Int.J. Behav. Med.

(2013) 20:265276
DOI 10.1007/s12529-012-9224-7

Organizational Justice and Psychological Distress

Among Permanent and Non-permanent Employees in Japan:
A Prospective Cohort Study
Akiomi Inoue & Norito Kawakami & Kanami Tsuno &
Kimiko Tomioka & Mayuko Nakanishi

Published online: 8 February 2012

# International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Abstract
Background Organizational justice has recently been introduced as a new concept as psychosocial determinants of
employee health, and an increase in precarious employment
is a challenging issue in occupational health. However, no
study investigated the association of organizational justice
with mental health among employees while taking into account employment contract.
Purpose The purpose of the present study was to investigate
the prospective association of organizational justice (procedural justice and interactional justice) with psychological distress by employment contract among Japanese employees.

A. Inoue (*)
Department of Mental Health, Institute of Industrial Ecological
Sciences, University of Occupational and Environmental Health,
1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishi-ku,
Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan
e-mail: akiomi@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp
N. Kawakami : K. Tsuno
Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine,
The University of Tokyo,
Tokyo, Japan
K. Tsuno
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,
Tokyo, Japan
K. Tomioka
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology,
Nara Medical University,
Kashihara, Japan
M. Nakanishi
Nakanishi Healthcare Office,
Yokohama, Japan

Methods A total of 373 males and 644 females from five

branches of a manufacturing company in Japan were surveyed. At baseline (August 2009), self-administered questionnaires, including the Organizational Justice Questionnaire
(OJQ), the K6 scale (psychological distress scale), the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R), and
other covariates, were used. After one-year follow-up (August
2010), the K6 scale was used again to assess psychological
distress. Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted
by sex and employment contract.
Results After adjusting for demographic characteristics,
psychological distress, and neuroticism at baseline, low
procedural justice was significantly associated with a higher
risk of psychological distress at follow-up among nonpermanent female employees, while no significant association of procedural justice or interactional justice with psychological distress at follow-up was observed among
permanent male or female employees. The results of nonpermanent male employees could not be calculated because
of small sample size.
Conclusions Low procedural justice may be an important
predictor of psychological distress among non-permanent
female employees.
Keywords Procedural justice . Interactional justice . Mental
health . Precarious employment . Longitudinal study

Introduction
Organizational justice has recently been introduced as a new
concept to complement psychosocial determinants of employee health [1] explained by the two well-known psychosocial job stress models: the job demands-control (JD-C) or

266

demand-control-support (DCS) model [2, 3] and the effort

reward imbalance (ERI) model [4].
Organizational justice consists of three components: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice.
Distributive justice refers to outcomes that are consistent
with implicit norms for allocation, such as equity or equality
[5]. Procedural justice refers to the capability to influence a
decision-making process, influence the outcome [6], or adhere to fair process criteria, i.e., consistency, lack of bias,
correctability, representation, accuracy, and ethicality [7].
Interactional justice is concerned with whether supervisors
treat their subordinates with respect and dignity and provide
rationales for their decisions [8]. Because distributive justice
is considered a product of fair decision processes achieved
through procedural justice and interactional justice [9], procedural justice and interactional justice are the primary
characteristics of organizational justice within a workplace
or organization. In addition, because the definition of distributive justice essentially overlaps with the ERI model,
research in the occupational health field has focused mainly
on procedural justice and interactional justice [10].
Previous prospective and cross-sectional studies in Europe
(mainly in Finland and UK) reported that lack of procedural
justice and interactional justice was associated with doctordiagnosed psychiatric disorders, such as depressive disorders
[1113], and self-reported psychiatric morbidity or psychological distress [1316]. In Japan, a similar association of
procedural justice and interactional justice with self-reported
psychological distress was observed [17, 18], while these
studies used a cross-sectional design.
A recent increase in precarious employment poses a
challenge to occupational health. Non-permanent employees, including part-time employees, contract employees, and
temporary employees, are often poorly paid, receive less
secure insurance, and are unprotected due to the globalization and labor market flexibility [19]. Previous studies
reported that precarious or non-permanent work was associated with poorer self-rated health [20], depressive symptoms, lower job satisfaction [21], and greater psychological
distress [22]. Moreover, non-permanent employees experience greater job insecurity compared with permanent
employees [23].
Organizational justice may be more important for health
and well-being among non-permanent employees. van den
Bos and Lind's [24] uncertainty management model
claims that uncertainty can be threatening to people because
they have a fundamental need to feel certain about a place to
which they belong and that people have a need either to
eliminate uncertainty or to find some way to make it tolerable and cognitively manageable. This model suggests that
people become more sensitive to fairness judgments when
they are in unclear or unprotected situations [2426], such as
those that non-permanent employees face, because fairness

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

judgments are an important way to reduce such uncertainty. This theoretical model has been supported by empirical findings [27]. In addition, previous experimental
studies of university students in the Netherlands indicated that affective and behavioral reactions to perceived
justice were greater among those with higher job insecurity
[24] or those in uncertain situations [25]. An observational
study also reported a greater association of organizational
justice with stress symptoms among employees with
high job insecurity compared with those with low job
insecurity in Finland [28]. From both the theory and
empirical findings, non-permanent employees, who tend
to be more exposed to uncertain situations including job
insecurity, may be more sensitive to organizational justice in terms of mental health. However, no epidemiologic study of a working population has investigated the
association of organizational justice with psychological
distress stratified by employment contract.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the
prospective association of procedural justice and interactional justice with psychological distress by employment
contract among Japanese employees. It was hypothesized
that low procedural justice and low interactional justice at
baseline might be associated with psychological distress at
follow-up, and the association might be greater for nonpermanent rather than permanent employees. The present
study adjusted for neurotic personality trait, which may
affect both self-reported organizational justice and psychological distress [29]. Furthermore, the present study tested
the mediating role of the JD-C (or DCS) and ERI models in
the association of organizational justice with psychological
distress, which are theoretically hypothesized [9, 24]. While
it is still controversial, previous studies have reported sex
difference in the effect of organizational justice on psychological distress [1416]; therefore, the analyses were conducted separately for males and females.

