fairness on cooperation for participants scoring

one SD above the mean on neuroticism, b¼ .71, t¼ 4.23, p< .001, but not for participants

scoring one SD below the mean, b¼ .18, t¼ 1.15, n.s.

As can also been seen in Table 1, we also obtained a significant direct effect of

extraversion indicating that higher scores on this trait go together with increased levels of

cooperation.

Discussion

The present results indicate that neuroticism plays an important role in the genesis of

cooperation. That is, neuroticism and procedural fairness yielded a moderator effect

showing that the cooperativeness rates of high scorers on neuroticism are more impacted by

fairness issues compared to low scorers. In other words, this result shows that neuroticism

is an important factor in order to understand the procedural fairness effect on cooperation.

Table 1. bs for main and moderator effects of procedural fairness (low accuracy vs. high accuracy)and the FFI dimensions on cooperation (Study 1)

N E O A C

Fairness .45�� .42�� .45�� .45�� .44��

Personality �.19 .28� �.08 .10 �.12Fairness x personality .26� �.18 �.12 �.15 .13

Notes: N¼ neuroticism; E¼ extraversion; O¼ openness to experience; A¼ agreeableness; C¼ conscientiousness.�p< .05; ��p< .001.


DOI: 10.1002/per


We obtained a direct relationship between extraversion and cooperation indicating that

this trait is straightforwardly linked to cooperation, irrespective of the level of procedural

fairness. Otherwise stated, the latter results seem to indicate that extraversion is not very

informative in order to properly understand the reasons why variations in procedural

fairness have an effect on cooperation.

STUDY 2

Although Study 1 has high internal validity, a question that inevitably comes to mind is

whether similar effects would be noted in an organisational context. We therefore further

tested the validity of the moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness in a

field study.

Method

Participants

We collected questionnaires from a sample of 116 employees (60 women and 56 males,

mean age¼ 43.0 years, SD¼ 12.5), working in different organisations in which they

occupied a variety of jobs, as such enhancing the representativeness and generalisability of

our sample. In particular, of these employees, one worked in agriculture, 14 in industry, 12

in financial services and business, 9 in commerce, distribution and transportation, 23 in

governmental services, 16 in education and 23 in welfare and socio-cultural work. Fifteen

participants were not classified and three did not indicate their sector. With respect to

educational level, 60 participants had completed higher education, 40 had completed

secondary school, 13 had completed their education at age 14 and 3 did not indicate their

educational level.

Procedure

A total of 180 potential respondents were contacted via research students working together

with the first author. These students distributed questionnaires among their neighbours and

parents’ professional network. That is, the students contacted respondents who had been

employed for at least one year with their current employer. Each student provided

questionnaires to four potential respondents (and who met the requirements in terms of

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

Accuracy HighAccuracy Low

Procedural Fairness

Co

op

erat

ion

Neuroticism = M + 1SD Neuroticism = M - 1SD

Figure 1. Moderator effect of procedural fairness and neuroticism on cooperation in the laboratory study(Study 1).


DOI: 10.1002/per


tenure), which were returned later in a closed envelope, along with a separate paper

detailing employees’ phone number. Out of 180 employees 116 returned their

questionnaire. Students received partial course credit for collecting questionnaires. We

made follow-up phone calls to the respondents to thank them again for their participation

and to fully debrief them.

Measures

NEO-FFI

Participants completed the NEO-FFI on exactly the same scale as in Study 1. Cronbach’s

a as of the scales were satisfactory (neuroticism, .75,M¼ 31.19, SD¼ 6.49; extraversion,

.79, M¼ 41.58, SD¼ 6.24; openness to experience, .72, M¼ 36.42, SD¼ 6.31;

agreeableness, .73, M¼ 44.65, SD¼ 5.13 and conscientiousness, .84, M¼ 45.10,

SD¼ 6.38).

