Academy of Management The Academy of Management Review

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective
Author(s): Stephen W. Gilliland

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 694-734
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258595
Accessed: 12-12-2017 14:58 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 37.128.225.218 on Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:58:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Review
1993, Vol. 18, No. 4, 694-734.
THE PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF SELECTION

SYSTEMS: AN ORGANIZATIONAL
JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE
STEPHEN W. GILLILAND
Louisiana State University
A justice model of applicants' reactions to employment-selection sys-

tems is proposed as a basis for organizing previous findings and
guiding future research. Organizational justice literature is briefly
reviewed, and key findings are used to provide a framework for the
proposed model and to support hypotheses. The procedural justice of
selection systems is examined in terms of 10 procedural rules, where-
in the satisfaction and violation of these rules provide the basis for
fairness reactions. Distributive justice of hiring decisions is examined
with respect to equity, equality, and needs. The model also includes
the interaction of procedural and distributive justice and the relation-
ship of fairness reactions to individual and organizational outcomes.
Dominant concerns in the personnel selection literature are issues of

the psychometric soundness of tests (e.g., reliability), the validity of in-
ferences made with tests (Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984), the
utility of selection procedures (Hunter & Hunter, 1984), and the fairness
with which selection procedures have an impact on protected subgroups
(Schmitt, 1989). Although all of these topics have been studied from a
psychometric perspective, rarely has attention been directed to the social
side of the selection process (Herriot, 1989b). In particular, the study of
fairness has been focused on concerns about test bias, differential pre-
diction, and the relative impact of subgroup differences on expected or-
ganizational productivity and subgroup hiring rates (Hartigan & Wigdor,
1989; Schmitt, 1989). One important yet often overlooked aspect of test
fairness is the reaction of applicants to testing and selection decisions
(Schmitt & Gilliland, 1992).
It can be argued that just as the establishment of psychometrically
fair selection procedures is important from business, ethical, and legal
perspectives, applicants' perceptions of test fairness are also important
from these perspectives. From a business perspective, reactions to selec-
tion procedures may influence the ability of the organization to attract
Parts of this article were based upon the author's dissertation, and thanks are given to
the committee members: Neal Schmitt, Dan Ilgen, Steve Kozlowski, and Mike Lindell. The
author would also like to thank Jose Cortina, Cynthia Gilliland, and Craig Russell for their
helpful comments on various drafts of this article.
694
1993 Gilliland 695
and hire highly qualified applicants, which, in turn, can influence the
overall utility of selection procedures (Boudreau & Rynes, 1985; Murphy,
1986). From an ethical perspective, organizations should be concerned
with the effects of selection procedures on the psychological well-being of
applicants. For example, the perceived fairness of selection testing may
influence the efficacy and self-esteem of rejected applicants (Robertson &
Smith, 1989). Finally, from a legal perspective, the perceived fairness of
the selection procedure may influence applicants' decisions to pursue
discrimination cases. Additionally, the 1991 amendments to the Civil
Rights Bill allow for jury trials in discrimination cases, creating the pos-
sibility that issues of face validity and perceptions of fairness may be-
come a more salient issue with statistically naive jurors.
In addition to these practical outcomes associated with the perceived
fairness of selection systems, research in this domain can be of theoret-
ical importance. Although few attempts have been made to empirically
assess reactions to selection procedures, even less attention has been
given to developing a theoretical model of these perceptual processes.
Preliminary models of reactions to selection systems have been proposed
(e.g., Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Schuler, 1993), but all of these lack a solid
theoretical framework. A natural theoretical orientation that can be used
to organize this area of research is that of organizational justice theories
(e.g., Greenberg, 1990b).
This article extends theories from the organizational justice literature
to the selection domain with the goal of advancing both organization
justice theory and the understanding of selection fairness. In this article
a comprehensive model that describes procedural and distributive factors
influencing applicants' reactions to selection systems is developed. The
model also links fairness perceptions to a variety of attitudinal and be-
havioral outcomes. To provide a basis for this model, the major tenets of
organizational justice theory are briefly reviewed, highlighting issues of
importance for the extension of justice literature to selection processes.
During the discussion of the model, selection research that has examined
reactions to selection procedures is reviewed in an effort to establish
what has been investigated and where further research is needed.
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY
Traditional discussions of organizational justice have emphasized

the role of distributive justice, or the fairness of organizational outcome
distributions (Bierhoff, Cohen, & Greenberg, 1986). Adams' (1965) equity
theory was a dominant motivation theory in the 1960s and early 1970s, and
research on equity theory constitutes the bulk of investigation into dis-
tributive justice (Greenberg, 1987b). Researchers also have examined per-
ceptions of procedural justice, or the fairness of procedures that are used
to divide valued organizational outcomes (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Lind
& Tyler, 1988). Current developments in organizational justice are aimed
696 Academy of Management Review October
at examining fairness involved with the implementation of procedures

interactionall justice; Bies & Moag, 1986) and the integration of procedural
and distributive justice perspectives (Folger, 1987). Perhaps because of
this diversity, a number of researchers have attempted to integrate and
organize research and theory (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Greenberg, 1987b, 1990b;
Lind & Tyler, 1988). Therefore, only a brief overview of organizational
justice is given here, highlighting issues of importance in developing a
model of the fairness of selection systems.
Distributive Justice
Authors of distributive justice theories propose that individuals will

evaluate distributions of outcomes with respect to some distributive rule,
the most common of which is equity (Cohen, 1987). Equity assessment
involves a comparison of one's inputs and obtained outcomes relative to
a referent comparison other. Evaluations of inequitable distributions are
thought to produce negative emotions, which, in turn, motivate individ-
uals to change their behavior or distort the cognitions associated with
perceptions of unfairness (Adams, 1965). Attitudes are also affected by
perceived inequity, and dissatisfaction becomes greater as the inequity
increases. Inequity is hypothesized to exist under conditions of both un-
derpayment and overpayment, and although the underpayment predic-
tion is more commonly supported (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976), Green-
berg (1982) concluded that support exists for both predictions.
Deutsch (1975) extended equity theory by incorporating the possibility
that other distributional rules of relative contribution may influence per-
ceptions of distributive fairness. In addition to equity, Deutsch suggested
rules of equality (all individuals should be rewarded equally regardless
of inputs) and needs (rewards should be based on relative needs). Al-
though organizational justice researchers have tended to examine dis-
tributive justice only from the equity perspective, researchers in social
psychology have supported the existence of equality and needs rules
(Cohen, 1987). Specifically, this research suggests that even though the
dominant distribution rule is equity, equality and needs rules may be-
come more salient when individuals are exposed to violations of rules
(Bierhoff et al., 1986).
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice theorists are concerned with the perceived fairness

of procedures used in making decisions (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Two
major perspectives or models have initiated much of the current research
and interest in procedural justice. Thibaut and Walker (1975) approached
procedural justice from a legal perspective and emphasized the role of
process control or "voice" of the individual in fairness perceptions. Their
basic finding is that procedures are perceived to be more fair when af-
fected individuals have an opportunity to either influence the decision
process or offer input. In contrast to the process-control model of proce-
1993 Gilliland 697
dural justice, Leventhal (1980) approached the issue by identifying the

structural components that are thought to exist in individuals' cognitive
conceptualizations of a reward-allocation decision process. Procedural
justice was suggested to be a function of the extent to which a number of
procedural rules are satisfied or violated. Specifically, procedural rules
suggested that decisions should be made consistently, without personal
biases, with as much accurate information as possible, with interests of
affected individuals represented in a way that is compatible with their
ethical values, and with an outcome that could be modified. Other justice
researchers have found similar rules in the domains of managerial fair-
ness (Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987) and performance appraisal (Greenberg,
1986a) and have added rules such as the importance of two-way commu-
nication. Leventhal (1980) also suggested that different procedural rules
are not necessarily weighted equally because different rules may be em-
phasized at different times; however, he gave no indication of the types of
factors that may influence these weightings.
A more recent perspective of procedural justice was suggested by
Bies and Moag (1986), who illustrated concerns about the fairness of de-
cision makers' behavior during the enactment of procedures, a perspec-
tive which they labeled interactional justice. Interactional justice refers to
both what is said to individuals during the decision process and how it is
said (Tyler & Bies, 1990). One aspect of interactional justice (i.e., provid-
ing an explanation for a decision) has received recent attention; research-
ers have demonstrated that justification for an adverse decision can
lessen negative consequences associated with that decision (Bies & Sha-
piro, 1988; Greenberg, 1990a). A second component of interaction justice is
the interpersonal treatment an individual receives during the decision
process. It reflects issues of respect and rudeness and the propriety of
questions asked and statements made (Bies & Moag, 1986). Thus, proce-
dural justice can be summarized as being composed of three components:
(a) formal characteristics of procedures, (b) explanation of procedures and
decision making, and (c) interpersonal treatment (Greenberg, 1990b).
Integrating Procedural and Distributive Justice
Thibaut and Walker (1975) suggested that procedural justice and dis-
tributive justice are independent dimensions. Some researchers have
supported that procedural and distributive justice perceptions are statis-
tically independent (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Greenberg, 1986a).
Others have indicated that perceptions of procedural and distributive
justice are highly correlated (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell & Gordon,
1989). A second question about the relationship between procedural and
distributive justice is the relative importance of each in relation to indi-
vidual reactions and organizational outcomes. Theorists have clearly
demonstrated that in many situations perceptions of procedural justice
account for more variance in a variety of dependent measures than do
perceptions of distributive justice (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Dipboye
& de Pontbriand, 1981; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991).
The statistical interaction between procedural and distributive jus-
tice also has been examined. Greenberg (1987a) found that perceived
fairness of the outcome was related to the interaction between outcome
favorableness (which has tended to be related to distributive fairness)
and procedural justice such that just procedures led to perceptions of fair
outcomes, even when the outcome was not favorable. Similar findings
were obtained by Leung and Li (1990) when they evaluated individuals'
reactions to a new subway-fare scheme. In this case, increased process
control was found to be related to more favorable reactions with negative
outcomes, but it was less related to favorable reactions with positive
outcomes.
Summary
This brief overview of justice literature highlights the following

points that are likely to be important in the extension of organizational
justice literature to the selection process:
1. Organizational justice theories clearly distinguish dimensions of procedural
and distributive justice and demonstrate the importance of each.
2. Although equity appears to be the primary distribution rule underlying distrib-
utive justice perceptions, situational factors may increase the salience of the
alternate distribution rules of equality and needs.
3. Procedural justice theories also suggest a number of rules that influence per-
ceptions of procedural justice, the most commonly studied of which is process
control. Additional procedural rules include consistency, bias suppression, rep-
resentativeness, and two-way communication, all of which are discussed in
greater detail in the following sections.
4. Interactional justice is an important component of procedural fairness. The most
commonly studied factor has been the effect of offering justification for a pro-
cedure or outcome on perceptions of fairness.
5. Some evidence has suggested a statistical interaction between procedural and
distributive justice on some perceptual outcomes so that procedural justice may
override some of the disappointment associated with unfair distributions.
A MODEL OF APPLICANTS' REACTIONS TO SELECTION SYSTEMS
Reactions to selection procedures have been studied from both the

interests of recruiting, whereby perceptions and reactions are related to
job-choice intentions (Liden & Parsons, 1986; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976), and
the interests of demonstrating how certain selection procedures are more
favorable, for example, work-sample tests (Schmidt, Greenthal, Hunter,
Berner, & Seaton, 1977) or assessment centers (Dodd, 1977). As a result,
research is largely fragmented, and authors have made little effort to
share methodology or results. Further, the recruiting literature does not
consider the favorableness of different types of selection procedures, and
the literature regarding the favorableness of selection procedures does
not consider the implications for recruiting. Though Schmitt and Gilliland
1993 Gilliland 699
(1992) provided an initial review of this literature, clearly an integration is

