The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: the higher they are, the harder they fall - Process and Outcome: Perspectives on the Distribution of Rewards in Organizations

Administrative Science Quarterly,  June, 1992  by Joel Brockner,  Tom R. Tyler,  Rochelle Cooper-Schneider

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

The influence of individuals' prior commitment to an institution on their reactions to the perceived fairness of decisions rendered by the institution was examined in two different field settings. The first study examined how layoff survivors' work attitudes and behaviors after the layoff changed as a function of (1) their level of organizational commitment prior to the layoff and (2) their perceptions of the fairness of the decision rule used to keep certain employees and lay off others. In the second study, we explored how citizens' commitment to legal authorities changed as a function of their initial level of commitment and their perceptions of how fairly they were treated in their recent encounters with legal authorities. Consistent results emerged across these two settings: The most negative reactions were exhibited by those who previously felt highly committed but who felt that they were treated unfairly by the institution. Theoretical and practical implications aree discussed.

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. Studies have identified two types of benefit. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institution, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes (Tyler, Casper, and Fisher,1989). Single experiences influence post-experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post-experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer (Tyler, 1990).

Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. The present studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits.

At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions (e.g., change in their organizational or institutional commitment) may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter, First, the instrumental prediction (e.g., Thibaut and Walker, 1975) is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations or institutions (e.g., pay, promotions, and favorable rulings), changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. The shift in individuals' commitment will thus vary in direct proportion to the positivity of the encounter; their prior level of commitment should have little or no effect.

Second, the assimilation prediction (e.g., Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall, 1965) is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes. For example, upon viewing in retrospect a questionably unfavorable encounter, those who are highly committed may be willing to give the oganization or institution the benefit of the doubt and perceive the encounter to be more favoarable than would those who were less committed beforehand. If people assimilate their perception of the encounter to fit their pre-existing viewpoint, then there should be a positive relationship between their prior levell of commitment and the favorability of their reactions to the encounter. For example, those who were less committed beforehand should react more negatively to questionably unfavorable encounterss with the institution.

The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice (e.g., Lind and Tyler 1988), pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. The basic assumption of the group-value model is that, for a number of reasons, people value their relationships with social entities, be they individuals, groups, organizations, or even societal institutions. Relationships give people the opportunity to validate the correctness of their benefits and behaviors (Festinger, 1954) and to feel accepted, respected, and valued. Simply put, people value relationships because it is through relationships that they develop their self-identity and self-worth (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). One consequence of the premium people place on their social relationships is the significance to them of being treated fairly by the other party to the relationship. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignifeied and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. Such treatment is likely to reaffirm individuals' feelings of attachment to the relationship. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel tha they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship.