Organizational Justice Impact on Affective Commitment Study

This report, published in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, investigates the impact of organizational justice on affective organizational commitment, with a focus on the mediating role of perceived organizational support. The study surveyed 217 employees from local companies, utilizing Pearson correlation and regression models to analyze the relationship between organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and affective commitment. The findings reveal a significant positive effect of organizational justice on both perceived organizational support and affective commitment, with procedural justice being most crucial for perceived support and leadership justice significantly influencing commitment. The research highlights the importance of a fair and supportive internal culture, emphasizing procedural justice and consistent organizational policies to cultivate employees' affective commitment. The study underscores the role of individual perception of organizational support in influencing employee engagement and their investment in achieving organizational goals, aligning with social exchange theory and the need for employees to trust and believe in their organization.

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
2020; 9(5): 61-67
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/pbs
doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20200905.11
ISSN: 2328-7837 (Print); ISSN: 2328-7845 (Online)
Effect of Organizational Justice on Affective Organizational
Commitment: Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational
Support
Li Song, Li Yang *
School of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan, China
Email address:
*Corresponding author
To cite this article:
Li Song, Li Yang. Effect of Organizational Justice on Affective Organizational Commitment: Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational
Support. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 9, No. 5, 2020, pp. 61-67. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20200905.11
Received: August 3, 2020; Accepted: September 21, 2020; Published: September 28, 2020
Abstract: Background: Employees’ affective commitment is helpful to get high performence and build competitiv advantage
for a company. How to enhance employees' affective commitment is a hot topic in the field of management. In this study, we
explore the relationship between affective commitment, perceived organizational support and job involvement. Methods: We
surveyed 217 employees from local companies. We used analysis of Pearson correlation and regression models to explore
associations between affective commitment, perceived organizational support and job involvement. Results: We found
organiztional justice has a significant positive effect both on emplyees’ perceived organizational support and affective
commitment, especially procedural justice is the most important variant effecting employees’ perceived organizational support,
and leadership justice is the most significant variant influencing affective commitment, perceived organizational support plays a
partial mediating role between organizational justice and job involvement. Conclusions: Findings suggest that individual
perception of the organizational support plays a role in understanding when and why employees pay high attention to their work
and invest more effort to achieve organizational goals. It is critical to cultivate employees’ affective commitment to their
organization by method of creating a fair and supportive internal culture, which focus on procedural justice and consistently
supportive organizational policies.
Keywords: Organizational Justice, Perceived Organizational Support, Affective Commitment
1. Introduction
In fierce market environment, the competitive advantages
of a company obtained by capital, technology and other
resources are easy to be imitated by competitors. However,
due to the strong background and path dependence of
knowledge and ability, human resource is one of the most
important strategic factors for a company to keep competitive
advantage. The success or failure of an enterprise directly
depends on the quality and performance of its employees. In
recent years, increased attention has been given to affective
organizational commitment which is a critical factor for
employees’ work performance [1]. How to enhance
employees' affective organizational commitment is a hot
topic in the field of management [2]. Organizational justice
deals with understanding the complexity of fair treatment in a
work setting, which is reflected in the classic prescripts of
justice. Individuals’ sense of organizational justice can
significantly affect their work attitude to the organization [3].