needed.
Previous attempts to model social issues involved in the selection
process can be found (Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Herriot, 1989a; Schuler, 1993),
but these models tend to be only catalogs of possible determinants of
fairness perceptions. For example, Schuler (1993) suggested that the fol-
lowing four factors influence the perceived acceptability of selection
situations: (a) the presence of job-relevant information that can aid job-
acceptance decisions, (b) participation or representation in the develop-
ment of the selection process, (c) understanding of the evaluation process
and the task relevance of the selection procedures, and (d) content and
form of feedback. Similarly, Arvey and Sackett (1993) proposed that per-
ceived fairness can be influenced by the content of the selection system
(e.g., job relatedness; thoroughness of KSA of knowledge, skills, and abil-
ities coverage; invasiveness of questions; ease of faking answers), an
understanding of the system-development process, the administration of
the selection process (e.g., consistency, confidentiality, opportunity for
reconsideration, and prior information), and the organizational context
(e.g., the selection ratio). Regarding these models, little attention has
been paid to the psychological process underlying these perceptions, and
no indication has been given regarding how the various determinants
combine to form perceptions of fairness.
Robertson and his colleagues (Iles & Robertson, 1989; Robertson &
Smith, 1989) began to address these issues by discussing the psycholog-
ical impact of personnel selection methods on individual candidates.
Their model hypothesized that features of the selection method and the
nature (e.g., accept versus reject) and specificity of decision feedback
would influence applicants' cognitive and affective reactions toward the
process. In turn, applicants' cognitive and affective reactions should in-
fluence outcomes such as work commitment, performance, turnover, psy-
chological well-being, and personal agency. As with the other models,
Robertson and Smith (1989) presented their model as an initial conceptu-
alization or a preliminary model, and they acknowledged that research is
needed to more completely understand the underlying factors and pro-
cesses.
Although the model presented by Robertson and his colleagues pro-
vides an initial examination of the psychological process and personnel
selection, it is still missing a solid link to psychological theory. Addition-
ally, in this model a review of the existing literature on reactions to the
selection process was sparse and isolated. In an effort to improve upon
these previous models, I propose a model of applicants' reactions to se-
lection processes that includes both psychological theory from organiza-
tional justice and prior research on reactions to selection procedures. This
model provides a framework for organizing current research, and it pro-
vides many research propositions that suggest directions for future re-
FIGURE 1
Model of Applicants' Reactions to Employment Selection Systems
PROCEDURAL
JUSTICE RULES OUTCOMES
Formal Characteristics Reactions

Job relatedness During Hiring
Test Type > Opportunity to perform a jb-acceptanc
Reconsideration opportunity decisions
Consistency of administration Application
recommendations
Human Resource Explanation recommendation
Policy Feedback I Overall Fairness Test motivation
Selection information of Selection Legal battles
Honesty Pracess Reactions
l I ' / After Hiring
Human Resource Interpersonal Treatment / Performance
Personnel Interpersonal effectiveness I tI Organizational
of administrator ' citizenship
Two-way communication behavior
Propriety of questions Job satisfaction
II / z / Organizational
| Hiring } Additional Rules | Overall Fairness climate
Decision of Selection Self-Perceptions
DISTRIBUTIVE OutcomeSefstm
' 8| + \ ~~~~~Self-esteem
Performance JUSTICE RULES Self-efficacy
Expectations
Future job-search
Salience of Equity intentions
Discrimination Equality
Needs
Locus of
Special Needs Rule-Fairness Relationship
Applicants' prior experience
Stage in selection process
search. In addition, some organizational justice issues that have not been
previously addressed are developed.
The Model
According to the model presented in Figure 1, situational and per-

sonal conditions influence the extent to which procedural and distributive
rules are perceived as satisfied or violated. That is, conditions such as
test type, human resource policy, and behavior of human resource per-
sonnel influence applicants' perceptions of the procedural justice of the
selection system. Procedural justice is conceptualized in terms of proce-
dural rules. Perceptions of the extent to which each of these rules is
satisfied or violated are combined to form an overall evaluation of the
fairness of the selection system. Applicants' prior experiences with selec-
tion and hiring processes also may influence the salience of the proce-
dural rules and the evaluation of the fairness of the selection system. In
terms of distributive justice, performance expectations are hypothesized
to influence perceptions of equity in either the test outcome or the hiring-
decision outcome. Although equity is predicted to be the primary distrib-
1993 Gilliland 701
utive rule, in situations with increased salience of discrimination or ap-

plicants' special needs, the equality and needs distributive rules also
should contribute to evaluations of test outcome and the fairness of the
hiring decision. In addition to these main effects, procedural rules are
predicted to moderate the distributive justice to the fairness of the out-
come relationship, and distributive rules are predicted to moderate the
procedural justice to the fairness of the process relationship.
A final part of the model deals with the relationship between fairness
perceptions and individual and organizational outcomes. These out-
comes include some variables common to both accepted and rejected
candidates (job-application decisions, test motivation, self-esteem, self-
efficacy, and endorsement of the company's products), some variables
specific to the accepted candidates (job-acceptance decisions, job satis-
faction, performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and organiza-
tional climate), and a variable specific to rejected applicants (future job-
search intentions). These relationships, as well as all of the other
relationships outlined in this brief overview, are discussed in the follow-
ing sections and are related to findings in the organizational justice and
reactions to selection procedures literatures. First, the procedural justice
rules presented by Leventhal (1980) are discussed as they relate to the
selection context and existing research. Then, propositions regarding the
determinants and outcomes of perceived violation or satisfaction of these
rules are presented.
Procedural Justice Rules
According to the perspective of procedural justice initiated by Lev-

enthal (1980), overall evaluations of procedural justice are thought to be
composed of the satisfaction or violation of 10 procedural rules. All of
these rules are adapted from procedural rules discussed in organizational
justice research on allocation decisions (Leventhal, 1980), managerial
fairness (Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987), performance appraisal (Greenberg,
1986a), communication fairness in recruiting (Bies & Moag, 1986), and
interactional justice norms (Tyler & Bies, 1990). Additionally, all of the
rules have been mentioned in some of the previous models of applicants'
reactions to selection procedures (Arvey & Sackett, 1993; Iles & Robertson,
1989; Schuler, 1993). The procedural rules and their relationships to prior
theory are summarized in Table 1. Procedural justice can be summarized
in terms of three components: formal characteristics, explanation, and
interpersonal treatment (Greenberg, 1990b). Consistent with this trichot-
omy of procedural antecedents, the 10 procedural rules are grouped into
three categories, including formal characteristics of the selection system,
explanations offered during the selection process, and interpersonal
treatment. Formal characteristics of the selection system include job re-
latedness, opportunity to perform, opportunity for reconsideration, and
consistency of administration. Explanation or information offered to ap-
plicants in the form of feedback, selection information, and honesty in
TABLE 1
Relationships Among Procedural Rules and Other Justice and
Reactions Models
Organizational Justice Applicant Reactions

Procedural Rule Theorya Modelb
Formal Characteristics
Job relatedness Accuracy rule (L), Job relatedness (A&S),
Representativeness (I&R), Transparency (S)
(S&L)
Opportunity to perform Voice (T&W), Soliciting Thoroughness of
input (G), Resource knowledge, skills, and
(S&L) abilities coverage
(A&S)
Reconsideration Ability to modify rule Opportunity for
opportunity (L), Ability to correct reconsideration (A&S),
(S&L), Ability to Review scores (A&S)
challenge (G)
Consistency Consistency rule or Consistency across
standard (L), (S&L), candidates (A&S)
(G), (T&B)
Explanation
Feedback Timely feedback (T&B), Feedback form (S),
Timeliness (S&L) Type/degree of
feedback (I&R)
Selection information Information (S&L), Information (S), (A&S),
Communication (S&L), System-development
Explanation (T&B) process (A&S)
Honesty Truthfulness (B&M) Feedback honesty (S)
Interpersonal Treatment
Interpersonal effectiveness Respect (B&M) Sympathetic treatment
(I&R)
Two-way communication Two-way communication Participation (S)
(G), Consider views
(T&B)
Propriety of questions Propriety of questions Illegal variables (A&S)
(B&M), Personal bias
(L), Bias suppression
(S&L), (T&B)
Other possible rules:

Ease of faking answers ? (A&S)
Invasiveness of questions ? (A&S) (I&R)
a Notation for justice theories: L-Leventhal (1

G-Greenberg (1986a), B&M-Bies and Moag (1986), T&B-Tyler & Bies (1990), T&W-
Thibaut & Walker (1975).
b Notation for applicant reactions models: A&S-Arvey and Sackett (1993), S-Schuler
(1993), I&R-Iles & Robertson (1989).
1993 Gilliland 703
treatment composes the next category. The final three rules, interper-
sonal effectiveness of the administrator, two-way communication, and
propriety of questions, all relate to the interpersonal treatment of appli-
cants. Figure 1 and Table 1 also allow for the possibility of other proce-
dural rules that may influence fairness perceptions but that are not di-
rectly linked to organizational justice literature and have not been exam-
ined in the applicant reactions literature. Two such possible procedures
relate to concerns about the ease of faking answers and the invasiveness
of questions. The following discussion elaborates on each of these pro-
cedural rules.
Job relatedness. Perhaps the greatest procedural influence on fair-
ness perceptions is the job relatedness of the selection device. Job relat-
edness refers to the extent to which a test either appears to measure
content relevant to the job situation or appears to be valid. The appear-
ance of validity can be captured in both the content validity sense (i.e.,
test content related to job content) and the criterion-related validity sense
(i.e., performance on the test is likely related to performance on the job)
(Smither & Pearlman, 1991). Job relatedness should be distinguished from
face validity, which refers to "what the test appears to measure" or
"whether the test looks valid" (Anastasi, 1988: 136). A test can appear face
valid (appear to measure what it actually measures) without appearing
job related, and a test can appear job related (in the criterion-related
sense) without appearing face valid.
In the organizational justice literature, Leventhal (1980) defined the
accuracy rule as decisions being based on as much good information as
possible, and he suggested that procedural fairness is violated when
performance is evaluated on the basis of inappropriate information. Sim-
ilarly, Sheppard and Lewicki (1987) found evidence for a resource rule,
which suggests that decisions should be based on accurate resources and
expertise. Prior models of applicants' reactions to testing include job re-
latedness (Arvey & Sackett, 1993), job relevance (Iles & Robertson, 1989),
and task relevance (Schuler, 1993).
Many researchers have examined the job relatedness of tests and the
effects of this relatedness on perceptions of fairness. Positive reactions in
terms of perceived face validity, perceived accuracy, and perceived fair-
ness have been documented at assessment centers (Dodd, 1977) and with
work-sample tests (Schmidt et al., 1977), which are both highly job re-
lated. Schmitt, Gilliland, Landis, and Devine (1993) found that both per-
ceived job relevance and overall perceived fairness were higher with a
content-valid, computerized work-sample test than with simple typing
and dictation tests. In this case, job relevance was highly correlated with
perceived fairness. Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, and Stoffey (1993)
assessed perceived job relatedness for different types of selection tests
and found that interviews, assessment-center tasks, and cognitive ability
tests that included concrete items were perceived to be more job related
than personality tests, biodata forms, and cognitive ability tests that in-
cluded abstract items. In a second study, Smither and his colleagues