Procedural fairness

Procedural fairness was measured by six items that had to be rated on a five-point scale

(1¼ certainly not, 5¼ certainly). Three of these items referred to the level of procedural

fairness enacted by the team leader, and three other items referred to the procedural fairness

enacted by the organisation as a whole. An example of such an item is: ‘Are you able to cast

your opinion and your emotions when your organisation (your team leader) applies

procedures that affect your job’? Because procedural fairness enacted by the organisation

and the team leader were highly related, r¼ .76, p< .001, we constructed one indicator of

procedural fairness by adding all items of both scales, Cronbach’s a¼ .84, M¼ 3.20,

SD¼ .72.

Cooperation

Cooperation was measured by seven items, Cronbach’s a¼ .72, M¼ 3.81, SD¼ .58, that

had to be rated on a five-point scale (1¼ strongly disagree, 5¼ strongly agree). Examples

of items are ‘I try to meet my supervisor’s the performance expectations’ and ‘I volunteer

to do activities that are not strictly required by my organisation’.

Results

Relationships between NEO-FFI dimensions and cooperativeness

Analogous to Study 2, hierarchical regression analyses of the centred scores of the IVs

were conducted (see Aiken & West, 1991). Table 2 gives a summary of these analyses for

each of the FFM dimensions, indicating a significant moderator effect between procedural

fairness and neuroticism on cooperation, DF(1, 108)¼ 4.32 p< .05. The moderator effects

between procedural fairness and the other NEO-FFI dimensions were non-significant.

The significant moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness (see

Figure 2) was further probed by looking at simple slope tests (Aiken &West, 1991), which

showed a significant effect of procedural fairness on cooperation for high levels of

neuroticism, b¼ .61, t¼ 4.33, p< .001, but not for low levels of neuroticism, b¼ .23,

t¼ 1.95, n.s.

As can also been seen in Table 2, significant direct effects of extraversion and

conscientiousness were obtained as well. These findings thus indicate that higher scores on

these traits go together with more cooperation.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Discussion

Study 2 revealed that in an organisational context the procedural fairness effect depends on

the individual’s score on neuroticism. The present results therefore cross-validate Study 1,

which was conducted within an experimental lab setting. The four other broad personality

dimensions—extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness—did not

moderate the procedural fairness effect on cooperation. The simple main effects of

extraversion and conscientiousness imply that these traits are straightforwardly linked

to cooperation, irrespective of the level of procedural fairness. Otherwise stated, with

the exception of neuroticism, the FFM dimensions are not very informative in order to

properly understand the reasons why variations in procedural fairness have an effect on

cooperation.

STUDY 3

The second main question addressed in the present paper is whether individual differences

with respect to self-uncertainty and the relational self explain the effect of neuroticism on

cooperation. In other words, the relevant issue here is how neuroticism translates itself into

fairness-based cooperation. The distinction between broadband (core) and narrow band

(surface) traits is especially useful here. On the one hand, the five-factor dimensions are

Table 2. bs for main and moderator effects of procedural fairness (low vs. high) and the FFIdimensions on cooperation (Study 2)

N E O A C

Fairness .42�� .35�� .39�� .37�� .36��

Personality .01 .22� �.12 .15 .35��

Fairness x personality .18� .08 .12 .05 �.03


2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

HighLow

Procedural Fairness

Co

op

erat

ion

Neuroticism = M + 1SD Neuroticism = M - 1SD

Figure 2. Moderator effect of procedural fairness and neuroticism on cooperation in the field study (Study 2).


DOI: 10.1002/per


assumed to represent core traits, which are assumed to reflect basic tendencies that are less

susceptible to cultural and individual life experiences. On the other hand, the relational

variables (i.e. need to belong and concern for reputation) and uncertainty variables (i.e.

self-doubt and self-esteem instability) should be considered surface characteristics that are

more malleable and can be expected to be responsive to context, situation and

environmental influences (see Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Marsh, Trautwein, Ludtke,

Koller, & Baumert, 2006).

