MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013772472

Organizational justice, sensitivity to injustice and the experience of stress.

2003· article· en· W3013772472 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticeOrganizational justiceEconomic JusticeSensitivity (control systems)Political scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyOrganizational commitmentLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adherence to the principles of organizational justice is associated with positive workplace attitudes and behaviour, while injustice contributes to undesirable reactions (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). However, the outcomes most often considered in organizational justice research have been attitudinal or behavioural in nature. Health related outcomes, such as stress, have not been fully explored in the justice literature. This is a serious oversight as stress is associated with negative strain related outcomes such as depression, decreased job satisfaction, and absenteeism (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). As injustice is known to result in negative employee reactions, it is possible that exposure to injustice contributes to the experience of stress. Similarly, the justice literature has not fully explored the possibility that individuals differ in their reactions to injustice. People may in fact differ in their sensitivity to injustice, such that what is perceived as fair to one person is viewed as unfair to another (Schmitt, 1996). Individuals who are highly sensitive to injustice may be more likely to regard situations as unfair and experience more intense reactions to injustice. Three studies investigated the relationship between perceptions of organizational injustice, sensitivity to injustice, and employee stress. The first study was a lab-based vignette study, the second a field study using a student sample, and the third a survey of schoolteachers. In each case, procedural and distributive injustice were associated with increased reports of stress, thereby supporting the hypothesis that injustice is a stressor. Additionally, as predicted, those who are highly sensitive to injustice reported higher levels of stress. However, contrary to initial hypotheses, sensitivity to injustice did not predict fairness evaluations. Thus, for the current samples, being highly sensitive to injustice did not influence one's justice perceptions. Taken together, these results demonstrate that exposure to injustice is stressful and that the intensity of the stress response is impacted by sensitivity to injustice, thus highlighting the need to consider health related outcomes and individual difference factors in justice research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207