Methods
Participants
A prospective study of employees from five branches of a
manufacturing listed company located in the Kanto (east
coast) region of Japan was conducted from August 2009 to
August 2010. According to its corporate social responsibility report, the company under the survey has a corporate
culture that treats employees equally regardless of their
employment contract. The data were collected using a selfadministered questionnaire in Japanese, which included
scales on organizational justice, psychological distress, neuroticism, other job stressors, and demographic characteristics. At baseline (August 2009), all employees (N01,279)

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

were invited to participate in this study. Before collecting

the data using the self-administered questionnaire, participants were assured that their participation is voluntary, and
the information they provide is confidential. A total of 1,277
questionnaires were returned in sealed envelopes. Twentytwo out of 1,277 employees were excluded because they
were working on a special re-employment contract. Furthermore, 38 employees were also excluded because the information on their employment contract could not be obtained.
Thus, the total number of eligible employees for one-year
follow-up was 1,217. Because 80 out of 1,217 employees
were transferred out of the Kanto region, 22 employees took
a leave of absence (i.e., sick leave, maternity leave, or
childcare leave), six employees retired, and one employee
died during the one-year follow-up period, the total number
of eligible employees for the follow-up survey was 1,108
(August 2010). Out of 1,108 employees, a total of 1,106
follow-up questionnaires were returned in sealed envelopes.
After excluding 89 employees who had at least one missing
response for variables relevant to this study, a total of 1,017
employees (373 males and 644 females) were analyzed. No
significant difference occurred in justice evaluations, the
rate of non-permanent employees, or psychological distress
between eligible employees (n 01,017) and ineligible
employees because of having at least one missing response
(n089). Detailed characteristics of participants are shown in
Table 1. Study purposes and procedures were explained to
the employees prior to the initiation of the study, and written
informed consent was obtained from the employees prior to
the initiation of the study. The Ethics Committee of the
Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo
reviewed and approved the aims and procedures of this study
(No. 2580).
Measures
Organizational Justice
The organizational justice scale [9, 14, 30], sometimes
known as the Organizational Justice Questionnaire (OJQ),
was used to assess organizational justice. Moorman [9]
developed the original OJQ, and its modified version [14]
has been widely used in research on organizational justice
and health [1115, 17]. The OJQ consists of a seven-item
scale assessing procedural justice and a six-item scale
assessing interactional justice both measured on a fivepoint Likert type scale ranging from 10strongly disagree
to 50strongly agree. The former scale measures the degree
of provision of relevant information to employees and the
consistency of decision-making policy in the workplace,
while the latter scale measures the degree of fairness and
consideration of respondents' supervisors. A total score for
each OJQ subscale was calculated by averaging item scores.

267

In this sample, Cronbach's coefficients were 0.88 for

procedural justice and 0.94 for interactional justice. According to some previous studies [12, 16], the participants were
classified into tertiles (high, moderate, and low) according
to each subscale score at baseline.
Psychological Distress
The K6 scale [31, 32] was used to assess psychological
distress. The K6 scale, developed by Kessler et al. [31],
consists of six items measuring the levels of psychological
distress on a five-point Likert type scale ranging from 00
none of the time to 40all of the time (the range of the scale
score, 024). In this sample, Cronbach's coefficients
were 0.88 at baseline and 0.90 at follow-up. Participants
were dichotomized into those with psychological distress
(a total K6 score of 5 or more) and those without psychological distress (04 score), using a recommended cut-off point
[33].
Employment Contract
Information about employment contract was obtained from
the personnel data of the company under the survey.
According to the original information, employment contract
was classified into five groups: manager, regular employee,
contract employee, temporary employee, and others. These
were dichotomized into permanent employee (i.e., manager
and regular employee) and non-permanent employee (i.e.,
contract employee, temporary employee, and others). Regarding non-permanent employees' employment relationship, contract employees are employed by the company in
which they work, whereas temporary employees are
employed by a temporary agency. In more than 70% of the
companies in Japan, the contract period for non-permanent
employees is less than one year, while they are allowed to
renew the contract [34]. Non-permanent employees are
more easily dismissed [35].
Other Covariates
Other covariates included demographic characteristics (i.e.,
age, education, marital status, chronic physical conditions,
and occupation at baseline, and life events in the past
12 months at follow-up), neuroticism, and other job stressors (i.e., job demands, job control, social support at work,
and ERI).
Demographic characteristics, other than occupation, were
assessed by the self-administered questionnaire. Age was
classified into four groups: 50 years old or more, 40
49 years old, 3039 years old, and 2029 years old. Education was dichotomized into some college or higher (i.e.,
more than 12 years) and senior high school or less (i.e.,

268

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

Table 1 Demographic characteristics, neuroticism, psychological distress, organizational justice, and job stressors at baseline and life events in the
past 12 months and psychological distress at one-year follow-up among eligible employees for the present study
Characteristics

Baseline
Age
50 years old or more
4049 years old
3039 years old
2029 years old
Education
More than 12 years
12 years or less
Marital status
Currently married
Never married
Divorced/widowed
Chronic physical conditions
Any
None
Occupation
Administrator/clerk
Quality assurance/after service
Sales support staff
Sales/sales engineer
Call talker
Others
Employment contract (original)
Manager
Regular employee
Contract employee
Temporary employee
Others
Neuroticism (EPQ-R)

Male (n0373)
Permanent employee
(n0365)

Non-permanent employee
(n08)

Permanent employee
(n0161)

Non-permanent employee
(n0483)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

n (%)

40.8 (7.61)

39.8 (12.2)

n (%)

