<%BANNER%>

Managerial Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022387/00001

Material Information

Title: Managerial Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence Using Self-Determination Theory as a Framework
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Zapata-Phelan, Cindy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: fair, justice, personality
Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Although research has shown that subordinate perceptions of the degree to which managers adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance in subordinate attitudes and behaviors, a key question remains unexplored: why do managers adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First, this dissertation uses self-determination theory to identify four different reasons why managers adhere to justice rules (intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external motivation). In other words, whereas some managers may genuinely want to adhere to justice rules for its own sake, it is likely that other managers do so as a means to other ends. The second purpose of this dissertation was to identify managerial traits, taken from narrow facets of the Big Five, that predict managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. Managerial motives for justice rule adherence were then proposed as mediating mechanisms, explaining the relationship between managerial traits and subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. The moderating role of structural distance was also examined, given that managers who are more proximal to their subordinates will gain more frequent opportunities to adhere to justice rules. The results of this study suggest that managerial traits predict both managerial motivations for justice rule adherence, as well as subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. Unexpectedly, managerial motivations for justice rule adherence did not predict subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. It should also be noted that structural distance did not moderate these effects, though it did demonstrate main effects with subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cindy Zapata-Phelan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Colquitt, Jason A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022387:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022387/00001

Material Information

Title: Managerial Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence Using Self-Determination Theory as a Framework
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Zapata-Phelan, Cindy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: fair, justice, personality
Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Business Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Although research has shown that subordinate perceptions of the degree to which managers adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance in subordinate attitudes and behaviors, a key question remains unexplored: why do managers adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First, this dissertation uses self-determination theory to identify four different reasons why managers adhere to justice rules (intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external motivation). In other words, whereas some managers may genuinely want to adhere to justice rules for its own sake, it is likely that other managers do so as a means to other ends. The second purpose of this dissertation was to identify managerial traits, taken from narrow facets of the Big Five, that predict managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. Managerial motives for justice rule adherence were then proposed as mediating mechanisms, explaining the relationship between managerial traits and subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. The moderating role of structural distance was also examined, given that managers who are more proximal to their subordinates will gain more frequent opportunities to adhere to justice rules. The results of this study suggest that managerial traits predict both managerial motivations for justice rule adherence, as well as subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. Unexpectedly, managerial motivations for justice rule adherence did not predict subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. It should also be noted that structural distance did not moderate these effects, though it did demonstrate main effects with subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Cindy Zapata-Phelan.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Colquitt, Jason A.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022387:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101221_AAAAAC INGEST_TIME 2010-12-21T06:23:22Z PACKAGE UFE0022387_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8830 DFID F20101221_AAACES ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH zapataphelan_c_Page_044thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
8e9471994108197425f5174b22c053b0
SHA-1
c558a0ec0d9517676405ff6d92447cc6d32ed1ad
25271604 F20101221_AAACFH zapataphelan_c_Page_029.tif
14ff9c20348e39895a69c2ff107fa6a4
8774db27027020e905ef556d0a8395310db723b2
123923 F20101221_AAACET zapataphelan_c_Page_109.jpg
bf72eacb386a0f8d94acdcd134b2054a
96b4c0eb798202fb3b049dde96710e9692ba63f3
36638 F20101221_AAACFI zapataphelan_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
08c4cd57646fd39e00feb3fcc53ed914
b49132e0941ffe875d2444a8eb010f4369ff4395
32688 F20101221_AAACEU zapataphelan_c_Page_070.jpg
5d42a55276b5b3298178da7f17017170
1270305b6c5948c0fcd91c1eb45c51f3c76a1b41
8666 F20101221_AAACFJ zapataphelan_c_Page_048thm.jpg
eb464c6e935a460489bb03d63d9fe3ff
c94ae0ffa5fb0e3dc1ef0c3533930d589c507dba
1051938 F20101221_AAACEV zapataphelan_c_Page_096.jp2
0b042cd5871a7c1c543c46ba554ad9e5
f0a2b6df658f013765e9320004b55135a15e483d
8633 F20101221_AAACFK zapataphelan_c_Page_107thm.jpg
c43ecd75404bdfbfdf18e7f9698dd9b8
fcf09219e90953a6327d9d1e9bbec737a08b92ff
1051986 F20101221_AAACEW zapataphelan_c_Page_098.jp2
f5a61019ebe046318d339d3215a1cefd
021af6ddaca14af33c24ca2af2d289be9e9b3d6e
2787 F20101221_AAACGA zapataphelan_c_Page_021thm.jpg
ae90b071ccf399f97cbb20e0b4246de5
c5fcc009f937a32729b6045ecc71d5c444da73e8
1051924 F20101221_AAACFL zapataphelan_c_Page_064.jp2
81d5bafbbe4e50a0c99aa45f5dd2d844
dab96c41158a719b605a2df4e57735e3efe00427
617 F20101221_AAACEX zapataphelan_c_Page_057.txt
a2dd0a22e91346c07288ae2473132e6e
d6aecb42263ec0e2a500756485a7fffd3e073f4b
223471 F20101221_AAACGB zapataphelan_c_Page_102.jp2
0ecee9be93464b0e2c41f55be1ed909e
7f125f7a998b3d1139072e5a09da0eef6dca72dc
8290 F20101221_AAACFM zapataphelan_c_Page_073thm.jpg
e633a68cb8477d9c0f0f9dcf926ba0dc
48d90b1eb6eac4f328385b7e32eea2701f5f2c28
56972 F20101221_AAACEY zapataphelan_c_Page_037.pro
90ed13e1cf70eb9baee63472c5974c4b
95dc5487aa86c8edea16ed8830fe7ee3990c2804
35075 F20101221_AAABZT zapataphelan_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
f6322b723962927668dcdbd386075ea3
4dc8622d9304be2697715b22a40005ab9b4f2299
24787 F20101221_AAACGC zapataphelan_c_Page_072.jpg
01f873d67fd3e5d907159c42e9607617
5956f27fb444b7f080d443f4c9ca16dfc49182a9
2210 F20101221_AAACFN zapataphelan_c_Page_051.txt
6b066050a5d2103f360f40551df74018
e4a6e989eace0c74d96e613af1398cd009d6671c
109586 F20101221_AAACEZ zapataphelan_c_Page_044.jpg
51c8b7138a52e101c9c3f90880f19b90
53dee0e865a56bc9173065c60812f9d81acee2fe
60052 F20101221_AAABZU zapataphelan_c_Page_004.jpg
90ff60cbf70dfc5737b70a3bdb52a931
7447573d78b05dbded7985414039892bf20328e5
37398 F20101221_AAACGD zapataphelan_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
afbb3f740a4b3e9903806443376d1af0
97a5e85c950ef716914067144cc25c67d6f50b59
89651 F20101221_AAACFO zapataphelan_c_Page_069.pro
aef05039a0d1cac8500dca62686ca7d2
37dbd92d85fc7aa8038878e8e5a445484764c2cc
2332 F20101221_AAABZV zapataphelan_c_Page_045.txt
7cd45c27036c887eeee7b561d909e6ed
71798eb378cb444b20a64d3144b218e4df3101eb
36612 F20101221_AAACGE zapataphelan_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
73726a463d6e9296d1517985e0c2c5be
a64742d0f855c40d69a7fa3a2c9132f7a4a40fc5
600 F20101221_AAACFP zapataphelan_c_Page_071.txt
ac533896f3078d5a0da6bc379ce9b6ba
a571012aa0638e0a69c139597f0138fa78054d47
38508 F20101221_AAABZW zapataphelan_c_Page_090.jpg
3ea92103e32a53cba0f92ee255fd87a3
65cd2c88cb34eb3475ed6bb059a9418b610a9353
875 F20101221_AAACGF zapataphelan_c_Page_085.txt
604cec99269a863ca11c85fe269774e2
f4f26145fe409ce63f755c135cf08a683288e1b5
F20101221_AAACFQ zapataphelan_c_Page_109.tif
99d8528c56eed5fb601ebd5d3f504aa3
7910e19b9df99a3ccce6332b37b558d6d89fb3bc
545 F20101221_AAABZX zapataphelan_c_Page_002thm.jpg
f320f3492d5f0b3ce6d7de4109cd33fc
c67beb6c442a60cf2cb4f017cef777c9b29bdd71
266969 F20101221_AAACGG zapataphelan_c_Page_001.jp2
ee3dffe5dc906745f97bacc005a34b3d
a7f37226ca8cd09b04d87723497baec6eb1e2e3f
9014 F20101221_AAACFR zapataphelan_c_Page_066thm.jpg
35bd7c4498864b4f814676896894a71c
00014975eb02d88d0328cc25a9c8de7988407456
2589 F20101221_AAABZY zapataphelan_c_Page_105.txt
5d8788ff66dc35dde40fc50fe95e898e
c0ca2c1ee0d2aa111650c296dc7548f691f6c159
2063 F20101221_AAACGH zapataphelan_c_Page_001thm.jpg
310a417c81b8463c522231deaa2e16e5
94aed37acc859eff1e60a5d844b059356a7462c2
55678 F20101221_AAACFS zapataphelan_c_Page_097.pro
977f1e6189172496657b2cd897115388
0f71a4e2ae4c6b2f084f1d536e504d7699919f7f
2168 F20101221_AAACFT zapataphelan_c_Page_046.txt
a9a08ae196fbf7d89bdfbd24721f5885
799424c4dc9d2ace5ec44cf4fd6f2f985e7dbe61
1051967 F20101221_AAABZZ zapataphelan_c_Page_040.jp2
f162b12faf7fa0792461f6e08911f97d
b834e592743b5632a95db648fc7b8d8d48ee18ed
36500 F20101221_AAACGI zapataphelan_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
393b8810386752da61c976f4161856b7
d5447d3d6a48493b544401181aa1430c7fac2364
8714 F20101221_AAACFU zapataphelan_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
da670a86b3e3276a9e0fe4e02ca1600c
b313a056578233d63774027cb1c9b2674bb3d8c1
1051941 F20101221_AAACGJ zapataphelan_c_Page_078.jp2
8b402a441ebe44981d57b9475022173c
9d00fb353f9bbfb9f67d6ab0ecda57e5d570e552
F20101221_AAACFV zapataphelan_c_Page_074.tif
9d85e7db10a6fdefba2d947ffe71c366
1ccddfb758c7317c52c9f8990f817cceaac367f2
34670 F20101221_AAACGK zapataphelan_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
928ebc50c7b5b034a1b11092da531905
3f4aae694da5398fe554b2d427411065c91b941e
112478 F20101221_AAACFW zapataphelan_c_Page_065.jpg
63b9e7edc9adbdb17b3f8e0e8a4f5194
066fd31dc91ae92b1016a0350353af467ac9e8bf
58012 F20101221_AAACGL zapataphelan_c_Page_094.pro
a74218acc083345e5c7f9f0d2333e22d
d7c36dcbfa86c2c9ab53d27e364976b680168dbe
122109 F20101221_AAACFX zapataphelan_c_Page_105.jpg
8530324cc8d082b1e794f4d85cfa2220
37ac54923588940ff55224622f04ebbc81b2815a
8446 F20101221_AAACHA zapataphelan_c_Page_023thm.jpg
5ffe1aee6f4a110b1ab256eff1508387
dcd358f902427f92f90e830d626428ce28d35113
3213 F20101221_AAACGM zapataphelan_c_Page_087thm.jpg
90dfee979b1c67e5e0783d7115ee270a
96e61391b5bb1461b17c652b2cbcb159def2cf88
2160 F20101221_AAACFY zapataphelan_c_Page_025.txt
7bccaac3468fa85403a15fb24c3b8ac6
83e0d8d63a3cb16661a29edfdd150ecc2ca7701d
12017 F20101221_AAACHB zapataphelan_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
5db0b13dd6f02f9b7cb2f4e62c37d0d2
4ea99953e7c55624faf825d168d94976dbf7e450
F20101221_AAACGN zapataphelan_c_Page_102.tif
704cd30fbc9b30a8bbb5ab185a9650dd
be95c4599f985649f430bee9fc7d66ccec7088e5
2265 F20101221_AAACFZ zapataphelan_c_Page_074.txt
aed7e5b2b5881e26dcbf9d292f12c77a
5b4655da77f6ee8659f033dbfd3e81447933c364
2174 F20101221_AAACHC zapataphelan_c_Page_052.txt
9ac51fb94914e5cbb79c1221fa2161ee
7d57fdd18eccb91060e0f24a8077a72818fe2df6
9068 F20101221_AAACGO zapataphelan_c_Page_052thm.jpg
771c14578819239499bbdb81005587f6
ea0c2d0e136695a26e6603bb4b74fd60dbca32e4
1051970 F20101221_AAACHD zapataphelan_c_Page_023.jp2
83bc1b2d7d0762ef83dd5f23e7a245a6
9bd9957f834019d8ccb0b9084ea25e000d52c945
1051962 F20101221_AAACGP zapataphelan_c_Page_112.jp2
751c6a319129ca1ad6284c849abab40a
873a196f16d38cd4ceb8bbce0b50e0414e22f6e4
25517 F20101221_AAACHE zapataphelan_c_Page_021.jpg
992fcbd4708b2f500bc592310aded690
8a25b18f8123499bfb001f18c7b95bd20b7aa47c
1051960 F20101221_AAACGQ zapataphelan_c_Page_115.jp2
a13d9bf104876f966c0e092077e9cd5c
ac96f4f1775ee50feb22ae3fd09e36a70823614c
1051973 F20101221_AAACHF zapataphelan_c_Page_053.jp2
bc088dfaa837c7142ea3597056f4f302
160d6ac9059755f9d6b5a479d49f075704c8ab94
27925 F20101221_AAACGR zapataphelan_c_Page_004.pro
a06782af70a827a09dda3a554a851989
acef2459229ff2064d3f0e4d48dcb0979e776718
33558 F20101221_AAACHG zapataphelan_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
7062d8d3453ebc034811a7cc72139eaf
c07a04e3871b00f6b39c325d67b665ad93017859
F20101221_AAACGS zapataphelan_c_Page_096.tif
999d2a353c4d7572184b9d0af75c78be
5c27ae90710ad9b80608f9aeba08a20a9a0fb32a
35674 F20101221_AAACHH zapataphelan_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
eca438425262d92d3ca5675054fd8b54
475d2590035b041fc1524f0224d7377073005db3
103533 F20101221_AAACGT zapataphelan_c_Page_008.jpg
61de1dc56591da382e714529cc76b85a
238f150efc1cf31cf12c402bb498f73530015475
37452 F20101221_AAACHI zapataphelan_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
1e798786cfeb6996d00c1451aa88ebf3
7a06abf470dc5ae495ace321a9402783b8808f1b
2546 F20101221_AAACGU zapataphelan_c_Page_110.txt
6a129f8e4963ebc6afff8bf2730026cc
156f224468b0ccd797def9e9324344084ece741d
2086 F20101221_AAACGV zapataphelan_c_Page_101.txt
8ee3c0527a9a65b000b2a5b39526515d
aa23c1f12e1e3068483e5f9b03d5acde66774b1e
2170 F20101221_AAACHJ zapataphelan_c_Page_012.txt
da8a750bf8df52236cbf66248b68cb6f
44517e7ee98f2245a1134298fa7e081f4617db47
14438 F20101221_AAACHK zapataphelan_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
9589b035452aba65c21185d9fae849dc
b3fa08dfde12360d652e6a2ad95464cf37fc612a
1051971 F20101221_AAACGW zapataphelan_c_Page_094.jp2
600fc1260594088ba56474c82bca439f
29e9ce8e441d644f636cd5d531e7f1d72b4008ff
2070 F20101221_AAACIA zapataphelan_c_Page_062.txt
46b54000e556944a45bc959c7c2f80e0
0497fe029bd4e30b5b957fdaa1a61d0d9dcb2c2d
F20101221_AAACHL zapataphelan_c_Page_053thm.jpg
16e2ad18f377ce83216a080d00e5bded
77ffbc5a3df4e50790df1d7dc96feca54b1b0e86
9008 F20101221_AAACGX zapataphelan_c_Page_017thm.jpg
664c5f118b5ed7a42d07783688e69091
b0e31bd170091336d41eb7590cadf46008bb484f
7188 F20101221_AAACIB zapataphelan_c_Page_069thm.jpg
b6297786dc6326a324a8b37d09e3ab8a
b05655571f1c9ab06c9c343a2e82d4873a771238
F20101221_AAACHM zapataphelan_c_Page_034.jp2
6b96d34458119f4d4c33170ae3c12095
33553de01ed3273c878cb3f8d6608bfa17c49252
1051732 F20101221_AAACGY zapataphelan_c_Page_109.jp2
6d835d529263c220bb9c31ddf5dff9b5
f6ef3a8251cd0532c97a042a8aba3bc45c7335a1
F20101221_AAACIC zapataphelan_c_Page_055.tif
fe4f65882d2fd331e03f461212f8a209
da14835ffd12d17969e7de371f57157943afbf99
8824 F20101221_AAACHN zapataphelan_c_Page_014thm.jpg
0465e3a69849874368515c4c606a3066
d73bac80b0e5195db0c4c6763f0d9c638d1932cc
124332 F20101221_AAACGZ zapataphelan_c_Page_114.jpg
f01672d561c0f5ab4a159c5ef1e87e3d
c3aa3a6bb323013e17d8fdc01262aa28f2181e02
110911 F20101221_AAACID zapataphelan_c_Page_052.jpg
f05af0349ff03c0dba450c07b7300381
b18a599b54f7a055781df04d547317151e918b8e
14220 F20101221_AAACHO zapataphelan_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
fae4fd0eca837db189db9d85084fc043
b9db5a560b581212c0fe0917a431b357020ae816
37358 F20101221_AAACIE zapataphelan_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
0105cb23747248197ec9d6c5602521a1
3a8260b2260740e6c76e167cce3f9f9f04cb4f00
4485 F20101221_AAACHP zapataphelan_c_Page_082thm.jpg
24fcfa95f135fc94aeb708f8a998df98
11d487e9824a3baae75159547edca23f5cb9db0f
2187 F20101221_AAACIF zapataphelan_c_Page_097.txt
a63be720ecbed9a67701a88210fb5de8
2653a7cdd2373dc9a1985f52190c8ccc03f9f9b4
16982 F20101221_AAACHQ zapataphelan_c_Page_003.pro
c0cc9add7abdda58e94b406f39c285f0
f6357f014d8f354e537bef6bd7f05e2d9acfb8a2
13948 F20101221_AAACIG zapataphelan_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
74d1b07381ac9ff0c4f2d0bc330b794c
89a4f19e5826dc1991a3ddf4359004971641eec0
105668 F20101221_AAACHR zapataphelan_c_Page_095.jpg
2ce71c3511336c1fa7cdd80cb25f1e42
33b1265624cef4b59c6534b0678e01c8fcd02f4d
27258 F20101221_AAACIH zapataphelan_c_Page_001.jpg
e1bfb4e8c36bf7784d3ddac63d4e0755
9b1b5afca44f67b9657f7bc1f5b43cc47fe5ebf0
1051929 F20101221_AAACHS zapataphelan_c_Page_027.jp2
160e1224d8b82f0d71358af2e26273ec
db580728d5db0008a400e73f7944dd8cba554b52
2779 F20101221_AAACII zapataphelan_c_Page_068thm.jpg
c5b1a609c5a15f869ce15a884e5d6481
547f83a1be1f2939092dc0c2a244fa671f77ae50
36470 F20101221_AAACHT zapataphelan_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
c457959bb97134f4792795ef24990a5e
61628c6d61570d68964a101b0276521f3e46c6f9
111231 F20101221_AAACIJ zapataphelan_c_Page_012.jpg
c1ddd99d12c9b3a6fac8d0b216b00259
8a8f60cffc0e1408f48325d0ae896bbd42ca397c
50517 F20101221_AAACHU zapataphelan_c_Page_020.jpg
45097145aba95354622c00e40ffd8a87
dbf3706f1990ed60b8218670186f210fb1e772d3
53061 F20101221_AAACHV zapataphelan_c_Page_101.pro
3dcfd9ee589b0a5e892397581a666e58
2fbac83b1be076ff8f0163053bec72c86ca113ab
8979 F20101221_AAACIK zapataphelan_c_Page_013thm.jpg
5eb71303b4becb76e02f7860f4a32146
dbdeb865c9ae9a9d45c7303852784ed5782020a5
386 F20101221_AAACHW zapataphelan_c_Page_102.txt
ee0583328616443e215d289c79545946
733d5ff48be794e1e99adf9da1c1da19be439551
F20101221_AAACIL zapataphelan_c_Page_068.tif
6400ef464fc7c763490a855f8aa80c3c
5716a28ee4783019e894aad7d9f2ce5895dc35bc
349164 F20101221_AAACHX zapataphelan_c_Page_057.jp2
16c29adfa5793e8aa567aeb0cb97b67e
3562631541b7c293035b1a9635759de3e130fdc5
F20101221_AAACJA zapataphelan_c_Page_040.tif
ffa624316e2cd064eab5cac557ff49f8
086c029b84e3cdb9806338eb2abc2e4538ac138f
109840 F20101221_AAACIM zapataphelan_c_Page_066.jpg
95310a564d7af42a397454a7c64579a8
047b4b90e39b55de571b3fe996d440530d71da46
8826 F20101221_AAACHY zapataphelan_c_Page_077thm.jpg
18d0560197f067e169991b94dc574816
95b1e4ea9426fca3df4533a45a91918c6b3c0647
37072 F20101221_AAACJB zapataphelan_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
23093c91ccf32dde311d26b4cefb02ab
c71f3f7a845c0baa44f9b38e0a3a3debc5b8a07c
2237 F20101221_AAACIN zapataphelan_c_Page_079.txt
a9960114968e01ce019454e2fc19e415
9931f4bb3371c754824a2476694e1331d3a61191
57226 F20101221_AAACHZ zapataphelan_c_Page_067.pro
0e17b9ce1f57aa3a2b2bb1275806eb2e
a7e88b4c13c97e2486a85bf4ebdace1532ab9b3f
64795 F20101221_AAACJC zapataphelan_c_Page_112.pro
ee8bf0fbe4f2cfb03d2adb1300882adb
7d0bf3fa939459f25f82ec02ae3890418e28837e
56427 F20101221_AAACIO zapataphelan_c_Page_032.pro