On the basis of the core-surface distinction, we proposed an integrative model, depicted

in Figure 3, in which the self-relevant variables mediate the moderation effect of

neuroticism and procedural fairness. In this model, the core trait at a more general level (i.e.

neuroticism) translates itself as specific needs and motivations at the surface level (i.e. the

self-relevant variables) enhancing or diminishing the effect of procedural fairness on

cooperation.

The available evidence supporting the self-based model and the findings pertaining the

moderating role of neuroticism can be integrated into one model bearing in mind the

necessary steps for a mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) if we assume that

neuroticism is the IV, self-uncertainty and the relational self are the mediator variables (M),

and cooperation is the dependent variable (DV). That is:

(1) Neuroticism is significantly related to the self-relevant variables (IV!M);

(2) the self-relevant variables moderate the effect of procedural fairness on cooperation

(M!DV);

(3) neuroticism moderates the effects of procedural fairness on cooperation (IV!DV);

(4) the crucial question here is whether the self-relevant variables ‘transmit’ the moder-

ation effect of procedural fairness and neuroticism. In other words, the moderation

effect of neuroticism on procedural fairness should weaken when the self-relevant

variables are taken into account.

Core Personality

Surface Characteristics

Cooperation Procedural Fairness

Relational

Variables

Fairness – outcome process

Uncertainty

Variables

Neuroticism Openness to Experience

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness

Figure 3. Multi-layer model of personality explaining fairness-outcome processes.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Study 3 applied a scenario experiment to investigate whether the moderating effects may

be observed in an experimental setting with mundane realism. Procedural fairness was

manipulated by accuracy of decision procedures and the ability of followers to voice (or not

to voice) their opinion when the authority is making a decision. Accuracy of decision

procedures and voice are considered two important procedural justice rules that people use

to evaluate the fairness of allocation decisions (Leventhal, 1980). The participants thus

completed the two procedural fairness versions (procedural unfair vs. fair) of both

hypothetical scenarios (voice and accuracy). The dependent measure was participants’

cooperation.

Method

Participants

Participants were 177 undergraduate criminology students who were first administered the

various scales during classroom exercises. The scenarios were assessed someweeks later in

groups of 6–45 persons. Of these participants, 30% were male and the average age was

19.95 (SD¼ 1.59).

Scenarios

Participants were presented two scenarios.

Scenario 1: Accuracy of procedures. The first scenario stated: ‘The last few years you

have worked at a police department. The department’s philosophy is to enable its members

to work in other departments in order to acquire new skills and knowledge. Your supervisor

decides who gets the chance of this experience. You are enthusiastic and willing to face the

challenge. The correct procedure to follow here is that your supervisor interviews all team

members and that he or she listens to their arguments. He or she should also take some tests

that should be considered carefully and accurately’.

Procedural fairness was manipulated by the (in)accurate consideration of all available

information. In the inaccurate condition, it was stated: ‘You know that your superior does

not always follow these procedures. In other words, he or she does not consequently follow

all necessary steps of the procedure before making a decision’. In the accurate condition, it

was stated: ‘You know that your superior always follows these procedures. In other words,

he or she consequently follows all necessary steps of the procedure before making a

decision’.

Scenario 2: Voice. The voice scenario stated: ‘You are part of a team working at a

university studying measures against crime. This project will serve as a starting point for

the policy of the Law department. Every member of the team contributes to the common

project, and the project is doing fine. Because everyone spends much time and effort in

order to make this project work, each member has made interesting contributions. The head

of the department decides which contributions and ideas will be included in the final

report’.

Procedural fairness was manipulated by the absence or presence of voice. In the no voice

condition, participants read: ‘In doing this, he or she does not consider it important that the


DOI: 10.1002/per


other teammembers would have a say and hence he makes this important decision on his or

her own’. In the voice condition, participants read: ‘In doing this, he or she considers it

important that the other teammembers would have a say and hence hemakes this important

decision together with the other team members’.