36.0 (7.44)

n (%)

33.6 (6.25)

1
2
3
2

(12.5)
(25.0)
(37.5)
(25.0)

3 (1.9)
54 (33.5)
65 (40.4)
39 (24.2)

12 (2.5)
55 (11.4)
278 (57.6)
138 (28.6)

312 (85.5)
53 (14.5)

6 (75.0)
2 (25.0)

154 (95.7)
7 (4.3)

427 (88.4)
56 (11.6)

285 (78.1)

3 (37.5)

55 (34.2)

156 (32.3)

70 (19.2)
10 (2.7)

4 (50.0)
1 (12.5)

96 (59.6)
10 (6.2)

292 (60.5)
35 (7.2)

19 (5.2)
346 (94.8)

(0.0)
8 (100.0)

7 (4.3)
154 (95.7)

8 (1.7)
475 (98.3)

102 (27.9)
13 (3.6)
(0.0)
233 (63.8)
17 (4.7)
(0.0)

1
2
2
1

(25.0)
(0.0)
(12.5)
(25.0)
(25.0)
(12.5)

75 (46.6)
1 (0.6)
13 (8.1)
37 (23.0)
35 (21.7)
(0.0)

45 (9.3)
3 (0.6)
224 (46.4)
8 (1.7)
194 (40.2)
9 (1.9)

170 (46.6)
195 (53.4)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)

5
2
1

(0.0)
(0.0)
(62.5)
(25.0)
(12.5)

13 (8.1)
148 (91.9)
(0.0)
(0.0)
(0.0)

5.63 (4.21)
110 (30.1)
93 (25.5)
162 (44.4)

4.64 (4.40)

5.47 (3.13)
3 (37.5)
2 (25.0)
3 (37.5)

5.63 (5.48)
152 (41.6)
213 (58.4)

3.55 (0.66)
4.14 (0.69)
34.1 (5.45)
74.2 (8.63)
24.8 (3.27)
0.58 (0.29)

n (%)

36 (9.9)
205 (56.2)
77 (21.1)
49 (12.9)

5.22 (3.38)

High (812)
Moderate (57)
Low (04)
Psychological distress (K6)
Distressed (524)
Not distressed (04)
Job stressors
Procedural justice (OJQ)
Interactional justice (OJQ)
Job demands (JCQ)
Job control (JCQ)
Social support at work (JCQ)
Effortreward imbalance (ERIQ)

Female (n0644)

(0.50)
(0.71)
(4.53)
(9.07)
(6.61)
(0.60)

5.18 (5.00)

148 (30.6)
162 (33.5)
173 (35.8)
5.23 (4.73)

67 (41.6)
94 (58.4)
3.42
3.97
33.3
70.5
24.1
0.57

(0.67)
(0.81)
(5.18)
(10.5)
(3.58)
(0.25)

(0.0)
(0.0)
(45.8)
(54.0)
(0.2)

5.80 (3.24)
49 (30.4)
48 (29.8)
64 (39.8)

3 (37.5)
5 (62.5)
3.55
3.96
33.8
69.0
24.6
0.70

221
261
1

221 (45.8)
262 (54.2)
3.40 (0.72)
3.86 (0.80)
33.2 (5.37)
65.7 (9.06)
24.6 (3.56)
0.56 (0.29)

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

269

Table 1 (continued)
Characteristics

One-year follow-up
Life events in the past 12 months
Any
None
Psychological distress (K6)
Distressed (524)
Not distressed (04)

Male (n0373)

Female (n0644)

Permanent employee
(n0365)

Non-permanent employee
(n08)

Permanent employee
(n0161)

Non-permanent employee
(n0483)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

n (%)

225 (61.6)
140 (38.4)
4.62 (4.60)

n (%)

6 (75.0)
2 (25.0)
7.12 (4.67)

142 (38.9)
223 (61.1)

n (%)

83 (51.6)
78 (48.4)
5.15 (4.78)

6 (75.0)
2 (25.0)

n (%)

263 (54.5)
220 (45.5)
5.86 (5.00)

73 (45.3)
88 (54.7)

244 (50.5)
239 (49.5)

EPQ-R Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, OJQ Organizational Justice Questionnaire, JCQ Job Content Questionnaire, ERIQ Effort
Reward Imbalance Questionnaire

12 years or less). Marital status was classified into three

groups: currently married, never married, and divorced or
widowed. Chronic physical conditions, assessed by the
multiple answers allowed question, were defined as a presence of any of the 22 chronic physical conditions, including
circulatory, gastro-intestinal, neurological, musculoskeletal,
and malignant diseases. Life events in the past 12 months,
assessed by the multiple answers allowed for the question,
were defined as experiencing work-related (e.g., promotion,
transfer, and work-related problems), individual (e.g., disease, injury, marriage, divorce, move, and traffic violation),
or family (e.g., disease or death of a family member) life
events. Occupation was classified into six groups using the
original classification of occupation by the company under
the survey: administrator/clerk, quality assurance/after service worker, sales support staff (showroom sales staff), sales/
sales engineer, call talker, and others.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQR) [36, 37] was used to assess neuroticism using 12 items
measured on a two-point Likert type scale ranging from 00
no to 10yes (the range of the scale score, 012). In this
sample, the Cronbach's coefficient was 0.82. The participants were classified into tertiles according to the EPQ-R
score at baseline.
The 22-item version of the Job Content Questionnaire
(JCQ) [38, 39] was used to assess job demands, job control,
and social support at work. The EffortReward Imbalance
Questionnaire (ERIQ) [40, 41] was used to assess ERI. The
JCQ consists of job demands scale (five items, response
range 1248, Cronbach's 00.67), job control scale (nine
items, response range 2496, Cronbach's 00.73), and social support at work scale (i.e., co-worker support and
supervisor support) (eight items, response range 832,
Cronbach's 00.86). The ERIQ [40] consists of a six-item
extrinsic effort scale (response range 630, Cronbach's 0

0.87) and an 11-item extrinsic reward scale (response range

1155, Cronbach's 00.87). In the present study, effort/
reward ratio (response range 0.25.0) was used to measure
the degree of ERI [40]. The participants were classified into
tertiles according to the job demands score, job control
score, social support at work score, or effort/reward ratio
at baseline.