On this basis, this study makes a survey to explore the
psychological mechanism of affective commitment from
organizational justice perspective.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Affective Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is the general emotional
response of employees to the organization as a whole, which
is usually expressed as an emotional dependence of
employees on the organization [4]. Employees are reluctant
to leave a enterprise not because of losing benefits such as
pension, but because of their emotional dependence on the

62 Li Song and Li Yang: Effect of Organizational Justice on Affective Organizational Commitment:
Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support
organization [5]. Many researchers have studied composition
of organizational commitment and put forward different
thoeries and composition list. For example, according to the
three-component model of organizational commitment
(TCM), there are three kinds of organizaional commitment:
affective organizational commitment (AOC), continuance
organizational commitment (COC) and normative
organizational commitment (NOC) [6]. AOC is described as
the degree of employees’ identification with the organization,
which is based on a sense of shared values with, and features
a strong emotional attachment to, the organization and as
such is the commitment component that most strongly fosters
the desire to contribute to the organization's success. COC is
the requirement of employees to work continuously for the
organization, which is a cumulative dimension. NOC refers
to the employees' sense of responsibility to the organization,
including the accumulated sense of responsibility on
individuals and the constraints of social norms. In short,
people stay in an organization because they are willing
(affective), need (continuous), or feel they should be
(normalized). The TCM model has been cited extensively
and has become the mainstream in organizational
commitment research [7]. According to the five-component
model of organizational commitment, organizational
commitment is divided into five categaries: affective
organizational commitment (AOC), normative organizational
commitment (NOC), ideal organizational commitment (IOC),
opportunity organizational commitment (OOC) and
economic organizational commitment (EOC). AOC is the
deep feelings with the enterprises. IOC means that employees
attach importance to personal growth and pursue the
realization of their ideals. Therefore, employees are very
concerned about whether their own expertise can provide
various working conditions, learning and promotion
opportunities, so as to realize their ideals. NOC describes
employees’ attitude and behavior towards the enterprise
which based on social norms and professional ethics, that is
to say, employees have a sense of responsibility for the
organization. EOC refers to the fact that employees stay in
the company because they will suffer economic losses if they
leave. OOC means that employees stay in the enterprise just
because they have no opportunity to find another job. Many
stuies have proved that organizational commitment is quite
stable and consistent [8]. Especially, Employees with a sense
of affective commitment will increase their loyalty to the
enterprise and are more likely to engage in extra role
activities such as creation and innovation. The affective
commitment of employees to the organization is influenced
by individual needs and their expectations of the organization,
as well as the actual satisfaction they feel. Organizational
reliability is an important factor affecting employees'
emotional commitment [9].
2.2. Organizational Justice
Organizational justice is concerned with perceptions of
fairness in the workplace [10]. In the process of social
exchange, the employee compares the reward paid to the rate
of contribution to others, and the individual will be fair when
the individual is equal to the contribution made by others.
Employees are more likely to demonstrate positive work
attitudes and behaviors when they perceive the organization
and authority figures as fair. Conversely, when employees
feel they have not been treated fairly in work-related matters,
they are more likely to respond with anger, resentment and
retaliatory behaviors [11]. At early stage, organizational
justice is one-dimensional, only refers to the degree to which
rewards and punishments are related to performance inputs,
that is distributive justice. Later procedural justice was found
to be included, which is based on judgments of fairness
regarding the policies and procedures used in the decision
making process of organizations [12]. Bies & Moag (1986)
[13] suggests that organizational justice consists of
distributive justice, procedure justice and interactive justice;
there into, interactive justice is primarily concerned with the
extent to which employees perceive their respect. Greenberg
(1993) [14] divided interactive justice into interpersonal
justice and information justice. Interpersonal justice refers to
quality of interpersonal treatment received during the
enactment of organizational procedures. Informational justice
is based on the degree of explanation provided to employees
regarding distribution of outcomes and the procedures used
to make these determinations. Colquitt (2013) [15] divided
organizational justice into four dimensions including
distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice
and informational justice. Thereinto, distributive justice is the
sense of fairness that employees perceive to pay or other
decisions; procedural justice focus on fairness of the
communication and the implementation process, while
interpersonal justice emphasis the extent that employees feel
that they are respected and concerned. Chong-ming Wang
(2001) [16] divided organizational justice into four
dimensions including distributive justice, procedural justice,
leadership equity and informational justice based on mass
social survey in China, there into, distributive justice refers to
perception of the staff on resource allocation fairness of the
organization, especially compensation distribution.
Procedural justice refers to perception of execution process
fairness; leadership justice refers to perception concern and
respect of supervisors on the staff. Information justice refers
to the perception that supervisors give full explanation to the
staff in the organization's affairs.
2.3. Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as
global beliefs developed by employees’ concerning the extent
to which the organization values their contributions and cares
about their well-being [17]. By empirical study on Chinese
employees, Wen-quan Lin (2006) [18] found that perceived
organizational support consists of three dimensions,
including job support, value recognition and interest. POS is
influenced by a variety of factors, such as organizational
rewards in the form of praise, money, promotions and
influence, all given by the organization to employees as a
way of communicating to employees that they are valued.

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2020; 9(5): 61-67 63
POS has been associated with increases in affective
commitment, positive mood, job satisfaction, loyalty,
performance, and organizational citizenship behavior [19].
POS has also been associated with decreased turnover
intentions and decreased job strain [20].
2.4. Overview and Hypotheses
According to the social exchange theory, exchanges recur
over time, people always pursue the maximum benefit and
seek the most powerful exchange object and activity. The
relationship between organization and employees is also one
kind of exchange relationship, which embodies the basic
principles of social exchange theory. Social exchange theory
not only looks at interpersonal interaction from the
perspective of "cost-benefit", but also involves invisible
social cost and benefit exchange, such as respect, honor,
friendship and care, which do not follow external rules and
agreements. Therefore, social exchange has no clear
guarantee on whether the input cost can get reciprocal returns.