08c47a66d95b4b9323475ca819e71997
41dc6c93dc62e1150ca4d524787497ac5afbdd87
2857 F20101221_AAACJD zapataphelan_c_Page_084thm.jpg
2a03213add51dc39e35244814f20cd7c
666d9c90a43a895db17f93bac6fb60d5a4b0fbde
1142 F20101221_AAACIP zapataphelan_c_Page_082.txt
ee7e4e63d025fdffa10fdb6075b4a93f
63c510f1767bd43e5a69df37e3e507e349edadd7
53154 F20101221_AAACJE zapataphelan_c_Page_031.pro
95ec4292764a04c2d36d82bae8194766
9b488893c1a9ff6b0cda839edde622c822e2dc71
54021 F20101221_AAACIQ zapataphelan_c_Page_049.pro
7839c896537b3ae1d96d43dc305fda53
e8e264682a1ea515ef9c97ee05516633848725ea
106482 F20101221_AAACJF zapataphelan_c_Page_062.jpg
066b050f42e2c8bb7e684a0eb334a069
be406876ce6b60e09fd79e7dd0921e7ce396cc58
57545 F20101221_AAACIR zapataphelan_c_Page_106.pro
40383773613a99dc2ac7c9b1d2dbd069
a541cf6ae4902fab1123057194f27179b3e08d7c
1051961 F20101221_AAACJG zapataphelan_c_Page_055.jp2
10a181336cf6c63c272e096207c90166
be9770ed811738533cc582eacd7828e0976aa895
112783 F20101221_AAACIS zapataphelan_c_Page_042.jpg
761c9cf13fc7d4a567ce05fcfaa915fd
82358a8e50be68bfb8f3741108b5998b6e8ad952
25265604 F20101221_AAACJH zapataphelan_c_Page_021.tif
ebb2a53da5605d430c7da00e98edc1e9
d56a73a9e4759ed723c379b7cfbb1e07a3107a8e
360422 F20101221_AAACIT zapataphelan_c_Page_022.jp2
87f6b0d392c67a40b0109ff6cb1b246f
6ec81eeaca2738962d721e9e21bb455ed4e988a9
1051953 F20101221_AAACJI zapataphelan_c_Page_100.jp2
973c47a987331eafac23bc6a6c23dc05
6e80ec49326bbe46e0cc88d7d348a348368724a8
27921 F20101221_AAACIU zapataphelan_c_Page_022.jpg
44c59ec80ce8c3eeb00cb4318b717727
ac208150f929459741bafb49141655d094659c7e
F20101221_AAACJJ zapataphelan_c_Page_114.tif
dea133fbb9a99a4c08df5be7b0e304cb
54622c9402f62946bf754f713ae0ac03287270c0
F20101221_AAACIV zapataphelan_c_Page_020.tif
5018b626161ad13e562af659500d7d02
ef893dbab6b8d22e7864c87d9656031b1ca94507
F20101221_AAACJK zapataphelan_c_Page_083.tif
65bfd9a8c27739106d7e91d766bcb8ca
0bce3f2e848fb4d27246558296ff8901867310d2
55631 F20101221_AAACIW zapataphelan_c_Page_096.pro
ae9a3fe07d647825cb71a6fdafbd96bd
a87bd7588ac96c7d197de21fedef6f319e03edcb
F20101221_AAACIX zapataphelan_c_Page_111.tif
a4b7d9db7c3610e453c37ee942a6fa03
4c7567f2267464c8dd072f6b365ad6c64b340617
34959 F20101221_AAACKA zapataphelan_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
3c58b4db1332f3f0c3de9b6a6892b0ce
1f8c807d18c9f9401746a7e014337b4cc7cdbdb9
487323 F20101221_AAACJL zapataphelan_c.pdf
bde924f584acec4d46554566a61c0aca
bd699606210de1093362a8d92b24fb91a287f61e
F20101221_AAACIY zapataphelan_c_Page_112.tif
eae0d2b641572ee63d2554fb48741d3c
f4cd6305eb84d3fcaca94114d37e43f221aff1dc
113597 F20101221_AAACKB zapataphelan_c_Page_018.jpg
88fbf49bcc0f66b313a5c9df412c5f31
daa69e4910bed7030f45141bc40589b9d1b667a5
2407 F20101221_AAACJM zapataphelan_c_Page_005.txt
f6a57c3a69fb8e3d46c688d178a37ac5
ecdfdbdef8894ab359575b4525dfb4030b5b3167
110523 F20101221_AAACIZ zapataphelan_c_Page_043.jpg
69ba4018212019f709ae0f40c7474fe2
ca458f3d27e649bfdfa2e54ad86aaec050c24470
118353 F20101221_AAACKC zapataphelan_c_Page_113.jpg
0d49a8aac5af1a06d8934c97b45ac5d0
32995db78b6b29239e266b8b7cd9e3032aee46e6
8328 F20101221_AAACJN zapataphelan_c_Page_041thm.jpg
3dcb6f78879bdbc031ba131ee9dfad5c
537b95373c206b6cde17f3635cf3d6ab04a3ad84
2114 F20101221_AAACKD zapataphelan_c_Page_048.txt
768078b043d6a1dbd70ddc46b1442ba2
4d121a929e16527ee006fe3d7b0261ea82a9b48f
109551 F20101221_AAACJO zapataphelan_c_Page_058.jpg
8a6ddf0a70969aee2c708f78bbd9c8f1
177a1897aed9d824d5c6f412f9d959ac43bc67ce
F20101221_AAACKE zapataphelan_c_Page_087.tif
bdd65285fdccf4aac45257b366547d3e
bf84b0995e026dc6009d9952c7ef41c1c187ae12
29255 F20101221_AAACJP zapataphelan_c_Page_082.pro
f63ecd1a6ef5cad17592ab099356f765
5f11c5736725f9487ed98ab71ca2480cd551fbc8
2165 F20101221_AAACKF zapataphelan_c_Page_055.txt
2bb7a5ff08f1cf9a8c81d75ba292a11e
7a88cdd51ee8ed69ece019f4e7343279a4f621b7
8856 F20101221_AAACJQ zapataphelan_c_Page_049thm.jpg
135f3514e7097d03185d0928f480b58c
c7624c658757ad447f745f4b075b5ba1aa209e01
F20101221_AAACKG zapataphelan_c_Page_071.tif
1fc15fe8bb1b38ebb834635f2a00a148
76be9989edceabc183030daca90c8665add99d6b
1051936 F20101221_AAACJR zapataphelan_c_Page_016.jp2
2ed5338f44195cd69233338ba459deb2
53934458bb26980bdaed4c820ff2ef5734ead112
1051937 F20101221_AAACKH zapataphelan_c_Page_099.jp2
94e1ed186f54028adaa519eb1f3de345
df1f5e1fae69ed3452a0ce9f74f37be933177554
8677 F20101221_AAACJS zapataphelan_c_Page_100thm.jpg
eadaf02aebc1583bfed0a3074dca2562
32809a20aa1ef477c72a5b6915627564088e932b
30741 F20101221_AAACKI zapataphelan_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
9980b3153e9d5f10f4165e78e867e596
a5d36ea8ef7c3eb8bfc1fe4b9c14efc6db34b0dc
2054 F20101221_AAACJT zapataphelan_c_Page_061.txt
012f900f4b36ebce8bae86bb1a10cdc7
d51d39350759ee0fde271e802cabb4b0ea86fd55
1051921 F20101221_AAACKJ zapataphelan_c_Page_010.jp2
fe24062da4a8e818f1ecdc52e9db1874
c445edcbfa98645670dc6f0937e373f7ed5a6951
47288 F20101221_AAACJU zapataphelan_c_Page_083.jpg
4e589523b5bf04c3f78297bb40b2440c
9893506c04c8a5e3082ba63ec939efc41a74a796
F20101221_AAACKK zapataphelan_c_Page_046.tif
65c093ce13256eb7365d63512ed71613
bffd469fae8d83f1d50891b2ebeccf3c9b799fcb
F20101221_AAACJV zapataphelan_c_Page_103.tif
4d5e1680485e3d56f5276ddae5aacf3c
5425f45726d00d7d3f90f38cf2c631ed53acfe7b
59798 F20101221_AAACKL zapataphelan_c_Page_091.jpg
85944e237388d37e1b29d31be854f558
72cecdbdd2b486cd9c094d5648a94b0099028e44
1051984 F20101221_AAACJW zapataphelan_c_Page_054.jp2
059df5f0ad5be7ebb4555591f29f6fba
fbbadef444f6ddec6341fd4e55f2ad59800f8533
2375 F20101221_AAACLA zapataphelan_c_Page_103.txt
1d7981f70f093f71e17d8e8b43cbd37a
0c5d33169142a696b9ebfb2bca57be23d9796edf
1051978 F20101221_AAACJX zapataphelan_c_Page_101.jp2
fb6bbc0e84f99068da949d82341ad0f7
85d8b16a9cf138bf5174662397f1fca845fbf3ce
2076 F20101221_AAACLB zapataphelan_c_Page_041.txt
8e82ae744a43d7f164a4cc950704d0af
bb7d60b164298687ff9d3bdf9516228f6d0b26b2
1051940 F20101221_AAACKM zapataphelan_c_Page_046.jp2
cc1880ca764a45963babc2b66ff3852c
521811ba52fb6e7ed898d54641af5d50f317580a
57816 F20101221_AAACJY zapataphelan_c_Page_040.pro
be7539113e8988986f49954e737dd30b
5ddc1896f8d371e35179afece0568007d2c6f065
18864 F20101221_AAACLC zapataphelan_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
098132a6cf80118bb10d7e677b65351c
0c7ec2658cb6b61f9dd927a9c59487bfacc67c92
1051974 F20101221_AAACKN zapataphelan_c_Page_014.jp2
f6bc10adbcdcf91c7b6b7cf8ec0646f3
0b7b6a1529533438ccafd5d409d2aba66494cc9e
12647 F20101221_AAACJZ zapataphelan_c_Page_081.pro
35cd39fb86398bcad6a4954d31cc2678
303e02565425bd06a42b044f747bb2ad5d7c80a7
2188 F20101221_AAACLD zapataphelan_c_Page_076.txt
dbd02b2c85a3d4171329ebd02ca3fd81
9702c027b996c130e864db4ce5f7cce49e48b725
6237 F20101221_AAACKO zapataphelan_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
99edc0e415d62a2048940430dec24853
328bb68c386f7910be04eabe066dbaca49b927d6
36269 F20101221_AAACLE zapataphelan_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
0a62e104499aa0c8e567073588971880
f563d60923fc68599cc1ef1d86f1edbccb265db8
88316 F20101221_AAACKP zapataphelan_c_Page_005.jpg
3593f753e8fa258da5f5525738b406bf
32621d1269b10e252cd8648bd7daf156d3fe498b
8874 F20101221_AAACLF zapataphelan_c_Page_097thm.jpg
eecbfadff79ba9096554a65eef0aba70
7b1b373f641339faaf0423f2e6424bed97545228
13532 F20101221_AAACKQ zapataphelan_c_Page_070.pro
c3df0047ffa0caf06b61d7baf569e151
382b83b20656fe25a207a50d79d36a50b31f78a2
15264 F20101221_AAACLG zapataphelan_c_Page_116.jpg
11e8a099a2d55a7f957c09bb354f5971
2f9151565a76c938c6f5908a660207efa050ea76
F20101221_AAACKR zapataphelan_c_Page_033.tif
de5956be8c1638dd3625b3d68a00f9f7
14e9655216e35413518649abd9292d89aa10e843
8704 F20101221_AAACLH zapataphelan_c_Page_058thm.jpg
31b9613155936a6dd7986249e7ca10ea
c1898a9779fa373a29b2bd864169310a74cccc61
110961 F20101221_AAACKS zapataphelan_c_Page_080.jpg
80f5862f486cc3ec60a251de4640c7e9
16c8cd9f0eea28e3c0399cbeec876cdd9189e7be
8497 F20101221_AAACLI zapataphelan_c_Page_015thm.jpg
e77bb58c01e411748ee1f1d2b10366ec
d227d3cff3466ff4e5f636d9fafc09bd6dfec4da
F20101221_AAACKT zapataphelan_c_Page_099.tif
03028f284a19e10a60e114ae48786794
7df64c625d165e0fd020b9532b350a4249041bb2
1051913 F20101221_AAACLJ zapataphelan_c_Page_059.jp2
58e76ff2edf1930f17c105bd2bd39fe8
7402c8de3f087250ad0eb7ee7f54e166234acd90
505516 F20101221_AAACKU zapataphelan_c_Page_020.jp2
b8655a4d9d1223da1a7bff865dd0140f
bcc89f19e50f04d1dc33e8e38ff0235560a25ba4
54140 F20101221_AAACLK zapataphelan_c_Page_010.pro
c7d35dc086db85914ad503000117521a
8ddc0de2d714d29abbb25e0fff8325d9d73c7f83
51610 F20101221_AAACKV zapataphelan_c_Page_016.pro
6e9084b3e13560f03f2e5d8acafd3f9c
2cdc66dbe8455b4587e8efc2934c1128aa43cd15
110194 F20101221_AAACLL zapataphelan_c_Page_076.jpg
c3fa503ef1811785009fabaf89268ee7
941e83fe487f1c5bbd83fb9dfa2c2b61c3055c66
1051985 F20101221_AAACKW zapataphelan_c_Page_105.jp2
ef687c074e1434659523dc1512c6f7e8
9a8ec10c8811e5203ee12c88fe19a56f104392a1
31923 F20101221_AAACLM zapataphelan_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
053af654f4c4178b5141985288309db6
4739dc2b7f1379bfff73315e13a61c79d501ac84
F20101221_AAACKX zapataphelan_c_Page_042.tif
ff4d869305f50680d6313e8da731858c
04d2871fe2d7feae7023b1d7e286e066588b88f3
112082 F20101221_AAACMA zapataphelan_c_Page_017.jpg
3b592f31ea79f290840370a7fcc07969
c8d036c753267c4d83811f64ace42a7ca8877937
2199 F20101221_AAACKY zapataphelan_c_Page_029.txt
66ef14e4c339b5f78ff6cf421852ecbb
1c3386baea5a1c608258bd20770f495781d56682
F20101221_AAACMB zapataphelan_c_Page_036.txt
85208c275517729a98ea6ac062b2952a
b41c8906cfc5ecedc8a8ddd25360a45edf8ba7b0
1051972 F20101221_AAACLN zapataphelan_c_Page_114.jp2
195d4063610f78bfce18c48477b45170
5a86a257bd4a0e94fa733a4512229117098d9b1d
8571 F20101221_AAACKZ zapataphelan_c_Page_095thm.jpg
13758519dc590360116b319c3d102cdb
622bc09d8ebf671d4b24f4a467468da2f925eeb7
F20101221_AAACMC zapataphelan_c_Page_002.tif
8b2e5ddc823a8e219cb46e0d145fca07
4530b1c234d915d34e6fb27988922282b9a835cd
1051950 F20101221_AAACLO zapataphelan_c_Page_008.jp2
7b9a7cacd3917e9bb5f1cf4c91792f0c
768f64d98fa70c58ba8b2634b5e766bd9b92756f
591542 F20101221_AAACMD zapataphelan_c_Page_082.jp2
d1ca0a5ef1c48ec4feb4285993bcc8bd
13039ebffd5064d4ff54c8a7d84d0472ee5249b8
763402 F20101221_AAACLP zapataphelan_c_Page_086.jp2
1957de95bc42310539e8d6dfa09a3e2e
d34db6134b8d419f2920c5932d78046f1f89f8fa
113381 F20101221_AAACME zapataphelan_c_Page_032.jpg
50bf937ad72daa4d5b03efd34d8b9844
88893d434cba85d43609de780964cd07fd4d9602
1051964 F20101221_AAACLQ zapataphelan_c_Page_104.jp2
5f25c49c0efd9908498f75e4341e0192
f9228cc8a71bd553c9c59cec470c817f9740c07a
1051956 F20101221_AAACMF zapataphelan_c_Page_069.jp2
8c3845ca0d62c36518a4739685b2c9fb
9b05588f9f486f1d51a04f071f458f43935c3465
F20101221_AAACLR zapataphelan_c_Page_060thm.jpg
ea203b73214e257608f4cfecd0a4d29d
23f8a677af6cc6918092e52c262f34277525e27c
298150 F20101221_AAACMG zapataphelan_c_Page_117.jp2
d0fdb66f3679ccaeef96c889cdf15688
f095d3da4616694bf612ed145495f4476bc86cde
F20101221_AAACLS zapataphelan_c_Page_076.jp2
7643bbd68a2eaf61ff4aac31dc6609b7
3403e7a4cac9bd7579e59d48052345c028d5d4e8
106065 F20101221_AAACMH zapataphelan_c_Page_047.jpg
5a4c608427c64957329bb15580d2a78f
42e421cc4192bc954bdb920c03bc2d9aba5b3c72
107061 F20101221_AAACMI zapataphelan_c_Page_063.jpg
005a21b82fc04f05aa39cc2693bef603
56afc76b440de37ca2093a8d4fe0ec6684d61aec
2249 F20101221_AAACLT zapataphelan_c_Page_065.txt
058cb5efe147b551164dded4108f368f
4c34326c5721247048d8638b12785735a7e509c7
649608 F20101221_AAACMJ zapataphelan_c_Page_006.jp2
08bbc92892ccb41c4e42d0bdc954fede
fc467fdd07da8906a00903299551da91af982157
1155 F20101221_AAACLU zapataphelan_c_Page_004.txt
35bcaad059ff1b8e62f301555cfbed37
cd7a347fd559cdcc32d8748f955f32b6127eda69
8910 F20101221_AAACMK zapataphelan_c_Page_065thm.jpg
b225721cd41beb0d034958b1e09668c7
d3c06cc293acc03548066c5a081fe7a1a828d52c
4354 F20101221_AAACLV zapataphelan_c_Page_090thm.jpg
b6cdf9da433527cd08ab80e121283285
236b81ee872573a330204cb15c5f87a0d7ef1dbd
35917 F20101221_AAACML zapataphelan_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
d4fa1831533137e382495f58b2afa215
4aa6e56441327e95c55317245b33c1377e099d88
F20101221_AAACLW zapataphelan_c_Page_097.tif
ced36bdc8d2d5a30f4b49d517fea0a65
2013ab593b4a33890b5eb618dd85c0022591649d
108502 F20101221_AAACNA zapataphelan_c_Page_093.jpg
6313209d82932b76fcd54ba8c89d1153
520aeb972fec9fa5858ca1369db42ed9ab9c3232
33856 F20101221_AAACMM zapataphelan_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
61e1d047689def003a09ccfe8b4c2ee2
e21529479d3098e5bc804a83daeba02793fa703b
8687 F20101221_AAACLX zapataphelan_c_Page_074thm.jpg
c911ab0f3a2bd0cd7b2667fada578fad
c7c7aa49794ca3d8ea60865748d15c3f4a366901
2222 F20101221_AAACNB zapataphelan_c_Page_034.txt
65258d802e41d5cf91375b4bcb103f99
b76b864766e01daa100b17b0355ea29e24ccc286
9075 F20101221_AAACMN zapataphelan_c_Page_105thm.jpg
67b3ef8f99f3f6e09fb2d8e065c54f97
f3aaca53f67079ff926777c36f75f05f7caa5058
1051915 F20101221_AAACLY zapataphelan_c_Page_065.jp2
214e936f08e3f306a25d65a4b1c11ddc
f182ba800f08f652f4808c6f009f29200f360bd4
9076 F20101221_AAACNC zapataphelan_c_Page_112thm.jpg
b87a0861e9ed4f6daf46fa9d69525ec7
769ad049f86c350934e937f51da6882963efc396
F20101221_AAACLZ zapataphelan_c_Page_038.tif
f30b076fbe544ae607e2731d94da7283
35d68dfd4159b84697858342949df9fc3d122065
34963 F20101221_AAACND zapataphelan_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
cf8807f7c07cfb29fa55674ce4582760
f2ac5ba2b972b62ba50c22d58a892d526a0be360
491108 F20101221_AAACMO zapataphelan_c_Page_085.jp2
139170b065a6b7591b8f3c93cc5bd0e5
2623d21e71a202f92fbfa439a866dd805bc3dea6
8967 F20101221_AAACNE zapataphelan_c_Page_040thm.jpg
d08a364a7e155f93acc4d2932f47afdf
b1aad4f33d4136cb56b74e84a908d108f54db9df
F20101221_AAACMP zapataphelan_c_Page_031.jp2
ccfce2c41184e27d2a32f793c839bb85
5c95b753d0c710dde5f99dfe77f6bf24939b95d3
9220 F20101221_AAACNF zapataphelan_c_Page_064thm.jpg
ea349333b173300c7087d703727525fe
c690b40185c53a8427fc259bc500d425b7b3863c
18341 F20101221_AAACMQ zapataphelan_c_Page_087.pro
dfd322eea35a2b2297187bebd2a51980
7612b6dd69fe34ff92756033baa6c67fe8184467
8352 F20101221_AAACNG zapataphelan_c_Page_047thm.jpg
d714a8351e56bc34fe1efcb00aa3d34b
8061cf3d82b085bf5e6f79e3e3eb85e5eb94d3fd
37295 F20101221_AAACMR zapataphelan_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
b51c3e522dcbd4304c7cb2b447392b15
fe759bae387b90a0f08663b96d2b94f97aba72a0
112095 F20101221_AAACNH zapataphelan_c_Page_026.jpg
fd22b41bd6c0ccf66ee4878d1341e528
ce9a0a7627d71b0bd6e92c32624b7dd8b786d58c
52175 F20101221_AAACMS zapataphelan_c_Page_015.pro
8bf245683e47fae04842224d61e338ac
5e73c877509484a58de9ed3a61e6f19494b9c4b1
1051955 F20101221_AAACNI zapataphelan_c_Page_050.jp2
1ca88bc2b3e0757389be4644d2016850
4b6afa3c7ceece7c2402d0e995712040abb3a2cf
114781 F20101221_AAACMT zapataphelan_c_Page_079.jpg
433de9cade4fdc2689e327890fab2810
f1aa72f8bcc839097e9200329925449a80ea5594
4151 F20101221_AAACNJ zapataphelan_c_Page_089thm.jpg
1eb840b651d92f5d95126409481d1a24
b3ded16cab88ba5a73a97a8b6171d5853cd00e87
52924 F20101221_AAACMU zapataphelan_c_Page_056.pro
a8cae188fd4bd9eef5642d7145b60d69
97f8913914e8a0d8ff6fe0124cd785a47191e9ad
2348 F20101221_AAACNK zapataphelan_c_Page_106.txt
8cfe4379fed1082ed9eb09f32f7f4685
03ef233b32dfd3d43b353723413c3740f5ce34a7
2543 F20101221_AAACMV zapataphelan_c_Page_115.txt
d3f5b2827632a06608e4ccf7f8270a34
60ab81db4fc145fa65a148f60c47ed770c45cf08
8620 F20101221_AAACNL zapataphelan_c_Page_042thm.jpg
8181b0803b854c2a3137f459c37ae0cb
e23c49981b1e1f66ca42a39dd56ac6aef8734847
35386 F20101221_AAACMW zapataphelan_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
d84e64c8dba1f4586662ae00669f7d2d
75af79b914298d7b3a90fde2b218ba37e6c759b5
115422 F20101221_AAACNM zapataphelan_c_Page_067.jpg
e79ef8c844b8e0f17a91d94a4042e600
285dc17e2220890141be3fad620e6b08fabdf7e5
9856 F20101221_AAACMX zapataphelan_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
edebad7ceeafdb87b933b6baf25a7592
05387a97bbcf842d69ce4c0d1a7ab309cad00488
56282 F20101221_AAACOA zapataphelan_c_Page_051.pro
b31a09fbb84f12f868e7ebfc47bb9a40
8acb1049b21edb538ca835a7ac85a7a8e8ba9c9d
33526 F20101221_AAACNN zapataphelan_c_Page_068.jpg
a5c524fde001a17e0b6ddafeea13a77a
d9f7d1731ba11e461acce0fc99747c06fa710485
110820 F20101221_AAACMY zapataphelan_c_Page_036.jpg
901fd56c01de3a5b3a538d420f1e7da6
267c55b7a60ae3fdbfe91b5cabd5f8fda318d1d7
3554 F20101221_AAACOB zapataphelan_c_Page_085thm.jpg
92afb5469a9ac73090b3da0878454ab1
04ab06f0fc88d0c85f867cc8d853690ecedd1ad3
8742 F20101221_AAACNO zapataphelan_c_Page_030thm.jpg
44a1b7ca3d5d2d58a564b129ae5e886b
a6dd64afd2143f3aadd34ef9ba77c0a5da6036f2
F20101221_AAACMZ zapataphelan_c_Page_010.tif
9369ac2d6ac5b55792e7424d8c5f12ab
11598c0d2a8913c1ce01f412b00f9580685f8109
F20101221_AAACOC zapataphelan_c_Page_057.tif
bc06d013fa7580a535df7761b944d101
5ce1863ec2c4390686d5f449a6346778ca31877d
F20101221_AAACOD zapataphelan_c_Page_086.tif
8ea3337081f86aa9362379b7c27dd57e
a40198e504c6d3afff1dce649b443b4300f1a667
2088 F20101221_AAACNP zapataphelan_c_Page_047.txt
ab2badada776cc801069be1767fd1c64
dbd3068a9982b1956fa54281a2df2e23c3a01fdc
8737 F20101221_AAACOE zapataphelan_c_Page_025thm.jpg
4ab6065676eb2c0a19d20347ff816343
85c37e8c246b8666d27019ec81e951f909974786
8499 F20101221_AAACNQ zapataphelan_c_Page_056thm.jpg
3ab445f9d59dc6eeb6c26d17ffc34daf
e0c6b522c8eead6513ed070bf428c744a5b5216f
36686 F20101221_AAACOF zapataphelan_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
39502eff55480e019094b5b92266f9f9
61fdafd101f9d16794c0e2af0c002c2102fa3f58
1051923 F20101221_AAACNR zapataphelan_c_Page_015.jp2
44581f54d64104077a8b4bfc42bfe4e7
f51ea38dee110708f30ec2389433e1e2f6bd20d7
35764 F20101221_AAACOG zapataphelan_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
9fad29ab5abd96e13f1531268d02af13
75b422ef1a104a9484502e37c60602e188225cde
35615 F20101221_AAACNS zapataphelan_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
e34586f8e5f5f5e5d5acc044c5d54c8a
e3feee02874004a7b05e8ed6d6f2e2d3be3e7c46
2081 F20101221_AAACOH zapataphelan_c_Page_056.txt
cbe8d0afc777d31bb0d946e0d0ddfce5
6b1cc8a2163a9de1f6f8ff3a43966478f03a9f79
113926 F20101221_AAACNT zapataphelan_c_Page_024.jpg
d411fe35119eb16fc8e752924967ba1a
fedecf818b0bf69d67449ffaa362fb4bf856c70e
F20101221_AAACOI zapataphelan_c_Page_063.jp2
dd9b60dfcf78af303d16e3c27978ded7
180f0814f91f0c12d0083ea54cd3811db75c76a7
F20101221_AAACNU zapataphelan_c_Page_051.tif
e699f5f21b41fe06231a0365d25293bc
f5fe91fe78a8df62078cc045cfc62006d07f52c3
290 F20101221_AAACOJ zapataphelan_c_Page_009.txt
7b5a419d9695b7067baf243b768efc8c
765a59a413da6a6b06ec0622643eabf9920f24de
2272 F20101221_AAACNV zapataphelan_c_Page_094.txt
7cd7c5e41ff8eb6adcbd1bdb0474fa99
5243c8f202284a2cfc36e73d2421cc295754b27b