Statistical Analysis
The participants were classified into four groups based on
sex (males or females) and employment contract (permanent
employees or non-permanent employees). Using the high
procedural justice or interactional justice group as a reference, a series of multiple logistic regression analyses were
utilized to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) of psychological
distress at follow-up (defined as having a score of five or
more on the K6 scale) [33] for each group, as well as the
95% confidence intervals (CIs), among those with moderate
or low procedural justice or interactional justice. The analyses
were adjusted first for demographic characteristics (Model 1),
then for psychological distress at baseline (Model 2), and
subsequently for neuroticism (Model 3). Furthermore, as
additional analyses, the model additionally adjusted for other
job stressors (i.e., job demands, job control, social support at
work, and ERI) (Model 4) was analyzed to test the mediating
role of the JD-C (or DCS) and ERI models. In a series of
analyses, a linear trend test was also conducted to examine the
doseresponse relationship of procedural justice and interactional justice at baseline with psychological distress at followup. Furthermore, the statistical significance of the interaction
of procedural justice and interactional justice with employment contract was tested to determine if the effects of procedural justice and interactional justice on psychological distress

270

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

at follow-up differed by employment contract. As sensitivity

analyses, similar analyses, other than Model 2, were conducted after excluding those who experienced psychological
distress at baseline (i.e., 218 males and 356 females were
analyzed). The level of significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).
The statistical analyses were conducted using PASW Statistics
18 for Windows.

Results
Among permanent male employees, there was no significant
association of organizational justice with psychological distress
at follow-up after adjusting for demographic characteristics and
psychological distress at baseline and for neuroticism (Models
2 and 3) (Table 2). Unfortunately, ORs among non-permanent
male employees could not be calculated because of small
sample size (n08).
Among permanent female employees, after adjusting for
demographic characteristics and psychological distress at baseline and for neuroticism (Models 2 and 3), there was no
significant association of organizational justice with psychological distress at follow-up (Table 3). On the other hand,
among non-permanent female employees, low procedural justice and low interactional justice were significantly associated
with psychological distress at follow-up after adjusting for
demographic characteristics, subsequently for psychological
distress at baseline, and for neuroticism (Models 13).

The pattern of the association of procedural justice and

interactional justice with psychological distress at
follow-up was significantly or marginally significantly
different between permanent female employees and nonpermanent female employees after adjusting for demographic characteristics, psychological distress at baseline,
and neuroticism (Model 3) (p for interaction00.088 for procedural justice and 0.019 for interactional justice).
After additionally adjusting for other job stressors (Model
4), the associations observed in Model 3 were attenuated;
however, the association of procedural justice remained significant among non-permanent female employees.
Results from the sensitivity analyses (i.e., excluding those
who experienced psychological distress at baseline) were quite
similar to the main analyses, whereas the statistical significance of the associations and interaction terms was slightly
reduced because of the small sample size (Tables 4 and 5).

Discussion
In the present study, low procedural justice and low interactional justice were significantly associated with psychological distress at follow-up among non-permanent female employees
after adjusting for demographic characteristics, subsequently
for psychological distress at baseline, and for neuroticism
(Models 13). After additionally adjusting for other job stressors (Model 4), procedural justice was still significantly

Table 2 Association of organizational justice at baseline with psychological distress at one-year follow-up among Japanese permanent male
employees (n0365): multiple logistic regression analysis
Organizational justice

No. of case (%)

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model 1a

Procedural justice
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Interactional justice
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)
Test for linear trend

Model 2b

Model 3c

Model 4d

118

34 (28.8)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

163
84

63 (38.7)
45 (53.6)

1.49 (0.882.53)
2.76 (1.505.08)
p00.001

1.01 (0.551.84)
1.32 (0.652.65)
p00.454

1.07 (0.581.96)
1.35 (0.662.76)
p00.427

1.08 (0.572.02)
1.23 (0.562.69)
p00.609

154
141
70

45 (29.2)
59 (41.8)
38 (54.3)

1.00
1.91 (1.153.17)
2.89 (1.575.31)
p<0.001

1.00
1.64 (0.932.91)
1.21 (0.602.46)
p00.390

1.00
1.76 (0.983.16)
1.32 (0.642.72)
p00.275

1.00
1.72 (0.893.32)
1.19 (0.512.75)
p00.561

Psychological distress was defined as having a score of 5 or more on the K6 scale. Odds ratios among non-permanent employees could not be
calculated because of small sample size (n08)
a

Adjusted for age, education, marital status, chronic physical conditions, and occupation at baseline and life events in the past 12 months at follow-up

Additionally adjusted for psychological distress at baseline

Additionally adjusted for neuroticism at baseline

Additionally adjusted for job demands, job control, social support at work, and effortreward imbalance at baseline

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

271

Table 3 Association of organizational justice at baseline with psychological distress at one-year follow-up among Japanese female employees by
employment contract (161 permanent employees and 483 non-permanent employees): multiple logistic regression analysis
Organizational justice:

Procedural justice
Permanent employee
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Non-permanent employee
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Interactional justice
Permanent employee
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)
Test for linear trend
Non-permanent employee
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)
Test for linear trend

No. of case (%)

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model 1a

Model 2b

Model 3c

Model 4d

33
78
50

11 (33.3)
36 (42.6)
26 (52.0)