The only guarantee is the assumption of the exchange
partner's cooperation intention, that is, the belief in the
reciprocal cooperation of exchange partners, which is the
core of social exchange theory [21]. Employees'
responsibility and commitment to the enterprise is based on
reciprocity. In the process of exchange, if the employee does
not have this belief (that is, trust), his or her dependence on
the enterprise will be reduced, and it is impossible to have
affective commitment to the enterprise, and exptress positive
work behavior and create high performance. It can be seen
that employees' trust in the enterprise or management is very
important to affective commitment.
In the relationship between employees and enterprises,
both employees and enterprises have their power and
expectation. Exchanges between organizations and
employees should be mutually beneficial. Enterprises hope
that employees work hard and get high performance. While
employees not only expect to get remuneration, but also hope
to get respect, friendship and pleasure from the enterprise in
the process of labor. This is actually an unwritten
psychological contract between employees and enterprises.
Generally speaking, reliability is the starting point of
building trust. Only when employees believe that the
enterprise is willing and able to fulfill its commitment, can
employees have confidence to trade with the enterprise,
generate organizational commitment, and treat their work
with more positive attitude. Therefore, in the daily
management activities, managers should pass on the relevant
information of capabilities through various communication
channels, so as to enhance employees' rational cognition of
enterprise capabilities. Organizational justice is actually a
signal of trust to employees [22]. If an enterprise fulfills its
promise as expected, treats its employees fairly, and meets
their needs, then the employees will be motivated to form
trust in the enterprise and be willing to establish affective
interaction with the enterprise, employees will have affective
commitment to the enterprise, regard the enterprise as their
home, and spontaneously generate positive behaviors to
improve their work performance. Thus, justice, POS and
commitment are theoretically intertwined via social
exchanges.
According to the organizational support theory, the
establishment of employment relationship is the exchange of
material benefits and social rewards by employees' hard work
and loyalty. The organization's concern and attention to
employees is an important reason for employees to stay in the
organization and contribute to the organization. In order to
meet socioemotional needs and to assess the benefits of
increased work effort, employees form a general perception
concerning the extent to which the organization values their
contributions and cares about their well-being. Higher
organizational support will make employees have strong
affective commitment and a strong sense of obligation to the
organization. Employees who feel lower organizational
support are more likely to leave the organization.
Organizational support meets the social emotional needs of
employees. If employees feel that the organization is willing
and able to repay their work, employees will make more
efforts for the interests of the organization. If employees are
given suitable respect and important value resources, they
will have a sense of obligation and help the organization
achieve its goals by increasing work performance according
to the principle of reciprocity. On the contrary, if the
organization ignores the needs of employees and lacks the
support and care for employees, it will destroy the
psychological contract of employees and generate low trust.
We can see that perceived organizational support can
transform employees' positive perception of organizational
activities into obligation or emotional commitment, then
affects employees’ psychology and behavior. Along with
improvement of perceived organizations support, employees
would increase obligation to help the organization reach its
objectives, and tend to develop positive perception and
beliefs of organization and reward with higher affective
commitment. Strong sense of organization support would be
more likely to increase the satisfaction of psychological
needs, make employees feel more highly related to the
organization and its members. Perceived organizational
support (POS) is usually used to signify the organization’s
care for its employees’welfare. Moreover, reciprocity obliges
employees to return such attention, which can make
employees invlove more attention on their job. Employees
with high POS should avoid a high level of voluntary
withdrawal behaviors, and instead engage in nonwork-related
conversations. Consistent with the prior literature and results,
this work predicts that POS is positively associated with
affective commitment.
Organizational justice was found to be significantly and
positively related to perceived organizational support.
Affective commitment can be perceived as a reflection of
work experiences. Individuals may become involved in their
jobs in response to specific attributes of the work situation.
As employees develop a better understanding and acceptance
of organizational goals and values, conveyed through the
organizational climate, they are likely to become more

64 Li Song and Li Yang: Effect of Organizational Justice on Affective Organizational Commitment:
Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support
identified and involved with their job. Perception of
distributive justice can lead to the tendency and attitude of
employees to be involved, so as to improve the degree of
affective commitment. Procedural justice can affect
employees' attitudes and behaviors more than distributive
justice; the employees have a sense of organizational support
through constant experience of procedural justice. Thus
organizational justice is one of the main factors involved in
employee involvement.
