posted on 2006-01-01, 00:00authored byDon A. Moore, Steven L. Blader
Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are
perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow
people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice
enhances the likelihood of receiving desired outcomes, but subsequent research has generally
argued that non-instrumental mechanisms actually underlie reactions to voice. In contrast to past
research, we show that giving everyone voice does, in fact, lead them to believe that they are
more likely to win a competition. However, this instrumental belief does not account for the
effects of voice on perceived fairness. Results suggest that although voice does indeed have
important instrumental meaning, this instrumentality does not actually explain why people value
having a voice in the process.