1.00
2.50 (0.976.42)
3.40 (1.219.52)
p00.025

1.00
2.09 (0.735.97)
1.67 (0.525.41)
p00.454

1.00
2.08 (0.706.22)
1.50 (0.455.06)
p00.609

1.00
2.00 (0.586.96)
1.49 (0.356.34)
p00.684

117
215

40 (34.2)
101 (47.0)

1.00
1.71 (1.062.77)

1.00
1.45 (0.842.49)

1.00
1.49 (0.842.63)

1.00
1.30 (0.712.38)

151

103 (68.2)

4.50 (2.637.70)
p<0.001

2.96 (1.625.39)
p<0.001

3.01 (1.605.67)
p00.001

2.65 (1.295.46)
p00.008

61
50
50

24 (39.3)
26 (52.0)
23 (46.0)

1.00
2.24 (0.955.28)
1.52 (0.663.53)
p00.308

1.00
2.20 (0.825.92)
0.76 (0.282.05)
p00.669

1.00
2.06 (0.755.71)
0.67 (0.241.88)
p00.506

1.00
3.39 (0.9012.7)
1.04 (0.274.02)
p00.825

151
154
178

62 (41.4)
72 (46.8)
110 (61.8)

1.00
1.20 (0.751.92)
2.57 (1.614.12)
p<0.001

1.00
0.84 (0.491.46)
1.97 (1.153.38)
p00.011

1.00
0.95 (0.531.67)
1.90 (1.083.35)
p00.022

1.00
0.88 (0.461.68)
1.49 (0.743.04)
p00.213

Psychological distress was defined as having a score of 5 or more on the K6 scale

a

Adjusted for age, education, marital status, chronic physical conditions, and occupation at baseline and life events in the past 12 months at follow-up

Additionally adjusted for psychological distress at baseline

Additionally adjusted for neuroticism at baseline

Additionally adjusted for job demands, job control, social support at work, and effortreward imbalance at baseline

associated with psychological distress at follow-up. The analyses of those who did not experience psychological distress at
baseline revealed a similar pattern for procedural justice.
Among permanent male and female employees, no significant
association of procedural justice or interactional justice with
psychological distress at follow-up was observed after adjusting for psychological distress at baseline, neuroticism, and
other job stressors (Models 24) or in the analyses limited to
those who did not experience psychological distress at baseline.
Low procedural justice and low interactional justice were
significantly associated with psychological distress at followup among non-permanent female employees. These associations were greater than that for permanent female employees.
These findings are consistent with the uncertainty management
model [24], which claims that people are particularly sensitive

to justice-relevant information when they feel uncertain. For

non-permanent female employees, who are expected to face
uncertain situations more frequently, lack of organizational
justice in the workplace may reduce their potential to control
the uncertainties and thus may influence subsequent psychological distress [42] more strongly than among permanent
female employees. The present findings support our hypothesis and extend the applicability of the uncertainty management
model into non-permanent employees, at least among female
employees. These findings are also consistent with a previous
epidemiologic finding reporting greater association of organizational justice with stress symptoms among employees with
high job insecurity [28] and with experimental studies of
university students reporting that the association of perceived
justice with employee well-being is greater under higher job

272

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

Table 4 Association of organizational justice at baseline with psychological distress at one-year follow-up among Japanese permanent male
employees with no psychological distress at baseline (n0213): multiple logistic regression analysis
Organizational justice:

Procedural justice
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Interactional justice
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)

No. of case (%)

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model 1a

Model 3b

Model 4c

89
93
31

18 (20.2)
15 (16.1)
7 (22.6)

1.00
0.73 (0.321.66)
1.00 (0.342.96)
p00.814

1.00
0.84 (0.352.03)
1.37 (0.434.34)
p00.749

1.00
0.85 (0.332.18)
1.45 (0.385.51)
p00.749

110
84
19

18 (16.4)
18 (21.4)
4 (21.1)

1.00
1.68 (0.763.70)
1.62 (0.446.01)

1.00
2.00 (0.854.70)
2.39 (0.619.39)

1.00
1.74 (0.654.63)
2.47 (0.4713.0)

p00.243

p00.093

p00.210

Test for linear trend

Psychological distress was defined as having a score of 5 or more on the K6 scale. Odds ratios among non-permanent employees could not be
calculated because of small sample size (n05)
a

Adjusted for age, education, marital status, chronic physical conditions, and occupation at baseline and life events in the past 12 months at follow-up

Additionally adjusted for neuroticism at baseline

Additionally adjusted for job demands, job control, social support at work, and effortreward imbalance at baseline

insecurity or in uncertain situations [24, 25]. Particularly,

among non-permanent female employees, the association of
procedural justice with psychological distress seems independent of other job stressors as well as psychological distress at
baseline and neuroticism. A similar association was also observed for those who did not experience psychological distress
at baseline. The findings are partly consistent with a previous
study, which found a significant association of low procedural
justice with doctor-diagnosed depression among females after
adjusting for job demands, job control, social support at work,
and mental distress at baseline [11]. The present study expanded this evidence into the working population in Japan and
particularly among non-permanent female employees. It is
suggested that low procedural justice is a strong predictor of
subsequent psychological distress, and the effect may be more
prominent for non-permanent employees than for permanent employees, at least among females. Non-permanent
employees are easily dismissed [35] and often have difficulty
to find a permanent job [43] and thus may feel that their jobs
are insecure [20], depending on the company's policy and
decisions. To improve their mental health, non-permanent
employees may benefit more from a fair and open decisionmaking style of a company or workplace. However, it is not
clear from the present study whether the findings can be
generalized to non-permanent male employees since the pattern could not be analyzed due to the small number of nonpermanent male employees in this sample. Further study is
needed to replicate these findings among males.
Interactional justice was also prospectively associated
with psychological distress at follow-up among non-