Based on above description, the following hypotheses are
generated in this study:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational justice is positively related to
perceived organizational support.
Hypothesis 1a: distributive justice is positively related to
perceived organizational support.
Hypothesis 1b: procedure justice is positively related to
perceived organizational support.
Hypothesis 1c: interpersonal justice is positively related to
perceived organizational support.
Hypothesis 1d: informational justice is positively related to
perceived organizational support.
Hypothesis 2: oganizational justice is positively related to
affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2a: distributive justice is positively related to
affective commitment.
Hypothesis 2b: procedure justice is positively related to
affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2c: interpersonal justice is positively related to
affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2d: informational justice is positively related to
affective organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3: POS is positively related to affective
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4: POS plays a mediating role between
organizational justice and affective organizational
commitment.
3. Method
3.1. Participants and Procedures
The study took place in three local manufacturing
companies. Questionaire were shared in work group by
managers and 217 answered questionnaires were obtained.
Participants had a median age range of 25–30 years and 53%
were men. The majority (72%) was staff, 28% of the
participants were middle-level managers. And the majority
(86%) had worked in the company for more than 2 years.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Organizational Justice
We measured organizational justice from the employee
perspective using the 22-item scale from Ya Liu Li-rong
Long and Ye Li (2003). Meta-analytical evidence has
indicated that the scale provides the soundest psychometric
properties and high reliability and validity. Organizational
justice is defined as a four-dimension construct in the scale.
A1-A6 items measure distributive justice, A7-A12 items
measure procedure justice, A13-A18 items measure
leadership justice, A19- A22 items measure information
justice. Employees answered on 5-point Likert-type scales
with question-specific labels (for the sample item 1=not a bit
to 5=a great deal). Cronbach's α was. 861.
3.2.2. Perceived Organizational Support
We measured perceived organizational support with 17
items from a scale developed by Eisenberger et al.’s (1986).
The scale perceived organizational support measures how
much organization values the employees’ contribution and
cares about their well-being. A sample item was “The
organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work”.
Items were answered on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging
from 1=very little to 5=very much. Cronbach's α was. 921.
3.2.3. Affective Commitment
The affective commitment questionnaire is derived from
the three factor of organizational commitment questionnaire
developed by Mayer and Allen in 1997, which describes
three types of organizational commitment. Affective
commitment measures an employee's emotional attachment,
identity, and commitment to his organization. The original
questionnaire consists of three parts, each part has 8 items.
We adopts the affective commitment part. Items were rated
on five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1=never to
5=very often. Cronbach's α was. 918, which indicates
acceptable internal reliability.
4. Results
The descriptive statistics for the variables in this study are
presented in Table 1. The median and mean are similar to one
another for the variables, suggesting that the variables were
normally distributed. Pearson relationship analyses were
performed to examine the relations among organizational
justice, perceived organizational support and affective
commitment. As shown in table 2, organizational justice,
organizational support and affective commitment are
significantly correlated at 0.01 level (bilateral), indicating
that there is a significant positive correlation between
organizational justice, organizational support and Affective
Commitment. There is a significant positive correlation
between each dimension of organizational justice and
perceived organizational support. At the significance level of
0.01, they all show clear correlation through statistical tests.
There is a significant positive correlation between the four
dimensions of organizational justice and affective
commitment.
Regression analyses were performed to examine the
relations between four dimensions of organizational justice
and affective commitment. The results for the regression
equations are presented in table 3. Distributive justice,
procedural justice, leadership justice and information justice
have a significant positive relationship with affective
commitment. The regression coefficients in the columns
estimate the magnitude of the effect of an independent

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2020; 9(5): 61-67 65
variable on the dependent variable. For the affective
commitment equation, leadership justice has the greatest
effect, followed by distributive justice.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for study variables.
variable Min Max Mean SD
Distributive justice 1.33 4.83 3.30 .64
Procidural justice 1.17 4.67 3.28 .68
Leadership justice 1.33 4.83 3.27 .61
Information justice 1.25 5.00 3.23 .72
Organizational justice 1.27 4.75 3.27 .62
Perceived organizational support 1.25 5.00 3.26 .75
Affective Commitment 1.25 4.88 3.29 .69
Table 2. Pearson correlation matrix for study variables.