358 F20101221_AAACOK zapataphelan_c_Page_090.txt
95eeb00234188896d9d6c818720c9a0b
699b0e7ef4a3d8a23d10b78a9d8f011ed2f22a67
61700 F20101221_AAACNW zapataphelan_c_Page_108.pro
fc2dfe7e59295b864a87c61df4fb82bf
2f61f198394af5290d2cb534cacf08ce2f4287af
1051981 F20101221_AAACOL zapataphelan_c_Page_047.jp2
584af703d026605c83d58fceb46c873e
7e396c29365d91d1c932bd17facc66c587f07579
58919 F20101221_AAACNX zapataphelan_c_Page_113.pro
2389f83b06afc765fb0001d7684d1f61
3e676950c05294da277c6f08a452181ad34a7284
14249 F20101221_AAACPA zapataphelan_c_Page_019.pro
0b99577d6038715f345786eefd0e2370
fb034be9ddb3afa8c9abe7075a8d6c186113fa6d
2150 F20101221_AAACOM zapataphelan_c_Page_044.txt
6c23b7b0d5128c342c07a0b92918c6c6
66e444896a828b362dbf3b0772baafbcbf00a394
F20101221_AAACNY zapataphelan_c_Page_008.tif
c1a7f59a0fb5bca9c69d0f313e57ba75
cfb4df68326aff86f33ca74ac1d5eb659e1600df
F20101221_AAACPB zapataphelan_c_Page_061.jp2
b260de469c58e3c54df7619146c75261
2b6a1f3d61beeb44e8668592c88ceadce3e2fdbf
3859 F20101221_AAACON zapataphelan_c_Page_088.pro
c1cfa16b8297df7509cd9b5ee0643bf2
961b9a4480f75d63366807ad5abf5ed2b6010240
57883 F20101221_AAACNZ zapataphelan_c_Page_075.pro
c7f8e990b852937a330cddc33bc10804
ac1e146c585b9a4175dd3475fa0d3c986bd90521
F20101221_AAACPC zapataphelan_c_Page_001.tif
126a917ec36fa884cb739ffbbe867da6
6feaded2ea05afcd0e779af176dc0a9445d1e8bb
55945 F20101221_AAACOO zapataphelan_c_Page_080.pro
27195317a5c79c5a8c6ac9a15bb68594
58ec056e524eccae384080c64b8d57a8abc9069a
F20101221_AAACPD zapataphelan_c_Page_017.txt
25c3368bbaf70ae332d9d17f8c41e651
804ee3ec7a02326fa526eace99b33e7b102ad99b
370387 F20101221_AAACOP zapataphelan_c_Page_003.jp2
9e2d4957ce1ae8cf3d6ec8a1f4021e9b
22b5341b125241fac6effc70a469c8af3f3ed30c
20360 F20101221_AAACPE zapataphelan_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
afaf77a06f53f9d90a52bc619f3a8a24
d3ef05b3c8d439b937525fa03fc2aa3fe6e4f8c4
530 F20101221_AAACPF zapataphelan_c_Page_070.txt
cdb6ef9923728b1a17ae3d4bc0fc4cf4
5251d9dbc0c1996c43bcdaa211214ad4f69b43db
33619 F20101221_AAACOQ zapataphelan_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
d1866af244a80725f22ec404f1558987
c30ec5f59ad66af776a59cc1bf53bb5264772d87
113049 F20101221_AAACPG zapataphelan_c_Page_045.jpg
83363faee7d41780043001e5d8d0c9ae
524f7dce46b8f0b31c7507371fbc370b97b211a1
2214 F20101221_AAACOR zapataphelan_c_Page_026.txt
da4f473818308f32fd7a6d2c12d6ec06
b218cddc07c56c86d45ee8048d88169720ab444e
F20101221_AAACPH zapataphelan_c_Page_088.tif
1dad51f0d2861ae3c63bef4563f85334
44ac8b7dc4b9791e2415c601abc950df8db3477b
4970 F20101221_AAACOS zapataphelan_c_Page_004thm.jpg
f8eeef79262b9e554fe0340c8e5f2267
cd6c9a6469f5f78283b5aac8dab8213f42c12a90
F20101221_AAACPI zapataphelan_c_Page_080.tif
9598ae95e1ebc21e522025eb96fc3d48
64d22322e56d39f5f02a4f8412fbfc607220f4e2
106691 F20101221_AAACOT zapataphelan_c_Page_033.jpg
8b9bb69a4f42e877aa0b01c676ced16b
3b3de4ee57b1bc47e1370f84f883c9f5fb9c0a37
1051965 F20101221_AAACPJ zapataphelan_c_Page_043.jp2
39fa3c6461358114877fbe2eace1928f
0bb848e038f026333a1378a3288148072d3f604d
2121 F20101221_AAACOU zapataphelan_c_Page_098.txt
d443701e0aad386683cb1b84354720b2
60b31d73c5afe024ab246289365ad5e199ad2c45
139562 F20101221_AAACPK UFE0022387_00001.mets FULL
05f498aac770b4967ff403ad72b3f7d4
e697bb196f0022053bdb4839acd815d5a6687bef
56340 F20101221_AAACOV zapataphelan_c_Page_018.pro
13883372c48b798df18e19b8cb529650
3ac0a21825e5a80cc7565670de173f4b2bc617ba
494 F20101221_AAACOW zapataphelan_c_Page_001.txt
96f9e1a4cf768a54103a407f61403c37
4e20e0f17fd357d07a41c157d8df270f8f475570
111179 F20101221_AAACQA zapataphelan_c_Page_030.jpg
52ba3b88d126de97affffe761868dad2
24d892c58c3c338de26717849367244028178ce3
8285 F20101221_AAACOX zapataphelan_c_Page_106thm.jpg
361939d0bace44595e02c66061f98def
6dd858cfcc42337b6abc37e563e2b13cee47715f
105517 F20101221_AAACQB zapataphelan_c_Page_031.jpg
9672ab3c5c237c49568cc60619b28869
fd658ddcf79cdd09aacd1f5675d79e4650e671b0
4440 F20101221_AAACPN zapataphelan_c_Page_002.jpg
479ec3fa776d7d59d87b34ee7973f9fa
b4ba2e1520f373307ac0005d5a513026d1f5a5a3
F20101221_AAACOY zapataphelan_c_Page_018.tif
fdfcdaf8c8b5d148f61e68bfaaeaafea
be02ed655de06cfb25f43489807a17a802b56282
114917 F20101221_AAACQC zapataphelan_c_Page_034.jpg
983b23c30cc824e02ff579f1f182dd85
273e9a39cb483eed0552fa26a709288c691f3526
35755 F20101221_AAACPO zapataphelan_c_Page_003.jpg
68a8ecb3127377e8fb0c69eb3fe0d225
aa1f136dd70c5f9fefdd55c875235904bccea423
F20101221_AAACOZ zapataphelan_c_Page_007.tif
715bd3c2659b21b78e4c480977a92769
1476f25df2e9495730bf4ad3ffbc4b2233c63159
113275 F20101221_AAACQD zapataphelan_c_Page_037.jpg
c9fc7bcf9872e877b3a263fba00d7fdb
2ee295ab81c7fb521cf50d8049f2c9a203dfb9a8
39112 F20101221_AAACPP zapataphelan_c_Page_007.jpg
109d1d4a63fffc73136bde286c93f980
71f01d219e28cec965a3c33b42be8a096f22dbf4
112350 F20101221_AAACQE zapataphelan_c_Page_038.jpg
fc9d602b6fd31d470696add33f34af72
77e297585bcb6d27199f8943d9a0735f070f6449
17129 F20101221_AAACPQ zapataphelan_c_Page_009.jpg
e2aded3de401787a64ebd1b166c132d2
a688b612ffa71348bb079119bb1a2aa9ec8b032f
110454 F20101221_AAACQF zapataphelan_c_Page_039.jpg
2c53c8dbb92efa318aab2fb19a0cb9e6
c12c5630b256a3cb6eaa11c7fe8c73425fc90635
105279 F20101221_AAACQG zapataphelan_c_Page_041.jpg
dcc63dc2d0db8289431fc6bfbf309f00
3dad635e53c6c8e445af1e77010134d57efcc57d
108540 F20101221_AAACPR zapataphelan_c_Page_010.jpg
647b239cb25656b626431e5c2a064153
74bb4027f7c4f0c1e8016538cd6cc8a42c302f8d
109876 F20101221_AAACQH zapataphelan_c_Page_046.jpg
f4ab41dc05493aec96f7fd160a397cbc
0e34a6d214d5e25117c3d564126890e0778c144d
110894 F20101221_AAACPS zapataphelan_c_Page_011.jpg
3b8109b4155fbaae4a5fa5583b4c0360
2b83cadff44c908e78fc485b6dfbc3c72241d7f4
110257 F20101221_AAACQI zapataphelan_c_Page_049.jpg
5adc4590c709557b359e4d0f72dd63c8
7b0f950ca237b867992a41affc2ef5871919bf17
114357 F20101221_AAACPT zapataphelan_c_Page_013.jpg
506a34274f61a31b3df8b463ed31f50d
d60a9588e3caacc647a8b41a7ae4c4e92d5c7258
109340 F20101221_AAACQJ zapataphelan_c_Page_050.jpg
12676ac2dd00d5a9d892f918af582b4a
7cde771e795da62bf7002e19ae8c9c577eeb3947
112742 F20101221_AAACPU zapataphelan_c_Page_014.jpg
63f57ac657ea79aec477089e4046d656
c93ead85382d7cfe41dda6e6f19927ac7a459acb
113712 F20101221_AAACQK zapataphelan_c_Page_051.jpg
6b602d94908ad3d416f0fb34e3fdf23d
b50134d0797f6454e0e623ec239decbb7cb14af0
105832 F20101221_AAACPV zapataphelan_c_Page_016.jpg
784fe432432d0f4559cb2cc639e8570d
7c96505056db25c69765a9bc5b4a55a76a37aa90
105073 F20101221_AAACQL zapataphelan_c_Page_056.jpg
47f37355d089ee814d8935eaea71941d
6479838c4475673a1315a462470e85a859c7b1ae
104529 F20101221_AAACPW zapataphelan_c_Page_023.jpg
a736fb8c50d3243d9521f92aaeccdce3
8ba4556179e36df207a8dc220513004a2754bbb8
34372 F20101221_AAACQM zapataphelan_c_Page_057.jpg
505afe62de286243d8846f3e16e17924
e0de80b5e2d77e1a480ee9b40012f69402b798ed
109870 F20101221_AAACPX zapataphelan_c_Page_025.jpg
1886da07c865108d905f9da2d4d2c750
c8babc5fab338017d880b1a7901c4bfe031193d9
38767 F20101221_AAACRA zapataphelan_c_Page_087.jpg
9dbb174e808e96a8c68dfcffc1fb081e
0ceea53b935a3cec0d28053bc2e5c85e539d33e0
99584 F20101221_AAACQN zapataphelan_c_Page_059.jpg
696c51822865fadfaaeae15ab459c1e5
7935dccd675b5df0da37d0560662f054693ee19f
106303 F20101221_AAACPY zapataphelan_c_Page_027.jpg
651186d3bc1d309580e627fe405c46e0
fd6c17f5bd26a933949163030df9cbcf6a811754
53719 F20101221_AAACRB zapataphelan_c_Page_088.jpg
1b59b7fa9b012759c81e28ffa6b1f4c6
605cbb64850f288556124ae27c398df36d159776
113131 F20101221_AAACQO zapataphelan_c_Page_060.jpg
c82afce60483d0435364553022d438cf
03a930b0352de5e82e91e58855b7507695a22402
114561 F20101221_AAACPZ zapataphelan_c_Page_028.jpg
5cad759572cee2363fa95ec52295621f
fa1fa6662c5a8ede34e6c23c2ed13beac02ab076
43475 F20101221_AAACRC zapataphelan_c_Page_089.jpg
c6c957d8ad791a3fe27df41b766fec65
191c9b69ddde2b2941d82fba37e055626d5cc0ad
105111 F20101221_AAACQP zapataphelan_c_Page_061.jpg
bdc6052bd9d7a51ce26e346fb5d16683
c6d5012edb7afc5c618d8e9b0686143d78bfff0b
105705 F20101221_AAACRD zapataphelan_c_Page_092.jpg
c4b137e1b4b93ad4122db8bb60e414be
86c2ca3b975784cae732d3780424e0a9afb60031
108662 F20101221_AAACQQ zapataphelan_c_Page_064.jpg
e9f94398507232c0072c626d1a232152
a80a4e05ced116b76b88bb6f56c6d0804ddd413e
111337 F20101221_AAACRE zapataphelan_c_Page_097.jpg
a52708454848c4cef30c590c3a3c4e43
8e4209bd8dc39c93f02e214295065f73832fa522
109364 F20101221_AAACRF zapataphelan_c_Page_100.jpg
b04fd69e4725674c88de7e2717747d35
e78ee1468ab32e0d89d208a207d0bc13249dcf5e
127253 F20101221_AAACQR zapataphelan_c_Page_069.jpg
24bb5e78f08a44945fd769698b4edb77
bace6ab85c7f623445850d19487dfe44bfbec292
106271 F20101221_AAACRG zapataphelan_c_Page_101.jpg
eaa7eee95a42cb70c024293b79a01c65
821cdc1bf7aa70b2b67e3406f43f341203c571d3
22551 F20101221_AAACRH zapataphelan_c_Page_102.jpg
2969f1de7516fc9b69afb198dd8b9db5
f5ba13a9af0eee9cd881e17fd6b67d856115da2a
103192 F20101221_AAACQS zapataphelan_c_Page_073.jpg
3f3afb136d5f63738f221c2efdf3621c
04be44e57c623b6002b272c5785a3e0db21ee6f6
115259 F20101221_AAACRI zapataphelan_c_Page_103.jpg
2e34ca90c533f9e02c592ddc09135238
88a5e3a638610be14091363190538a0dccf5014b
110843 F20101221_AAACQT zapataphelan_c_Page_074.jpg
a6f5aaf24ebf74f07add589c5ed67662
f323425d00daaab0b585315ba1fe9a5c870a0c47
121242 F20101221_AAACRJ zapataphelan_c_Page_104.jpg
bf6bea75893ce4f33965a56366d4c29b
0a5fca6f684be9e0b5d59933c0dff92d79445448
113674 F20101221_AAACQU zapataphelan_c_Page_075.jpg
4795aa85677ba74c835e3aa4d6a10763
fd3d574f7c9fa674dc2495ca1217584a5c138c5a
114574 F20101221_AAACRK zapataphelan_c_Page_106.jpg
7a98d15322d284e4e6f81a4bb0b8285a
19fc7066cdca755fd2075b6ea8854cd19ebd7814
107957 F20101221_AAACQV zapataphelan_c_Page_078.jpg
efd5086bc84fc75210bd8a4e82515c6b
28bbfe717ba72fae1fc8ba4664c7f68d77cff353
120219 F20101221_AAACRL zapataphelan_c_Page_107.jpg
85e0904902dec5fc15b7018a2f64de5d
da00aea093bad00af17669f712d4f25072f0acc8
27536 F20101221_AAACQW zapataphelan_c_Page_081.jpg
def6772ecec5b29ecb4abf8674a8976a
9da794dbe90b17bd18fd85a7bf369e72fb0d43fd
331526 F20101221_AAACSA zapataphelan_c_Page_019.jp2
82c0077d9c948ff5fede0fc7abc773e4
5b8577db71e4fcd402ff29a2b067a730254bea85
119796 F20101221_AAACRM zapataphelan_c_Page_108.jpg
210fe277cd5af795f65372b47b06afeb
e9feb893ff4e3949c53090ffda9e667c2920d73c
60634 F20101221_AAACQX zapataphelan_c_Page_082.jpg
7dbe8cc5fa16cbdc0931b14086049c81
74307970435ae7ef5dd632d5e48cfd713000e121
1051969 F20101221_AAACSB zapataphelan_c_Page_024.jp2
d1b286db70c6a6a5c345a288d147c950
1be534a875f5d990889be2d3acf2f5c15645336e
123419 F20101221_AAACRN zapataphelan_c_Page_110.jpg
42de45ac588501fc975c9fa5d174c1b2
d82687ed796751e06dde31fcdc0832e75f943c46
36486 F20101221_AAACQY zapataphelan_c_Page_084.jpg
969e50855ec001589e3c2961f2937588
060e1eb23d8fbdeeb3ca6b6e5ea2080471a15556
1051927 F20101221_AAACSC zapataphelan_c_Page_025.jp2
14c9caa01f8332400e29ca962eb11b6d
52c84358b7b9fcd8462721aab9ee9df047fee94b
129681 F20101221_AAACRO zapataphelan_c_Page_112.jpg
c371309ede58b41db3f2774c9d13a70e
79c37c17dccfe4fa27066b96b82695ee537e20cc
47590 F20101221_AAACQZ zapataphelan_c_Page_085.jpg
021e17888895960f3c217173851ea555
3eb3ae5a2687d18d38921fd37abb5b2f344c5c57
F20101221_AAACSD zapataphelan_c_Page_026.jp2
d67afc935469dac988f293b8239bc688
6a9f4daae9c2e0fe61586e287637b3f0d65fc844
126495 F20101221_AAACRP zapataphelan_c_Page_115.jpg
33eda91293c1c0ff789228500a180be9
0a324c3ee6333b51307b1f2a49899d439e0e6e8b
1051947 F20101221_AAACSE zapataphelan_c_Page_028.jp2
56480e0b3ce7ae50acce7b14ab38baa8
c4ce9ba495f179058a6c3bc966b71b9995be33cb
30526 F20101221_AAACRQ zapataphelan_c_Page_117.jpg
4671b8dc4fda7bacbd23194da833f1f7
d39ec53cc9ea1ba7a0a7e4c14530ef2186ab2647
1051958 F20101221_AAACSF zapataphelan_c_Page_030.jp2
d1af3baa5353154afe2606eb825ae66e
9a122d38f496cc27bd8ad6773eb7ba394105e00b
633538 F20101221_AAACRR zapataphelan_c_Page_004.jp2
e0cb28c413f0100b13e7897786bc2972
395f93be93c62d43d868785f8420559da5193579
F20101221_AAACSG zapataphelan_c_Page_032.jp2
6be7377765212e878806540c5fbc3d58
6f4365995a49bcc3b9bd4306a68b4d035e9b7e9f
1051975 F20101221_AAACRS zapataphelan_c_Page_005.jp2
ec6a956d2829c83a0b12054a7c88c6cf
0dd60924afdf6fd2a1632a31f27ddff086f06eab
F20101221_AAACSH zapataphelan_c_Page_033.jp2
1b8dacf36129392793fd4b9f9dcc5b85
e35002b089c8d7b7d0995c851613d0a5bb928810
1051957 F20101221_AAACSI zapataphelan_c_Page_036.jp2
28264fd080b406f50b561cd4cc06b8ce
5078da34f1e02c71dccb83d5bcb0f637b2d46861
689884 F20101221_AAACRT zapataphelan_c_Page_007.jp2
481f9023d5a3784129a6350e82375c10
593160c266eadf1508b93999fe145e2590a10226
F20101221_AAACSJ zapataphelan_c_Page_037.jp2
6a3da115099da254fcd533392e9cd0cb
81e62dfd2db555e83ddaab6995cef2964679c42a
165122 F20101221_AAACRU zapataphelan_c_Page_009.jp2
d46bfaa3d7dfdd21f6c95ad463e0af3a
5b938c6e050d90e2e1eedca85c87e85229de9362
1051939 F20101221_AAACSK zapataphelan_c_Page_039.jp2
f437a3ee2f09ae64095f9883d33ae2ce
2ba92a70be0efe2431e0732e765abe42f7122b5f
1051930 F20101221_AAACRV zapataphelan_c_Page_011.jp2
c7a0ea0b25c72499c5c64964be347f1b
e2c0fe0944f4e66670002fef0f393d84193aa407
F20101221_AAACSL zapataphelan_c_Page_042.jp2
8a3c24cc601e247f67f69176d111515e
f4cfafd3945e8ecb64a2522458f1dddb0c6f33ee
F20101221_AAACRW zapataphelan_c_Page_012.jp2
d99b5beaa98b411263751ec16ab02469
05993da1720010ffda4d093b249b7026243ab4a8
1051948 F20101221_AAACSM zapataphelan_c_Page_044.jp2
23ba8c05dd2f56e208d669acc9e2ab99
fe32c2f4fea6bfb9c8d32e12e25a1b2bc180f68b
F20101221_AAACRX zapataphelan_c_Page_013.jp2
d03d5804bf8a6898867d9d1dbf856408
581b1c85eaca43a94ccc07abcc4de2ba125f53d3
F20101221_AAACTA zapataphelan_c_Page_075.jp2
220ac603dcbdd98d19e6bd53593d686e
2b1b912e53b339fbb37b33ac3bb12c07532a980f
F20101221_AAACSN zapataphelan_c_Page_048.jp2
e5df81a41c46d53c3e80ce210da9c41b
cb8195917a5f1e32b94886a8879c888a6fe60860
1051943 F20101221_AAACRY zapataphelan_c_Page_017.jp2
755074fab777f5111dde3ebd95b8a753
532c8c4de333bfaad764c2d6e091dbdeddecfe4b
F20101221_AAACTB zapataphelan_c_Page_077.jp2
c756b583afac203f29d8a9dc63d3cfb5
3c61a68e9e38741dae62c3344046dd83626e7cb4
1051919 F20101221_AAACSO zapataphelan_c_Page_049.jp2
571e31b4c3d5b96d3d43e56f3a6779db
d53fc72aaa551807fe9135c30edc0b8adb9d116d
1051945 F20101221_AAACRZ zapataphelan_c_Page_018.jp2
306a4d3b917185f1306fa2d3d43ee32f
b8da5b4f2ef0bb18d454d80bfc60f3904aae52d9
F20101221_AAACTC zapataphelan_c_Page_079.jp2
af875ab94d4914dc3f39572e9c122ad2
dd279fdb79c5a621efd5e387a6623d09818d9102
F20101221_AAACSP zapataphelan_c_Page_051.jp2
24c141df3754e9de122bb41384b8938f
1cd29dfb0e775b03086ae087b6ff4a4d5ec24a84
1051983 F20101221_AAACTD zapataphelan_c_Page_080.jp2
0f03d8ce4c0683836c291acac80b36c1
1b2fc4496e4e6be28cc556911d69f3996af30969
F20101221_AAACSQ zapataphelan_c_Page_052.jp2
856658dbb96cde52df4b4e12efb83c05
f4efa3e4cb0cf439d775bb156b832b3a731f5281
287510 F20101221_AAACTE zapataphelan_c_Page_081.jp2
de436d70130fb1080a8ff02960610269
65b9eb047286dcbeeb997511ee2adaa853cf69ca
1051980 F20101221_AAACSR zapataphelan_c_Page_058.jp2
7dd8d70016c175f43cc5e7de941bbbdf
4221289419c3e4b8cfd52cf734c432bbff2244b8
456457 F20101221_AAACTF zapataphelan_c_Page_083.jp2
7e018f3bcb2211192ad04bad506e9334
b2ec1ba722b73675b421cdbd856c2cbb8f6fc1b4
1051934 F20101221_AAACSS zapataphelan_c_Page_060.jp2
7f2dad9b985d056be50b6a628aa38f61
f13bfa2db73580a351f4e0c3ad86aec68a7ffd72
378235 F20101221_AAACTG zapataphelan_c_Page_087.jp2
e9aced4af8e3abf0d4e00401cb7de754
54da3fb39624373ce1871acf4fd9e09cdb84679d
1051976 F20101221_AAACST zapataphelan_c_Page_062.jp2
e2fbc9342f1cdfcad18d7db70dec5813
e5117f7dc6831ce642e9bfae7fb24f3cf4e9ea74
485142 F20101221_AAACTH zapataphelan_c_Page_088.jp2
77ea36fb90c23e7f94fd191fb9291bd2
aac89619800c23444bb5fb9467d366af35c4044e
440423 F20101221_AAACTI zapataphelan_c_Page_089.jp2
aa3d2aa1c0733270dc41e7a8ae318543
e24ea9250b4acd40dec5b2468e4871e88e04d0cc
F20101221_AAACSU zapataphelan_c_Page_067.jp2
a5678e636b1ea2cd5284dc6af145e227
04954e739aba3b32ad621eb870a6452e938407fc
361396 F20101221_AAACTJ zapataphelan_c_Page_090.jp2
ff64ce0fda8cf660fe403763e40732f4
061ad53b6706a1d7604be568e23d76c77500eb92
344906 F20101221_AAACSV zapataphelan_c_Page_068.jp2
6ad70380ad0b9733a030a061253a1f9b
3a6ec0fe7ef955c44bef90984c4a8d314ceddea5
586376 F20101221_AAACTK zapataphelan_c_Page_091.jp2
7c03621c7d97967d1d472406c9d62a4a
a2e336f23e2491524503a4656ad9adec2bdca9ef
315175 F20101221_AAACSW zapataphelan_c_Page_070.jp2
87fc7dfc602d0787b09a03e4b960fa3f
a1a5d808dcbcb4dcb94919ff475a5aeabf1414a5
F20101221_AAACTL zapataphelan_c_Page_092.jp2
d0035c131a475fafba4e397601d69573
2b203dffa88fbf27bdb85cd8ae48b4064bc62401
213783 F20101221_AAACSX zapataphelan_c_Page_072.jp2
677c9507382270e4d898c1886e9cf6e5
c1af2d859b5af51170fcf653e1e38c9975db00d0
F20101221_AAACUA zapataphelan_c_Page_011.tif
be270fa92657fbc9a0daf3d0d3fed9c3
96f05b30dfb5ce24526bad1d6aa233bd5ec75dcb
1051942 F20101221_AAACTM zapataphelan_c_Page_093.jp2
04017c2379099fb05516af3ebfdd1bee
3b1bbfbccdcbcb98f62dfc992e5560cc3061c311
1051982 F20101221_AAACSY zapataphelan_c_Page_073.jp2
446077ee1b5906afca981c1f835d4331
f84baef51043e64c8941ffc1cb4b3b9294d869ce
F20101221_AAACUB zapataphelan_c_Page_012.tif
01fce6e0761c1c97186354bbc82bc4ed
4d0ca57da35ca3f03f4efacea733ff0a61b605e1
F20101221_AAACTN zapataphelan_c_Page_095.jp2
86a2ee1c06c1195568c2f596e0a864bc
6fe6a08859d8a1a0fb8f4b5dddc65bd358a136e8
1051979 F20101221_AAACSZ zapataphelan_c_Page_074.jp2
f327291f55e3c8f7fea0fa391090a671
8ddbaef9f5f6f294ce5518cf6410ad8aad226491
F20101221_AAACUC zapataphelan_c_Page_013.tif
8f74fbea3638f64140f2362baadf268b
97c912ce7789d413231b3e7b8958b7d66918f24d
1051951 F20101221_AAACTO zapataphelan_c_Page_097.jp2
6f53fd21506f137f316f7124ffa940b6
b4bf49da83e7802547222f82492199d4b3feab25
F20101221_AAACUD zapataphelan_c_Page_015.tif
6e7e93ff78dd4592066f8ca4042c8117
eb5b0b17bb35ebcd5b8d0e300c77fe5eb20ee497
F20101221_AAACTP zapataphelan_c_Page_103.jp2
eeb6b53b81593e23d3c2a3e5e867c91f
46894b43f7e433cf7763640f35884709edaa47a0
F20101221_AAACUE zapataphelan_c_Page_017.tif
e7a3e3236a9ef7ad402de336f161a429
0ca4185b51a84318a1f124a841aab01cc0179c32
1051952 F20101221_AAACTQ zapataphelan_c_Page_106.jp2
a44c7e2d10646eeb9620dbb35279745e
cca1f7343382ba1f39be83df0eab16e4ef77cd9f
F20101221_AAACUF zapataphelan_c_Page_022.tif
a266faf4c404e14fc160cec41632cc28
193a74585d5dac8707b538cd47e2d462725eaaf6
F20101221_AAACTR zapataphelan_c_Page_107.jp2
22e8eb6942e0bab933b4210372f1e4e1
49aa4151b1d5fba9d1f549bb6b980c100d0ca8d4
2128 F20101221_AAADAA zapataphelan_c_Page_066.txt
e82da54d47ec598741bb2f364719f84c
3d0b003eb1a0e343f3970e8514fe6d672b7d934c
F20101221_AAACUG zapataphelan_c_Page_024.tif
7f3405a5aaf39e0f3fcc99e5af83ae31
53377d5ec3e3ffb16c468e4b650ab6f08da190cf
F20101221_AAACTS zapataphelan_c_Page_108.jp2
1c79bb9ac5e18914e625934d2daf7525
8465279e35dad204478c2def0191aaee186d20b8
F20101221_AAACUH zapataphelan_c_Page_025.tif
