In the eye of the beholder: Procedural justice in social exchange

This article develops and tests alternative predictions about how the form of social exchange, negotiated or reciprocal, affects perceptions of fairness, independent of the structure and outcomes of exchange. Theories of procedural justice predict that fair exchange procedures should enhance perceptions of the exchange partner's fairness. Negotiated exchange-which incorporates collective decision-making, advance knowledge of terms, mutual assent, and binding agreements-clearly appears more fair than does reciprocal exchange on most procedural dimensions. Thus, these theories imply that perceptions of the other's fairness should be greater in negotiated than in reciprocal exchange. Results from three experiments, however show the opposite: Actors perceive negotiated exchange partners as less fair and they are less willing to engage in unequal exchanges with them; these effects are robust across multiple levels of inequality and variations within the two forms of exchange. These findings support the authors' alternative argument: Rather than increasing perceptions of fairness, features of negotiated exchange instead serve to heighten the salience of conflict between actors, trigger self-serving attributions that lead actors to perceive others' motives and traits unfavorably, and increase perceptions that the other is unfair. The authors discuss implications for theory and for negotiation and reciprocity in social life.