The personality basis of justice: The five‐factor model as an integrative model of personality and procedural fairness effects on cooperation

Abstract

Building upon the self‐based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005), the present study investigates the relationship between the five‐factor model (FFM) and cooperation. Study 1 (N = 56), an experiment conducted in the laboratory, and Study 2 (N = 116), a field study conducted in an organisational context, yielded a moderator effect between neuroticism and procedural fairness in explaining cooperation. Study 3 (N = 177) showed that this moderator effect was mediated by the self‐uncertainty and relational variables proposed by the self‐based model of cooperation. It is concluded that the FFM is useful in explaining cooperation and contributes to a better understanding of (procedural) fairness effects. Moreover, the necessity to build integrative, multi‐level models that combine core and surface aspects of personality to explain the effects of fairness on cooperation is elaborated upon. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords

personality scales and inventories organisational psychology social groups

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Asendorpf

J. B.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2003).Personality‐relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71,629–666.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986).The moderator mediator variable distinction in social‐psychological research—conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173–1182.

Campbell

J. D.

Trapnell

P. D.

Heine

S. J.

Katz

I. M.

Lavallee

L. F.

Lehman

D. R.

(1996).Self‐concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,141–156.

Colquitt

J. A.

Scott

B. A.

Judge

T. A.

Shaw

J. C.

(2006).Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100,110–127.

Cornelis

Van Hiel

De Cremer

(2008). Effects of self‐uncertainty and the relational self on cooperation: Test of a dual process account.Manuscript in preparation.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI‐R, professional manual: Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI‐R) and NEO five‐factor inventory (NEO‐FFI). Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

De Cremer

(2004).The influence of accuracy as a function of leader's bias: The role of trustworthiness in the psychology of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,293–304.

De Cremer

Alberts

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

10.

De Cremer

Blader

(2006).Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36,211–228.

11.

De Cremer

Sedikides

(2005).Self‐uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41,157–173.

12.

De Cremer

Sedikides

(2008).Where do I stand? Reputational implications of procedural fairness for personal and relational self‐esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30,1–10.

13.

De Cremer

Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 37, pp.151–218). New York, NY: Academic Press.

14.

De Cremer

van Knippenberg

(2004).Leader self‐sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self‐confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95,140–155.

15.

Dennis

J. J. A.

Penke

(in press).Neuroticism predicts reactions to cues of social inclusion. European Journal of Personality.DOI:10.1002/per.682.

16.

Digman

J. M.

(1990).Personality structure: Emergence of the five‐factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,417–440.

17.

Drenth

P. J. D.

Van Wieringen

C. W.

(1969).Verbale Aanleg Testserie, subtest Verbale Analogieën. [Verbal competence test series. The verbal analogy subtest] Lisse, The Netherlands, Swets.

18.

Dykman

B. J.

(1998).Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of a goal‐oriented approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,139–158.

19.

Greenberg

Colquitt

J. A.

(2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Hoekstra

H. A.

Ormel

De Fruyt

(1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten: NEO‐PI‐R & NEO‐FFI. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

21.

Kernis

M. H.

Greenier

K. D.

Herlocker

C. E.

Whisenhunt

C. R.

Abend

T. A.

(1997).Self‐perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The role of stability and level of self‐esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 22,845–854.

22.

Kernis

M. H.

Whisenhunt

C. R.

Warshull

S. B.

Greenier

K. D.

Berry

A. J.

Herlocker

C. E.

(1998).Multiple facets of self‐esteem and their relations to depressive symptoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,657–668.

23.

Leary

M. R.

Kelly

K. M.

Cottrell

C. A.

Schreindorfer

L. S.

(2001). Individual differences in the need to belong(unpublished manuscript). Winston‐Salem, NC: Wake Forest University.

24.

Leventhal

G. S.

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

25.

Marsh

H. W.

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Köller

Baumert

(2006).Integration of multidimensional self concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation and relations to well‐being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74,403–456.

26.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005).When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,852–863.

27.

Oleson

K. C.

Poehlmann

K. M.

Yost

J. H.

Lynch

M. E.

Arkin

R. M.

(2000).Subjective overachievement: Individual differences in self‐doubt and concern with performance. Journal of Personality, 68,491–524.

28.

Paunonen

S. V.

Ashton

M. C.

(2001).Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,524–539.

29.

Pickett

C. L.

Gardner

W. L.

Knowles

(2004).Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,1095–1107.

30.

Schneider

Smith

D. B.

Taylor

Fleenor

(1998).Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,462–470.

31.

Scott

B. A.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2007).Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual differences? An examination of equity sensitivity, exchange ideology, and the big five. Group and Organization Management, 32,290–325.

32.

Skarlicki

D. P.

Folger

Tesluk

(1999).Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42,100–108.

33.

Thau

Aquino

Wittek

(2007).An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,250–258.

34.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

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

35.

Van den Bos

(2001).Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,931–941.

36.

Van den Bos

Lind

E. A.

(2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 34, pp.1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

37.

Van den Bos

Vermunt

Wilke

(1997).Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,95–104.