Dependent measure

Cooperation (based on De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004) was measured by two items

on a five-point scales anchored by 1 (certainly not agree) and 5 (certainly agree): ‘I would

still help this supervisor when (s)he needs me’, ‘I would oppose the supervisor when I have

an opportunity to do so’ (reverse coded). Because of the strong correlations between these

scales (varying between .44 and .66 for the various versions of the scenario) we computed

aggregated scores.

Measures

Participants were required to complete several items on a five-point scale anchored by 1

(not at all characteristic of me) and 5 (extremely characteristic of me). The 10-item need to

belong scale of Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, and Schreindorfer (2001) includes items like ‘I do

not like being alone’ and ‘if other people do not seem to accept me, I do not let it bother me’

(reversed scored). The five-item LSES (Dykman, 1998) measures the extent to which

participants perceive their self-esteem as fluctuating or staying relatively stable. Sample

items are: ‘I am often feeling good about myself one minute, and down on myself the next

minute’ and ‘how I feel about myself stays pretty much the same from day-to-day’

(reversed scored). Cronbach’s as of the Need to belong scale, a¼ .79,M¼ 3.38, SD¼ .56;

and self-esteem instability, a¼ .91, M¼ 2.97, SD¼ .95, were satisfactory.

The reliabilities for the NEO-FFI domain scales were as follows: Neuroticism, .87,

M¼ 33.36, SD¼ 8.14; extraversion, .83, M¼ 43.41, SD¼ 6.69; openness to experience,

.75, M¼ 40.47, SD¼ 6.53; agreeableness, .62, M¼ 41.89, SD¼ 4.94; and conscientious-

ness, .76, M¼ 41.97, SD¼ 5.97.

Results

Because participants completed the procedural fair and unfair conditions of both scenarios,

the effect of scenario and procedural fairness were analysed as a within-subjects variable.

The scenarios were presented in two different orders, but order-effects were not obtained

and the order factor was therefore not included in further analyses.

In the following analyses we checked the necessary steps for showing a mediated

moderation effect. That is, first we probed into the potential moderator effects of the FFM

personality dimensions and procedural fairness on cooperation, and we expected to obtain

such an effect for neuroticism only. Second, we checked whether neuroticism is

significantly related to the potential mediators, that is, the self-relevant variables. Third, we

added the main effect of these mediators as well as their moderation effect with procedural

fairness in the first analyses and we checked whether the moderation effect between

neuroticism and procedural fairness is weakened. These three necessary steps were

repeated for the uncertainty (i.e. self-esteem instability) and relational (i.e. need to belong)

variables.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Manipulation check

The item ‘the procedure is unfair’ (reverse coded) was administered as a manipulation

check. It was revealed that the unfair versions of the scenarios, M¼ 2.47, was judged as

less fair than the fair versions of the scenarios, M¼ 6.26, F(1, 174)¼ 980.50, p< .001,

h2¼ .85, indicating that our manipulation of procedural fairness was successful.

Moderator effects of FFM dimensions on cooperativeness

Because a within subjects design was used here, we were not able to run regression

analyses (as those suggested by, e.g. Aiken and West, 1991) to test the hypothesised

moderator effect. Instead, repeated measures analyses were performed with cooperation

measured in a 2 (unfair vs. fair scenarios) x 2 (voice vs. accuracy scenarios) within subjects

design, for neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and

conscientiousness separately. The centred scores of the continuous variables were entered

as a covariate in each of these analyses.

Repeated measures ANOVA’s with procedural fairness (low vs. high) and scenario

(accuracy scenario vs. voice scenario) as within-subject variables and the FFI score of each

personality domain as a covariate yielded, as expected, significant main effects of

procedural fairness (see, Table 3). The variable scenario did not yield a significant

interaction effect with procedural fairness and its effects are therefore not reported.

With respect to neuroticism, a significant moderator effect with procedural fairness, F(1,

167)¼ 4.00, p< .05, h2¼ .02, emerged. This moderator effect is graphed in Figure 4. In

order to interpret this moderation effect, we performed a median split of the neuroticism

scores. Planned comparisons revealed that both low and high scorers on neuroticism

showed more cooperation with high levels than with low levels of procedural fairness, but

the decrease in cooperation with unfair treatment tended to be more pronounced, F(1,

167)¼ 4.14, p< .05, with high scorers on neuroticism (M¼ 5.78 and 4.26 in the high and

low fairness condition, respectively) compared to the low scorers (M¼ 5.78 and 4.57 in the

high and low fairness condition, respectively).