970562fb1ff337147ae4c5b40bd9f877
1f116dcae1c5aebf868ecf26169b6e1f493bb8e2
F20101221_AAACTT zapataphelan_c_Page_110.jp2
5c66a19d5bcd7614a00b1dc91fcff656
95f50092d96171db35988ab7ccabd246930eaa46
2242 F20101221_AAADAB zapataphelan_c_Page_067.txt
b98062ccba0dba1ea22acc59a414b5a6
1ef589f0a6018558c8fb6d02746b53088b7b35d4
F20101221_AAACUI zapataphelan_c_Page_027.tif
a706fbd06d9dfa02f605e9ac1897dafc
72dc96b3375f7182858dfd8accf61facd5ca634a
F20101221_AAACTU zapataphelan_c_Page_111.jp2
0a838603f89ed828abddbc7a1b5a9d44
f48bb628be15607ab7bb70c715b6b5aab6454445
596 F20101221_AAADAC zapataphelan_c_Page_068.txt
d7da9b31d3b163d1ad1d87150dc636b3
8b8b7e0b2b1795e6dfb1b0adaad7ce8d44edb5b0
F20101221_AAACUJ zapataphelan_c_Page_028.tif
5421a368a571aced5278fc7660a4d8d1
f71268dcc2701af68671375d9cff691b5fb444a5
4706 F20101221_AAADAD zapataphelan_c_Page_069.txt
113cef7129f23f0833f0f5745ec55b69
488a8aad62662466bdc0e58f78af805145769fd9
F20101221_AAACUK zapataphelan_c_Page_030.tif
6d0af9147edeba524974021588d42504
731e8b67899f6ac423db1cf4487636a088b27e2f
135607 F20101221_AAACTV zapataphelan_c_Page_116.jp2
4a3d233209dc104bc833e51cd2ea58a2
dcd89eb82c1facf096d4a9dd7792b07e59773f80
404 F20101221_AAADAE zapataphelan_c_Page_072.txt
6cf85b3d2deda204e4404b20d4694613
067b1b33d7d0390db0f4e8bdd7e3311aee288325
F20101221_AAACUL zapataphelan_c_Page_031.tif
fb13468aed702d828d06a2c7dc509d2b
20dcfc99885a6ae96285e5981ea4ab46fd045027
F20101221_AAACTW zapataphelan_c_Page_003.tif
ee57b0aa933d81fbc6e411d749041f5e
d84a0519abfe6ad77e5cb342d558b2dd27b6af8e
2184 F20101221_AAADAF zapataphelan_c_Page_073.txt
a3c8dfadab33a2feba0cfdcfcca5de8a
31f1b5cd26fc6a2df05baa0754ac450742d0bcc3
F20101221_AAACVA zapataphelan_c_Page_060.tif
c14c42ad3d0102a0367bcf465d211ddb
2cf194c1edc2aab968d80681c61f79a84cd6bf3c
F20101221_AAACUM zapataphelan_c_Page_034.tif
cc40afacc56d65b9bf9777035a780c6c
0c4dbc8ed17ca1a5af2cda0110bdd248600fe9cc
F20101221_AAACTX zapataphelan_c_Page_005.tif
d6311073730136876b2177b5096aafc9
b7d8f875da63db0bd27f3577cf68d10f42f0a84b
2264 F20101221_AAADAG zapataphelan_c_Page_075.txt
9559e9a07a9d2a4bd43894c5352a05a5
eaa5091786fee5d30cb9a67569e4d8675f06a2c5
F20101221_AAACVB zapataphelan_c_Page_062.tif
a4de0c8d05b9a9dc0a5992e37273a200
5cb63c0647006a07e88f28ee67377af482e6a9cf
F20101221_AAACUN zapataphelan_c_Page_035.tif
ee42a6a60d13e6cc5922144d01b1fdff
5085c51f0bab3514f3ed598a4348569501c58b8e
F20101221_AAACTY zapataphelan_c_Page_006.tif
70efd7edf04ae0d9c640873c8c333d3a
77e7ccca3464eea61eeaa20cd99cbb5b33c8ab7f
2194 F20101221_AAADAH zapataphelan_c_Page_077.txt
629dd606d3c027fb77ba1e66bc293646
de06d5e29b7bf6db99a500fc9ca108d72ba3d2a6
F20101221_AAACVC zapataphelan_c_Page_063.tif
54931741229dc071d06c9e55ecf2d44e
e5f66ac8bdf63f442100397e381c65db161a98b7
F20101221_AAACUO zapataphelan_c_Page_036.tif
20590deae6eb8839b3516ca692e1b55e
29b22c64aa5120fb501ab288795d12e57d1eeeb8
F20101221_AAACTZ zapataphelan_c_Page_009.tif
84828357d0dddb39778b842660f0ceb5
e5b7c993356f2e269a7f3bb8a236b554177fde20
2163 F20101221_AAADAI zapataphelan_c_Page_078.txt
0be197c985b079e7e111efc098b566f6
39a909d0cf55a1f8f8ec212a1358c625a3f8d121
F20101221_AAACVD zapataphelan_c_Page_064.tif
b698c41a012e373a82f9661f6ffa9dbf
60182fd2bf9c59bb7e0cbc5458ca5189aebe5d9b
F20101221_AAACUP zapataphelan_c_Page_039.tif
00456cf3fd0f5ef6e84166f146b81e6e
ee8a05d5e3f004643370898528ea904ea8496cca
502 F20101221_AAADAJ zapataphelan_c_Page_081.txt
b83139745b951d3be51d8946522576cc
f3f87119322d135636c9dcadab2e7ae3bcc57dd3
F20101221_AAACVE zapataphelan_c_Page_066.tif
a0cc714ea095e89066f97171c9c63b81
64ab8e3fa539f8038c0315b8bb025130312dc908
F20101221_AAACUQ zapataphelan_c_Page_041.tif
8def000ff95d57fb699939a6702271c1
ab78a637097586a698beee7f0ad9c6a8fe9de108
880 F20101221_AAADAK zapataphelan_c_Page_083.txt
cca83194327a72ebdbdff6ecb8160165
ba87bf340247829f02607fd40e16e0bb7d9eb00a
F20101221_AAACVF zapataphelan_c_Page_067.tif
de21e2066478f1264c4840a33d69674d
951f76b4fc73542ebd882f7cfee6bee949ba05b1
F20101221_AAACUR zapataphelan_c_Page_043.tif
c0c68c44c64da8540c8caf7f105a5469
78e4b696b94bfeefa88e1aaee0989dec2a0d734d
2704 F20101221_AAADBA zapataphelan_c_Page_114.txt
8d56586132baaaa2886ca72f9897226b
4ecf3f416283180d9980b882226579425fde993f
655 F20101221_AAADAL zapataphelan_c_Page_084.txt
112179c93676774bd79463e29a11b136
5cdfcc6e2a693750ef97ee99ea1c411d9b4de7d2
F20101221_AAACVG zapataphelan_c_Page_069.tif
c7807150c4a510c799ad432a1390dd92
19d018e5aeaaf8df928897c5e9ed380a192a4c15
F20101221_AAACUS zapataphelan_c_Page_044.tif
50a47a42251eb48944a6573708334496
8b3e52a6d511ad65d19343504f7344b67f330e13
239 F20101221_AAADBB zapataphelan_c_Page_116.txt
94f8b740acaa61ae4e1d62992d9794f3
3a6fef4b25fd71ca6294322e8982556de1e9d713
2102 F20101221_AAADAM zapataphelan_c_Page_086.txt
f5227ad36886e95d92c79a6797c6b615
04cb61eb90de2b8c5d64b937ecb3ffdc38cd1321
F20101221_AAACVH zapataphelan_c_Page_070.tif
91e4032509094c86f2da1e5c40fbf630
139211c6d4b7496547990128904f35e9780d45ac
F20101221_AAACUT zapataphelan_c_Page_048.tif
9f860fa40be0b9ec629a5c651f672103
7c787a14cedd633aca9ba4a17e71497a7ad71859
961 F20101221_AAADAN zapataphelan_c_Page_087.txt
a6ab220e94d57f031ae9ed810746a703
b7de89fa0724729733492219d8366017929c0374
F20101221_AAACVI zapataphelan_c_Page_072.tif
3392661f6d82a4c7bdbb089cba8f72b1
6d5bc5b4a19fe45543412c883e368e3b53ab7159
F20101221_AAACUU zapataphelan_c_Page_049.tif
ce515432aa39538149e455089a7d42ac
5ca47e82fb056720d3076f7ee8565b80599d12b2
8905 F20101221_AAADBC zapataphelan_c_Page_027thm.jpg
57b9bc530152f48b8453e824fdb7a99c
bcdb2f69d87c5647c0a08952cfaf6a45df1a1ced
199 F20101221_AAADAO zapataphelan_c_Page_088.txt
4a6b536889e3344509b086c1f195aa6a
7fb9a6d5cd1c87a3ee6d370f208c71749cc56509
F20101221_AAACVJ zapataphelan_c_Page_075.tif
fa97b6649da3c6c7ebf7ef4439577b81
0c7c1d4f9924fcf50fff2be706f6779dc3967f60
F20101221_AAACUV zapataphelan_c_Page_050.tif
43d21a78404e2ab3cbe9f957a7a8d0a1
a3d83e35c28ed99e7fc5abc1b1e62e90e68c6a54
11532 F20101221_AAADBD zapataphelan_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
87825221fb7a5155c7db9f0c6a0093b6
9452932f81125438b8e2fac3e1087de139b286f8
611 F20101221_AAADAP zapataphelan_c_Page_089.txt
abab25f83da3a5e98583e8dae190d4d8
daeb4a9d63bebb37e4325a5bfbe5903595e63140
F20101221_AAACVK zapataphelan_c_Page_077.tif
fdc8e1d8ffa46f3046eb30fe013a8635
158ce4d116392c3521f9ae4df2b58ee53b20f0ac
35301 F20101221_AAADBE zapataphelan_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
d48a530433126a255f9e8a4870038860
b9b9ae85ec0ffcd9c36ad0327af9f6dcf0c14ede
703 F20101221_AAADAQ zapataphelan_c_Page_091.txt
8f827ea9f16af7bf3d6a38197b6b0dce
d4c981407d7fba06a84a9be61a0dab6a88a29c19
F20101221_AAACVL zapataphelan_c_Page_078.tif
5403274c2647a3a95c96af8f241f1f8a
1baa60673405f5b8967d8321f3c9d609a6b6e451
F20101221_AAACUW zapataphelan_c_Page_052.tif
5a3b4dcf04512b78d52d49daf2fa69e9
901172c0b6d19c80663f104aebb11260431052a5
8927 F20101221_AAADBF zapataphelan_c_Page_036thm.jpg
f3d7f6708ceec9ea369988d978d561fb
a7c5b1616fea4d690a109e41f8686a8f68b4f567
2162 F20101221_AAADAR zapataphelan_c_Page_092.txt
dafd57d2c39bce5a767eb56b0366b8d1
77c9b20d26d6a3338e410498d162685f9b2e7a64
F20101221_AAACVM zapataphelan_c_Page_079.tif
a93afab7b65dcd252a30d2a4e16a9f60
db282b98e245fd4e3a57df7434904ce18bd306f4
F20101221_AAACUX zapataphelan_c_Page_053.tif
74e4a23ea401011136056fb1beeed577
79b2ad9eecdb8ec89123b5cf05eaadb102f6de68
8941 F20101221_AAADBG zapataphelan_c_Page_024thm.jpg
dfeb56f5f9707ec94346b87ddb9fdd3c
a90f9bbed43a6096fc0d090e42e44115a187dc52
F20101221_AAACWA zapataphelan_c_Page_110.tif
65ba89924435a30ae0e8b550b38ce4c9
c03115b36d4006bc773132f5f52db52531b6572a
F20101221_AAADAS zapataphelan_c_Page_095.txt
8ff5e59e729994de377518fde9e9d897
86e3783a15595d461664067eb111a2f9bb6c9798
F20101221_AAACVN zapataphelan_c_Page_082.tif
e7b7260002e4b33feb61b36ee8ad96a1
815d3dbec0d745d8cbbf6b5c8be530aeec15c777
F20101221_AAACUY zapataphelan_c_Page_054.tif
0110e5592ef2d31183d50e03ffa9496a
480f3fe456df5ada490e8d85605d1c1923237074
35904 F20101221_AAADBH zapataphelan_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
bba90d6976ae72c9be2c2f6162fcb514
0b416f17b812d070542dbff381b863c810a10d48
F20101221_AAACWB zapataphelan_c_Page_113.tif
a2363034ff3909f22a433702b9a24679
fc3b66efefe1523482ad0d58e23b07fe306a42df
2182 F20101221_AAADAT zapataphelan_c_Page_096.txt
2ab7e0eccd59c7d8aa7cdc63bb497a5d
68b9c6228a4577a4177e53cc9075caa26eb04944
F20101221_AAACUZ zapataphelan_c_Page_059.tif
66e0e5c3ec799ceb132d65e57384113e
53d5ee7fff9ed1a66bea17e65d9a650f27f75025
8872 F20101221_AAADBI zapataphelan_c_Page_018thm.jpg
a4a41e7c3d19916afee47c1e8b38b6b3
6f33503fec4817875d9fd94384d2d29c1140287f
F20101221_AAACWC zapataphelan_c_Page_115.tif
1a0536f5d5f42c377ee06679a98a0e5c
830ff28e48293bdd1b4005fa60aebbf6b925ce65
2201 F20101221_AAADAU zapataphelan_c_Page_100.txt
04912472c43247f33ed36760c0bd6599
870033be92febda3edd1d60878181be8044f7e4f
F20101221_AAACVO zapataphelan_c_Page_084.tif
8506bf2253db068f144c5e49c047ec30
8b80be4e2c82189a52e63abf03c7b4744934c46d
8496 F20101221_AAADBJ zapataphelan_c_Page_098thm.jpg
9c506ff705b6f3e231cae8d7cc5bca6b
fcda2a9ed7f8d5f90216e0d5b3fdb87d1580d3ee
F20101221_AAACWD zapataphelan_c_Page_116.tif
5a32eb73671283dec8f3fcfeda64d6a7
94294996c22cf5439aec895d7cba67240ae35556
2512 F20101221_AAADAV zapataphelan_c_Page_107.txt
eda42ef8dc579bb2064399ef67d2027d
6c177a8f1671d9a8e8ece9b94045dd47ed110145
F20101221_AAACVP zapataphelan_c_Page_091.tif
43603374aa06196f3166e84a51e670b0
fb6725d9b3e6c86c45b6488674936af465f2f1c6
13910 F20101221_AAADBK zapataphelan_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
ee8831445176a7038445c47408767e24
82a44d3cc1aa3c9bb292b0e2a7d849c65857fd4b
F20101221_AAACWE zapataphelan_c_Page_117.tif
585c03ce3594ab515e9303b88958e484
ef0150ff4b20e9720863c7714a68d3287e9e2dcb
2528 F20101221_AAADAW zapataphelan_c_Page_108.txt
d714938fb968e267cf53df7643c84533
2a2a6025ca279a739a9741885b9af37ab8424904
F20101221_AAACVQ zapataphelan_c_Page_092.tif
0d127a1da07409873272678f6cff4994
7ee3cd11142427375b46d6fc85f4ba4dabe78e98
35249 F20101221_AAADCA zapataphelan_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
7b39fa78f9d43cd44eae3fb6556fdbe7
d37b4169917420e3c6630ade13df3d25f6c247f1
7553 F20101221_AAADBL zapataphelan_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
9a00af858f7f85de84e1d30c78ac9512
cc4f5c6c02891667e9a515a57f0ebc36d5bf098a
8846 F20101221_AAACWF zapataphelan_c_Page_001.pro
c5dd2aa1088d0e3dcd5f2c259a825b46
bf15e7d6bea8bfd75c20b7120e66395ee3568133
2536 F20101221_AAADAX zapataphelan_c_Page_109.txt
73655f0260d82247ce11a59a10df00cc
aa83663975047a88bd9ba90000598ce2dd3a1150
F20101221_AAACVR zapataphelan_c_Page_093.tif
bfaad1b33b1bb0a2cfd0725e7ed43273
b311c5aae2c18603b60e24c7647f74affb9e2e42
34176 F20101221_AAADCB zapataphelan_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
61572389fa6cb4a6701fb75bd0a31c3b
c15f04e3e61e3ffc1667aef5f38319fabf6dcedc
9101 F20101221_AAADBM zapataphelan_c_Page_028thm.jpg
55c1486d0ce88bd6b3dbba8cd9211f8a
3cf7f2c964134ca81561485ffc1b0428ab1e8c1f
1044 F20101221_AAACWG zapataphelan_c_Page_002.pro
b3133d51d48dc98842b0a6340add1168
b7f0c480e4c5291e91c42686b00a880ffae5fddb
2596 F20101221_AAADAY zapataphelan_c_Page_111.txt
acda6afac1a7d693c7eb07d167c7a547
84dc4aef4cd91b58d192620f65ba59c817c5420b
F20101221_AAACVS zapataphelan_c_Page_094.tif
b175f899f06d03ed04523b165b15e1a0
4073fad817512523538cfa15a6a7797cfe8b2da6
33986 F20101221_AAADCC zapataphelan_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
6990dd2d839c836a0526b151f99a7bb7
10c41cce8c422560405678b3602a6606422407f2
35943 F20101221_AAADBN zapataphelan_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
61c344dc11a6b38e6009b97de92d8ced
0ea23b81c43b88e9060688a2b118e2415e50ec7c
16805 F20101221_AAACWH zapataphelan_c_Page_006.pro
656f69126897446d79146a29a08a8979
a93a410ec5f1ace4cdc9876896e93bb8c03a67c3
2431 F20101221_AAADAZ zapataphelan_c_Page_113.txt
d62a50d74a6557d8339307c7eb48cfe5
80615a488bf3b72cc85546dc71e86742ccca8610
F20101221_AAACVT zapataphelan_c_Page_095.tif
667266ce80d7a4a98a1be2ff189b5af1
6458046f72f42bd6ef66cdbd44d5cfbd67c14bd8
35670 F20101221_AAADBO zapataphelan_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
cbe83b4addb7dd740cb2f68cd0ba8230
9398b6ba1a008d2a3b731d2e84b8eededccb630b
18566 F20101221_AAACWI zapataphelan_c_Page_007.pro
a7a01ddba8cd86c9c98b2b4019028c26
98f8df833f5e7090f1b9f31fce3f330105ef2771
F20101221_AAACVU zapataphelan_c_Page_098.tif
386ffd86f2a1fc038ab8de57fd716465
a6da59200be289bef68f8ca9cbc971f94469fecc
1282 F20101221_AAADCD zapataphelan_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
9b878f107b10d1c27379600ea9f0901d
2940094970d006441f0f044672722849da09a393
9141 F20101221_AAADBP zapataphelan_c_Page_099thm.jpg
8cb22408a6bd5dde3ca9fa996d4160a2
528effa52f7ee744882ea30471eaa0266f968f3c
50590 F20101221_AAACWJ zapataphelan_c_Page_008.pro
c86f2460aa236677c8e38248fc5446d1
a1fd29f64c3e081a580fada5b5ba0a504a3aabc1
F20101221_AAACVV zapataphelan_c_Page_104.tif
fbf89517d954907d97b5e08ca07d586e
b6c7a30c426a9ad81616cc13837bffbb6dfeb80b
36039 F20101221_AAADCE zapataphelan_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
1032f9164809e18e56fdaff4c2e565ed
0b98087ef3486591993ad11611e557af8e90911b
8950 F20101221_AAADBQ zapataphelan_c_Page_034thm.jpg
453e07eae568ccfb31f4fa58e3b15d63
23e1d221d1fa2b26542c110cc6dc2df2667c7e67
55488 F20101221_AAACWK zapataphelan_c_Page_011.pro
0db46ed9cb49f20f379df41026950e3f
f27cda705dac637b4ca5d1528145e14cae93442a
F20101221_AAACVW zapataphelan_c_Page_105.tif
a20b4be51550ed4a52477a6d1e034405
0abdf84a387c8670e962801e873bda506a5d222f
8744 F20101221_AAADCF zapataphelan_c_Page_045thm.jpg
39e35ccb87957d4c6cfddecb319954ba
74325260f0dd77411b300a0f27aa8c157f6f7317
8517 F20101221_AAADBR zapataphelan_c_Page_113thm.jpg
de20a47cbde5255e6aabd392fbe0be6e
fe83a0fcadbb3479676f180679fb7565727a3d40
55254 F20101221_AAACWL zapataphelan_c_Page_012.pro
ce99aa3542edb9e34e5c12cb389b6c00
0375031eb382d93a114d20b811bdc4ee7516f264
36602 F20101221_AAADCG zapataphelan_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
c6b18a0e1a3f09365b9c7b71e42ee425
00167fbb0e1382768d4620ec29e59705e74b0525
52762 F20101221_AAACXA zapataphelan_c_Page_041.pro
714445479b09f4468233d9448fddf591
e0e690dbe3212eda648ab4cd4335aea9506c4b07
20684 F20101221_AAADBS zapataphelan_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
8cdefaa1f5403855e8d3458582efb529
540933b70cf1285b3d05efb9ba813d5b5ad4cf2c
57054 F20101221_AAACWM zapataphelan_c_Page_013.pro
043e696da5100ace5c880d3a4bb46cc3
358fb18742f47eee399140b871da48d862ca3f4d
F20101221_AAACVX zapataphelan_c_Page_106.tif
ddaa5f35a371f322a1e34d42c4331575
014eb15de33e62652b7889087dedb3f49e6061ed
8928 F20101221_AAADCH zapataphelan_c_Page_114thm.jpg
651628f882a0bd54793541f454ed66c3
a470ffaaf57065ae014484a01a08f374a0842a5a
56608 F20101221_AAACXB zapataphelan_c_Page_042.pro
c2558825ea6b90d6d52270f019f9a4a9
22cced611bad9f1d1278a52331a45472016b6889
35945 F20101221_AAADBT zapataphelan_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
7d7e21150f236b7a5dc2462ded64c075
301801666d920931d9fc1f47925be2325c1144fc
56201 F20101221_AAACWN zapataphelan_c_Page_014.pro
f3d2ba5eb44bef47543e3fca960c409e
314500ec490a3a72922f445621972b52c78c4d45
F20101221_AAACVY zapataphelan_c_Page_107.tif
ae4362883e5653a6353b687f0546be04
305d9af0385374c4825988a98ac2e0f77607b767
34097 F20101221_AAADCI zapataphelan_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
87111d71be0c728b68d8274cff036a81
3abf1fc0930ad81e38e0ec9a7edb29df514f5f8c
56341 F20101221_AAACXC zapataphelan_c_Page_043.pro
9abecdd4a90ae8ae7533dfa7543d4020
ebe661b6b2813260268434b8c7a366954545462e
F20101221_AAADBU zapataphelan_c_Page_003thm.jpg
86fcb9ffe93340d0017c120273441b97
f0899a96c875f809b7abfdc090d028c01e93bd7c
56653 F20101221_AAACWO zapataphelan_c_Page_017.pro
28f992908478234b3e08ca1eb00edebd
18bb7fc752448561ce9986367e48f7e34f149773
F20101221_AAACVZ zapataphelan_c_Page_108.tif
4ce13735001d7eb922a645a8a3529f23
a5c5d449d16c1dbac523ee95f2f045c64e5bdc06
34059 F20101221_AAADCJ zapataphelan_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
cc806f16f5fb506ea1b1128397b1c49e
ad62b4f994f958db128ad1b987583843a4b5658e
54740 F20101221_AAACXD zapataphelan_c_Page_044.pro
e23c60c6d2c58a6910be347a6406d40e
f07f677fc697fb993d462352b18cbd3a5446d9d2
8886 F20101221_AAADBV zapataphelan_c_Page_032thm.jpg
c780927cbd283ed713b481791877866f
e03c68c3c82a7d9c9b344b1ecb0e24156d540dc8
21746 F20101221_AAACWP zapataphelan_c_Page_020.pro
a5233a540620d613ce12a4556114f7a4
f2f24826ad5e35a20d5a8d97a6c99d864c642001
37025 F20101221_AAADCK zapataphelan_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
6db3eb8f860acaebe1bdc958b08e647b
1b8f25801853ed7dcf75c2e9645086f58e2e6148
58560 F20101221_AAACXE zapataphelan_c_Page_045.pro
8a741c330e15859e7f9d0281f5596d53
50b537db76ee99c570248e9ac87109720d5e1644
10036 F20101221_AAADBW zapataphelan_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
663bc6233a565586680f71c67e9cb8c1
cfeae3f318ba334e2882f95823d21fba1c8d349c
12837 F20101221_AAACWQ zapataphelan_c_Page_021.pro
84e9e53adadea3eff0ce1d2b9a372bc4
b6573aee09acd3c88f500af9a33bd4dab3d614a6
55242 F20101221_AAACXF zapataphelan_c_Page_046.pro
376457ebff27cb15254883eb952c2db3
0370bd5ed35a30a8cb0c0033fd90ce66c7c3c15d
3074 F20101221_AAADBX zapataphelan_c_Page_022thm.jpg
4cfc2709b2d4d2d6701401616645cfeb
20748f126781390d042bee88e8354b972fbe266f
8837 F20101221_AAACWR zapataphelan_c_Page_022.pro
68860737d5ffd01d46abe1006706b1ae
726bcaa844bde94a3f19a9c2cd790e2fd3ddd21c
8945 F20101221_AAADDA zapataphelan_c_Page_109thm.jpg
d54aa7fcab0f6a83c24b74ad9e778240
c08dd509734cbbd152e40580f7c66d62ecf21f46
8595 F20101221_AAADCL zapataphelan_c_Page_061thm.jpg
a96698931f9dfa67e81b3dcc2648e1b4
f9b6af0496fb3aefe0812f7cec3221e8be79af12
53049 F20101221_AAACXG zapataphelan_c_Page_047.pro
64e6d657bad044fb05e5eaa8e7768bbf
a5d13d2f40134b4a748f5c7253e45cbfceed5a1b
8374 F20101221_AAADBY zapataphelan_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
b801248f9d0ee8ae0ff3b8de572b09e6
99f1dfd9de4c8a561a2160154056485d9af12460
51671 F20101221_AAACWS zapataphelan_c_Page_023.pro
e2a82d1da5164d5f5a79a6183948810f
fc8bf93fffa71eb3d03add44c1187468d0780932
10872 F20101221_AAADDB zapataphelan_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
9cdae97680a388f46331e2c3befcbc6b
b7554233a9a21636d4ae314535cd96b0ad08ac03
8756 F20101221_AAADCM zapataphelan_c_Page_093thm.jpg
b77977886d22cfb9b097bfc3068f2ec8
2bedf9a0eac00ae9b0d6ec7d5db2aa3830538e23
53829 F20101221_AAACXH zapataphelan_c_Page_048.pro
faf4439a98bf818cdb45f6083ea063b7
6b8398032443c32c8487ea2c9dacfc1911ffe227
9433 F20101221_AAADBZ zapataphelan_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
ac2993fffcba922b413a9f4926564467
4b2502e95d70fa2f0d9a6de8f144e7532a160765