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D-justice 1
P-justice .82** 1
L-justice .87** .84** 1
I- justice .86** .80** .83** 1
O-justice .95** .92** .94** .94** 1
Pos .88** .89** .89** .89** .95** 1
AC .74** .66** .77** .75** .79** .79** 1
Note.*p ≤.05.**p ≤.01.
Table 3. Regression analyses of 4 dimensions of organizational justice and Affective Commitment.
model B Beta adjusted
R square t Sig. Collinearity statistics
Tolerance VIF
1 constant .224 .168 1.33 .18
Leadership justice .95 .05 .77 .59 18.87 .00 1.00 1.00
2
constant .22 .16
.63
1.39 .16
Leadership justice .58 .08 .47 6.74 .00 .31 3.23
Information justice .38 .07 .36 5.17 .00 .31 3.23
3
constant .16 .16
.64
.99 .32
Leadership justice .45 .10 .36 4.32 .00 .21 4.77
Information justice .28 .08 .27 3.49 .00 .24 4.20
Distributive justice .23 .10 .20 2.24 .02 .18 5.54
Table 4. Correlation coefficient variation: POS as the control variable.
variable Distributive justice Procidural justice Leadership justice Information justice POS
Pre-control Affective Commitment .759** .661** .772** .754** .785**
After-control Affective Commitment .193 -.187 .226 .170 .152
**. Significant correlation was found on the. 01 level (bilateral).
Table 5. Mediating effect test results of POS.
model Unstandardized Coefficients Adjust the R square t Sig. Collinearity statistics
allowance VIF
(constant) .35
.642
2.25 .03
POS .56 4.34 .00 .10 9.89
OJ .35 2.38 .02 .10 9.89
The stepwise regression model was made by putting
affective commitment as the dependent variable, organization
justice and organizational support as the independent variable.
Shown as in table 5, the estimated multiple regressions has
reached the significance level as a whole; and the
corresponding value of the t statistic is less than 0.05,
indicating that the single hypothesis test of the regression
model coefficient also significant. After adding perceived
organizational support, the regression coefficient of
organizational justice and affective commitment fell from
0.785 to 0.288, which mean that when POS exist, the impact
of organization fairness on affective commitment would be
weakened. These results demonstrate that the link to show
mediation by POS was established.
5. Discussion
The predictive factors of affective organisational
commitment has been tested by many studies. However, little
attention has been paid to its linkages with employees’
organizational justice, and research on mediators in the
relationship between affective organisational commitment,

66 Li Song and Li Yang: Effect of Organizational Justice on Affective Organizational Commitment:
Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support
perceived organizational support and organizational justice is
scarce. The current study addressed these limitations of the
literature. Analyses showed that organisational justice and
perceived organiational support predicted affective
commitment. From the perspective of social exchange theory,
the more procedural justice that are accumulated, the greater
the feeling of indebtedness to the organisation, which
employees may be morally obligated to repay through
affective commitment. When frontline employees perceive that
their organisations and managers are willing to treat them
farily and respect for their efforts, they are likely to manifest
higher affective commitment. These findings support the
above hypotheses and suggest that individual perception of the
organizational support plays a role in understanding when and
why employees pay high attention to their work and invest
more effort to achieve organizational goals.
6. Conclusion
This study aimed to broaden knowledge on the
organisational justice‒affective commitment by examining
possible mediators. First it was found that organisational
justice and its dimensions predict affective organizational
commitment. The present study further confirmed that
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship of
organisational justice and its dimensions with affective
commitment. The results concur with the perspective of
social exchange theory that employees treated fairly and
receives resources from the organization in which they work
are more likely to reciprocate with positive attitudes. Fair and
supportive organizational policies and procedures can
cultivate employees’ affective commitment to their
organization. The findings further suggest that managers can
improve individual employee's commitment by creating more
justice and consistently supportive organizational policies. As
research on job attitude and behaviour continues to develop,
we hope that our research might stimulate further inquiries
into the role of contextual factors in the work behavior
relationship.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank National Natural Fund
under Contract Nos. 71971003.
References
[1] Arsalan Mujahid Ghouri, Pervaiz Akhtar, Muhamma Shahbaz,
Haseeb Shabbir. “Affective organizational commitment in
global strategic partnerships: The role of individual-level
microfoundations and social change.” Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 2019, vol. 146, pp. 320–330.
[2] Marie-Claude Gaudet, Michel Tremblay. “Initiating structure
leadership and employee behaviors: The role of perceived
organizational support, affective commitment and
leaderemember exchange,” European Management Journal,
2017, vol. 35, pp. 663-675.