permanent female employees. However, the association

was greatly attenuated after additionally adjusting for other
job stressors. Fair and respectful attitude of supervisors
could also be important for non-permanent employees,
while other job stressors, possibly social support at work
and ERI [9, 44], seem to mediate the effect of interactional
justice on psychological distress at follow-up. The analyses
of non-permanent female employees who did not experience
psychological distress at baseline revealed that the association of interactional justice with psychological distress at
follow-up was not significant. Interactional justice focuses
on the (un)fair treatment from supervisors, which may be a
daily job stressor and cause an immediate increase in psychological distress. Therefore, a large part of participants
who perceived interactional justice as low already had
higher psychological distress (i.e., having a score of five
or more on the K6 scale) at baseline and might be excluded
from the sensitivity analyses of those without psychological
distress at baseline. This may explain the non-significant
association of interactional justice with psychological distress at follow-up among non-permanent female employees
who did not have psychological distress at baseline.
When excluding those who experienced psychological distress at baseline, the association of low organizational justice
with psychological distress at follow-up was greater for permanent female employees compared with non-permanent female
employees, while the association among permanent female
employees and the interaction with employment contract
among females were not significant. This finding is not consistent with the uncertainty management model or the one

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

273

Table 5 Association of organizational justice at baseline with psychological distress at one-year follow-up among Japanese female employees with no
psychological distress at baseline by employment contract (94 permanent employees and 262 non-permanent employees): multiple logistic regression analysis
Organizational justice:

Procedural justice
Permanent employee
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Non-permanent employee
High (4.005.00)
Moderate (3.293.86)
Low (1.003.14)
Test for linear trend
Interactional justice
Permanent employee
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)
Test for linear trend
Non-permanent employee
High (4.505.00)
Moderate (4.004.33)
Low (1.003.83)
Test for linear trend

No. of case (%)

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model 1a

Model 3b

Model 4c

24
50
20

6 (25.0)
13 (26.0)
6 (30.0)

1.00
1.38 (0.365.34)
3.70 (0.6820.1)
p00.146

1.00
2.33 (0.4811.3)
5.25 (0.8233.6)
p00.080

1.00
2.60 (0.4016.9)
4.34 (0.3751.7)
p00.230

82
124

17 (20.7)
35 (28.2)

1.00
1.72 (0.853.44)

1.00
1.91 (0.923.98)

1.00
1.76 (0.783.96)

56

19 (33.9)

2.42 (1.075.48)
p00.031

2.84 (1.196.75)
p00.017

2.76 (1.017.55)
p00.048

41
31
22

10 (24.4)
9 (29.0)
6 (27.3)

1.00
1.91 (0.517.26)
2.09 (0.469.40)
p00.299

1.00
2.45 (0.5311.3)
2.35 (0.5110.9)
p00.237

1.00
3.94 (0.4534.4)
4.69 (0.4154.1)
p00.221

101
79
82

27 (26.7)
17 (21.5)
27 (32.9)

1.00
0.70 (0.341.46)
1.51 (0.762.99)
p00.275

1.00
0.84 (0.391.80)
1.61 (0.783.30)
p00.210

1.00
0.68 (0.281.68)
1.10 (0.432.78)
p00.758

Psychological distress was defined as having a score of 5 or more on the K6 scale

a

Adjusted for age, education, marital status, chronic physical conditions, and occupation at baseline and life events in the past 12 months at follow-up

Additionally adjusted for neuroticism at baseline

Additionally adjusted for job demands, job control, social support at work, and effortreward imbalance at baseline

observed among all female respondents after adjusting for

psychological distress at baseline. However, the finding was
unstable, with a wide range of 95% CIs, mainly because of the
relatively small number of respondents. To replicate this finding
and to investigate subgroup differences in a way people react to
organizational justice based on different psychological statuses,
a larger-scale prospective study is needed in the future.
Among permanent male employees, low procedural justice and low interactional justice were non-significantly
associated with slightly increased ORs of psychological
distress at follow-up after adjusting for demographic characteristics, psychological distress at baseline, and neuroticism. Similar patterns were observed when excluding those
who experienced psychological distress at baseline. While
the association was not statistically significant, the finding is
consistent with previous observations of the association of

lack of procedural justice and interactional justice with

psychiatric morbidity and psychological distress in Europe
[1316] and Japan [17, 18]. The present non-significant
findings are possibly attributable to the small sample size
of the present study. Compared with the permanent female
employees, the association of procedural justice with psychological distress at follow-up was smaller among the
males. Although sex differences in sensitivity to procedural
justice in work organizations are inconclusive [4548], in
the literature on sex differences, Cross and Madson [49]
argued that females are more relationally oriented than
males. Furthermore, research on relational orientation and
procedural justice demonstrated that individuals high in relational orientation tend to be more sensitive to injustice than
individuals low in relational orientation [50, 51]. This difference of relational orientation between males and females may