56353 F20101221_AAACWT zapataphelan_c_Page_024.pro
8556896ec571d3561b889bdb887590bb
b07b540989aab10d6bdcc73f16721df725c75d61
F20101221_AAACAA zapataphelan_c_Page_085.tif
8844b03b6c53eba9d3b4d7e4fbd358ca
ee8608266aee060ee2ae8e0ab39d5afc9309cc0a
9173 F20101221_AAADDC zapataphelan_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
415fe6e058f788496029fc9431d4c1b8
96202f67dd0f88505402d097fba971f083957baf
37096 F20101221_AAADCN zapataphelan_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
946bae309fee69b914234650033c9d04
252b00f650f7dbbc3bd762abddc2dec779dd7661
54735 F20101221_AAACXI zapataphelan_c_Page_050.pro
67a52275d33496ee8d666649b9e9ce34
32fb5ebec74fefdc2e87c74169ed4bc4acac8e98
56382 F20101221_AAACWU zapataphelan_c_Page_026.pro
f2561215dac74ad0c92e22a4c9cf2451
112448abd15caa08755c71352d852459e2c50168
6160 F20101221_AAACAB zapataphelan_c_Page_088thm.jpg
d24e02593030ac78a72b6696824bb84c
b26b83ac0fa4c55df2ed6b2486ca8195e610b361
9135 F20101221_AAADDD zapataphelan_c_Page_094thm.jpg
69ce0dbc7a86c638af03d999712e4885
9ff210d4e71911ec85518ad54279b9b461ce050c
34730 F20101221_AAADCO zapataphelan_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
cf963e49eb578d608e816813c7e71939
7d09fe4adaf5d32362e4ed733194a53c18f7c6fe
55325 F20101221_AAACXJ zapataphelan_c_Page_052.pro
eed9cb310ab75f6b814a2393a2960168
46b9ca0cfa9eda6925fdaa872d524e6deebeff4b
56722 F20101221_AAACWV zapataphelan_c_Page_028.pro
35868b55d87cede288fe4781faa841d0
d583c7de415e07abf42da3a79c7ca000fc2e5689
37988 F20101221_AAADCP zapataphelan_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
9fd1e33c5ebaebc6ef3dfbe6fca97f37
4414cef3e12c6837beb836747bc8ba2600b290a1
55149 F20101221_AAACXK zapataphelan_c_Page_055.pro
5eb18e3aec35e8d32ffaa1837a68ae26
26b4bdf766abf72049ec712621f589347a386df4
55981 F20101221_AAACWW zapataphelan_c_Page_029.pro
b241d06ef8a32bcc073887c4ecd1e878
38d20a9f20a36dbf9666452654ce2f616303ad93
2207 F20101221_AAACAC zapataphelan_c_Page_032.txt
abf77be8cedb7c13848db261ba544284
cc140f9f1b141b6bf2f6047cf60b6aa474f7ae8d
3043 F20101221_AAADDE zapataphelan_c_Page_007thm.jpg
5d3e545880e7ff6b44c1b60dc22f0d49
34124bee8a44636fcc730f6757162532c2d94915
9289 F20101221_AAADCQ zapataphelan_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
2c93c52121b70bdc3daf8a6b3ae8765f
388112354611ed5fc60f8799870fbb66b762a1ba
15760 F20101221_AAACXL zapataphelan_c_Page_057.pro
74ea6ea0623215a66ad17e433de0cf35
3837a3a095c0a478c22dabbde55314c950a9e639
53406 F20101221_AAACWX zapataphelan_c_Page_033.pro
bbcafe5133819e87e02caf523fb98c18
15cf77e1b741629a11ada7364ceb24ba2f840e0e
9122 F20101221_AAACAD zapataphelan_c_Page_075thm.jpg
a183e031c25f9c5dc66e07c0e29dd5f7
fc3481f79166fbbd4f600f341bff8f78a968d3e4
11045 F20101221_AAADDF zapataphelan_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
912dcb0310c3407b1922e005b21fa917
6b3232686ae45a68e20fb2eee08d7103f44941f4
9037 F20101221_AAADCR zapataphelan_c_Page_035thm.jpg
e49b35186ab65fb3de4444c54cfbd552
19a297c61c639103b73500e94bb639410f608fbb
54202 F20101221_AAACXM zapataphelan_c_Page_058.pro
1cc70d75da4eaae3ee93cefa8d9c5e77
0c2d543557d6acf4c637a6a0f894104f257fe86e
F20101221_AAACAE zapataphelan_c_Page_061.tif
96d9634840b20d7f370f22af986bf486
81d6fe4fec0dddde0c61f881e06be111e9f7fd28
36097 F20101221_AAADDG zapataphelan_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
9694c00e4a7650292f043d8b792713f5
09a083f7b8f2657b7eee3170ea1c91fb2ca8b77b
55795 F20101221_AAACYA zapataphelan_c_Page_077.pro
816ca3e145ede05cf0bf6d3e28022ab6
6b293e68f79dc27c83517bb2eb2f9d40e079034d
34568 F20101221_AAADCS zapataphelan_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
89a1036947b14ffba25b6c1e60b71cef
ba0f9936643c38e262a8063d00717ccdbceac6e7
48803 F20101221_AAACXN zapataphelan_c_Page_059.pro
2153088da0941bf70ccf2bfa9b8081ab
7eba2de28db875730742cb7f815de23f327690e0
55874 F20101221_AAACWY zapataphelan_c_Page_035.pro
e7bacd67e94220d1998dd9f0dd74a39c
b51a672e4b0b59142d869450bed77d112919466e
F20101221_AAACAF zapataphelan_c_Page_076.tif
3654bef2ef804de570a0c0458f973b0d
d37d843c35a1f646e09a247952a070dac1f1e1cc
1171 F20101221_AAADDH zapataphelan_c_Page_116thm.jpg
0a2bbbf9f23ccab047b0e5774b1f7fbc
9453e575616c7b48d05483442d9e415db53f4071
57199 F20101221_AAACYB zapataphelan_c_Page_079.pro
84dfd24a366dc3bdefc97f558a2d40fc
1a25a00969dc8ebcbeebbcfb4217ee2229cff3bd
35777 F20101221_AAADCT zapataphelan_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
bc9cf9f266da6503476b21cde2bb445d
e1c9e4fa30ebb46e59f56a846d7c62d9878f6f87
55525 F20101221_AAACXO zapataphelan_c_Page_060.pro
7561ce784256e2cfb115abefa3ceb12a
6e507fc749a3ecacbd64a839b73a82a5e6dde162
55391 F20101221_AAACWZ zapataphelan_c_Page_039.pro
d8212671e658b528e27fea74d8aa88e4
e5ceb0cae84ca9c1a81330388b77d5a6d95f16e7
35245 F20101221_AAACAG zapataphelan_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
e408dc4aa1e4c1b4138c8d1636072b2f
ec87f963059a26e815c232623d12d25f04a0ae55
23131 F20101221_AAADDI zapataphelan_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
c6e9f1a18cfb201a0db7352d58f0b8c5
ab6e8322c18952ea172bdf776ce95bb457edbef6
22443 F20101221_AAACYC zapataphelan_c_Page_083.pro
5fb3fec57013d802ba14ee892d4bce7a
be13c7da9293e91a43c1d01476125872ca9bc6ef
4755 F20101221_AAADCU zapataphelan_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
0e8340c1f696ff533a5275fd853d6364
cd5bf611d82f7dd6180a7295168475e36e502bfe
52367 F20101221_AAACXP zapataphelan_c_Page_062.pro
a32a8204e912fdccccea80a89e356e03
e1d11d7619ead357047129a7c14169157b22b01a
F20101221_AAACAH zapataphelan_c_Page_081.tif
24d3d3c723bb7ab45c7ab9d31c048a40
380ea1513a919610c97161e8b7e856c89fcd487c
3856 F20101221_AAADDJ zapataphelan_c_Page_071thm.jpg
c80ff00f718ad5b9cf294a56e600b9da
ec8dd2d574f087fbac70509e4ca65546c163ce26
16593 F20101221_AAACYD zapataphelan_c_Page_084.pro
f753ad7088af3ed5b8ff44e7d5585210
52dd37949b4d067430c5fa12e66046debe600abc
35644 F20101221_AAADCV zapataphelan_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
6d504ded75ea1d090b4d8b82b80ee524
e00271edbd599a4a5a5f6e75b118408f4c6a47e5
53452 F20101221_AAACXQ zapataphelan_c_Page_063.pro
ffd65177b06b1b03799cc7b05c26432b
41d49e120764e6e82af17f0691f110cf77c2d385
33616 F20101221_AAACAI zapataphelan_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
99c891eb1a7f964e21d350c4cdd29d69
c3cc72816f9538b29b0026d37661e8e24749c988
9048 F20101221_AAADDK zapataphelan_c_Page_062thm.jpg
1bbdc0902c938df66c5c72edd8275df1
0242b34f222c97dd70e9be7655ee61b6e9dfd253
22245 F20101221_AAACYE zapataphelan_c_Page_085.pro
16aedd0086b9304912ec1406a98dbe0f
4c04e0b91808b9e26931e9d6d32028f74f2d21da
35536 F20101221_AAADCW zapataphelan_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
b72ca64e0ff0116b236f23f43c521662
416df942f0ddd70d077dc8490d3acc54f22f6489
4006 F20101221_AAADEA zapataphelan_c_Page_020thm.jpg
b09d93d7dd96fad6edc224f873f969e9
2be54bc9e0b6b9cdc127561b34a74c528dc5d11a
54047 F20101221_AAACXR zapataphelan_c_Page_064.pro
4049d4427238a25f428faf0ac1eee9ae
98feb9a991c2c04de8d77b81f74fc9165f6e113a
F20101221_AAACAJ zapataphelan_c_Page_045.jp2
13323be8782cd27e79c32282f7112b40
e5a67f1d404123527fa4161d3518fac5364808c5
8751 F20101221_AAADDL zapataphelan_c_Page_101thm.jpg
f431ab4d529fd843aac706d10988a531
c9d0202733e25278a94cd7e7d635970d3b7b6126
37977 F20101221_AAACYF zapataphelan_c_Page_086.pro
91a267393a0fc7cf5b5f59eb2e5eee20
e36b22d19a08f60bc324fdc488589b17476d5136
11430 F20101221_AAADCX zapataphelan_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
fdea9814deba7b5337c518f7953530b4
f39e29a07f4949ee665a42c4d6713157e76ff069
2310 F20101221_AAADEB zapataphelan_c_Page_081thm.jpg
4ecc22f29f0e39ce456f07948e99ab79
a627a1c7f7339d7f45aaeeda29f58db457b4975c
56431 F20101221_AAACXS zapataphelan_c_Page_065.pro
970aa1b02315b82ceba3cd02ae476d5b
bf255b1dfa9f1e3c2c419434df9f7d7e166aae33
34419 F20101221_AAACAK zapataphelan_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
adbf8bdd6963200b8cfe9b8442779c2b
05be2301e222cb1a63fef47d9e03d2ebd6a54793
9342 F20101221_AAADDM zapataphelan_c_Page_115thm.jpg
2045f84079f0f0b1bb45529eae814cdd
daf5a9a049f3b06f750e93054fb9baa6e0b50677
11155 F20101221_AAACYG zapataphelan_c_Page_089.pro
afdb1efcade8756f573c354c99f81466
81f596dbeb00b1bddeb59056d53866676e8b300a
2399 F20101221_AAADCY zapataphelan_c_Page_117thm.jpg
4b88993f5abade1c7d8727f3c0ef1d4c
2697a57d472fa593a2371628f4bfa770ce202998
35353 F20101221_AAADEC zapataphelan_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
9fcd46011c6389a6ab3aaea8dc5dab39
8881c963913058b6e7e3244149ecd2de39218a2d
54155 F20101221_AAACXT zapataphelan_c_Page_066.pro
537f0e1364ef39ee2747241d756fcdad
1922d39c4fd5919f160869e6bd6c71bcaf7a10e0
34998 F20101221_AAACBA zapataphelan_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
08be9653c0fe7dabe7fefdf4dd16568a
4b91251380cb728f5e19715417166795235d31ef
126580 F20101221_AAACAL zapataphelan_c_Page_111.jpg
2df4f55db4948dad56eaaf5cfc465888
274171b05cacffc9f6c8aa16f7d05ed30223f617
36633 F20101221_AAADDN zapataphelan_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
93c7d335d9ad6cfe0fbe6f29cf59c46b
2eec09b53faae381dd8131bb316c9ff1104fbaa0
6764 F20101221_AAACYH zapataphelan_c_Page_090.pro
2fb10802f25cad9fe6a8ed908df0f936
5774e0b32241337da8a5c2e033deeb22bb1b96fa
5679 F20101221_AAADCZ zapataphelan_c_Page_091thm.jpg
e37b8ff0ff24d34f0a515f90e553bf2f
0f851794f831f1d18f1b521e16ae4c00f1ccc7e3
8106 F20101221_AAADED zapataphelan_c_Page_016thm.jpg
1383b7cf7485cdb514a9f6483f7481e4
c4e6d1ae9ad28d1114c71fc8ff11c2ee3d31b645
15027 F20101221_AAACXU zapataphelan_c_Page_068.pro
0d189b6faaf223f354c91a906583f4df
228365310153d8d83fa90a74a479f7088c4e10ae
6243 F20101221_AAACBB zapataphelan_c_Page_086thm.jpg
d53a8f8a6a3ad6c54a6f22ce6af6d125
f028ed4a178cad0e5b45eb04deafa1241ee4761c
2653 F20101221_AAACAM zapataphelan_c_Page_112.txt
df27b91afbdc0d7b1b026d583e0f3ddb
22c508015c4dc87796959d04089d488040e8eea4
32702 F20101221_AAADDO zapataphelan_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
3915506ee10be204c900a5952fcd59c6
05b0dd1751a7ad0dcea64e00fc78ce02ad8d0c80
52864 F20101221_AAACYI zapataphelan_c_Page_092.pro
f75bd03938cdb404ae33472c90e34551
fdff89ca480a44d66116bc938ae08e1442acc99b
8906 F20101221_AAADEE zapataphelan_c_Page_078thm.jpg
e9d9f7884d98cdd5cc593cbde61a8bc9
96b8188fcce5d3226cfbe74998a59101c5f6d339
7624 F20101221_AAACXV zapataphelan_c_Page_071.pro
2b12128681a260a9662e1d13531f0053
5521d05bab82815cf98648186105566b8cb7506f
8783 F20101221_AAACBC zapataphelan_c_Page_039thm.jpg
0a915576f9fdbb392f0460ef3b158e58
d57a95f4c32924e4c1ec2716a2360bb48afc8f02
55497 F20101221_AAACAN zapataphelan_c_Page_030.pro
7d95e30a1c98109410f4f6be2cfaa511
22646cdf057903bdca0b285625aafbc23f8e3bc7
8385 F20101221_AAADDP zapataphelan_c_Page_103thm.jpg
d0c8ddadf4d108fd371abaa3de8731d0
8b6316ae5b61ce40e883bf98025f050604a8c5c5
54259 F20101221_AAACYJ zapataphelan_c_Page_093.pro
3be8c34b1e0cd5315ff025eeaf1ae4be
51ef3c1069990e753a052884d4f7ef405acecb06
4478 F20101221_AAACXW zapataphelan_c_Page_072.pro
547b8674af76581e79375a29a965e7ac
eb973c69793f1bf53752c65e7ee64fddce85350b
F20101221_AAACAO zapataphelan_c_Page_080.txt
92665bb7f23ff37994ea89c19b90612f
05039c6ee70679afce8a79c0ba95dd879f0565d2
36574 F20101221_AAADDQ zapataphelan_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
bd0f3ae8a328541e646bc1c92260cafb
9d54fb74a31b99b6544f0d1b45617ec924103a87
53852 F20101221_AAACYK zapataphelan_c_Page_095.pro
33eb991090e8f8b08aa7d30a7d143129
204e36df4e354d7308162eb127ee7297cbffbfce
2073 F20101221_AAADEF zapataphelan_c_Page_102thm.jpg
21f6b94d74cb099d787dbfbf89e2431e
f871fbb7ddf7b986b07529e71ccb2517546d9ee3
52470 F20101221_AAACXX zapataphelan_c_Page_073.pro
63819d709f81dd4ea572cb8c64affe56
dcf70ed35b221292e62cab0688f5aebb407fb19a
63007 F20101221_AAACBD zapataphelan_c_Page_111.pro
3132e44642d6804f68a874abd03a7dae
7776ae02e75185f0cadaf94df9053be07a7c13b2
1051917 F20101221_AAACAP zapataphelan_c_Page_029.jp2
d7319c36d2090f6f8ba12376636d85a1
fe88dfda848be7caab7f47206ca97f213655a47e
36723 F20101221_AAADDR zapataphelan_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
91c6ce40e126ab2db8fc151ed8290175
f3f787a8fb995f78922e401c4fcc07fd5062f5ee
53739 F20101221_AAACYL zapataphelan_c_Page_098.pro
c9dd26ae6193780add2b973da6ac6bad
6d797828655f8e4ed1bd0865bf6c6bae1679748e
F20101221_AAADEG zapataphelan_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
d314e3da26f7c59c3507c511146ac5c2
53fbd9e47f3ef975a5944f2d6b5bf8ecaad2f8fc
56811 F20101221_AAACXY zapataphelan_c_Page_074.pro
9f4411035fdc2fefdaf08137df30ab49
363ae74f9db5bef0ae3eb52e3c5fc96bb2900e1f
2100 F20101221_AAACBE zapataphelan_c_Page_033.txt
5f162ed068f0f5fd55841d93badc7ccc
43c8c39eff87279c28fdc0147fdec8a505bec919
F20101221_AAACAQ zapataphelan_c_Page_058.tif
75741535a34ecee5ab5b82ecdd093c56
431263352a584fac10fe29b38634f95d1ff396b2
760 F20101221_AAACZA zapataphelan_c_Page_003.txt
e9373206bbc0efeb153f6076c6d49513
7a931baf05ccf7e6f13c9b325134f459c411d021
35418 F20101221_AAADDS zapataphelan_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
15b60b54fcf93cdb22c4e28ba0cee933
6260267f8e780c7cf9577ec84a57a7415d4b2be6
58404 F20101221_AAACYM zapataphelan_c_Page_099.pro
85cc4314ce7048561f839a45a8a7d88d
0bbcad4f4f18a989f45967d242c4bc02fdec0999
9124 F20101221_AAADEH zapataphelan_c_Page_067thm.jpg
41cfb87dbc982e0605a2d9e60540fb03
1da90d90ffad43cae19d78c894390d24643c8a1b
353417 F20101221_AAACBF zapataphelan_c_Page_084.jp2
23dea80c8732f785bdb427f281896e14
eabec9ea288fdcc39bccc6a9b4899bf9a1324465
35362 F20101221_AAACAR zapataphelan_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
4c8818c5bd7f7aafbc62a7c2b30662f5
1bf1c3e85f0011a3739df84c3b18353c8906d1b2
694 F20101221_AAACZB zapataphelan_c_Page_006.txt
6ca2fce1894326e3e8e4b0efb7d77ae6
06d7088f00271663f082ea320d516db571c8dd5c
35488 F20101221_AAADDT zapataphelan_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
118d14a6eaba021f7ab256a70805c5fe
7647cef26ed721259a2158ac5a7bc1a024bee99b
55193 F20101221_AAACYN zapataphelan_c_Page_100.pro
2e001112cbce6196b7b9a5198242cff3
caeb926aeabdc7250cc3665fb674ddcf39be4040
2656 F20101221_AAADEI zapataphelan_c_Page_019thm.jpg
b0aed3ee26e201c542cafc28c6ab808e
3b7e1aaab70f31a93ec0cf03ff960354240e522f
55708 F20101221_AAACXZ zapataphelan_c_Page_076.pro
b607d593519081f509f658dd53d09ec9
f980cf1a2fc559b0de237b3e1f75e3ee5a5cdb69
1933 F20101221_AAACBG zapataphelan_c_Page_059.txt
61b88a73dc9eb9d28ea475b619744d32
6b8394bb603cb401d55e734e48d474cfe7218d5f
F20101221_AAACAS zapataphelan_c_Page_066.jp2
199804a24b736458dc77f2d89e3c441c
3ffe648a30c1a00a3800087a64a1924fd61343dd
773 F20101221_AAACZC zapataphelan_c_Page_007.txt
41f418a7c25c72f0bf822c206e52da55
97bee4d78dee99999126c7193b41e10f167ff9b1
3575 F20101221_AAADDU zapataphelan_c_Page_083thm.jpg
7c48c4b601b345cb1c33e6243826f8d0
28df740d69bac642d072238d749189bafacefa48
9692 F20101221_AAACYO zapataphelan_c_Page_102.pro
1aa9d114e315f1b1175238e72803105f
86e5ed57d67f4398d0e559731cdc31129a6240d7
9957 F20101221_AAADEJ zapataphelan_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
24345ec97161c817a16f0b03aeb07e77
9f3910deade0e6ee31b9d67afac134a13bc9db87
114981 F20101221_AAACBH zapataphelan_c_Page_040.jpg
b9610887bbf1edf2c66edf711ac4f921
1e13a65822242ae9a7cd32748f66131087a4948a
F20101221_AAACAT zapataphelan_c_Page_089.tif
509e0d9954e74c672836b1731eda98e0
bd645d6832bfda0b6345d1796c54f16f8a656406
2173 F20101221_AAACZD zapataphelan_c_Page_008.txt
eec7a5d44ab79d8a84eae91cf8238f56
1b2d1b2973b8d62b489cd53fd05ba04fde78a788
8767 F20101221_AAADDV zapataphelan_c_Page_054thm.jpg
866ed8b8729ac1e63c0044a737e03ca1
8c81c23a0aba906ea9ea5ccf9fe5a8cae4778381
57968 F20101221_AAACYP zapataphelan_c_Page_103.pro
438b3b013234329b685ec5f41acb3e20
262fab283cc3dffdf854660404b72a3826637307
36000 F20101221_AAADEK zapataphelan_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
36bdff0fa33dd1171610301640970415
b42df3d59193f22155183d5526ad4c80fac995d6
110528 F20101221_AAACBI zapataphelan_c_Page_035.jpg
27e922b9a3f449b37433c79240eee797
d151f013ad40572050f32d59962811110f5e7ee2
2291 F20101221_AAACAU zapataphelan_c_Page_070thm.jpg
e01e1b844757480afa0193d2a5d130b0
017223918bdae00e12d63100d13d6fbdf0726a85
F20101221_AAACZE zapataphelan_c_Page_010.txt
0ff11b1cb3a4ea1fb717d9d6e7f278fa
cfa80836e722bc92d11ca7e250e29955e8d94a4e
8797 F20101221_AAADDW zapataphelan_c_Page_043thm.jpg
86331a24bebb0c990087e2011197f8b4
2a982901f0ce52ae0b6fa0899deb22f75eb81162
62002 F20101221_AAACYQ zapataphelan_c_Page_104.pro
48d4696ba74c8c8166da1d4a09e5a9ab
f85a0460fabb55f93f2327ba984021526b9c0b0b
180910 F20101221_AAADFA UFE0022387_00001.xml
f2796949680262bf2da9378013a58aee
681df606fd6d4765cc4a19319189145cc8fbff10
35760 F20101221_AAADEL zapataphelan_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
79f624487fa8c4d53f375d9b9c965f79
ee683321f4a1ff8c85543f2a369238a2d5ff0fbb
5341 F20101221_AAACBJ zapataphelan_c_Page_005thm.jpg
31fc0d2516029e68906d9e4f0d3de254
20b33946cbad33aaaec4c82f28bbbe62a64b5b28
F20101221_AAACAV zapataphelan_c_Page_019.tif
68855f13af196517fac540f43d66fee6
c91776b44a3f0a3725622b5f1b27d775890449c7
2180 F20101221_AAACZF zapataphelan_c_Page_011.txt
4c899adbf1402e007dd7291cf72fa087
ea32f393a302e1795c7484794c6dfbefaa0f36ab
35063 F20101221_AAADDX zapataphelan_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
f13d6b2912711a00e3ffaf064742cf9a
3af64c5b518ff6dab7f3b55edeaf7cabf44b9ca4
63567 F20101221_AAACYR zapataphelan_c_Page_105.pro
43655daaebfdc2367936a43ea1ff6e5c
808d4e1aa962d3bf87a46e2bde1c872c617416c7
8461 F20101221_AAADFB zapataphelan_c_Page_010thm.jpg
ac338cbce8b0d935a1d6526fa2647877
45f46c38e9212587a159c58af2b6f92733a0d96a
36120 F20101221_AAADEM zapataphelan_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
20962c69f4bd7ab3781abea06e1e83b8
d0def371418247da17b2d91c7e1ac999a42bff7d
111800 F20101221_AAACBK zapataphelan_c_Page_096.jpg
29ccd368e89b9f489805e33c673e6c6d
af8ffced806775da8afee8c4a1529d23dd48a895
11399 F20101221_AAACAW zapataphelan_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
80a688647953760e80ff31fd9df32133
318d6704140c4d82b0f0a1b8d9b62d6e1c45ca68
2238 F20101221_AAACZG zapataphelan_c_Page_013.txt
d74b65b5467e6778f2271060c9c6f541
ba8d405e18b69448719dd6ba2ef6892c0273eafc
8685 F20101221_AAADDY zapataphelan_c_Page_063thm.jpg
2134dc036875ba954b0f9df2b6857413
20a9559a7996c67b1cd38d34ad7a2056cfca030d
61760 F20101221_AAACYS zapataphelan_c_Page_107.pro
d2a89f175d05844e28c49ea32b5516f2
30444929bf318a6fd2d3c05d89f2568b5f5bdbc6
36281 F20101221_AAADFC zapataphelan_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
85c1aa056fb3d5f93017856895b1cb7c
4b25a3f63a8ed62548bea1687e614a273096a8f3
36041 F20101221_AAADEN zapataphelan_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
1eef5433390872afd85752dd77441db4
0077e8869500e5de06c739cb86fec29d99bfd8df
8838 F20101221_AAADDZ zapataphelan_c_Page_029thm.jpg