(1993) found that perceived predictive validity and perceived face validity
correlated with both procedural and distributive justice perceptions. Sim-
ilarly, Kluger and Rothstein (1991) assessed both the perceived relevance
and the perceived fairness of cognitive ability tests and biographical data
inventories, and they demonstrated a significant correlation between rel-
evance and perceived fairness. Gilliland (1993) manipulated job related-
ness in a hiring situation and found direct influences on perceptions of
procedural and distributive fairness. Finally, research from the drug-
testing literature is somewhat related; drug testing is seen as more ac-
ceptable if the job includes characteristics such as perceived danger
(Murphy, Thornton, & Prue, 1991). Regarding drug testing, the procedural
rule may be more aptly described as job relevance rather than job relat-
edness.
Opportunity to perform. Research in the organizational justice liter-
ature on voice suggests that procedures are perceived to be more fair if
recipients cf the decision outcome have the opportunity to express them-
selves prior to the decision (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Greenberg (1986a)
identified solicitation of input as one factor that influences the perceived
fairness of performance appraisals, and Dipboye and de Pontbriand (1981)
found that the opportunity to offer information during a performance ap-
praisal was related to perceived fairness. Sheppard and Lewicki (1987)
proposed a rule related to collecting input in the domain of managerial
fairness. In the selection domain, voice can be interpreted as having
adequate opportunity to demonstrate one's knowledge, skills, and abili-
ties in the testing situation (Arvey & Sackett, 1993) or the possibility of
exerting control in a selection situation (Schuler, 1993). Kluger and
Rothstein (1991) found that individuals perceived greater control over their
test performance with biodata inventories than they did with cognitive
ability tests. Bies and Shapiro (1988) presented individuals with recruiting
interview scenarios in which the interviewee either did or did not have the
opportunity to demonstrate competencies and ask questions of the inter-
viewer. Perceptions of procedural fairness were higher when the inter-
viewee had the opportunity to offer input.
It can be hypothesized that interviews provide the most direct oppor-
tunity for applicants to perform or have a voice in the process because
interviews provide the opportunity to express oneself directly to the in-
terviewer rather than indirectly through test questions. The satisfaction of
the opportunity to perform procedural rules may help explain why so few
lawsuits are filed on the basis of selection interviews (Campion & Arvey,
1989).
Reconsideration opportunity. An often-cited factor that contributes to
perceptions of procedural justice is the opportunity to challenge or modify
the decision-making evaluation process (i.e., to receive a second chance)
(Greenberg, 1986a; Leventhal, 1980; Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987). The op-
portunity for reconsideration and the opportunity to review scores and
1993 Gilliland 705
scoring were both issues proposed by Arvey and Sackett (1993) as impor-
tant in determining perceived fairness of selection systems. The only
testing domain in which reconsideration opportunity has been examined
with regard to applicant reactions is drug testing. Drug testing was given
high ratings of justifiability (a construct presumably related to fairness)
when test results were checked with a second testing method (Murphy,
Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990). Further research should consider the impact
that reconsideration opportunities have on applicant reactions.
Consistency of administration. Consistency or standardization is a
procedural factor discussed in much of the procedural justice literature
(Greenberg, 1986a; Leventhal, 1980; Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987; Tyler &
Bies, 1990). Consistency refers to ensuring that decision procedures are
consistent across people and over time. Arvey and Sackett (1993) sug-
gested that consistency across people refers to consistency in the content
of the selection system, in scoring, and in the interpretation of scores.
When considering consistency across people, Leventhal (1980) pointed out
that this rule is similar to the distributive rule of equality, which suggests
that all people should have an equal chance of obtaining the decision
outcome.
Concerns for standardization or consistency of test administration
have been demonstrated with drug-testing programs, which received
greater acceptance or perceived effectiveness when they involved all in-
dividuals or only those with a history of drug use and not a random
selection of individuals (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1987; Murphy et al., 1990).
It seems reasonable to expect that concerns for consistency may be influ-
enced by the type of test and may be more salient for some types (e.g.,
interviews) than for others (e.g., paper-and-pencil tests). This procedural
rule suggests a prediction that structured interviews should be perceived
as more consistent in administration, and, therefore, they are considered
more fair than unstructured interviews. Although individuals may not
always be aware of the treatment given to others and, therefore, are
unable to evaluate consistency, a clear example of a violation of consis-
tency across people is the situation in which applicants receive jobs be-
cause of who they know, not what they know.
Given that consistency evaluations rely on comparisons with other
people or previous experiences, two factors that may influence the sa-
lience of the consistency rule are the previous experiences of the appli-
cant and the time at which perceived fairness is assessed. Applicants
who have experienced both structured and unstructured interviews may
be more likely to associate interview structure with consistency of admin-
istration. With regard to time or stage of the selection process, applicants
may be more aware of consistency after a selection decision has been
made and applicants have learned the basis for the decision from orga-
nizational sources or from conversations with other applicants.
Feedback. The provision of timely and informative feedback is cited
as an important factor in perceptions of interactional justice (Tyler & Bies,
1990). Timeliness is also a rule of managerial fairness suggested by Shep-

pard and Lewicki (1987). In previous models of applicant reactions, re-
searchers have discussed feedback form (Schuler, 1993) and the type or
degree of feedback (Iles & Robertson, 1989).
Empirical evidence from the testing literature indicates that reactions
to testing were more favorable among people who had received feedback
on their test performance than among those who had not (Lounsbury,
Bobrow, & Jensen, 1989). This study used a 17-item measure to assess
reactions that included perceptions of fairness and procedural dimen-
sions such cis opportunity to perform and propriety of questions and glob-
al reactions toward employment testing. Researchers have also specifi-
cally addressed the issues of timeliness and informativeness. Schmidt,
Urry, and Gugel (1978) cited the speed with which feedback was provided,
both in terms of test performance and qualification for a job, as an ad-
vantage of computer-adaptive testing over paper-and-pencil tests. With
respect to the selection process in general, Arvey, Gordon, Massengill,
and Mussio (1975) found that as the time lag between initial application
for a job and initiation of the selection process increased, the percentage
of applicants withdrawing from the selection process also increased.
Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart (1991) interviewed job seekers and found that
one of the reasons individuals lost interest in companies or turned down
offers for site visits was delays in the recruiting process. Many individu-
als attributed delays to personal rejection and this resulted in lower self-
confidence and qualifications. Although these studies did not assess per-
ceived fairness, they do indicate that a procedural aspect of the selection
situation can influence outcomes of organizational concern.
In terms of the informativeness of feedback, Dodd (1977) indicated
that feedback that is developmental and provides information on how to
remedy deficiencies is valued regardless of the selection or promotion
decision. The timeliness and informativeness of feedback may represent
an important procedural factor because it is one factor that organizations
could easily improve without the additional costs associated with selec-
tion-system development.
Selection information. One of the most commonly examined vari-
ables in the interactional justice literature is the provision of justification
for a decision (Greenberg, 1990a; Leventhal, 1980). For example, Bies and
Shapiro (1988) found that perceptions of the procedural fairness of sce-
nario-based recruiting situations were greater when justification was of-
fered for a negative decision than when no justification was offered. Pro-
cedural rules that are related to selection information include information
and communication (Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987) and explanation for the
decision (Tyler & Bies, 1990). In terms of explanation or justification for a
selection procedure, perceptions of fairness are likely to be influenced by
information on the validity of the selection process, information on scor-
ing and the way in which scores are used in decision making, and justi-
fication for a particular selection decision. Lounsbury and colleagues
1993 Gilliland 707
(1989) found that attitudes toward testing were more favorable when peo-
ple were told how the test related to future job performance. It is possible
that validity evidence would be particularly useful for tests with low face
validity, such as cognitive ability tests (Huffcutt, 1990). With the current
interest in cognitive ability testing, the provision of validity evidence may
be one relatively cost-free method for improving the acceptance of such
testing.
Arvey and Sackett (1993) suggested that validity evidence may be
perceived differently by the public than by selection specialists. Specifi-
cally, whereas selection specialists are concerned with improved overall
prediction, the public may be more concerned with the extent to which the
selection system makes mistakes. This may be particularly true of integ-
rity testing and drug testing, where negative outcomes suggest that re-
jected applicants may engage in some form of deviant behavior.
Another type of selection information that may influence perceptions
of fairness is a priori information on the selection process. Arvey and
Sackett (1993) hypothesized that the reduction in uncertainty that such
information would provide, particularly with unfamiliar selection pro-
cesses, would reduce applicants' beliefs that they performed poorly be-
cause they did not know what to expect. Stone and Kotch (1989) found
more negative attitudes (defined in terms of perceived fairness and inva-
sion of privacy) toward drug-testing programs that provided no advance
notice of testing than those that did.
Honesty. Bies and Moag (1986) highlighted the importance of honesty
and truthfulness when communicating with recruitees. In particular, in-
stances of either candidness or deception would likely be particularly
salient. Schuler (1993) discussed the importance of openness and honesty
as components of feedback content. Although honesty may be inherent
with other forms of explanation (e.g., selection information or feedback),
research suggests that it is a distinct and important component of appli-
cants' reactions. For example, research on interviews has demonstrated
that interviewer correctness, sincerity, and believability are strong pre-
dictors of affect toward reactions to the interview, impressions of the
organization, and intentions to accept a job offer (Liden & Parsons, 1986;
Schmitt & Coyle, 1976).
Interpersonal effectiveness of administrator. The interpersonal effec-
tiveness of the test administrator refers to the degree to which applicants
are treated with warmth and respect. Bies and Moag (1986) analyzed by
content recruitees' descriptions of fair and unfair treatment and found
that one dimension of fairness was related to respect or, alternately,
rudeness. Similarly, Iles and Robertson (1989) discussed the possible im-
pact that sympathetic treatment may have on applicants during the se-
lection process.
Research on reactions to interviews demonstrated that the warmth
and thoughtfulness of an interviewer was the strongest predictor of im-
pressions of the company and expectations regarding job offers and ac-
ceptance of those offers (Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). Similarly, Liden and
Parsons (1986) found that the strongest predictor of general affect of an
interview was the extent to which the interviewer was personable. Rynes
(1991) summarized the research on recruiters' personality and behavior
traits and indicated the factor that explained the most variance in various
dependent variables was the affect of the recruiter (e.g., warmth and
empathy). It is important to note that interviewer and recruiter research
cited with regard to both honesty and interpersonal effectiveness did not
directly assess the impact of honesty and interpersonal effectiveness of
reactions to fairness. Although dependent variables included impres-
sions of recruiter, affect toward reactions to the interview, and probability
of accepting a job offer, the direct impact on reactions to fairness has not
been assessed.
Although interpersonal effectiveness is clearly an important factor in
applicants' reactions to interviews, it may also be an important factor in
other aspects of the selection process. For example, a test administrator
who simply administers a paper-and-pencil, work-sample, or drug test
may be able to affect the comfort and stress level of applicants and in-
fluence applicants' reactions to the testing process in general. Rynes
(1993) provided an example of an applicant who felt like a criminal during
drug testing because she was escorted by a uniformed guard to a doorless
toilet stall.
Two-way communication. Two-way communication refers to the op-
portunity for applicants to offer input or to have their views considered in
the selection process (Tyler & Bies, 1990), but it differs from the opportu-
nity to perform in that it relates primarily to interpersonal interaction. The
research by Martin and Nagao (1989) demonstrated the difference be-
tween two-way communication and opportunity to perform. Simulated
applicants for a high-status job expressed more anger and resentment
toward computerized and paper-and-pencil interviewing than toward tra-
ditional face-to-face interviewing. Though all interviewing formats pre-
sumably provided adequate opportunity to perform, the nontraditional
interview formats did not allow for the two-way communication that ap-
plicants appear to expect from interviews. Similarly, Schuler (1993) cited
research that demonstrated more favorable impressions and reactions to
nondirective interviews than to directive interviews. Although not a se-
lection situation, research has found that the opportunity for appraisees
to express their feelings was one of the strongest predictors of perceived
accuracy and fairness of performance appraisals (Landy, Barnes, & Mur-
phy, 1978).
Two-way communication also can refer to the opportunity to ask
questions regarding the job, the organization, or even the selection pro-
cess. The selection system must provide applicants with adequate oppor-
tunity to gain information that is relevant to making acceptance deci-
sions. If such opportunities are not found, applicants' satisfaction with
the selection process will likely be lessened. Clearly, procedural justice
1993 Gilliland 709
research on performance evaluation demonstrates the importance of two-