274

explain the present findings. Furthermore, considering the

current Japanese situation, female employees tend to engage
in supportive jobs at workplace with male dominant culture of
Japanese companies even if they are in a permanent position
and thus may have lower levels of control over work; therefore, a smaller chance to participate in the workplace decision
making. This may also lead to sex differences in sensitivity to
procedural justice. Further study is needed to replicate these
findings among non-permanent employees.
As stated earlier, after additionally adjusting for other job
stressors (i.e., job demands, job control, social support at
work, and ERI) (Model 4), the association of procedural
justice with psychological distress at follow-up was attenuated but still significant among non-permanent female
employees. This pattern did not change after excluding
those who experienced psychological distress at baseline.
This finding suggests that job demands, job control, social
support at work, or ERI, to a small extent, mediate the
effects of procedural justice on psychological distress, as
previously reported [1315, 17]. Because procedural justice
focuses on the opportunity given to employees to voice their
opinions in their organization and on the justice of the
processes that lead to decision outcomes [6, 9], it theoretically affects psychological distress mediated by job control
(or decision authority) and ERI, which is synonym of distributive justice [10]. On the other hand, because procedural
justice captures a broad range of (un)fair treatment at work
[24], a large part of procedural justice may affect psychological distress directly or through other kinds of job stressors which were not obtained in the present study, such as
role ambiguity [52], rather than job demands, job control,
social support at work, or ERI. On the other hand, the
association of interactional justice, rather than procedural
justice, with psychological distress at follow-up was further
attenuated and no longer significant after adjusting for other
job stressors. This finding suggests that the mediating
effects of job demands, job control, social support at work,
and ERI on the association of interactional justice with
psychological distress are greater than that of procedural
justice. Because interactional justice focuses on the fairness
attitude of supervisors, it may capture narrower range of
(un)fair treatment at work than procedural justice, and thus,
a large part of interactional justice may affect psychological
distress mediated possibly by social support at work and ERI
theoretically [9, 44].
Possible limitations of the present study must be considered. First, the follow-up rate was quite high, which supports the validity of the present study. However, because
supervisors collected each questionnaire in sealed envelope,
it is also possible that some respondents reluctantly
responded to the follow-up even though all employees were
told that their participation was voluntary and that supervisors cannot open the sealed envelopes. This process of

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

collection of questionnaires may provide imprecise information or lack of due consideration, which could result in
underestimation of the association of organizational justice
with psychological distress. The present study may fail to
highlight some important associations. Second, because the
distribution of job class and occupation is different among
subgroups, the present findings may be confounded by job
class and occupation even though these were statistically
adjusted. Third, sample size was small in the present study,
which may have reduced the statistical significance of the
results and makes it difficult to examine the association of
organizational justice with psychological distress separately
for contract employees and temporary employees. Furthermore, the sample size of non-permanent male employees
was too small, which made it impossible to compare the
effect of organizational justice on psychological distress by
sex and employment contract. Fourth, the present sample of
non-permanent employees did not include part-time
employees. Fifth, the present sample came from one particular manufacturing company in Japan, and all participants
were white-collar workers. Therefore, generalization of the
findings should be done with caution. Sixth, organizational
justice, psychological distress, and other job stressors were
assessed by a self-report, which may result in bias due to a
common response style. Seventh, the follow-up period of
the present study (i.e., one year) was shorter than the previous prospective studies in Europe (i.e., more than 2 years)
[1113, 15, 16]. Therefore, comparison of the present study
with the previous studies should be done with caution, while
the present study provided evidence of the relatively shortterm effect of organizational justice on psychological distress. Finally, the outcome of the present study is psychological distress, which is a popular measure of mental health
but not necessarily related to clinically significant mental
health impairment. To provide more concrete evidence for
the association of organizational justice with mental health
among Japanese employees, study focusing on more severe
mental health outcome, such as major depressive disorders,
needs to be conducted in Japan.
The present study provided evidence that low procedural
justice increases a risk of psychological distress among nonpermanent female employees in Japan, independently of
neurotic personality traits and other job stressors. The present findings suggest that establishing a fair and open
decision-making style in a company or workplace as well
as fair and respectful attitude of supervisors is effective for
prevention of psychological distress or mental illness, especially among non-permanent female employees. It may also
be important to focus on procedural justice at the workplace
in an intervention program targeting specifically mental
health among non-permanent female employees. Further
larger-scale research should investigate the effects of organizational justice on other indicators of mental health, such

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

as depressive disorders or work engagement, among various

subgroups of employees.
Acknowledgements The present study was supported by a Grant-inAid for Scientific Research (A) 2009 and 2010 (No. 20240062) from the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
The preparation of the manuscript was partially supported by a Grant-inAid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (Research in a Proposed
Research Area) 2011 (No. 4102-21119001) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.

References
1. Bourbonnais R. Are job stress models capturing important dimensions of the psychosocial work environment? Occup Environ Med.
2007;64(10):6401.
2. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2):285308.
3. Johnson JV, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and
cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample
of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health. 1988;78
(10):133642.
4. Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996;1(1):2741.
5. Adams JS. Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowits L, editor.
Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 2. New York:
Academic Press; 1965. p. 26799.
6. Thibaut J, Walker L. Procedural justice: a psychological analysis.
Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1975.
7. Leventhal GS. What should be done with equity theory? New
approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen
K, Greenberg M, Willis R, editors. Social exchange: advances in
theory and research. New York: Plenum Press; 1980. p. 2755.
8. Bies RJ, Moag JS. Interactional justice: communication criteria of
fairness. In: Lewicki RJ, Sheppard BH, Bazerman MH, editors.
Research on negotiation in organizations, vol. 1. Greenwich: JAI
Press; 1986. p. 4355.
9. Moorman RH. Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? J Appl Psychol. 1991;76(6):84555.
10. Kawachi I. Injustice at work and health: causation or correlation?
Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(9):5789.
11. Kivimki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Virtanen M, Stansfeld SA.
Association between organizational inequity and incidence of psychiatric disorders in female employees. Psychol Med. 2003;33
(2):31926.
12. Ylipaavalniemi J, Kivimki M, Elovainio M, Virtanen M,
Keltikangas-Jrvinen L, Vahtera J. Psychosocial work characteristics and incidence of newly diagnosed depression: a prospective
cohort study of three different models. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(1):111
22.
13. Kivimki M, Vahtera J, Elovainio M, Virtanen M, Siegrist J.
Effortreward imbalance, procedural injustice and relational injustice as psychosocial predictors of health: complementary or redundant models? Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(10):65965.
14. Elovainio M, Kivimki M, Vahtera J. Organizational justice: evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. Am J Public Health.
2002;92(1):1058.
15. Kivimki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Ferrie JE. Organisational
justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup
Environ Med. 2003;60(1):2734.