Several significant main effects were obtained as well. Agreeableness yielded a

significant main effect, F(1, 167)¼ 20.63, p< .001, h2¼ .11. Below median scorers on

agreeableness cooperated less, M¼ 4.89, than high scorers, M¼ 5.36. Also extraversion

yielded a significant main effect, F(1, 167)¼ 5.10, p< .05, h2¼ .03 indicating that the low

scoring group cooperated less, M¼ 4.94, than the high scoring group, M¼ 5.28. Finally,

somewhat unexpected, conscientiousness did not yield a significant main effect, but a

significant effect for openness to experience was obtained, F(1, 167)¼ 6.10, p< .05,

Table 3. F-values for main and moderator effects of procedural fairness (low vs. high) and the FFMdimensions on cooperation

N E O A C

Fairness 318.27�� 311.75�� 312.18�� 311.91�� 312.24��

Personality 1.74 5.10� 6.10� 20.63�� .25Fairness x personality 4.00� .02 .17 .08 .27



DOI: 10.1002/per


h2¼ .04, indicating that below median scorers on openness cooperated less,M¼ 4.96, than

above median scorers, M¼ 5.24.

Effect of neuroticism on the self-relevant variables

Given that the previous analyses revealed that neuroticism and procedural fairness showed

a significant moderation effect, we investigated, as a second necessary step to obtain a

mediated moderation effect, whether neuroticism was significantly related to the self-

relevant variables. These relationships were highly significant (rs¼ .58 and .44, for self-

esteem instability and need to belong, respectively).

We did not calculate the moderation effect of neuroticism and procedural fairness on the

self-relevant variables (as suggested by Muller et al., 2005), because procedural fairness

was manipulated within subjects.

The mediation effect of the self-relevant variables

As a final step to test the mediated moderation effect we conducted repeated measures

ANOVA’s with procedural fairness (low vs. high) as a within-subject variable and

neuroticism and one of the self-relevant variables as covariates. The moderation effect of

neuroticism and procedural fairness dissipated, both when need to belong, F(1,

164)¼ 1.19, n.s., h2¼ .01 and self-esteem instability, F(1, 164)¼ .08, n.s., h2¼ .00,

were included in the analysis. Moreover, and also indicative of mediated moderation, the

moderation effects of need to belong, F(1, 164)¼ 2.78, p< .10, h2¼ .02 and self-esteem

instability, F(1, 164)¼ 5.12, p< .05, h2¼ .03, still yielded (near) significant effects.

In sum, the present results are clearly indicative of a mediated moderation effect,

showing that the significant neuroticism x procedural fairness interaction effect dissipates

to non-significance when the mediators are entered in the analysis, whereas the moderation

effects of need to belong and self-esteem instability with procedural fairness still reside.

Moreover, it has also been shown that neuroticism is significantly related to both need to

belong and the self-esteem instability. Together these findings thus show that the

interaction effect between neuroticism and fairness runs through the proposed mediators.

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

HighLow

Procedural Fairness

Co

op

erat

ion

Neuroticism > Md Neuroticism < Md

Figure 4. Moderator effect of procedural fairness and neuroticism on cooperation in the scenario study (Study 3).