way communication (Greenberg, 1986a). Because applicants are not likely
to expect two-way communication during all aspects of the selection pro-
cess, it would be useful to determine for which selection procedures two-
way communication is a salient issue.
Propriety of questions. Bies and Moag (1986) found that one of the
dimensions that influenced recruitees' perceptions of fairness was the
propriety of questions asked during recruitment. Question propriety in-
cluded both improper questioning and prejudicial statements. Similarly,
the suppression of personal bias was discussed by Leventhal (1980), Shep-
pard and Lewicki (1987), and Tyler and Bies (1990) as a rule of procedural
justice. Stone and Stone (1990) discussed the impact that question propri-
ety has on perceived invasion of privacy, which may be related to per-
ceived fairness. Although Arvey and Sackett (1993) discussed the possible
impact that illegal variables have on perceived fairness of a selection
system, and it is easy to speculate on the significant impact this treatment
has on fairness perceptions and later decision making, researchers have
not yet examined this issue. Perhaps a reason for the lack of research in
this area is the illegality of asking such questions during the selection
process (Arvey & Sackett, 1993). Many companies are not likely to admit
that such behavior occurs, and for some it may not even be recognized
(Rynes, 1993). A reasonable first step for research on this procedural factor
would be to define and document the existence and prevalence of the
problem because these issues are probably known with less certainty
than the impact that such questions have on applicants.
Other possible procedural rules. The 10 procedural rules have ties to
both organizational justice theory and applicant reactions models and
research (see Table 1). Although these rules capture most of the variance
in perceptions of procedural fairness, two other factors have been dis-
cussed in some of the models of applicant reactions. Neither of these
factors has direct ties to organizational justice theory and neither has
been examined with regard to perceived fairness, so they are not in-
cluded in the list of procedural rules. The first factor, ease of faking
answers, refers to the extent to which applicants believe information can
be distorted in a socially desirable manner during the selection process.
Arvey and Sackett (1993) indicated that ease of faking answers may in-
fluence fairness reactions, and they discussed a scenario in which appli-
cants may be torn between wanting to be honest and wanting to tell the
interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Such uncer-
tainty in terms of how to respond may violate a reasonableness proce-
dural rule (Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987), or it may in some other way influ-
ence perceived fairness. This would seem to be a particular concern with
overt integrity tests where applicants may believe they know what the
"correct" response should be. Kluger and Rothstein (1991) found biodata
inventories to be perceived as easier to fake than cognitive ability tests,
training tests, and work-sample tests. Somewhat surprising was their
finding that the correlation between perceptions of ease of faking an-

swers and test fairness was almost zero. A possible explanation of this
lack of relationship can be found in a discussion by Stone and Stone (1990)
of test transparency and invasion of privacy. They argued that if appli-
cants know what is being assessed through a selection procedure, they
can actively control the amount and nature of information they share. In
this way, a transparent test (one that seems easy to fake) may actually
increase perceived fairness.
The second possible additional rule is invasiveness of questions or
invasion of privacy. Both Arvey and Sackett (1993) and Iles and Robertson
(1989) suggested that the invasiveness or intrusiveness of a selection pro-
cedure may influence applicants' reactions to that procedure. Stone and
Stone (1990) provided an excellent review of the types of factors that in-
fluence individuals' perceptions of invasion of privacy. Among other in-
fluences, they discussed the impact of selection test type on the invasion
of privacy and indicated that both the test type and the way it is imple-
mented can have an impact on perceived invasion of privacy. For exam-
ple, research indicates that reactions to drug-testing programs are influ-
enced by the existence of safeguards to ensure privacy and confidential-
ity (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1987; Murphy et al., 1990). The importance of
invasion of privacy can be seen in a recent California Supreme Court case
(Soroka v. Dayton Hudson), which was filed on the grounds that certain
test questions constituted an invasion of privacy (Brown, 1992). Further
research is needed to link both faking of answers and invasiveness of
questions to perceived fairness and procedural justice.
Summary of procedural rules. The 10 procedural rules (as well as two
additional rules) all represent factors that may contribute to overall per-
ceptions of the fairness of the selection process. As indicated in Figure 1,
the type of selection test, human resource policy, and human resource
personnel are expected to influence the extent to which each of the 10
procedural rules is satisfied or violated. More specifically:
Proposition 1: The type of selection test is expected to

influence perceptions of job relatedness, opportunity to
perform, consistency of administration, feedback, and
two-way communication.
Direct support for this proposition is limited, but the previously mentioned
research of Smither and colleagues (1993) demonstrated the link between
the type of selection test and perceived job relatedness, and Kluger and
Rothstein (1991) demonstrated a relationship between test type and op-
portunity to perform (perceived control). Indirect support for the influence
of test type on the other procedural rules was cited in the previous liter-
ature review pertaining to opportunity to perform (Bies & Shapiro, 1988),
feedback (Schmidt et al., 1978), and two-way communication (Martin &
Nagao, 1991).
1993 Gilliland 711
The type of human resource policy will also influence the satisfaction
or violation of a number of procedural rules.
Proposition 2: Fairness reactions based on the proce-

dural rules of reconsideration opportunity, consistency
of administration, feedback, and selection information
will be influenced by the extent to which the human
resource policy accommodates these concerns.
As discussed, research indicates that drug-testing programs have greater

acceptance when retesting opportunities are provided, when the pro-
grams are uniformly administered (Murphy et al., 1990), and when ad-
vance notice is provided (Stone & Kotch, 1989). Lounsbury and col-
leagues (1989) demonstrated the impact that telling applicants how tests
relate to future job performance had on these applicants' attitudes toward
testing.
Finally, much research on selection and recruiting interviews has
indicated the importance of the behavior of human resource personnel on
reactions to the selection process. Perceptions of recruiter behavior (re-
lated to honesty and interpersonal treatment) have been related to a va-
riety of affective and intentional outcomes (see Rynes, 1991). Bies and
Moag (1986) also demonstrated the influence that recruiters have on re-
action of fairness and dimensions of honesty, respect, and question pro-
priety.
Proposition 3: Behavior of human resource personnel

will influence examinees' satisfaction and perceived vi-
olation of procedural rules related to honesty, interper-
sonal effectiveness, two-way communication, and pro-
priety of questions.
Combination of procedural rules. Leventhal (1980) suggested that pro-

cedural rules combine to form overall evaluations of fairness based on a
weighted average. That is, in certain situations, some procedural rules
may be more salient than others, but across situations all 10 of the pro-
cedural rules should contribute to the overall perceived fairness of the
selection process.
Proposition 4: The 10 procedural rules should explain

most of the variance in overall perceived fairness of the
selection system. Though not all of the procedural rules
will be salient in all selection situations, each procedural
rule will be important in certain selection situations.
Although Leventhal (1980) suggested that different situations may in-
fluence the relative weights of different procedural rules, he offered few
suggestions regarding specific features of situations that may influence
these weights. Indeed, one area in which organizational justice theory
can be advanced is through the current discussion of factors that influ-
ence weights of procedural rules. It is possible to make some predictions
about the types of factors that influence the salience of procedural rules,
although theoretical bases for these predictions are weak and they must
be examined through subsequent research. The following factors are pre-
dicted to influence the salience of procedural rules: (a) types of selection
procedures encountered, (b) the extent to which a procedural rule is vio-
lated, (c) previous experiences of the applicant, and (d) the time at which
fairness reactions are collected.
The types of selection procedures encountered will likely have an
impact on the relative weighting of procedural rules. For example, given
the predominance of research examining interviewer effects in selection
and recruiting interviews (Rynes, 1991), interpersonal treatment rules
(i.e., interpersonal effectiveness, two-way communication, and propriety
of questions) will likely be most salient when interviews are experienced
as part of the selection process. Opportunity to perform was also sug-
gested to be an important procedural rule regarding interviews. Simi-
larly, job relatedness has been a research concern with paper-and-pencil
tests (Smither & Pearlman, 1991), and it has been cited as an advantage
of work-sample tests and assessment centers (Dodd, 1977; Schmidt et al.,
1977); therefore, the job-relatedness procedural rule will likely be the
dominant component in perceptions of the fairness of these procedures.
The following proposition summarizes these possible relationships:
Proposition 5: The types of selection procedures experi-

enced will have an impact on the relative weighting of
the 10 procedural rules in overall evaluations of proce-
dural fairness.
Although the research and theory behind this proposition are some-
what weak, initial support is offered from one study (Gilliland, 1992).
Newly hired individuals related incidents of fair and unfair treatment
during the selection processes of their latest job search, and these inci-
dents were sorted into procedural categories that were roughly correspon-
dent to the 10 procedural rules. Distribution of incidents in the procedural
categories differed for different selection procedures, suggesting that
concerns of job relatedness were most salient with paper-and-pencil tests
and work-sample tests, whereas ease of faking answers was the domi-
nant concern with honesty and personality tests.
A second factor that may influence the relative weighting of proce-
dural rules in forming fairness perceptions is the extent to which a rule is
violated. Research on impression formation and individual decision mak-
ing indicates that negative information is often more salient and, there-
fore, weighs more heavily when an individual forms an evaluation, com-
pared to either neutral or positive information (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1984;
Wright, 1974). Similar findings have been consistently observed in eval-
uations related to selection interviews (Schmitt, 1976) and performance
appraisals (Steiner & Rain, 1989). Extended to the domain of procedural
justice, this research suggests that rule violation is likely to be more
1993 Gilliland 713
salient than rule satisfaction. From a decision strategy perspective, non-

compensatory strategies such as the conjunctive rule (i.e., satisficing-
Simon, 1955) or elimination by aspects (Tversky, 1972) are based on the
idea that decision makers reject an alternative if it does not meet a min-
imal criterion for each attribute that describes that criterion (Svenson,
1979). These strategies are labeled noncompensatory because high levels
of some attributes cannot compensate for substandard levels of other
attributes. When forming evaluations of procedural fairness, job appli-
cants may use a similar evaluation strategy such that they perceive a
selection system as unfair if any one of the procedural rules is violated.
Proposition 6: Instances of rule violation will be more
salient and therefore weigh more heavily in overall
evaluations of procedural fairness than instances of rule
satisfaction.
A third factor that is predicted to influence the weighting of proce-

dural rules is an applicant's prior experience with selection procedures.
Again, if the process of weighing procedural rules to form an overall
fairness perception is considered as an evaluation or decision-making
process, then research in social cognition on impression formation and
judgment is relevant and useful for forming predictions. Considerable
evidence in impression formation suggests that people have scripts or
schemata that guide information attention and evaluation, and informa-
tion tends to be weighted more heavily if it is consistent with these scripts
or schemata (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Although this finding may seem at
odds with Proposition 6, it is important to realize the distinction between
rule violation and schema inconsistency. A particular selection proce-
dure, such as a personality test, may violate the job relatedness rule for
an applicant, but this violation may also be consistent with an applicant's
schema for that selection procedure.
In terms of fairness reactions, prior experiences with different types
of selection procedures may lead to the development of selection scripts
or schemata that are characterized by salient procedural rules. For ex-
ample, a person who has experienced primarily interviews in previous
selection experiences will likely believe that the interpersonal procedural
rules are more salient than formal characteristics of the selection process.
Additionally, as suggested previously, a person who has experienced
both structured and unstructured interviews may have the consistency of
administration rules salient during future interview situations. Finally, a
person who has had a negative experience with a particular selection
test, such as a personality inventory, may find that the procedural rules
associated with that test (e.g., job relatedness) are more salient in his or
her judgment of procedural fairness.
Proposition 7: Prior experiences with different types of

selection procedures and with selection procedures that
clearly violated one or more of the procedural rules will
increase the salience of the procedural rules associated

with those experiences.
A final factor that may influence the weighting of procedural rules is