275
16. Ferrie JE, Head J, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, Marmot MG, Kivimki
M. Injustice at work and incidence of psychiatric morbidity: the
Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(7):44350.
17. Inoue A, Kawakami N, Ishizaki M, Shimazu A, Tsuchiya M,
Tabata M, et al. Organizational justice, psychological distress,
and work engagement in Japanese workers. Int Arch Occup Environ
Health. 2010;83(1):2938.
18. Hayashi T, Odagiri Y, Ohya Y, Tanaka K, Shimomitsu T. Organizational justice, willingness to work, and psychological distress:
results from a private Japanese company. J Occup Environ Med.
2011;53(2):17481.
19. Quinlan M, Mayhew C, Bohle P. The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization, and consequences for
occupational health: a review of recent research. Int J Health Serv.
2001;31(2):335414.
20. Kim MH, Kim CY, Park JK, Kawachi I. Is precarious employment
damaging to self-rated health? Results of propensity score matching methods, using longitudinal data in South Korea. Soc Sci Med.
2008;67(12):198294.
21. Kompier M, Ybema JF, Janssen J, Taris T. Employment contracts:
cross-sectional and longitudinal relations with quality of working
life, health and well-being. J Occup Health. 2009;51(3):193203.
22. Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsuchiya M, Sakurai K, Hashimoto H.
Association of occupation, employment contract, and company size
with mental health in a national representative sample of employees
in Japan. J Occup Health. 2010;52(4):22740.
23. Virtanen P, Vahtera J, Kivimki M, Pentti J, Ferrie J. Employment
security and health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(8):569
74.
24. van den Bos K, Lind EA. Uncertainty management by means of
fairness judgments. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental
social psychology, vol. 34. San Diego: Academic Press; 2002. p. 160.
25. van den Bos K. Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 2001;80(6):93141.
26. van den Bos K, Miedema J. Toward understanding why fairness
matters: the influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(3):35566.
27. Elovainio M, van den Bos K, Linna A, Kivimki M, Ala-Mursula
L, Pentti J, et al. Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational justice on employee health: testing the uncertainty management model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector
employees. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(12):250112.
28. Kausto J, Elo AL, Lipponen J, Elovainio M. Moderating effects of
job insecurity in the relationships between procedural justice and
employee well-being: gender differences. Eur J Work Organ Psychol.
2005;14(4):43152.
29. Aizzat MN, Ramayah T, Kumaresan S. Organizational stressors
and job stress among managers: the moderating role of neuroticism. Singapore Manage Rev. 2005;27(2):6379.
30. Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A, Shimazu A, Tsuchiya M,
Ishizaki M, et al. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version
of the Organizational Justice Questionnaire. J Occup Health. 2009;51
(1):7483.
31. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, Hiripi E, Mroczek DK,
Normand SL, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population
prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):95976.
32. Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y,
Nakamura Y, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of
the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J
Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(3):1528.
33. Sakurai K, Nishi A, Kondo K, Yanagida K, Kawakami N. Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for
mood and anxiety disorders in Japan. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci.
2011;65(5):43441.

276
34. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Survey on fixed-term
employment contract 2009. Tokyo: Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfare, Japan; 2009. (in Japanese)
35. Weathers C. Nonregular workers and inequality in Japan. Soc Sci Jpn
J. 2009;12(1):1438.
36. Eysenck SBG, Eysenck HJ, Barrett P. A revised version of the
psychoticism scale. Person Individ Diff. 1985;6(1):219.
37. Hosokawa T, Ohyama M. Reliability and validity of a Japanese
version of the short-form Eysenck Personality QuestionnaireRevised. Psychol Rep. 1993;72(3):82332.
38. Karasek R. Job Content Questionnaire and user's guide. Lowell:
University of Massachusetts at Lowell; 1985.
39. Kawakami N, Kobayashi F, Araki S, Haratani T, Furui H. Assessment of job stress dimensions based on the job demands-control
model of employees of telecommunication and electric power companies in Japan: reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the
Job Content Questionnaire. Int J Behav Med. 1995;2(4):35875.
40. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I,
et al. The measurement of effortreward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(8):148399.
41. Tsutsumi A, Ishitake T, Peter R, Siegrist J, Matoba T. The Japanese
version of the EffortReward Imbalance Questionnaire: a study in
dental technicians. Work Stress. 2001;15(1):8696.
42. Fisher S. Stress, control, worry prescriptions and the implications
for health at work: a psychological model. In: Sauter SL, Hurrell
JA, Cooper CL, editors. Job control and worker health. Chichester:
Wiley; 1989. p. 20536.

Int.J. Behav. Med. (2013) 20:265276

43. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. White paper on the
labour economy 2003. Tokyo: The Japan Institute of Labour; 2003.
(in Japanese)
44. Fujishiro K, Heaney CA. Justice at work, job stress, and employee
health. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36(3):487504.
45. Kulik CT, Lind EA, Ambrose ML, MacCoun RJ. Understanding
gender differences in distributive and procedural justice. Soc Justice
Res. 1996;9(4):35170.
46. Tata J, Bowes-Sperry L. Emphasis on distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice: differential perceptions of men and women.
Psychol Rep. 1996;79(3):132730.
47. Sweeney PD, McFarlin DB. Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice. J Organ Behav. 1997;18(1):83
98.
48. Lee C, Farh J. The effect of gender in organizational justice
perception. J Organ Behav. 1999;20(1):13043.
49. Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: self-construals and gender.
Psychol Bull. 1997;122(1):537.
50. Tyler TR, Lind EA. A relational model of authority in groups. In:
Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology,
vol. 25. New York: Academic Press; 1992. p. 11591.
51. Brockner J, De Cremer D, van den Bos K, Chen Y. The influence
of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2005;96(2):15567.
52. Li A, Bagger J. Role ambiguity and self-efficacy: the moderating
effects of goal orientation and procedural justice. J Vocat Behav.
2008;73(3):36875.

Copyright of International Journal of Behavioral Medicine is the property of Springer Science & Business
Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.