f980bb3075ce82e8538609d6b0899c09
0d4819bea1323a22e5e726a5a9db1e78ce29f0d6
359478 F20101221_AAACBL zapataphelan_c_Page_021.jp2
34b50f268aeb8f4914207ddb7fff50a2
07b48726fb26fba40848941ee1e2213dfa893b92
55040 F20101221_AAACAX zapataphelan_c_Page_054.pro
10b683d35ee622d84323656050314e16
624fbbd776c17146c30e5896469dee5e260e07ce
2034 F20101221_AAACZH zapataphelan_c_Page_016.txt
33e5bf3d529f0fd54dd0e0cc32bee359
bb520f60d2fdeb8005620d317165dd836427a003
62174 F20101221_AAACYT zapataphelan_c_Page_109.pro
817b63a752f9fedff8c99f218e8668a6
2a15fd51100774ddfe10412d2d8a18d474fc5a7c
35403 F20101221_AAACCA zapataphelan_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
dda90eaf9eb4617671b15aba8cec8cbe
8b7bd5f60712ad0ead16aa398b76dddc2bb3723c
8642 F20101221_AAADFD zapataphelan_c_Page_031thm.jpg
9e55d73b8cc3cb4426921f83d89d1bb0
d72b4b27f0b492e951fb1b16c31bf9ce357a3fda
36852 F20101221_AAADEO zapataphelan_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
58f712c966a17d66f58872c1d2884114
5eaf570934705eb765048e2258360eb05983ea67
35846 F20101221_AAACBM zapataphelan_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
6385586b9e762a85c70d772e1b5de289
e3e0cc98de1edb79181e286a552b28e555117ac5
F20101221_AAACAY zapataphelan_c_Page_113.jp2
e058d7170dedd89a6b61bb871a011137
4afc47335fbae90650f11f8c18659ec42bffe9d1
2212 F20101221_AAACZI zapataphelan_c_Page_018.txt
d58436ec6fafb4b19389b3bed5fff659
7ec48d2c1152f61a99181283896bf99872fcbe86
62438 F20101221_AAACYU zapataphelan_c_Page_110.pro
39cf0ad131cdbd105f6ff283aca5c965
2b2ef437e879377a9b4e03254013a68610309a09
51986 F20101221_AAACCB zapataphelan_c_Page_061.pro
d13d47d34454018494ff2fedcd718e2a
f94249b562d5ca901b0fbb0c201a2cc611cf679f
35505 F20101221_AAADFE zapataphelan_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
c6f062dc127197496cb08b58567f3655
4617f29a8c4084e4e17c518bafdafc7f314bce47
9126 F20101221_AAADEP zapataphelan_c_Page_079thm.jpg
65ad83825beba5f5c777054bd0c7384c
25451e59623ab4d7651486d6e11039f1e2bddbee
F20101221_AAACBN zapataphelan_c_Page_023.tif
1488c937185da1e8f299010dea367054
a80333c70d41f53e5e4d6b2edcdbecae019d448e
36707 F20101221_AAACAZ zapataphelan_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
9a382304e47c3919581574abc74f14bc
521b4f1ddc4c293a63b19a87ca661a1ab17c65ea
1041 F20101221_AAACZJ zapataphelan_c_Page_020.txt
84c0b7823c48722944f79a27c03604e1
c4eccfe239f612200e2e1e375b24c76c31f0a299
65876 F20101221_AAACYV zapataphelan_c_Page_114.pro
05a3adb3b05e67ef028345b537199d06
84adad05efca8afd090acc4acd6fcb3dfbc420eb
32172 F20101221_AAACCC zapataphelan_c_Page_019.jpg
d4677c8231fddca895101e3a98024768
22ae053de14099f3b779331dca5f13636d6dc762
8861 F20101221_AAADFF zapataphelan_c_Page_055thm.jpg
ddb2f839d252f670bf12318b0e1406a3
6dde457f456bbc10e08f3735f54df6b01abc379d
8605 F20101221_AAADEQ zapataphelan_c_Page_051thm.jpg
f32aa9521fff1895186b2d3a048135cc
c231238f967f9f0a53d9da2046adb501aaeff17a
F20101221_AAACBO zapataphelan_c_Page_004.tif
3e7c9c29f6fde19b8fea92d9c83f27c7
d7bb1cf6bd5e9a64eed742bf44ebc20a07207d1c
927 F20101221_AAACZK zapataphelan_c_Page_021.txt
1db5509689b567a1ba1f0ea102c44dc7
a851746617b223f1c6f7417cc0e783f5c11e4fa3
62930 F20101221_AAACYW zapataphelan_c_Page_115.pro
6b260480552d2f841dbd5933671fb8bd
9b3291f3694d24cd6685b1af5ba53bd5da1ac275
8818 F20101221_AAACCD zapataphelan_c_Page_096thm.jpg
8d5b472cc930bfe345ac24b137e6dd89
31283db96184e269a36d27312a42a5510c223eb8
1648 F20101221_AAADER zapataphelan_c_Page_009thm.jpg
7eb0ac2123485a662be43b2b11bdab8c
d305ec549f3871be1533560c596040312af73d11
F20101221_AAACBP zapataphelan_c_Page_065.tif
3804b28aa6ce8db9de29f7a7faa7f437
d5573bbcbfe2f50001b33119382e49d706fa2539
2135 F20101221_AAACZL zapataphelan_c_Page_023.txt
874757b6dcd87576d002836a13fa8291
23bed94b20b6b3de8949ba150ee75948142aca6d
5676 F20101221_AAACYX zapataphelan_c_Page_116.pro
f260a7a81038d2e6a22bc68a0a395c9e
38fa48ff4e0cce07cb48bd96581b5e856a299b90
8985 F20101221_AAADFG zapataphelan_c_Page_080thm.jpg
85236699e7abc5f09ef1d1c61bc304cf
f08373137f16daffd10e3842af70161f2f2c44a3
9168 F20101221_AAADES zapataphelan_c_Page_110thm.jpg
8d5c5343ad23822b217ef15899944477
48fe70cf0691c7bba6628b7541961cd131b31bb6
36702 F20101221_AAACBQ zapataphelan_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
2290740ae94fced80665851e3ad8b0c3
7233f0cb78745c65d6f5d4234f0d4629aedde8c7
2099 F20101221_AAACZM zapataphelan_c_Page_027.txt
b73aadd6e8925f9f3a0102e718611c02
f422ee59594e4abf7b35622525ed9e60e2ae124a
12585 F20101221_AAACYY zapataphelan_c_Page_117.pro
a03c5e08922a00eaa75ce235e8ba8851
15c3f64c9a3eb721db0d1b81225fd5f7dfcb5380
1051908 F20101221_AAACCE zapataphelan_c_Page_038.jp2
c6e0adea3a385f6a59ca0a8ead310fc0
be0bee973297a435d7d9f0a65a587dbf0aff8df0
19968 F20101221_AAADFH zapataphelan_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
5d1cc785dd2f767c7b09743a7d1cec96
dfd816f89869bf918e4855c203bafdbf8b0ae255
18123 F20101221_AAADET zapataphelan_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
be5020ce3ec7c857cf77fa2f35de3023
b1dadb87e4318d367ff097cc4db981f095c02d5c
F20101221_AAACBR zapataphelan_c_Page_100.tif
a8815f0ec2bffb41fbf1ff8c4959a4a2
2694b75ca1a43899a3f8e35b21022357c81c8009
2178 F20101221_AAACZN zapataphelan_c_Page_030.txt
2bf09514ba1974cac8f224e138447ce3
b195ce8677273de1140ac3d86d11e1cbe61eda6b
94 F20101221_AAACYZ zapataphelan_c_Page_002.txt
a2709748eda32dd46aa04299b9cf8d5c
d33aa153bc0ce61fbf817eb28f267dea9dd38d4d
109969 F20101221_AAACCF zapataphelan_c_Page_055.jpg
2910780d615344a2d55edebad6463bcf
fe43404d81c923fdcc42fa2f4958128f9dd27d66
38708 F20101221_AAADFI zapataphelan_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
b513a1493913d85da980bae86d9505f7
81c08877d50d1767a0cf891dca27253cd829386a
F20101221_AAADEU zapataphelan_c_Page_038thm.jpg
5c988839d92f709189ed0a3810efead8
143800f04f47b8c6a113d5c2993ac7b32968da96
76225 F20101221_AAACBS zapataphelan_c_Page_086.jpg
2189616d8669f31a4e217f1dfd1b72cb
a85df0baddef89b74e3b48c9516e6c966101571e
2098 F20101221_AAACZO zapataphelan_c_Page_031.txt
ddca6909cb95164f552311917c25024c
63639eaea95993615360e08d369f37f98f752d2c
28467 F20101221_AAACCG zapataphelan_c_Page_071.jpg
3c0f3139c028823ecad6906f8b309107
8b3febef4556eb40b91fcbace8951f2c6bd1a7bc
34975 F20101221_AAADFJ zapataphelan_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
c431bce77a6ec22f38bc4e527811bcb0
cdb931c3f4095f524623abaa4637c36011c6ed19
14314 F20101221_AAADEV zapataphelan_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
7825386ab820bb794af5b82729516dc6
d0a222fa25356306f878a945eda32bf9669eb1fc
8730 F20101221_AAACBT zapataphelan_c_Page_108thm.jpg
8e5603d49f785adc237b4ce458f6e255
8b3f71eb22771dd68d6ce8547b4b57cdb049c2d0
F20101221_AAACZP zapataphelan_c_Page_035.txt
77411a8c3e8230469463a69e5bcfa338
0b79fed79b2af3159ae33e65b567d0eea8daf7cf
36816 F20101221_AAACCH zapataphelan_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
d676b901006336bea93d849e9fdf3be0
afc918727e88b06e33d0aa66b487cbb67ed584f6
8863 F20101221_AAADFK zapataphelan_c_Page_111thm.jpg
7bcbb3ec42ce879a75306d9264f61e57
486e0fe992b94a2676aac2c4133b4f278b1b05f4
8877 F20101221_AAADEW zapataphelan_c_Page_026thm.jpg
23c2a3bd3f35efb8e70c395ef51b0b71
6253aab85bbb526c2aa35527371dd6537139510e
54971 F20101221_AAACBU zapataphelan_c_Page_025.pro
1aa22ec504ca8aea990ca28fb718f7a5
a38f88db2ff02334bb3b8eb79578f724e0e8ceb2
2234 F20101221_AAACZQ zapataphelan_c_Page_037.txt
d0d867cb4e4f355d1f9f9ab43e17c039
a52801c0276b50f411fcd6e0ccd38ce75b2ad6e0
108558 F20101221_AAACCI zapataphelan_c_Page_048.jpg
bdfd7e9cb553787cf0655047deb76e77
fbed0813acb09c968bf77ec8774f9dfafd60d07e
34225 F20101221_AAADEX zapataphelan_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
522f12e0e3f7493cb185393b69a8972b
416371e1c317421f15464a528ecc859d6d74e492
255384 F20101221_AAACBV zapataphelan_c_Page_071.jp2
480b6f42f3784cd3ede73080efcc49f0
d7334a2652c8985a60f7e5e7322e1fba6f89f242
2175 F20101221_AAACZR zapataphelan_c_Page_039.txt
254231ec761ef679b754e285d5c7a1b6
bbd54ce467ee7964deb98a901511b4bad83b1298
2257 F20101221_AAACCJ zapataphelan_c_Page_057thm.jpg
0849e54caa1073aeb12f75d1b27d6ac8
57f94e2760bd0376b514167193f3209b22e6b28e
9087 F20101221_AAADEY zapataphelan_c_Page_104thm.jpg
bf7650f936128bc6243d6efaa4fa5e76
a367513a71b230f877b4e1a772f61c76c3af96a5
8792 F20101221_AAACBW zapataphelan_c_Page_011thm.jpg
9bbe0b278e6aececb25679eab2227a51
562f2e283aeb58cfd4eeac66091590f61323ce4d
2221 F20101221_AAACZS zapataphelan_c_Page_042.txt
ddc84186b6bfa72b5d489fb6d1a43eda
65e6cdfc286446aab7973a484becbf40302f02e7
F20101221_AAACCK zapataphelan_c_Page_016.tif
3f22d87d5816eaef06ddd8f0d33382e4
76f19741c27ddf749bc25bf88d19f01fc6917184
9421 F20101221_AAADEZ zapataphelan_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
cd527b869d691d5a0939ddd7035431df
d5d6ee7b025e630813c9a30d40cd4cf2138e8dec
10838 F20101221_AAACBX zapataphelan_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
fc6e59796bf230e25ce156046380d2c5
b02fd436e79edef5e6c4d2fc65e4cb77ba812932
2209 F20101221_AAACZT zapataphelan_c_Page_043.txt
3793544030cfe55960e1b8c0de8dbe4d
77cb156e3709112f03e95882f403bb59ff82af7a
3033 F20101221_AAACDA zapataphelan_c_Page_006thm.jpg
eaae07d93fafa11b69cba9908a5e4917
329ee2a2051529c16528f612e944f7befc11b84e
108484 F20101221_AAACCL zapataphelan_c_Page_053.jpg
a7cd9c861dcf019741394a3a3809946f
0c6e22603c0262f1e0ea5b236c260394ae24a871
F20101221_AAACBY zapataphelan_c_Page_045.tif
102e53ab1b59554b99857e5718932f3c
d232468848385b1422812fc2ae7550cf128fc32c
2123 F20101221_AAACZU zapataphelan_c_Page_049.txt
cc8a22b6e4f7309a11c50b6a06341f88
ece310d37bdc96085999c6dbd5caa6c4c21d3275
7210 F20101221_AAACDB zapataphelan_c_Page_009.pro
27927fc0dfc0ad7d59819a3c03ec93c0
eade3c4620f8453b996e4bc1a971bfe71341d900
2049 F20101221_AAACCM zapataphelan_c_Page_015.txt
67bfbf317c820563383125aca45685a5
03a5474ba21e337f7ce179f1aa21df16ee366f86
2141 F20101221_AAACZV zapataphelan_c_Page_053.txt
ec630568846eac76c747850542b98267
8120d35a8705ca98ae3278a3161818d7e1edc254
35805 F20101221_AAACDC zapataphelan_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
4382064a74e0b631f0b114b7f203a7ad
ea3a672d5435f7d2792fc1db8167cca298eaaf2d
53407 F20101221_AAACCN zapataphelan_c_Page_027.pro
923075e41716ed524e964ceb0b07de87
4079a1c55836748516aa9fed1d12a3098c648c42
55707 F20101221_AAACBZ zapataphelan_c_Page_036.pro
524a51d445eb4a865ea94a1ee1a90905
80c52301a6e4931ace23e0b8b8da2a2a47a0d604
2161 F20101221_AAACZW zapataphelan_c_Page_054.txt
80318e4f3e2acdd4958eeff4a0a22926
601adcbabdb137d4e1ca2c0e36d836cdec01ed17
110928 F20101221_AAACDD zapataphelan_c_Page_077.jpg
224b16e02176a652f5378ffe72c32eb7
ee1963484829b0997f42a368669a4858e795ac79
F20101221_AAACCO zapataphelan_c_Page_101.tif
1357717ecc2ce9acbc5f28f175930fea
5b13ddb94e88941cdfce6b18cfc4f73f87f8d194
2230 F20101221_AAACZX zapataphelan_c_Page_058.txt
d61d1bf977460b3ea9457ba97be01baf
e6884767b18f77af098be81fe203d91421355668
8822 F20101221_AAACDE zapataphelan_c_Page_050thm.jpg
0507c7954516aeb26fe2236ebe4d4f50
99c46a518ac9c212f8a12b99d85985df90a4739e
2548 F20101221_AAACCP zapataphelan_c_Page_104.txt
9b0c8904972c6c3d7e1c287c8daffaac
cba147910f085ee3c37ef319013698f1ba32a4c0
2117 F20101221_AAACZY zapataphelan_c_Page_063.txt
7bf4c493f5badba82fe896fc6b5449b7
54dd5302ea4e664497e49daa5f70f2fba659bac8
35406 F20101221_AAACCQ zapataphelan_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
b32d097b6891dd05ff67aac8a4dec6b2
59ac8b4214974e788b9327b1ad15df697939ce73
2130 F20101221_AAACZZ zapataphelan_c_Page_064.txt
7ca032d00b566d2b7103a5e349a32615
e61a6d7790538fd1696e66fcd5309de643eb071e
F20101221_AAACDF zapataphelan_c_Page_032.tif
a0c6a0d20098281600e24161ef73ff6b
54ad782e35387e096596c2da365f07d65487eb50
F20101221_AAACCR zapataphelan_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
7dc4aeca5f4322866502a9370ea87727
1119f907b455635f0f953f218e8e3197f21305aa
36071 F20101221_AAACDG zapataphelan_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
6851c72ba56dce07a31f8803576f9200
63fe5fdfd527d0e10f744b754500cdf301731fc8
33169 F20101221_AAACCS zapataphelan_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
aaa593e9d24255d2ed72fb4ffcdb6eb6
83f731af4bb5cfdff8ac5f34222f67e6d4aa02b8
8164 F20101221_AAACDH zapataphelan_c_Page_008thm.jpg
5def18c687c8e521ad8cd2efa455be81
585f386d72cbb6245093ebcb0407d7a4b0e4d2d5
8298 F20101221_AAACCT zapataphelan_c_Page_092thm.jpg
c7683618daf4c94d0782106416879e09
c562012bc911a51fba68a43b223c49790e28a844
12093 F20101221_AAACDI zapataphelan_c_Page_091.pro
9562b36dfa6b68f3be4561c4df3fe5f1
48802464c4c96d2b29497154f8f50c7fcaffe672
F20101221_AAACCU zapataphelan_c_Page_005.pro
e4f5ef43951bc6e5015eb0c2f2e8e8ff
ec93be32ac5ded0310c5df8e5d869a7c1f9fe3de
566 F20101221_AAACDJ zapataphelan_c_Page_019.txt
1d9587823a7e023cd87992ad2437f2bb
342202827ec6c353093ed5943ed42247c1e8f1b7
104661 F20101221_AAACCV zapataphelan_c_Page_015.jpg
46fd77b9c5111c3399d63807b169edef
d78cdb4ffa75c8811632ef5b351d6cab73b9be3c
8235 F20101221_AAACDK zapataphelan_c_Page_059thm.jpg
26f155b44ca755542859ace63661d5fd
e51b5ef926cc9a17e87055a51b5a91bd4cbe885f
F20101221_AAACCW zapataphelan_c_Page_056.tif
1d7d2963096e6691b77d774d446efb29
b53dfc888a89299e7c5ddbbe88aacbc9ef2aa006
F20101221_AAACDL zapataphelan_c_Page_046thm.jpg
eac7e66ec1030cd60f71fd18c1a0fe6b
f2c0897f4a9a472d6876b07bc49e01afe4286943
2227 F20101221_AAACCX zapataphelan_c_Page_028.txt
478fa23cafd645f209a79ebf8bbf2f1f
1b63db5d0e377469264ec1abec4eba51e24cf3f5
36744 F20101221_AAACEA zapataphelan_c_Page_006.jpg
8481b451f09b5a613ff39d79e0a15598
4fa7c1de69d03e015b0f6d9d38ad7c215f5822ae
F20101221_AAACDM zapataphelan_c_Page_090.tif
368afd72cf21f7e5a8c4bc180863cc0b
2e7ef2a7d153ba3000e740777d5d113c7db65f61
114386 F20101221_AAACCY zapataphelan_c_Page_099.jpg
b7d7984dadb394110324604f0f7ff4ca
38beaeb51a2dde89975a4079d0dfa96435f4d944
8884 F20101221_AAACEB zapataphelan_c_Page_076thm.jpg
3d275a3d0554ad82e6ced38d89f87f3b
a2f7656ce2bb0ef4fd048bace4049a0e05577fab
8598 F20101221_AAACDN zapataphelan_c_Page_012thm.jpg
85981f8e98344032911323694dcc33e2
8351bfb5fd4a28b1023aa451611d5eb56f238af2
2149 F20101221_AAACCZ zapataphelan_c_Page_050.txt
ba1f1322f687ba9ea36a47dbbf9c5343
e9538a067dceb22c8d8653daa60e6d22c11c770d
115270 F20101221_AAACEC zapataphelan_c_Page_094.jpg
ca6c679053cdbe5e1afdfb2815c8f23c
3123905ba9c98fe7604e7262e782c3bed1f0dda9
35779 F20101221_AAACDO zapataphelan_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
a91d26111f3f88a82c47cae6a4d22bf4
620936d51e05e4c9b8f887dbb3af7467197986fd
56960 F20101221_AAACED zapataphelan_c_Page_038.pro
7fbcb6a5c7e71f70423e5e62a65c6520
33ea0b62f7cf82933ae94e04ecaa56197b3414ab
54524 F20101221_AAACDP zapataphelan_c_Page_053.pro
a2c22f28a81c81605786953d5754b6d0
9cc772b3af37a58966abfbf284c8b0f7d07fe762
35801 F20101221_AAACEE zapataphelan_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
39b15c5a3f48f881dee69799f05e34a5
2c2f58fa14f69b3774b0f8237be34fa3dd813cf2
110004 F20101221_AAACDQ zapataphelan_c_Page_029.jpg
fa031ed86023681954d72dbcce8060a8
da2e5d152c5b8ac905c46949b7c38f8a66c3c563
1051911 F20101221_AAACEF zapataphelan_c_Page_056.jp2
d3b86580f3f58969f6c283e8910d6687
c8663260904a05bac3ecb2901cbea9f87c715e5f
F20101221_AAACDR zapataphelan_c_Page_035.jp2
bc14a4114eee381fe3985459652c2d74
0c28ec4efdda7b877059e06b6080a9bea4aa8abc
2223 F20101221_AAACDS zapataphelan_c_Page_060.txt
1c0806b2a529ce5575ac42ebe27ba621
bb84daf922519d288480cfc9a194a029409467c9
8549 F20101221_AAACEG zapataphelan_c_Page_033thm.jpg
51bf62442c63255c93b594b2af9bc842
d86bcc8847ecaf1238bfeac0c57b10b919ac65b6
2134 F20101221_AAACDT zapataphelan_c_Page_093.txt
a1f7a8d0d175e9118e5a2e5cefa4d427
5c9cc35e50a2f31d00dfd469f7ee07a8530b8806
30040 F20101221_AAACEH zapataphelan_c_Page_002.jp2
18d04f77f961c81f8d81ea2469560894
c11d3d73e9bddbe457769a3d2e990a92f7b5c292
55112 F20101221_AAACDU zapataphelan_c_Page_078.pro
7bda13b5942433e65e5a78ad18892a0b
f1d7af82fbb3d51f7f3d61fe58681cb84017ddfa
F20101221_AAACEI zapataphelan_c_Page_047.tif
6714b146fc76e75a0133b3c632260abc
e643a8fc460df2c7e7a627068bb9b26d816efb7e
2324 F20101221_AAACDV zapataphelan_c_Page_099.txt
bf3c7059258cbae50294be53967dcc16
b8141e259d32186e915a9be6795873fb8ad90a0f
35263 F20101221_AAACEJ zapataphelan_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
3e9cb742e80087da475f285c5c3a0ff8
5778a2a7fe131eda48f9e95d7de605dcf093bb86
2267 F20101221_AAACDW zapataphelan_c_Page_040.txt
29728ccfc750393ce287e4ef7439f1fa
b6f173dfc6b2b35215151f93a8b0a3f3e59a6852
2211 F20101221_AAACEK zapataphelan_c_Page_024.txt
2081cad1f92fb36e0850a3a09308cd5f
342021f008550b4c03757ef07839c4e84c20c7e1
2205 F20101221_AAACDX zapataphelan_c_Page_014.txt
4d1dda77a5a0bcc9de5dc803a8790ef8
8cea0c6a783e0c618a4444dda1d743586f0a714d
3538 F20101221_AAACFA zapataphelan_c_Page_072thm.jpg
3d96f2df062c1ed74b7f8c14f907f470
809a36a7e7be242107ae24572ae4000dda0bb389
110308 F20101221_AAACEL zapataphelan_c_Page_054.jpg
93a4160bbce46e3c84562aab09e27517
90e8e41239e304057be2cbf130e7403c2605eaa8
F20101221_AAACDY zapataphelan_c_Page_037.tif
2cf64de719d5e18ae59a3309bf7a2fce
fd253b895e3e366a9e36bf6c6a3103528b6ad729
F20101221_AAACFB zapataphelan_c_Page_073.tif
dfec68272ccdfaf577d13b4f2b1362ce
1c14276d4079f35e539c4f5e9308f38d8db00990
9009 F20101221_AAACEM zapataphelan_c_Page_037thm.jpg
664b5d993132131fe0f47caa22f13929
f68093ec8dd611ccc1f0f1a67e62084ab1493bef
34401 F20101221_AAACDZ zapataphelan_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
0b3a63821190bdf55decd29c61d556cd
64177ec2cf5f6bf18887d24414f59418d921a37c
F20101221_AAACFC zapataphelan_c_Page_014.tif
486a2af75ba15b25587478469c8ba1a8
cfa1139fe2c6a87dee060112a49bf583f0b60446
1051892 F20101221_AAACEN zapataphelan_c_Page_041.jp2
1d86391970ed9709015a1d766f043bc6
e449289cc222374b98084c1c9aa448bc037c2fda
56687 F20101221_AAACFD zapataphelan_c_Page_034.pro
19d0c6d80479a426383c1036ef009dd3
63f447dfc251d38cdce14e96114d934606886ce1
2229 F20101221_AAACEO zapataphelan_c_Page_038.txt
9f53420deacb5aaab16ff3438f352ab6
53100dd1cb30cfa4ae1a3f4f8d5d8808a13ac73e
F20101221_AAACFE zapataphelan_c_Page_026.tif
7edc360f15998b5ea99c4ec887c3b409
cb2d846727f45ff50b50510710e8199bab132384
385 F20101221_AAACEP zapataphelan_c_Page_022.txt
14ab1d853b0f07271007b2d160d149bb
07b0741f88be5334c33283f73a99dfbc50beba0d
36706 F20101221_AAACFF zapataphelan_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
a9b2336a9c32a4f3475ddd61bb3eb346
a166301d436e29bb7ad70296821bf3722d196f24
540 F20101221_AAACEQ zapataphelan_c_Page_117.txt
f2c0c42b0e35dd800642cad51051c739
455d135e6a24e3773df145eb789e004a10686576
33661 F20101221_AAACFG zapataphelan_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
5e40ffe3055cd34f3e3ec82117020bd4
7bfa2c464374904dcb343a0c61e4e4b9932811ff
106852 F20101221_AAACER zapataphelan_c_Page_098.jpg
b6ef3c8a4bda9ed4055f4c9460052377
52737de7b987aff9d1b34f220ce207b73e311105