the time at which perceived fairness is assessed. Early in the selection
process, the selection information procedural rule may be particularly
salient because individuals want to know what is going on. After the
selection process, feedback should be a more salient procedural justice
rule as individuals wait to receive feedback or have recently received
feedback. Therefore, if perceived fairness is assessed immediately fol-
lowing the selection process, the feedback procedural rule should be
weighted more heavily than other procedural rules. Finally, the discus-
sion of the consistency of administration rule included the possibility that
consistency may be more salient after a selection decision has been
made.
Proposition 8: The time at which perceived fairness is

assessed during the selection process will influence the
salience of different procedural justice rules and, there-
fore, the weighting of these rules in overall perceptions
of procedural fairness.
Although researchers have not assessed the impact of stage of selection

process on fairness reactions, they have examined recruitment activities
and applicants' reactions toward a company. Taylor and Bergmann (1987)
found that recruitment activities only influenced perceived company at-
tractiveness and probability of offer acceptance early in the recruitment
process. Later, job attributes provided the primary influence on these
perceptions.
Conclusions. The model outlined in Figure 1 suggests that test type,
human resources policy, and human resources personnel are expected to
influence the extent to which each of the 10 procedural rules is violated.
In addition, some of the rules may be more salient in specific situations.
The types of selection procedures encountered, the extent to which a
procedural rule is violated, the previous selection experiences of the ap-
plicant, and the time at which fairness reactions are collected are all
expected to influence the salience of procedural rules. A final factor that
may influence the salience of procedural rules is the outcome of the
hiring decision. This possibility is discussed in a following section of this
article when the interaction between procedural and distributive justice
is considered.
Distributive Justice Rules
In the most general form, distributive justice theories are concerned

with the extent to which recipients receive outcomes in an amount that is
consistent with a given distribution rule. In the selection situation, this
translates into a determination of whether or not applicants receive the
hiring decisions they feel they deserve. Although applicants clearly de-
1993 Gilliland 715
fine the recipients in selection situations, researchers have assessed dis-

tributive justice in a more general fashion, reflecting the distributive jus-
tice of a selection program rather than an individual's experience in the
program. For example, Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) conceptualized
outcome fairness in terms of whether people generally get what they
deserve as a result of drug testing, which is almost an instrumentality
assessment. This is clearly distinct from traditional theories of distribu-
tive justice that are concerned with the outcomes an individual receives
personally.
The most salient outcome in the selection situation is the hiring de-
cision, although it may also be possible to consider the distributive jus-
tice of a selection test score. Greenberg (1986b) discussed a similar dis-
tinction between the distributive justice of a performance evaluation ver-
sus the distributive justice of outcomes that result from the evaluation
(e.g., salary increase or promotion). Specification of the outcome as a
hiring decision also may oversimplify the nature of this decision, in that
the position for which an applicant is accepted, the conditions or benefits
that accompany the acceptance decision, or the nature of rejection (re-
jected outright versus being the first alternate) all add dimensions to the
hiring decision and suggest that selection outcome is more likely a con-
tinuum than a dichotomy.
A final aspect of the distributive justice of selection systems is the
determination of what one deserves, which can be made on the basis of
one or more distributive rules. Three distributional rules have been iden-
tified in the distributive justice literature: equity, equality, and special
needs. Although equity is clearly the dominant rule that guides percep-
tions of distributive fairness, under some circumstances the other proce-
dural rules may become more salient (Bierhoff et al., 1986; Deutsch, 1975).
Each of these distribution rules is considered with respect to the selection
situation.
Equity. The equity distribution rule suggests that people should re-
ceive rewards that are consistent with the inputs they contribute to a
distribution situation, relative to a referent comparison. Inputs in a se-
lection situation can be conceptualized as self-perceptions of ability or
qualifications for the job. At first glance, equity may not appear applica-
ble to the selection situation because of the lack of opportunity to compare
one's inputs to the inputs of other job applicants. However, Goodman
(1974) suggested that the use of an "other" as the referent comparison is
only one of three possible referents. Structural aspects of the system, such
as contracts, and self-referents compose the other two categories of ref-
erents, and it is this latter category that should be most applicable to
selection-system equity. With self-referents, people compare their current
input/outcome ratio with a past input/outcome ratio or an ideal input/
outcome that is held for the situation. Pritchard (1969: 206) suggested that
it is from the self-referent or internal standard that "feelings of inequity
arise first and foremost."
The use of a self-referent in forming equity perceptions translates into

an evaluation of met expectations. Based on one's past qualifications,
one's past success at attaining a job, and one's current qualifications, an
expectation is formed regarding the likelihood that the job will be at-
tained. 1 This performance expectation may be conceptually similar to the
self-efficacy construct because both refer to the perceived likelihood of
success. Because an individual may have a variety of past experiences to
draw upon for the self-referent, characteristics of the current situation,
such as competition for the job, will likely be used to select a past referent
that is most representative of the current referent. The assessment of
equity is made by comparing the outcome of the hiring decision with one's
performance expectations. People will perceive a hiring decision as in-
equitable and, therefore, unfair if they think they have a good chance of
getting a job and they are turned down. More important, rejection may be
perceived as more fair or less inequitable if the individual really did not
expect to receive a job offer but applied "just in case he or she got lucky."
The results of perceptions of inequity have been discussed in terms of
affect, cognition, and behavior. Inequity results in negative emotions,
which, in turn, result in cognitive and behavioral attempts to restore
equity (Adams, 1965). Negative emotions can result both from perceptions
of underpayment inequity (i.e., not getting a job offer when it was ex-
pected) and overpayment inequity (i.e., getting a job offer when it was not
expected). The negative emotions associated with underpayment are an-
ger toward the company and dissatisfaction with the hiring decision,
whereas overpayment is thought to result in feelings of guilt and dissat-
isfaction (Adams, 1965). Cognitive and behavioral attempts to restore un-
derpayment inequity may take the form of devaluing the job (e.g., "It was
not really a very good position anyway"), devaluing the organization,
revaluating one's self-perceived abilities and qualifications (and possibly
lowering one's self-efficacy toward job attainment), and warning others
away from similar jobs with the organization. Responses to overpayment
' In terms of formally expressed outcome to input ratios (e.g., Adams, 1965), equity can
be defined in the following manner:
IC Ip
Where: 0c = current outcomes (receiving job offer)

IC= current inputs (perceived qualifications)
OP= past outcomes (received/not received job offer)
IP= past inputs (perceived qualifications)
To evaluate the current outcome, the person examines his or her current inputs in the context
of his or her past outcomes and inputs. That is:
0c = I'(Op/Ip) = (If/IP)OP
The combination of current inputs and past inputs and outcomes can be conceptualized as
performance expectations, or the extent to which a person thinks he or she will get the job.
1993 Gilliland 717
inequity and guilt may include increasing one's self-perceived abilities,

qualifications, and possibly self-efficacy toward job performance (e.g., "I
must be a stronger applicant than I thought"); increasing initial work
performance on the job (as a direct response to inequity and as a result of
increased self-efficacy); and increasing extra job behaviors such as orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. The bases for and responses to inequity
are summarized in the following propositions:
Proposition 9: Applicants' expectations of receiving a job
offer (performance expectations) will result from their
self-perceived ability or qualifications and their prior
experience in similar selection situations.
Proposition 10: Perceptions of equity will emerge from

the matching of applicants' expectations with the out-
come of the hiring decision such that (a) If applicants
expect to get the job and then receive a job offer, they
perceive the selection decision as equitable and fair; (b)
If applicants expect to get the job and then do not re-
ceive a job offer, they perceive the selection decision as
inequitable (underpayment) and unfair; (c) If applicants
do not expect to get the job and then receive a job offer,
they perceive the selection decision as inequitable
(overpayment) and unfair; (d) If applicants do not expect
to get the job and then do not receive a job offer, they
perceive the selection decision as equitable and fair.
Proposition 11: Perceptions of underpayment inequity

that result from not receiving a job when it was expected
will result first in anger and then in organizational de-
valuing and self-devaluing.
Proposition 12: Perceptions of overpayment inequity that

result from receiving a job offer when it was not ex-
pected will result first in guilt, but they will also result
in higher self-efficacy and positive outcomes after the
person is hired.
Researchers of selection fairness have not considered many of these

issues involving equity; however, research on equity theory and compen-
sation is related and can be offered as support for some of the above
propositions. Early researchers of equity theory manipulated underpay-
ment by offering fewer rewards than expected (e.g., Lawler & O'Gara,
1967), but often they manipulated overpayment by telling people they
were not qualified for the job (e.g., Adams & Rosenbaum, 1962; Friedman
& Goodman, 1967; Lawler, Koplin, Young, & Fadem, 1968). This overpay-
ment manipulation of inequity may be more relevant to the issue of hiring
equity than it was to compensation equity. Consistent with Proposition
lOc and Proposition 12, when individuals were led to believe they were
not qualified for the job but were given the job anyway, they responded
with higher work quality and increased self-perceived qualifications.
Work quantity often decreased in these studies, but as noted by Pritchard
(1969), this decrease may have had more to do with deflation of self-
esteem than with inequity.
It should be noted that overpayment effects of inequity have not been
as consistently demonstrated as underpayment effects, and in many
cases overpayment effects are short lived (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976;
Kanfer, 1990). In addition, Proposition 10 does not preclude the possibility
that the hiring decision will also have a main effect on fairness reactions.
Applicants who do not expect to get the job and then receive an offer will
likely see the decision as more fair than those who expect to get a job and
do not receive an offer.
Equality. Equality suggests that all individuals should have an equal
chance of receiving the outcome, regardless of differentiating character-
istics such as knowledge or ability. In the selection situation, the satis-
faction of equality would suggest random hiring rather than hiring based
on ability or experience. However, the equality rule may be more impor-
tant in terms of its violation rather than its satisfaction, and it may be
more salient for job-irrelevant differentiating characteristics (e.g., sex or
ethnic background) than for relevant characteristics (e.g., qualifications).
Thus, if a person is hired on the basis of ability, equality is not violated,
but if sex or ethnic background appears to bias the hiring decision, equal-
ity is clearly violated.
Proposition 13: Violations of equality based on job-

irrelevant differentiating characteristics will contribute
to perceptions of selection outcome unfairness, but vio-
lations of equality based on job-relevant differentiating
characteristics will not influence fairness perceptions.
Although researchers have not directly assessed this proposition, one

need only look toward our social and legal reactions to adverse impact to
see support for this proposition. Adverse impact, defined in terms of the
proportion of minority candidates hired relative to the number of nonmi-
nority candidates hired, must be defended by an employer on the grounds
of validity in the selection process. Thus, violations of equality on the
basis of job-relevant characteristics can be legally defensible, whereas
violations of equality on the basis of job-irrelevant characteristics are not
legally defensible. The attention given to equality and fairness in em-
ployee selection (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989) also indicates the importance
of the equality distributive rule.
Much research on distributive justice has found that equity is the
dominant distributive rule (Bierhoff et al., 1986); however, in some situa-
tions concerns for equality become more salient and also influence dis-
tributive justice reactions. For example, people have been shown to be
more sensitive to discrimination, a violation in equality, after seeing a
1993 Gilliland 719
clear-cut example of discrimination (Crosby, Burris, Censor, & Mac-