[3] Tayyaba Akram, Shen Lei, Muhammad Jamal Haider, Syed
Talib Hussain. “The impact of organizational justice on
employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of
knowledge sharing,” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge,
2020, vol. 5, pp. 117–129.
[4] Nianlong Luo, Xunhua Guo, Benjiang Lu, Guoqing Chen.
“Can non-work-related social media use benefit the company?
A study on corporate blogging and affective organizational
commitment,” Computers in Human Behavior, 2018, vol. 81
pp. 84-92.
[5] Simone Donati, Salvatore Zappala, Vicente Gonzalez-Rom.
“The double-edge sword effect of interorganizational trust on
involvement in interorganizational networks: The mediator role
of affective commitment,” European Management Journal,
2020, vol. 38, pp. 613-622.
[6] Kuruüzüm, A., Cetin, E. I., & Irmak, S., “Path analysis of
organizational commitment, job involvement and job
satisfaction in the Turkish hospitality industry,” Tourism
Review, 2009. vol. 64 pp. 4-16.
[7] Zhengzheng Lin, Zhongyun Zhou, Yulin Fang, Doug Vogel,
iang Liang, “Understanding affective commitment in social
virtual worlds: The role ofcultural tightness,” Information &
Management, 2018, vol. 55, pp. 984–1004.
[8] Ji Wen, Songshan (Sam) Huang, Pingping Hou. “Emotional
intelligence, emotional labor, perceived organizational support,
and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation model,”
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2019. vol. 81
pp. 120–130.
[9] Emmanuel Twumasi Ampofo, “Mediation effects of job
satisfaction and work engagement on the relationship between
organisational embeddedness and affective commitment
among frontline employees of star–rated hotels in Accra,”
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2020. vol. 44
pp. 253–262.
[10] Nabatchi, T., Bingham, L., & Good, D. H., “Organizational
justice and workplace mediation: A six factor model,”
International Journal of Conflict Management, (2007) 18 (2),
148–174.
[11] Yu Cui, Hao Jiao, “Organizational justice and management
trustworthiness during or ganizational Change: Interactions of
Benevolence, Integrity, and managerial approaches,”
Information Processing and Management, 2019, vol. 56, pp.
1526–1542.
[12] Meriem Bouazzaoui, Hung-Jui Wu, Jens K. Roehrich, Brian
Squire, Anthony S. Roath., “Justice in inter-organizational
relationships: A literature review and future research agenda,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 2020. vol. 87, pp. 128–137.
[13] Bies, R., & Moag, J., “Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness,” In R. (1986).
[14] Greenberg, J., “Stealing in the name of justice: Informational
and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to
underpayment inequity,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, (1993) 54, 81–103.
[15] Colquitt, J., Scott, B., Rodell, J., Long, D., Zapata, C., Conlon,
D., et al., “Justice at a millennium, a decade later: A
meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives,” Journal of Applied Psychology, (2013) 98 (2),
199–236.

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2020; 9(5): 61-67 67
[16] Chong-ming Wang., Management psychology. Beijing:
People's education Press. (2001).
[17] Pascal Paille, Jorge H., Meija-Morelos. “Organisational
support is not always enough to encourage employee
environmental performance: The moderating role of exchange
ideology,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, vol. 220, pp.
1061-1070.
[18] Wen-quan Lin, Hai-jun Yang, Li-luo Fang., “Employee 's
organizational support,” Journal of Psychology, 2006, vol. 2,
pp. 281-287.
[19] Rubenstein, A. L., Allen, D. G., & Bosco, F. A., “What’s past
(and present) is prologue: Interactions between justice levels
and trajectories predicting behavioral reciprocity,” Journal of
Management, 2019, vol. 45, pp. 1569–1594.
[20] Fortin, M., Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & German, H.,“It is
time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice
judgments and justice effects,” Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 2016. vol. 37, pp. S30–S56.
[21] Su Jin Kim, Eun Kyoung Chung, “The effect of organizational
justice as perceived by occupational drivers on traffic accidents:
Mediating effects of job satisfaction,” Journal of Safety
Research, 2019. vol. 68, pp. 27–32.
[22] Soundararajan, V., & Brammer, S., “Developing country
sub-supplier responses tosocial sustainability requirements of
intermediaries: Exploring the influence off raming on fairness
perceptions and reciprocity,” Journal of Operations
Management, 2018, vol 58, pp. 42–58.