MANAGERIAL MOTIVATION FOR JUSTICE RULE ADHERENCE: USING SELF-
DETERMINATION THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK




















By

CINDY P. ZAPATA-PHELAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































O 2008 Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan





















I'd like to dedicate this dissertation to my family. To my mother, my best friend, Magaly Jerez,
who always strived to give me the best in life, even if it meant making personal sacrifices. You
are, and have always been, an inspiration to me. To the memory of my father, Carlos Jerez, who
always emphasized the importance of an education. I will always treasure all those late nights of
algebra homework!





I'd also like to dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful husband, Richard Phelan. Thank you
for being patient as I followed my dreams, and for always believing in me, especially during the
times I lost faith in myself. I love you!









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although this dissertation is my own, it would not have been possible were it not for the

assistance of many along the way. I would like to acknowledge everyone that has helped me

during my years at the University of Florida. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr.

Jason A. Colquitt, for providing me with the tools necessary to succeed. He has always been

extremely generous with his time, providing both encouragement and guidance when I have

needed it. His patience and support helped develop me into the scholar I am today. All around,

he has been everything an advisor should be and more. I have high hopes that I will be able to

emulate his mentorship, to benefit my future students. For the role he has played in my academic

development, I am eternally grateful.

I am also thankful for having an exceptional doctoral committee and wish to thank Dr.

Timothy A. Judge, Dr. Jeffrey A. LePine, and Dr. James Algina for their continual support and

encouragement. Their feedback helped me significantly improve this dissertation.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .........__... ......._. ...............4....


LIST OF TABLES ........._.___..... .__. ...............6....


LI ST OF FIGURE S .............. ...............7.....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........8


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............10.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............23................


Self-Determination Theory .................. ....... .......... ...............23......
Applying SDT to Managers Justice Rule Adherence ................. .......... ...............34
Moderators of Justice Motivation Effects ................ ......... ........ ................43
Personality ................... ... .............. .... ...............4
Personality and Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence ................ .......................51
Summary ................. ...............56.................


3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ...............58....


Sample and Procedures ................. ...............58........... ....
Measures ................ ...............60.................
Content Validation............... ...............6


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............73....


Descriptive Statistics .............. ...............73....
Tests of Hypotheses ................. ...............74........... ....


5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............92................


Limitations ................. ...............99.................
Practical Implications .............. ...............100....


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............103...............


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............117......... ......










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1. Motivation types ..........._._ ......_.._ ...............20...

3-1. Justice motivation items included in the content validation study .............. ...................69

3-2. Comparison of alternative factor structures for motivation for justice rule adherence .........70

4-1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations............... ..............8

4-2. Comparison of various equality constraints for motivation justice linkages. .................. .85

4-3. Moderated regressions used to test hypotheses Sa-b ................ ............. ........ .......86










LIST OF FIGURES


FiMr IM Le

1-1. Current state of the organizational justice literature ................. ...............21...........

1-2. Model of hypothesized relationships ................. ...............22...............

3-1. Hinkin and Tracey (1999) ANOVA results for four-item scales used in dissertation
hypothesis tests .............. ...............71....

4-1. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 1-4............... ...............88..

4-2. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9............... ...............89..

4-3. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. ................ ................ ...........90









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

MANAGERIAL MOTIVATION FOR JUSTICE RULE ADHERENCE: USING SELF-
DETERMINATION THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK

By

CINDY P. ZAPATA-PHELAN

August 2008

Chair: Jason A. Colquitt
Major: Business Administration

Although research has shown that subordinate perceptions of the degree to which managers

adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance

in subordinate attitudes and behaviors, a key question remains unexplored: why do managers

adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First,

this dissertation uses self-determination theory to identify four different reasons why managers

adhere to justice rules (intrinsic, identified, introj ected, and external motivation). In other words,

whereas some managers may genuinely want to adhere to justice rules for its own sake, it is

likely that other managers do so as a means to other ends. The second purpose of this dissertation

was to identify managerial traits, taken from narrow facets of the Big Five, that predict

managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. Managerial motives for justice rule adherence

were then proposed as mediating mechanisms, explaining the relationship between managerial

traits and subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. The moderating role of structural

distance was also examined, given that managers who are more proximal to their subordinates

will gain more frequent opportunities to adhere to justice rules. The results of this study suggest

that managerial traits predict both managerial motivations for justice rule adherence, as well as

subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. Unexpectedly, managerial motivations for










justice rule adherence did not predict subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. It should

also be noted that structural distance did not moderate these effects, though it did demonstrate

main effects with subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Although interest in issues of justice dates back to Aristotle (Aristotle, 1759),

organizational justice, a term coined by Greenberg (1987) to describe people's perceptions of

fairness in an organizational context, did not gain widespread interest until the early 1960's.