Kethan, 1986). In a selection situation, prior exposure to discrimination or
membership in a group against which discriminatory practices are di-
rected (e.g., women and minorities) may influence the salience of the
equality distribution rule. Thus, a man losing a job because of discrimi-
nation against males would be less likely to perceive the hiring decision
as unfair than a female losing a job for the same reason.
Proposition 14: Equality will have a greater impact on
overall outcome fairness for those individuals who have
had prior exposure to discrimination and those who are
members of frequently discriminated upon groups than
for individuals for whom discrimination is less salient.
Even though research on the salience of the equality distributive rule

is sparse (Cohen, 1987), research examining equality in reactions to se-
lection decisions is nonexistent. Researchers could add to this proposition
by examining the salience of equality or violations of equality for males
and females or for minority and nonminority subgroups.
Needs. The needs distribution rule suggests that rewards should be
distributed on the basis of individual needs. Special needs in the employ-
ment situation may be referred to as preferential treatment for a subgroup
of disadvantaged employees, such as that provided by affirmative action
programs (Hartigan & Wigdor, 1989). Special needs also may become
more salient when reasonable accommodation is given to individuals
with disabilities or handicaps (Arvey & Sackett, 1993). In both cases, the
special consideration that the needy individual receives is most likely to
be perceived as fair, if the special needs rule is salient.
Proposition 15: The extent to which the needs distribu-
tive rule is more salient than the other distributive rules
will positively influence the perceived outcome fairness
of a hiring decision that was influenced by affirmative
action consideration or hiring involving disabled or
handicapped people.
It may be possible for the selection process to be adapted to meet the
special needs of disadvantaged subgroups or disabled individuals and,
at the same time, to maintain the distributive justice of such a selection
system, as long as the special needs rule is salient. Just as research
related to equality has demonstrated that people are more sensitive to
equality after seeing or experiencing discrimination (Crosby et al., 1986),
research has demonstrated that reward allocation decisions are influ-
enced by the needs distributive rule to a greater extent when individual
needs are made salient to the allocator (Schwinger, 1986). This finding is
strongest when the needs are externally and unintentionally caused
rather than internally or intentionally caused. Although these results
were produced with allocation decisions, similar findings may hold for
perceptions of outcome fairness. If the basis for the special needs consid-
eration during the hiring decision is made salient to job applicants, the
needs rule may become more dominant in fairness evaluations, and the
decision will be seen as more fair (less unfair) by both positively and
negatively affected applicants.
Proposition 16: Special needs considerations will have a

greater impact on overall outcome fairness reactions
when the basis for the special needs consideration is
made clear and attributable to external causes.
Proposition 16 is likely somewhat simplistic because equity and equality

injustice may always overshadow attempts to establish justice on a needs
basis. The following section addresses this problem and some possible
solutions.
Conclusion. Three distributive rules, equity, equality, and special
needs, are directly applicable to perceived fairness in the selection situ-
ation. One problem that arises is that one distributive rule is not always
salient for all applicants, and given the nature of these rules, satisfaction
of one distributive rule will always lead to violation of the other distrib-
utive rules. For example, an affirmative action program may satisfy the
special needs rule but violate the equity and equality rules, thereby in-
fluencing the attitudes and behaviors of those employees receiving pref-
erential treatment and those observing preferential treatment (Kleiman &
Faley, 1988). Heilman, Simon, and Repper (1987) highlighted this problem
in their research on sex-based preferential selection. In a laboratory,
females assigned leadership roles on the basis of sex had lower self-
perceptions of their leadership ability, performance, and desire to remain
a leader than those assigned on the basis of merit. Similarly, Jacobson
and Koch (1977) found that female supervisors were viewed more nega-
tively by subordinates if their position had been attained through prefer-
ential treatment. These results suggest that violations of equity and
equality during the selection and promotion processes can have a nega-
tive impact on attitudes that is not compensated by the satisfaction of the
special needs rule.
One solution to the problem of a treatment satisfying one rule but
violating another rule is to try to increase the salience of the distributive
rule that is being satisfied and thereby decrease the impact that the
violated rule has on overall perceptions of distributive justice. This pro-
cedure may be destined to fail if Proposition 6 for procedural justice is
extended to the distributive justice situation. Based on social cognition
and decision-making research, Proposition 6 suggested that instances of
rule violation will always be more salient than instances of rule satisfac-
tion. Thus, an affirmative action program will violate equality and equity,
and these violations will be more salient than the satisfaction of special
needs. A second recommendation, from procedural justice research,
would be to highlight just aspects of the selection or promotion procedure
1993 Gilliland 721
as a means of reducing overall perceptions of injustice (for a similar

argument see Nacoste, 1990).
Combining Procedural and Distributive Justice
In both the discussions of procedural justice rules and distributive

justice rules, it was suggested that evaluations of the satisfaction or vi-
olation of different rules are combined to form overall perceptions of the
fairness of the system and the outcome. In addition to the direct influ-
ences of procedural justice rules on system fairness and distributive jus-
tice rules on outcome fairness, Figure 1 suggests that distributive rules
moderate the procedural relationship and that procedural rules moderate
the distributive relationship.
More specifically, it is predicted that procedural rules will have the
greatest impact on system fairness in situations in which distributive
rules have been violated. Thus, if job applicants receive job offers that
they think they deserve, they will not be as concerned about the fairness
of the selection process as if they did not receive a job offer. Similarly, the
relationship between distributive justice and outcome fairness will be
greatest when procedural rules are violated. That is, applicants will tend
to be most dissatisfied with hiring decisions if the procedures used to
select them violate their sense of procedural justice.
Proposition 17: Distributive justice will moderate the re-
lationship between procedural rules and overall fair-
ness of the selection process such that the relationship
will be strongest when distributive justice has been vi-
olated.
Proposition 18: Procedural justice will moderate the re-

lationship between distributive rules and overall fair-
ness of the selection outcome such that the relationship
will be strongest when procedural justice has been vio-
lated.
Some support for these propositions can be found in the organization-

al justice literature. In support of Proposition 18, Greenberg (1987a) found
that fairness varied as a function of outcome in the procedurally unfair
condition but not in the procedurally fair condition. Proposition 17 is sup-
ported by the research of Leung and Li (1990) who found process-control
(procedural justice) effects on distributive and procedural fairness only
with a negative outcome and not with a positive outcome. Similarly,
much of the research on procedural justice effects has utilized conditions
of distributive injustice (Folger & Greenberg, 1985).
In the selection procedures reaction literature, researchers have only
recently examined the impact of different types of selection procedures on
both accepted and rejected candidates, and the results are not consistent
with organizational justice findings (Kluger & Rothstein, 1991). In a sim-
ulated selection situation, these researchers failed to find significant in-
teractions between a hiring decision and selection procedures on a num-

ber of attitudinal measures. In contrast, Gilliland (1993) found an inter-
action between the job relatedness of the selection procedure (procedural
justice) and the hiring decision (distributive justice) on perceptions of
outcome fairness but not perceptions of process fairness. This finding is
consistent with Greenberg (1987a).
The need to further examine reactions of both accepted and rejected
candidates is paramount. From a company's perspective, the most impor-
tant individuals are those who are hired, and if procedural factors have a
relatively minor influence on accepted applicants, then the impact of this
line of research from a corporate perspective would be substantially re-
duced. Of course, from a scientific or practical but individually oriented
perspective, the impact of selection procedures on rejected applicants is
of equal importance to its impact on accepted applicants.
Organizational Outcomes
The central features of the proposed model of applicants' reactions to

selection systems are fairness perceptions. However, the importance of
studying these perceptions is emphasized by documenting the relation-
ship between fairness perceptions and important individual and organi-
zational outcomes. These outcomes include applicants' behavior during
selection and hiring processes (e.g., job-application and job-acceptance
decisions, self-perceptions such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, and be-
havior after a person is hired such as work performance and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior) (see Figure 1).
When considering the relationships of fairness perceptions to out-
comes, it is important to note that the selection process for one job is not
isolated from other concurrent selection experiences. The process and
outcome fairness of the selection system for an alternate job may influ-
ence the fairness to outcome relationship for the current job. For example,
the absence of alternate job offers would likely weaken the relationship
between selection fairness and job-acceptance decisions. Similarly, pre-
vious job rejections may influence the relationship between outcome fair-
ness and self-concept. Although these influences of alternate selections
procedures on fairness-outcome relationships is acknowledged, for the
sake of simplicity the following discussion only considers the influences
of one selection system on these outcomes.
An important feature of previous research relating justice perceptions
to organizational outcomes is that some variables have been more
strongly related to procedural justice and some variables have been more
strongly related to distributive justice. In fact, one of the consistent find-
ings in the organizational justice literature is that procedural justice per-
ceptions tend to account for more variance in attitudes and reactions than
do distributive justice perceptions (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
1993 Gilliland 723
Proposition 19: Procedural justice and the fairness of the

selection process will be more strongly related to both
individual outcomes, such as acceptance decisions and
application recommendations, and organizational out-
comes, such as work performance and job satisfaction,
than will distributive justice or the fairness of the selec-
tion outcome.
Proposition 19 is certainly counterintuitive in the selection situation

where intuition would suggest that the fairness associated with whether
or not one received the job has more of an impact than the fairness of the
process by which one was evaluated. It is possible that the relative im-
pact of distributive justice compared to procedural justice is dependent on
the valence of the outcome being allocated. The outcome of receiving
versus not receiving a job offer may be considerably more valent than
typical outcomes associated with justice studies.
Attitudes and behavior during selection and hiring. The perceived
fairness of the selection process and outcome can influence job-
application and job-acceptance decisions, application recommendations,
test motivation, and possibly legal battles. If job seekers know in advance
what type of selection process is being used and the selection process is
perceived to be unfair, they may be dissuaded from applying for the job.
This effect was found in an examination of attitudes toward integrity
testing where 10 percent of college students indicated they would refuse
an integrity test in an actual employment situation (Ryan & Sackett, 1987).
Similarly, Crant and Bateman (1990) found that the presence of a drug-
testing program reduced individuals' intentions to apply for a job. An-
other way in which the perceived fairness of the selection system may
have an impact on job-application decisions is through recommendations
by applicants who have experienced the selection process. Companies
can gain reputations for how they treat applicants during the selection
process (Rynes, 1993), and these reputations may influence the ability of
organizations to recruit high-quality applicants (Rynes & Barber, 1990).
Smither and colleagues (1993) demonstrated relationships between both
procedural and distributive justice perceptions and recommendation in-
tentions.
Proposition 20: Decisions to apply for a job and recom-

mendations to others to apply for a job will be influ-
enced by procedural and distributive fairness. That is,
individuals will be less likely to apply for a job if they
perceive the hiring process as unfair, and they will be
less likely to recommend a job to others if they perceived
their hiring experience (both process and outcome) to be
unfair.
The fairness of the selection system also may influence applicants'

decisions to remain in the selection process or to accept job offers. For
example, Arvey and colleagues (1975) found that as the time lag between
initial application for a job and initiation of the selection process in-
creased (thereby violating the feedback rule), so did the percentage of
applicants withdrawing from selection. Reactions to interview proce-
dures also have been shown to influence individuals' intentions to accept
job offers (e.g., Linden & Parsons, 1986; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). Although
most research has examined job acceptance in terms of acceptance in-
tentions, it is important to also examine actual job-acceptance decisions
because the two may not be as closely related as one would expect
(Rynes, 1992).
Proposition 21: Applicants will be less likely to accept a

job offer if they perceive the selection process as unfair
than if they perceive it as fair, although this relationship
may be weaker for individuals who perceive high as
opposed to low distributive fairness.
Perceived fairness may influence job-acceptance decisions directly (e.g.,

because of resentment) or indirectly in terms of a realistic organization
preview (Wanous, 1980). Poor treatment may be taken as an indication of
how a company treats its employees or the stake that a company places
in human resources.
In addition to application and acceptance decision making, per-
ceived fairness may influence the motivation of applicants during the
selection process. Individuals' a priori impressions of test fairness may
influence their motivation in the testing process. Similarly, system and
outcome fairness of one selection process may influence motivation on a
subsequent selection process. If a test violates perceptions of procedural
justice, motivation to complete the test may be low.
Proposition 22: The motivation for taking a test may be

lower among individuals with a priori beliefs that this
selection procedure is unfair rather than fair.
Though research has not directly addressed this possibility, researchers