DOI: 10.1002/per


Discussion

The present results confirmed that neuroticism and procedural fairness yielded a

moderation effect showing that the cooperativeness rates of high scorers on neuroticism are

more impacted by fairness issues compared to low scorers. Even more importantly, we

were also able to show that the moderation effect of neuroticism and procedural fairness

was mediated by the self-relevant variables. In other words, these results confirm our

integrative model depicted in Figure 1 in which the effects of core personality (i.e.

neuroticism) are transmitted via surface characteristics (i.e. need to belong and self-esteem

instability) resulting in cooperative behavioural tendencies.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present study tried to unveil the role of the FFM personality dimensions in explaining

procedural fairness effects on cooperation. Some scholars wondered whether the lack of

empirical reports on interactions between the broad FFM personality dimensions and

justice would reflect ‘non-significant results, creating a potential file drawer problem’

(Colquitt et al., 2006, p. 124). Others called for more research into more narrowly defined

concepts than the FFM personality dimensions (see, Scott & Colquitt, 2007). In contrast to

these sceptic comments the present research, which explicitly adopted the FFM, was

particularly successful in delineating the personality basis of fairness. In fact, given that the

FFM is assumed to capture all meaningful variations in personality because of its

comprehensiveness, the present positive results should not come as a surprise.

Studies 1 and 2 were set up to investigate the combined effects of core personality and

procedural fairness on cooperation. In Study 1, conducted in a laboratory, the accuracy (vs.

inaccuracy) of the procedure was used as a manipulation of procedural fairness (see,

Leventhal, 1980). In Study 2, conducted in an organisational context, procedural fairness of

supervisor and organisation was assessed through scales. The most marked result emerging

from Studies 1 and 2 is the significant moderator effect between fairness of treatment and

neuroticism, showing that high scorers on neuroticism are more sensitive to variations in

procedural fairness. This result is reminiscent of Skarlicki et al. (1999) who have shown

that negative affectivity (a variable closely tied to neuroticism) moderated fairness effects

on negative, non-cooperative behaviour. In line with the present study, people particularly

high in negative affectivity were more severely impacted by level of fairness than people

scoring low on this trait. The present results combined with those obtained by Skarlicki

et al. (1999) thus show that high scorers on neuroticism are more sensitive to procedural

fairness variations, invoking low levels of cooperation (our results) and high levels of

retaliatory and unproductive behaviour (Skarlicki et al.’s results).

A second important result presently obtained is that the moderation effect of neuroticism

and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by the uncertainty (i.e. self-esteem

instability) and relational (i.e. need to belong) variables. These results therefore

corroborate the integrative model depicted in Figure 3. Our findings thus emphasise that

research on procedural fairness and self can benefit by taking into account insights from the

personality literature, and more specifically, research on neuroticism. Importantly, we

hasten to say that the present results do not communicate the message that the self-related

individual differences (acting as moderators of procedural justice effects) do not have any

value and that it is simply neuroticism that is speaking. Rather, we endorse the message that


DOI: 10.1002/per


the observed neuroticism effects provide us with information concerning the possible

general psychological processes that are playing when procedural justice affects

cooperation. In this way we follow the assumption made by Paunonen and Ashton (2001)

that although there is an increasing reliance on the broad five-factor dimensions to measure

personality, other, more fine-grained personality variables still contribute significantly to

the understanding of behaviour, and should therefore not be discarded. Paunonen and

Ashton (2001) thus also argued in favour of a more detailed approach to personality

assessment that goes beyond the measurement of the broadband personality dimensions.

In a related manner, the finding that the moderator effect of neuroticism and procedural

fairness accounts for a part of the variance in cooperation does not necessarily imply that

these effects emerge for other DVs. Effects of the self-related variables studied here on

procedural fairness effects have been reported for positive and negative emotions, self-

esteem and judgments (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005, Van den Bos, 2001), and it thus

remains to be investigated whether neuroticism also underlies these effects. As an example

in point, neuroticism has been often identified as a negative emotion factor, and the status

of neuroticism to account for effects on positive emotions as a target variable is therefore

uncertain.

In the remainder of the paper, we will elaborate further on the theoretical consequences

of the present findings and also discuss the practical implications of the present findings for

groups and organisations.

Theoretical integration

The self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005) holds that people attend to

variations in procedural justice in order to reduce uncertainty about the self, as well as to

assess their relationship with the group and its authority. As we have argued in the

introduction, previous studies bearing on the self-based model of cooperation have shown

that individual differences variables with respect to uncertainty of the self, such as high

self-doubt and self-esteem instability (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; cf. Van den Bos &

Lind, 2002), as well as individual differences with respect to the relational self, such as

high belongingness and social reputation needs (cf. Tyler & Lind, 1992), make people more

sensitive to procedural fairness. Moreover, in the introduction we also presented some

evidence that the uncertainty and relational variables are located near the neuroticism

dimension in the multidimensional FFM space.

The innovative finding of this study is that neuroticism and procedural fairness show a

moderation effect on cooperation. How can we then understand the process by which

neuroticism translates itself into fairness-based cooperation? The distinction between

broadband (core) and narrow band (surface) traits is especially useful here. The five-factor

dimensions are assumed to be broadband personality traits, or core traits, which are

assumed to reflect basic tendencies based on genetic differences being less susceptible to

cultural and individual life experiences. Narrow traits refer to surface characteristics which

are more malleable and can be expected to be more responsive to context, situation and

environmental influences than the deeper level personality traits (see, Asendorpf & van

Aken, 2003; Marsh et al., 2006).

Figure 3 presents a theoretical framework depicting neuroticism as a deeper level trait

and the self-uncertainty and relational variables as surface traits. In this model, the deeper

level trait at a more general level (i.e. neuroticism) translates itself as specific needs and

motivations at the surface level (i.e. the uncertainty and relational variables) enhancing or


DOI: 10.1002/per


diminishing cooperation. Given that in the present studies extraversion, agreeableness and

conscientiousness were directly related to cooperative behaviour (irrespective of fairness),

a direct effect of the latter FFM dimensions on cooperation has also been included in the

model.

In contrast to previous calls for more research into more narrowly defined concepts than

the FFM personality dimensions (see, Scott & Colquitt, 2007), we believe that future

research should incorporate both the FFM as well as fine-grained variables to construct

integrative, multilevel models. Moreover, starting from the general model depicted in

Figure 3, other interesting avenues for future research are the inclusion of alternative

surface traits like the belief in a just world and sensitivity to befallen injustice. Another

relevant question arising is whether the model holds for other DVs like negative behaviour

and group loyalty.

Practical consequences of the current findings

An exact view of the kind of individual differences variables moderating procedural

fairness effects is not only interesting at a theoretical level, but also contributes to solving

practical issues that emerge in everyday organisational life. Indeed, a better understanding

of the kind of person to whom fairness matters enables an organisation, from a social

engineering point of view, to motivate him/her by stressing the use of fairness and as such

to increase his/her level of cooperativeness. However, practicing justice in organisations

not only constitutes a tool to motivate people, but it also affects people’s perception of their

work environment (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005), and, hence, may also have an impact on

the person–organisation fit. From this point of view, the answer to our research questions

may help in attuning type of personality and justice practice in organisations. Indeed, it is

an interesting human resource practice to know which personalities to attract and select

(Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998).

It should therefore be considered as an important task to pay full attention to improving

and installing fair procedures in organisations, exactly because of the disruptive effects of

unfair treatment on some people. Indeed, procedural unfairness seems to undermine the

performance of an important part of the workforce, and its associated financial costs in a

multitude of organisational settings are hard to overestimate. The use of fair procedures can

also be considered as a tool to improve the cooperative behaviour of high scorers on

neuroticism. That is, the use of voice, the accurate and ethical application of rules

(Leventhal, 1980), can be expected to lead to an improvement of work performance of high

scorers on neuroticism.

Limitations, strengths and suggestions for future research

Amajor strength of this study is that we succeeded in demonstrating the generalisability of

our findings using vignette, laboratory and field study methodologies, each with its own

strengths and limitations. As a result, we are confident about the validity of the present

findings. However, at the same time it should be mentioned that we did not actually

measure cooperation, but instead the intentions to cooperate (Study 1), self-reported

cooperation (Study 2) and the extent to which one cooperates in a hypothetical situation

(Study 3). Future studies might consider using behavioural measures of cooperation when


DOI: 10.1002/per


further exploring the relationship between personality and procedural fairness effects on

cooperation.