have demonstrated that motivation toward taking a test differs for paper-
and-pencil versus computer-adaptive testing (Arvey, Strickland, Drau-
den, & Martin, 1990). Given some evidence for the impact of test-taking
motivation on criterion-related validity (Schmit & Ryan, 1992), concern for
the impact of fairness on test motivation is even more important.
A final issue related to applicants' behavior is the relationship be-
tween perceived fairness and decisions to file discrimination charges.
Although researchers have not directly examined this relationship, Cas-
cio and Phillips (1979) demonstrated lower incidence of applicants' com-
plaints regarding testing following the introduction of job-related perfor-
mance testing. Additionally, there is some indication that perceptions of
the fairness of the selection system influence decisions by lawyers to
pursue plaintiffs' discrimination cases (Seymour, 1988).
1993 Gilliland 725
Proposition 23: Applicants' complaints and decisions to

file discrimination charges are likely related to both
procedural and distributive fairness of the selection sys-
tem.
Self-perceptions. Self-esteem, self-efficacy toward a job and toward

the job-search process, and self-perceived ability may be influenced by
the selection system and the fairness of the outcome. In terms of self-
esteem, research regarding interviews indicates that social comparisons
in the interview process can have an impact on an applicant's self-esteem
(Morse & Gergen, 1970). Additionally, considerable research in social psy-
chology has examined the impact that feedback on success and failure
has on self-esteem (e.g., Jones, Rhodewalt, Berglas, & Skelton, 1981; Mc-
Farland & Ross, 1982). Although feedback regarding failure has been
shown to have a detrimental effect on self-esteem, attributions surround-
ing such feedback are an important moderator of this effect. McFarland
and Ross (1982) gave individuals feedback on either success or failure
under conditions where performance could be attributed to either the task
or one's ability. When performance was attributed to the task, feedback
had no effect on resultant self-esteem. However, when the attribution was
to ability, feedback regarding success increased self-esteem and feed-
back regarding failure decreased self-esteem.
Consistent with predictions from attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), if
the perceived fairness of the selection system can be questioned, external
attributions are more likely and the outcome of a selection decision will
not have a great impact on applicants' self-esteem. Alternately, if the test
is perceived to be fair, internal attributions are more likely, and the se-
lection outcome will likely affect applicants' self-esteem. The implication
of this reasoning is that if an organization strives to attain a procedurally
fair selection system, it may be raising the self-esteem of the selected
individuals but lowering the self-esteem of rejected individuals. From a
psychological standpoint, rejected applicants would be better off being
rejected through a procedurally unfair selection system than through a
procedurally fair system. Clearly this point is at odds with the advan-
tages of procedurally fair selection systems hypothesized for the other
organizational outcomes.
Proposition 24: An interaction between procedural and

distributive fairness will be observed on self-esteem
such that distributive fairness will not influence the self-
esteem of applicants evaluated through a procedurally
unfair selection system, but it will have an impact on
those selected through a procedurally fair selection sys-
tem. Among this latter group of applicants, the distrib-
utive fairness of the selection process will increase the
self-esteem of accepted individuals and will decrease
the self-esteem of rejected individuals.
Similar reasoning can be used to generate hypotheses with regard to

self-efficacy and self-perceived ability. Job seekers likely have efficacy
beliefs about gaining any job, attaining a given job, performing well on
a particular selection procedure, and performing the job once it is at-
tained.
Proposition 25: Procedural and distributive justice will

interact in their impact on self-efficacy toward the job,
the job-search process, and self-perceived ability such
that the distributive justice impact on self-perceptions
will be greatest when procedural justice is satisfied
rather than violated (see Propositions 11, 12, and 24).
Support for this proposition can be found in a study by Gilliland (1993). In

a hiring situation, self-efficacy toward job performance was increased for
applicants who were selected through a job-related selection procedure,
and it was decreased for applicants who were rejected through this same
procedure. Self-efficacy was not influenced by the hiring decision when
the selection procedure was low in job relatedness. Additionally, Schmitt,
Ford, and Stults (1986) found that self-perceived ability changed as a
result of participation in an assessment center.
Self-efficacy is related to motivation and subsequent performance
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992), so the perceived fairness of selection may have an
impact on motivation, self-perceptions, and performance both during the
selection process and after the person is hired. Further, self-esteem and
self-efficacy may influence the motivation of rejected applicants to con-
tinue their job search. Ellis and Taylor (1983) found that self-esteem pre-
dicted the sources that individuals used to find jobs, individuals' satis-
faction with the job-search process, number of offers received, job-offer
acceptance, and length of intended tenure. Similarly, Kluger and
Rothstein (1991) found that hiring decision and, to some extent, test type
influenced individuals' positive and negative coping mechanisms with
regard to the job search. Although they did not assess self-concept,
Schmitt and Coyle (1976) found that interviewers' characteristics and the
information conveyed during an interview were related to applicants'
intentions to pursue further job opportunities.
Outcomes after hiring. It is likely that experiences during the selec-
tion process also have an impact on attitudes and behavior of hired in-
dividuals on the job, and they may even shape an organization's climate.
Obviously, these outcomes are only relevant for individuals who have
been offered and have accepted jobs. At least three lines of research offer
support for this prediction. First, organizational justice research demon-
strates the relationship among justice perceptions, job attitudes, and job
behaviors (e.g., Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989;
Moorman, 1991). For example, Moorman (1991) found that justice percep-
tions associated with supervisors' treatment of subordinates were related
to supervisors' evaluations of subordinates' organizational citizenship be-
1993 Gilliland 727
haviors (OCB), which include altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness.

Extending this finding to the selection domain would lead to the predic-
tion that perceptions of procedural fairness, particularly fairness associ-
ated with explanation and interpersonal treatment, would predict future
OCB. If one receives courteous, honest, informative treatment during the
selection process, one may be more likely to exhibit these behaviors in the
workplace. More directly relevant to organizational justice of selection,
Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) found that perceptions of procedural
justice and an explanation for a drug-testing program were related to
work performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Al-
though this study assessed incumbents' perceptions of procedural justice,
a similar effect would be expected between applicants' reactions to a
selection process and later job performance.
Second, research examining realistic job previews has demonstrated
that providing applicants with realistic information about the nature of
the job will lead to small but significant increases in performance, orga-
nizational commitment, job satisfaction, and tenure (Premack & Wanous,
1985). Finally, individuals' initial impressions are formed early in the
information-acquisition process, and these initial impressions are often
resistant to change (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). The selection process can serve
as the first information an individual receives regarding an organiza-
tion's treatment of employees. If this person is hired, it seems reasonable
to expect that the initial impressions developed during the selection
process would have a substantial impact on later impressions of the or-
ganization and the job. This perspective is consistent with the Attraction-
Selection-Attrition model proposed to describe the etiology of organiza-
tional behavior, in general, and organizational climate more specifically
(Schneider, 1987). The fairness of the selection process may influence both
attraction to and attrition from an organization.
Proposition 26: Evaluations of selection process and out-

come fairness will have an impact on the work behavior
of a person who is hired, which is exhibited through
work performance, organizational citizenship behav-
iors, his or her attitudes such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, and the organizational cli-
mate.
Initial research indicates some support for the impact of selection-process

justice on job satisfaction and work performance (Gilliland, 1993), al-
though the results of this study were more complicated than Proposition
26 suggests. Clearly more research is needed before these links can be
considered as anything beyond research propositions.
It is important to note that the current model does not represent an
attempt to capture all of the variance in attitudes and behavior after a
person is hired, nor is it offered as an alternate explanation of the etiology
of these constructs. Rather, the goal of the current discussion is to high-
light the influence that individuals' reactions to the fairness of the selec-
tion process may have on their outcomes after they are hired.
CONCLUSIONS
The model of applicants' reactions to selection systems demonstrates

the importance of considering these reactions as a property of the selec-
tion process. This perspective is consistent with Herriot's (1989b) assertion
that selection research should consider more carefully the social pro-
cesses surrounding selection. Organizational justice theory provides both
the framework for examining procedural and distributive components of
selection reactions and a basis for generating research propositions. Al-
though fragmented, prior research on reactions to selection procedures
supported the importance of a number of the proposed components and
relationships in the model.
During the presentation of the model, a number of venues for future
research were developed. The following is a brief summary of some of the
most important research issues.
1. One of the foremost research needs is to examine the validity and importance of
the 10 procedural rules that are proposed to underlie applicants' reactions to the
fairness of a selection system. Researchers should determine whether these 10
rules capture the entire domain of procedural concerns, whether some of the
rules are not important to job applicants, and whether the rules could be re-
duced to a more succinct group.
2. Another issue related to the 10 procedural rules is the salience of these factors
under different selection situations. Some of the rules may be more important in
certain selection situations (e.g., two-way communication in selection inter-
views). Do other factors, such as rule violation, prior experiences, and stage in
the selection process, influence the salience of certain procedural rules?
3. In terms of distributive justice, researchers should examine the relationship of
applicants' performance expectations to their perceptions of equity and distrib-
utive justice. What are the relative influences of the hiring decision and per-
formance expectations on distributive justice?
4. Do equality and needs distributive justice rules have an influence on appli-
cants' perceptions of distributive fairness, and can the salience of these rules be
manipulated by presenting instances of discrimination or by highlighting indi-
vidual needs?
5. The relative influence of procedural and distributive factors on applicants' per-
ceptions of fairness should be examined, as should the interaction between
these factors. Does procedural justice moderate the relationship between dis-
tributive features and distributive fairness, and does distributive justice mod-
erate the relationship between procedural features and procedural fairness?
6. Finally, research is needed that links applicants' perceptions of procedural and
distributive fairness to preemployment and postemployment outcomes. Demon-
strating the links to important organizational outcomes will help establish the
importance of the study of applicants' perceptions of the fairness of selection
systems.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

mental social psychology. vol. 2: 267-299. New York: Academic Press.
1993 Gilliland 729
Adams, J. S., & Rosenbaum, W. E. 1962. The relationship of worker productivity to cognitive
dissonance about wage inequities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46: 161-164.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1: 177-198.
Anastasi, A. 1988. Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Arvey, R. D., Gordon, M. E., Massengill, D. P., & Mussio, S. J. 1975. Differential dropout
rates of minority and majority job candidates due to "time-lags" between selection
procedures. Personnel Psychology, 28: 175-180.
Arvey, R. D., & Sackett, P. R. 1993. Fairness in selection: Current developments and per-
spectives. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection: 171-202. San Francis-
co: Jossey-Bass.
Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. 1990. Motivational components of
test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43: 695-716.
Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. 1986. Justice in social relations. New York:
Plenum.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1: 43-55.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. 1988. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural
fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 676-685.
Boudreau, J. W., & Rynes, S. L. 1985. The role of recruitment in staff utility analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70: 354-366.
Brown, D. C. 1992. Soroka v. Dayton Hudson. Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 30(1):

28.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. 1976. Motivation theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy: 63-130. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Campion, J. E., & Arvey, R. D. 1989. Unfair discrimination in the employment interview. I
R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and prac-
tice: 61-72. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cascio, W. F., & Phillips, N. F. 1979. Performance testing: A rose among thorns? Personnel
Psychology, 32: 751-766.
Cohen, R. L. 1987. Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1: 19-
40.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. 1990. An experimental test of the impact of drug-testing
programs on potential job applicants' attitudes and intentions. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 75: 127-131.
Crosby, F., Burris, L., Censor, C., & MacKethan, E. R. 1986. Two rotten apples spoil the
justice barrel. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social
relations: 267-281. New York: Plenum.
Deutsch, M. 1975. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as
the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3): 137-149.
Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, P. 1981. Correlates of employee reactions to performance
appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 248-251.
Dodd, W. E. 1977. Attitudes toward assessment center programs. In J. L. Moses & W. C.