Another potential limitation of the present study is that we solely investigated the effects

of procedural fairness. It remains to be investigated whether moderator effects between

personality and distributive and interactional justice would also emerge. In fact, it may be

well possible that other personality factors are relevant for these other justice types. For

example, it is possible that when people are treated with disrespect and in a crude manner,

especially low scorers on agreeableness may show less cooperation, whereas the

cooperativeness rates of high scorers on agreeableness would remain relatively stable. Of

course, these ideas await further empirical tests.

CONCLUSIONS

This study’s main finding is that FFM personality is related to cooperation. The findings on

neuroticism were of particular importance since we have shown that this broadband trait

not only related to procedural fairness reactions, but also moderated the effects of

procedural fairness on cooperativeness. The latter result indicates that ‘there is something’

in (un)fairness that seems to be captured by people scoring high on neuroticism. Moreover,

the present data corroborated an integrative model in which we modelled the transitory

processes of the core personality trait of neuroticism through concrete certainty and

relational needs at the surface level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The second author was supported by a fellowship of the Netherlands Organization for

Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 016.005.019).

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in adolescence:Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social-psychological research—conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996).Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Usingintegrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 100, 110–127.

Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2008). Effects of self-uncertainty and the relational selfon cooperation: Test of a dual process account. Manuscript in preparation.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R, professional manual: Revised NEO personalityinventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, Florida: PsychologicalAssessment Resources, Inc.


DOI: 10.1002/per


De Cremer, D. (2004). The influence of accuracy as a function of leader’s bias: The role oftrustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 30, 293–304.

De Cremer, D., & Alberts, H. (2004). When procedural fairness does not influence how good I feel:The effects of voice and leader selection as a function of belongingness needs. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 34, 333–344.

De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importanceof belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 36, 211–228.

De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157–173.

De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Where do I stand? Reputational implications of proceduralfairness for personal and relational self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1–10.

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between proceduraljustice, sense of self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151–218). New York, NY: Academic Press.

De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness:The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 95, 140–155.

Dennis, J. J. A., & Penke, L. (in press). Neuroticism predicts reactions to cues of social inclusion.European Journal of Personality. DOI: 10.1002/per.682.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review ofPsychology, 41, 417–440.

Drenth, P. J. D., & Van Wieringen, C. W. (1969). Verbale Aanleg Testserie, subtest VerbaleAnalogieen. [Verbal competence test series. The verbal analogy subtest] Lisse, The Netherlands,Swets.

Dykman, B. J. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of agoal-oriented approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 139–158.

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahaw, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, H., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten: NEO-PI-R &NEO-FFI. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Kernis, M. H., Greenier, K. D., Herlocker, C. E., Whisenhunt, C. R., & Abend, T. A. (1997). Self-perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The role of stability and level of self-esteem.Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 845–854.

Kernis, M. H., Whisenhunt, C. R.,Warshull, S. B., Greenier, K. D., Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C. E., et al.(1998). Multiple facets of self-esteem and their relations to depressive symptoms. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 24, 657–668.

Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2001). Individual differences in theneed to belong (unpublished manuscript). Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory?: New approaches to the fairness insocial relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange theory(pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Integration of multi-dimensional self concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation and relations towell-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403–456.

Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation ismoderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.

Oleson, K. C., Poehlmann, K. M., Yost, J. H., Lynch, M. E., & Arkin, R. M. (2000). Subjectiveoverachievement: Individual differences in self-doubt and concern with performance. Journal ofPersonality, 68, 491–524.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong andenhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test ofthe homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 462–470.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individualdifferences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group andOrganization Management, 32, 290–325.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationshipbetween fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to theself: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial workbehaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 250–258.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.

Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactionsto perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.

Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. InM. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fairdepends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 95–104.


DOI: 10.1002/per


Date post:	22-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The personality basis of justice: The five-factor model as an...

Documents