Byham (Eds.), Applying the assessment center method: 161-183. New York: Pergamon
Press.
Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. 1983. Role of self-esteem within the job search process. Journal
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1984. Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Folger, R. 1987. Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice Re-
search, 1: 143-159.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. 1985. Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel
systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3: 141-183.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.
Friedman, A., & Goodman, P. S. 1967. Wage inequity, self-qualifications, and productivity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3: 340-352.
Fryxell, G. E., & Gordon, M. E. 1989. Workplace justice and job satisfaction as predictors of
satisfaction with union and management. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 851-
866.
Gilliland, S. W. 1992. Fairness from the applicant's perspective: Reactions to employee se-
lection procedures. Unpublished manuscript.
Gilliland, S. W. 1993. Procedural and distributive justice: Reactions to a selection system.

Paper presented at the 8th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, San Francisco.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1987. Dimensions and characteristics of personnel man-
ager perceptions of effective drug-testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 40: 745-763.
Goodman, P. S. 1974. An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organiza-

tional Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 170-195.
Greenberg, J. 1982. Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations.
In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior: 389-435. New
York: Academic Press.
Greenberg, J. 1986a. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Jou

Greenberg, J. 1986b. The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In

H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations: 337-351.
New York: Plenum.
Greenberg, J. 1987a. Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the

means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 55-61.
Greenberg, J. 1987b. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 12: 9-22.
Greenberg, J. 1990a. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden

of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
Greenberg, J. 1990b. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16: 399-432.
Greenberg, J., & Tyler, T. R. 1987. Why procedural justice in organizations. Social Justice
Research, 1: 127-142.
Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. 1989. Fairness in employment testing: Validity generaliza
tion, minority issues, and the general aptitude test battery. Washington, DC: Nationa
Academy Press.
1993 Gilliland 731
Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. 1987. Intentionally favored, unintentionally
harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection of self-perceptions and self-
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 62-68.
Herriot, P. 1989a. Interactions with clients in personnel selection. In P. Herriot (Ed.), Assess-
ment and selection in organizations: 219-228. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Herriot, P. 1989b. Selection as a social process. In M. Smith & I. Robertson (Eds.), Advances
in selection and assessment: 171-187. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Huffcutt, A. 1990. Intelligence is not a panacea in personnel selection. The Industrial-

Organizational Psychologist, 27(3): 66-67.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job per-
formance. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 72-98.
Iles, P. A., & Robert, I. T. 1989. The impact of personnel selection procedures on candidates.
In P. Herriot (Ed.), Assessment and selection in organizations: 257-271. Chichester, En-
gland: Wiley.
Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W. 1977. Women as leaders: Performance evaluation as a function
of method of leader selection. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20:
149-157.
Jones, E. E., Rhodewalt, F., Berglas, S., & Skelton, J. A. 1981. Effects of strategic self-
presentation on subsequent self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41: 407-421.
Kanfer, R. 1990. Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M. D. Dun-

nette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol.
1: 75-170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kleiman, L. S., & Faley, R. H. 1988. Voluntary affirmative action and preferential treatment:
Legal and research implications. Personnel Psychology, 41: 481-496.
Kluger, A. N., & Rothstein, H. R. 1991. The influence of selection test type on applicant
reactions to employment testing. In R. R. Reilly (Chair), Perceived validity of selection
procedures: Implications for organizations. Symposium conducted at the 6th annual
conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1991. The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as
a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76: 698-707.
Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. 1978. Correlates of perceived fairness and accu-
racy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 751-754.
Lawler, E. E., III, Koplin, C. A., Young, T. F., & Fadem, J. A. 1968. Inequity reduction over
time in an induced overpayment situation. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 3: 253-268.
Lawler, E. E., III, & O'Gara, P. W. 1967. Effects of inequity produced by underpayment on
work output, work quality, and attitudes toward the work. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 51: 403-410.
Leung, K., & Li, W. 1990. Psychological mechanisms of process-control effects. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75: 613-620.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study
of fairness in social relationship. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27-55. New York: Plenum.
Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. 1986. A field study of job applicant interview perceptions,
alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39:
109-122.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Lounsbury, J. W., Bobrow, W., & Jensen, J. B. 1989. Attitudes toward employment testing:
Scale development, correlates, and "known-group" validation. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 20: 340-349.
Martin, C. L., & Nagao, D. H. 1989. Some effects of computerized interviewing on job appli-
cant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 72-80.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. 1982. Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to
success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 937-946.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. The relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal
Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. 1970. Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of self.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16: 148-156.
Murphy, K. R. 1986. When your top choice turns you down: Effects of rejected offers on utility
of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99: 133-138.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., III, & Prue, K. 1991. Influence of job characteristics on the
acceptability of employee drug testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 447-453.
Murphy, K. R., Thornton, G. C., III, & Reynolds, D. H. 1990. College students' attitudes to-
ward employee drug testing programs. Personnel Psychology, 43: 615-631.
Nacoste, R. B. 1990. Sources of stigma: Analyzing the psychology of affirmative action. Law
& Policy, 12: 175-195.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judg-
ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. 1985. A meta-analysis of realistic job review experiments.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 706-719.
Pritchard, R. D. 1969. Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 4: 176-211.
Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. 1989. Personnel selection methods. In M. Smith & I. Robertson
(Eds.), Advances in selection and assessment: 89-112. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. 1987. Pre-employment honesty testing: Fakability, reactions of
test takers, and company image. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1: 248-256.
Rynes, S. L. 1991. Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new re-
search directions. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology: 399-444. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rynes, S. L. 1993. Who's selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant atti-
tudes and behaviors. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organi-
zations: 240-274. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. 1990. Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational per-
spective. Academy of Management Review, 15: 286-310.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. 1991. The importance of recruitment in job choice:
A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44: 487-521.
Schmidt, F. L., Greenthal, A. L., Hunter, J. E., Berner, J. G., & Seaton, F. W. 1977. Job sample
v. paper-and-pencil trades technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes.
Personnel Psychology, 30: 187-197.
Schmidt, F. L., Urry, V. M., & Gugel, J. F. 1978. Computer assisted tailored testing: Exam-
inee reactions and evaluations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38: 265-
273.
1993 Gilliland 733
Schmit, M. J., & R

Psychology. 77: 629-637.
Schmitt, N. 1976. Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implicatio

the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29: 79-101.
Schmitt, N. 1989. Fairness in employee selection. In M. Smith & I. Robertson (Eds.), Advances
in selection and assessment: 131-153. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Schmitt, N., & Coyle, B. W. 1976. Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal
Schmitt, N., Ford, J. K., & Stults, D. M. 1986. Changes in self-perceived ability as a functio
of performance in an assessment centre. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59: 327-
335.
Schmitt, N., & Gilliland, S. W. 1992. Beyond differential prediction: Fairness in selection. In
D. M. Saunders (Ed.), New approaches to employee management: fairness in employee
selection, vol. 1: 21-46. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schmitt, N., Gilliland, S. W., Landis, R. S., & Devine, D. 1993. Computer-based testing
applied to selection of secretarial applicants. Personnel Psychology, 46: 149-165.
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. 1984. Metaanalyses of validity studies
published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Person-
nel Psychology, 37: 407-422.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Schuler, H. 1993. Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical re-
sults. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment:
Individual and organizational perspectives: 11-26. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwinger, T. 1986. The need principle of distributive justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen,
& J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations: 211-225. New York: Plenum.
Seymour, R. T. 1988. Why plaintiffs' counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully
challenge the theory of "validity generalization." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33:
331-364.
Sheppard, B. H., & Lewicki, R. J. 1987. Toward general principles of managerial fairn
Social Justice Research, 1: 161-176.
Simon, H. A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69:
99-118.
Smither, J. W., & Pearlman, K. 1991. Perceptions of the job-relatedness of selection proce
dures among college recruits and recruiting/employment managers. In R. R. Reilly
(Chair), Perceived validity of selection procedures: Implications for organizations. Sym
posium conducted at the 6th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Orga
nizational Psychology, St. Louis.
Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. 1993. Applic
reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46: 49-76.
Steiner, D. D., & Rain, J. S. 1989. Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in
performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 136-142.
Stone, D. L., & Kotch, D. A. 1989. Individuals' attitudes toward organizational drug testing
policies and practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 518-521.
Stone, E. F., & Stone, D. L. 1990. Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research find-
ings, and protection mechanisms. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Man-
agement, 8: 349-411.
Svenson, 0. 1979. Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavio

Human Performance. 23: 86-112.
Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. 1987. Organizational recruitment activities and applicants'
reactions at different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel Psychology, 40: 261-
285.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tversky, A. 1972. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79:

281-299.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of pro-
cedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational set-
tings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wanous, J. P. 1980. Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of new-

comers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weiner, B. 1985. An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychologi-

cal Review, 92: 548-573.
Wright, P. 1974. The harassed decision maker: Time pressure, distractions, and the use of
evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 555-561.
Stephen W. Gilliland received his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology

from Michigan State University. He is currently an assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Psychology, Louisiana State University. His research interests include ex-
tensions of organizational justice theories, motivational processes in work behavior
and decision making, and basic and applied study of decision processes.

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management The Academy of Management Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective

Author(s): Stephen W. Gilliland

THE PERCEIVED FAIRNESS OF SELECTION

A justice model of applicants' reactions to employment-selection sys-

Dominant concerns in the personnel selection literature are issues of

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE THEORY

Traditional discussions of organizational justice have emphasized

at examining fairness involved with the implementation of procedures

Authors of distributive justice theories propose that individuals will

Procedural justice theorists are concerned with the perceived fairness

dural justice, Leventhal (1980) approached the issue by identifying the

Integrating Procedural and Distributive Justice

This brief overview of justice literature highlights the following

A MODEL OF APPLICANTS' REACTIONS TO SELECTION SYSTEMS

Reactions to selection procedures have been studied from both the

(1992) provided an initial review of this literature, clearly an integration is

Formal Characteristics Reactions

According to the model presented in Figure 1, situational and per-

utive rule, in situations with increased salience of discrimination or ap-

Procedural Justice Rules

According to the perspective of procedural justice initiated by Lev-

Organizational Justice Applicant Reactions

Other possible rules:

a Notation for justice theories: L-Leventhal (1

cluded abstract items. In a second study, Smither and his colleagues

1990). Timeliness is also a rule of managerial fairness suggested by Shep-

research on performance evaluation demonstrates the importance of two-

finding that the correlation between perceptions of ease of faking an-

Proposition 1: The type of selection test is expected to

Proposition 2: Fairness reactions based on the proce-

As discussed, research indicates that drug-testing programs have greater

Proposition 3: Behavior of human resource personnel

Combination of procedural rules. Leventhal (1980) suggested that pro-

Proposition 4: The 10 procedural rules should explain

Proposition 5: The types of selection procedures experi-

salient than rule satisfaction. From a decision strategy perspective, non-

A third factor that is predicted to influence the weighting of proce-

Proposition 7: Prior experiences with different types of

increase the salience of the procedural rules associated

A final factor that may influence the weighting of procedural rules is

Proposition 8: The time at which perceived fairness is

Although researchers have not assessed the impact of stage of selection

Distributive Justice Rules

In the most general form, distributive justice theories are concerned

fine the recipients in selection situations, researchers have assessed dis-

The use of a self-referent in forming equity perceptions translates into

Where: 0c = current outcomes (receiving job offer)

inequity and guilt may include increasing one's self-perceived abilities,

Proposition 10: Perceptions of equity will emerge from

Proposition 11: Perceptions of underpayment inequity

Proposition 12: Perceptions of overpayment inequity that

Researchers of selection fairness have not considered many of these

Proposition 13: Violations of equality based on job-

Although researchers have not directly assessed this proposition, one

clear-cut example of discrimination (Crosby, Burris, Censor, & Mac-

Even though research on the salience of the equality distributive rule

Proposition 16: Special needs considerations will have a

Proposition 16 is likely somewhat simplistic because equity and equality