During the past fifty years, the organizational justice literature has gone through several changes

(for a review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). One of the first influential

contributions to the organizational justice literature came from Adams (1965). Adams (1965)

developed equity theory, which suggests that individuals compare the ratio of their inputs, or

what they bring to a job, and their outcomes, defined as what they receives in return, to the ratio

of a referent other. Individuals experience overpayment inequity if the referent other receives

fewer outcomes relative to their inputs. Underpayment inequity is experienced if the referent

other receives more outcomes relative to their inputs. The theory also outlines the processes that

occur once an inequity is perceived. Using cognitive dissonance as a framework (Festinger,

1957), Adams (1965) suggested that perceived inequities are cognitively taxing. To deal with the

distress caused by inequity, one can alter one's inputs or outcomes, attempt to change the

referent other' s inputs or outcomes, or withdraw from the situation depending on whether

overpayment or underpayment is experienced.

Up to this point, equity theory only considered the impact of disproportionate outcomes.

However, equity theory is now viewed as comprising one part of a larger literature on

"distributive justice", which includes Leventhal's (1976) and Deutsch' s (1975) articulations of

the equity, equality, and need rules. Distributive justice now refers to whether an appropriate

allocation norm is utilized, and is commonly defined as the perceived fairness of decision

outcomes (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976). Despite the evolution of distributive










justice issues, equity theory is not without criticism (for reviews, see Adams & Freedman, 1976;

Greenberg, 1982; Mowday, 1979).

In spite of its limitations, equity theory created enough interest in justice issues to move

the literature in a new direction. Beginning in the 1970's, justice researchers expanded their

attention from reactions caused by inequity to a focus on the perceived fairness of decision-

making processes used to determine outcomes. This new justice dimension was labeled

procedural justice (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Thibaut and Walker's (1975)

interest in procedural justice stemmed from research on fairness perceptions in the context of

legal dispute resolutions. Their initial research focused on the distinction between adversarial

systems, which separate procedures and outcomes, and inquisitorial systems, in which a judge

controls both the process and outcome. Using a trial simulation, Walker, LaTour, Lind, and

Thibaut (1974) found that irrespective of the verdict, participants preferred trials using

adversarial systems to those using inquisitorial procedures. These results are important because

they demonstrated that the use of fair procedures could positively affect satisfaction with the

procedure and verdict. This stream of research led Thibaut and Walker to conceptualize

procedural justice in terms of the degree of control a procedure affords, or more specifically, an

"optimal distribution of control" (Thibaut & Walker, 1975, p. 2). In their subsequent work,

Thibaut and Walker (1978) focused on two specific types of control: decision control, which is

the degree to which one has control over the Einal outcome, and process control, defined as the

degree to which one has control over the various procedures used to determine the final outcome.

Although the work of Thibaut and Walker (1978) focused on dispute resolution contexts,

Leventhal (1980) argued that procedural justice concerns were also relevant to the reward

allocation contexts commonly discussed in equity theory research. Leventhal (1980) outlined six









specific procedural justice rules: consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability,

representativeness, and ethicality. According to Leventhal (1980), procedures should display

consistency across time and individuals while also minimizing personal biases. Fair procedures

should also reflect accurate, valid information to minimize errors, and allow opportunities to

change or even reverse decisions. Finally, procedures should be both representative of the parties

involved and consistent with the fundamental ethical values of the parties involved.

Initial research involving procedural justice focused on distinguishing it from distributive

justice. Some studies attempted to factor-analytically distinguish procedural and distributive

justice (Greenberg, 1986) while others focused on establishing distinct relationships between the

two justice dimensions and various outcomes (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger &

Konovsky, 1989; Tyler & Caine, 1981). As expected, several studies supported procedural

justice as a distinct construct. Moreover, some research suggested that procedural justice had

significantly stronger effects on some outcomes than did distributive justice (Folger &

Konovsky, 1989; Tyler & Caine, 1981).

While discussions of procedural justice alluded to issues of process fairness (e.g.,

Leventhal, 1980), justice scholars did not take interest in interpersonal issues until Bies and

Moag's (1986) discussion of interactional justice, which they defined as the perceived fairness of

interpersonal treatment. Similar to Leventhal's (1980) approach with procedural justice, Bies and

Moag (1986) identified four interactional justice rules: truthfulness, justification, propriety, and

respect. Although the interactional justice terminology was seldom used initially, research did

begin examining the various rules proposed by Bies and Moag (1986). One of the first studies to

examine the justification component was conducted by Bies and Shapiro (1988). Their results

demonstrated that justifications positively influenced fairness perceptions.









Although these results imply that providing justifications is important, Bies and Shapiro

(1988) embedded procedural justice within conceptualization of interactional justice. Moorman

(1991) was actually the first to empirically separate interactional justice from procedural justice.

In this study, Moorman (1991) examined the effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional

justice on citizenship behaviors, defined as behaviors that are discretionary, not directly

recognized by the formal reward system, and that help promote the effective functioning of the

organization (Organ, 1988). His results supported a relationship between interactional justice and

four out of five dimensions of citizenship behavior. Greenberg (1990), in turn, was the first to

evaluate the effects of interactional justice on counterproductive outcomes. Greenberg (1990)

used three manufacturing plants initiating a temporary pay cut to evaluate the effects of

interactional justice on actual behavioral outcomes. In the adequate explanation condition, he

manipulated the justification and respect rules by providing an adequate justification for the

temporary pay cut. In the inadequate explanation condition, employees were merely notified of

the impending pay cut. The third condition consisted of a control group which did not receive a

temporary pay cut. The plant assigned to the inadequate explanation condition experienced

significantly higher theft and turnover than any other condition.

A few years later, Greenberg (1993a) suggested separating Bies and Moag' s (1986)

interactional justice rules into two justice facets: interpersonal justice, which captures the respect

and propriety rules, and informational justice, described as the truthfulness and justification

components. Greenberg' s (1993b) initial study supported the separation of interpersonal and

informational justice. In this study, undergraduates were asked to perform a clerical task for

payment. Both interpersonal and informational justice were then independently manipulated. In

the high interpersonal justice condition, participants were treated respectfully while the low









interpersonal justice condition exposed participants to a disinterested experimenter.

Informational justice was manipulated by either providing or omitting an explanation for the

payment received. The results confirmed Greenberg' s (1993b) hypothesis; interpersonal and

informational justice had unique effects on theft. A more recent study by Colquitt (2001)

provided additional evidence in the form of factor analytic data supporting the separation of

interactional justice, specifically demonstrating that the four dimensions of organizational justice

(distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) predicted different kinds of outcomes.

As this overview has indicated, most field studies in the literature utilize subordinate

perceptions of managers' adherence to the various justice rules as the independent variable in the

causal system, predicting a number of attitudinal and behavioral variables (for a review, see

Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005). Recent meta-analyses have cemented the importance of

the four justice dimensions in predicting various outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;

2002; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). For instance, Colquitt et al.'s (2001)

review demonstrated that most of the variance explained by the justice dimensions in withdrawal

was due to distributive justice, whereas procedural justice demonstrated the strongest

relationships with task performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Interpersonal and informational justice dimensions also predicted key outcomes, such as

citizenship behavior and negative reactions (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Despite knowing that organizational justice does demonstrate significant effects on

organizational outcomes, the last fifty years have left us with an important gap in the literature

(Figure 1). To date, we know relatively little about why managers adhere to justice rules, as only

a handful of justice scholars have begun to examine antecedents to subordinate perceptions of

justice rule adherence. Patient and Skarlicki (2005) recently echoed a similar sentiment, writing:









"Almost no research has explored fairness from the perspective of the transgressor... By

exploring why managers deliver bad news in ways that are likely to be regarded as insensitive

and unfair, we focus on justice as a dependent variable. This line of inquiry is relatively

underresearched" (p. 152).

One of the first studies to examine a potential justice antecedent was conducted by

Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph (1998). These authors proposed that subordinate behaviors, in

the form of assertive communication, may act as effective influence tactics and result in

increased justice rule adherence on behalf of the manager. In the first of two studies,

undergraduates were asked to evaluate the performance of another participant on a critical

thinking skills test. In actuality, a confederate served as the participant and therefore

performance was held constant across conditions. In the high assertiveness condition, the

confederate responded to the participant' s performance feedback using an assertive

predetermined script. In this condition, the confederate spoke in a confident manner, maintained

eye contact, listened attentively to the participant, and directly questioned the participant's

feedback. In the low assertiveness condition, confederates responded to the feedback received by

making vague statements, indirectly disagreeing with the feedback, and failing to maintain both

good eye contact and body posture. As expected, participants in the high assertiveness condition

were more likely to provide the confederates with procedural justice in the form of process

control and decision control, and informational justice in the form of justifications for the

feedback provided. Korsgaard et al. (1998) also conducted a second study using employees at a

large retail firm. In this study, employees were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:

assertive communication training, formal appraisal training, and informal appraisal training.









Unfortunately the results from this study did not demonstrate a significant effect of assertiveness

training on employees' perceptions of organizational justice.

Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007) chose a slightly different approach by focusing

on the influence of subordinate characteristics rather than behaviors on managerial justice rule

adherence. They specifically examined the effects of subordinate charisma on perceptions of

interpersonal and informational justice using a sample from a large national insurance company.

Using an approach/avoidance framework, these authors suggested that charismatic subordinates

could actually increase positive sentiments and decrease negative sentiments felt by a manager,

thus positively affecting interpersonal and informational justice. As expected, their results

demonstrated that positive and negative sentiments fully mediated the relationship between

managerial perceptions of subordinate charisma and subordinate perceptions of interpersonal

justice. Unexpectedly, the results were not significant for informational justice, though

managerial perceptions of subordinate charisma did predict subordinate perceptions of

procedural justice.

In contrast to the subordinate approach taken by Korsgaard et al. (1998) and Scott et al.

(2007), Masterson, Byrne, and Mao (2005) and Patient and Skarlicki (2005) were some of the

first scholars to propose managerial-focused characteristics as determinants of justice rule

adherence, with a specific focus on interactional justice. Masterson et al. (2005) suggested

managerial empathy and managerial agreeableness as two characteristics that might influence

interpersonal justice, in addition to proposing subordinate characteristics as antecedents of

informational justice. Patient and Skarlicki (2005) also proposed managerial empathy as an

antecedent to interactional justice, in addition to managerial feelings of self-worth and level of









moral development. Though no empirical work has them propositions, these propositions are an

important first step in the development of managerial justice antecedents.

This dissertation takes a managerial focus to justice antecedents, similar to that of

Masterson et al. (2005) and Patient and Skarlicki (2005). One purpose of this dissertation is to

identify different reasons why managers may be motivated to adhere to justice rules. Do

managers treat subordinates fairly because they genuinely want to treat subordinates fairly, or do

managers treat subordinates fairly merely to avoid the negative consequences associated with

treating subordinates unfairly? It is likely that some managers treat subordinates fairly because

they want to while others treat subordinates fairly because they feel they have to or ought to. I

propose that managers may treat subordinates fairly for different reasons.

The theoretical grounding for this dissertation' s maj or predictions will be provided by self-

determination theory (SDT). Self-determination theory is a theory of motivation that focuses on

motives that drive behavior regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The motives can be separated into

two types, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, with extrinsic motivation consisting of four

subtypes (Table 1-1). The first form of extrinsic motivation is external motivation, which

suggests that behavior regulation occurs because of specific external contingencies, such as

avoiding punishment or seeking rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Introj ected motivation is more

internalized than external motivation, though behavior is still contingent on internal

consequences. Identified motivation suggests that the individual has both accepted and identifies

with the behavior. Integrated motivation, though still a form of extrinsic motivation, suggests

that an individual has not only identified with the behavior, but has also integrated the behavior

into one's self-concept. Intrinsic motivation suggests that behavior regulation is completely self-

determined. In sum, "SDT differentiates the content of goals or outcomes and the regulatory










process through which the outcomes are pursued, making predictions for different contents and

different processes." (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227, emphasis in original).

A recent review by Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, and Judge (2003) stated that self-

determination theory was flexible enough to explain several organizational processes, such as

transformational leadership and goal commitment, among others. Moreover, they suggested that

their "intent in discussing such a wide range of organizational phenomena is to demonstrate the

potentially far-reaching applicability of SDT and thereby, hopefully, to stimulate additional

theorizing and research in other domains" (Sheldon et al., 2003, p. 370). Though they did not

suggest pairing self-determination theory with the justice literature, the motives proposed by

self-determination theory appropriately describe potential motivations for justice rule adherence.

For example, a manager may adhere to justice rules for external reasons (e.g., "Because I want to

be rewarded"), for introj ected reasons (e.g., "Because I don't want to feel guilty"), for identified

or integrated reasons (e.g., "Because I see myself as a fair manager"), or for intrinsic reasons

(e.g., "Because I truly enj oy being fair").

The second purpose of this dissertation is to establish a set of managerial traits that may

predict managerial motives for justice rule adherence, as self-determination theory suggests that

individual factors influence behavior regulation. One potentially fruitful avenue is that of the Big

Five (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). The

Big Five is a five-factor framework consisting of the following traits: extraversion (including

positive emotions and assertiveness), agreeableness (including compliance, straightforwardness,

and altruism), conscientiousness (including dutifulness, achievement orientation, and reliability),

neuroticism (including anxiety and vulnerability), and openness to experience (including ideas

and values) (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Though there is some dispute as to the nature of the









narrow traits that make up the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990; Hofstee, de

Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), the Big-Five framework is a well accepted

model of personality structure (Fiske, 1994). Thus, I utilized the Big Five framework to identify

narrow managerial traits that might affect subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence, with

managerial motives for justice rule adherence acting as the mediating mechanism. The sections

that follow describe these propositions in greater detail.










Table 1-1. Motivation types
Regulation External Introjected Identified Integrated Intrinsic
Type Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation
Definition Behavior Behavior Behavior B ehavi or B ehavi or
regulated by regulated by regulated by regulated by regulated by
external internal one's the inherent
contingencies contingencies appreciation integration interest
such as such as guilt and of the
rewards and and pride recognition behavior
puni shments of the with one's
behavior identity
Least self- Self-
determined determined
(controlled) (autonomous)

Example "Because it "Because I "Because it is "Because it "Because it is
item: would create would feel an essential is part of inherently
Why are you hassles on the ashamed of goal to me" who I am" satisfying"
engaged in job" myself'
this activity?




























Subordinate Behaviors:

Job Performance
Withdrawal
Citizenship Behavior
Counterproductive
Behavior


Subordinate Attitudes:

Outcome Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
Organizational
Commitment
Perceived Organizational
Support


Subordi nate
Perceptions of Justice
Rule Adherence:

Managri alDistributive Justice
Characteri sti cs
Procedural Justice
Interpersonal Justice
Informational Justice













Figure 1-1. Current state of the organizational justice literature.















Altruism


Intrinsic Motivation
for rule adherence


Identified Motivation
for rule adherence


Reliability
Straightforwardness


Procedural Justice
Interpersonal Justice
Informational Justice


Dutifulness
Anxiety


External Motivation
for rule adherence


Ambition


Figure 1-2. Model of hypothesized relationships.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory is a meta-theory comprised of four motivation theories (for

reviews, see Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Sheldon et al.,

2003): cognitive evaluation theory, causality orientations theory, basic needs theory, and

organismic integration theory. The first theory to develop was that of cognitive evaluation

theory, which focuses on the undermining effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation,

defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the inherent enj oyment or interest in

that particular activity (Deci, 1975). The development of causality orientations theory took the

focus away from extrinsic factors such as rewards, by suggesting that individual differences

should also have an impact on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Relatedly,

basic needs theory proposes that need satisfaction is essential for one's well being (Ryan & Deci,

2002). Organismic integration theory places less emphasis on intrinsic motivation, focusing

instead on identifying various forms of extrinsic motivation, some of which can be beneficial

(Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The evolution of each of these theories has helped

develop self-determination theory into the broad theory of motivation that it is today. Thus, a

clear understanding of self-determination theory requires an understanding of the theories that

comprise it.

One of the first precursors to cognitive evaluation theory was the work conducted by de

Charms (1968). De Charms (1968) sought to concentrate on motivation as the most proximal

antecedent to causation, as it is our motivations, our intentions, that lead us to cause certain

behaviors. He specifically suggested that even though one initiates a behavior, intentional

causality could be separated into internal and external perceived locus of causality, derived from









Heider' s (1958) perceived locus of causality (PLOC) construct. De Charms (1968) also proposed

that one experiences intrinsic motivation when one is the primary causal agent for a particular

behavior (internal perceived locus of causality) while extrinsic motivation is experienced when

external events are the primary causes of behavior (extemal perceived locus of causality).

Consistent with what is now known as cognitive evaluation theory, de Charms (1968) proposed

that a change in locus of causality from internal to external, such as that caused by the addition

of an external reward, likely reduces intrinsic motivation.

Deci and Ryan's (1985a) cognitive evaluation theory expanded on de Charms' (1968)

proposition by suggesting that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation because they

undermine one's desire to be self-determining (i.e., autonomously choosing one's behavior) and

competent. Initial research in this area focused on self-determination by examining the potential

undermining effects of monetary rewards on intrinsic motivation (for reviews, see Deci,

Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Specifically, rewards are thought to undermine

self-determination because they are usually perceived as controlling (Deci & Ryan, 1985a).

Deci (1971) initially examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation

using a sample of college students. In this study, Deci (1971) assigned participants to one of two

conditions, both of which included working on four timed intrinsically motivating puzzles. The

participants in the experimental condition were paid $1 for each completed puzzle while the

control group participants were not paid. To measure intrinsic motivation, Deci relied on what is

now known as the free-choice method, meaning that subj ects were observed during a free-choice

period to determine whether they would choose to continue working on the puzzles despite the

lack of an extrinsic reward. Intrinsic motivation was inferred by the amount of time participants

spent on the puzzles during the free-choice period. Over the course of working on the four










puzzles, the participants in the experimental condition experienced a decrease in intrinsic

motivation relative to that of the control group, presumably due to a decrease in self-

determination stemming from the monetary reward.

Subsequent research attempted to establish additional extrinsic factors that, when present,

decrease intrinsic motivation. Both Ross (1975) and Ross, Karniol, and Rothstein (1976) tested

the effects of food rewards on intrinsic motivation. As expected, rewards in the form of food

decreased intrinsic motivation for two different tasks. Lepper and Greene (1975) chose to reward

preschool-aged participants with an opportunity to play with a fun toy. They found that

rewarding participants with an opportunity to play had an undermining effect on intrinsic

motivation to work on a puzzle. Lepper and Greene (1975) also examined an additional extrinsic

factor, surveillance. Their results revealed that watching participants while they worked on a

puzzle task decreased intrinsic motivation. These results correspond with cognitive evaluation

theory in that they suggest that intrinsic motivation is decreased when extrinsic factors are

interpreted as controlling and undermining self-determination.

Although several individual studies support the undermining effects of extrinsic rewards

on intrinsic motivation, meta-analyses have been less than optimistic. Cameron and Pierce

(1994) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic

motivation. After examining 94 studies, they concluded that "our overall findings suggest that

there is no detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation" (p. 394). A more

recent meta-analysis was conducted by Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999). They found

that extrinsic rewards have differential effects on motivation, depending on how the extrinsic

reward is presented. Extrinsic rewards communicating task significance increase intrinsic

motivation while rewards that trivialize the task decrease intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al.,










1999). Even Deci and colleagues (1999) meta-analysis did not fully support cognitive evaluation

theory. Their results suggest that while performance contingent rewards negatively affected

obj ective free-choice measures of intrinsic motivation (k =101), there was no undermining effect

for self-report measures of intrinsic motivation (k = 84) (Deci et al., 1999). Taken together, these

meta-analyses suggest that while extrinsic rewards can theoretically undermine intrinsic

motivation, it is an effect that does not necessarily occur with great frequency in practice.

A second proposition laid out by cognitive evaluation theory is that extrinsic rewards that

increase perceptions of competence will actually increase intrinsic motivation towards

challenging tasks. For instance, Anderson, Manoogian, and Reznick (1976) examined the effects

of positive feedback on intrinsic motivation using preschool-aged children. In addition to

demonstrating that monetary rewards undermine intrinsic motivation, their results also showed

an increase in intrinsic motivation when participants received verbal positive feedback. Meta-

analytic results have reached similar conclusions, demonstrating that positive feedback is

positively related to both obj ective (e.g., free-choice observation) and subj ective (e.g., self-

report) measures of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).

Cognitive evaluation theory's focus on extrinsic or contextual factors was later

counterbalanced by causality orientations theory's emphasis on the motivational effects of

individual differences. Although contextual factors affect motivation, Deci and Ryan (1985b)

observed that "different people seem to respond differently to the same events" (p. 110). This

observation led to causality orientations theory, which suggests that individual differ with respect

to "causality orientations," described as one's orientation towards a particular type of motivation

(Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Deci and Ryan (1985b) proposed that causality orientations affect both

the kinds of environments people seek out and the way people react to different kinds of










environments (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Three individual differences (i.e., causality orientations)

have been associated with this theory: autonomy orientation, control orientation, and impersonal

orientation.

Individuals high on autonomy orientation, previously termed internal orientation (Deci,

1980), tend to experience the environment in ways conducive to self-determination (i.e., internal

locus of causality). These individuals are also inclined to seek out situations that allow for

genuine choice, and generally perceive situations as encouraging choice. Conversely, control

oriented individuals are likely to prefer situations that dictate appropriate behavior. Thus, these

individuals tend to use situational constraints as motivators (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Unlike

autonomy oriented individuals, those high on control orientation experience the environment as

controlling, offering limited choices (i.e., external locus of causality). Individuals high on

impersonal orientation tend to experience the environment as so controlling that behavior occurs

irrespective of the individual's intentions. An individual with an impersonal orientation

experiences trouble coping with contingencies, along with a general tendency towards perceived

incompetence. Impersonal orientation likely results in motivation, which refers to a lack of

behavioral intentions (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Deci & Ryan, 2000). When an individual

experiences motivation, behavior either does not occur at all, or it occurs unintentionally (Deci

& Ryan, 1985a).

Although causality orientations theory does not specifically outline other individual

differences, there are clearly some traits that are similar to the causality orientations (Deci &

Ryan, 1985b). For example, self-esteem or self-appraisal, are somewhat similar to autonomy

orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Self-consciousness, which refers to an individual's tendency

to attend to either private aspects of the self (private self-consciousness) or public aspects of the









self (public self-consciousness), shares some similarities with control orientation (Deci & Ryan,

1985a; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Locus of control, which is the tendency to believe that outcomes

are determined either by external forces (external locus of control) or internal forces (internal

locus of control), is fairly similar to impersonal orientation, particularly external locus of control

(Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Previous research has supported these assertions,

demonstrating that self-esteem, locus of control, and public and private self-consciousness are

significantly related to the various causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).

Unlike causality orientations theory's focus on individual differences, the basic needs

theory posits that all individuals have three basic needs, defined as "innate psychological

nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological gi/ 1,n th, integrity, and well-being" (Deci

& Ryan, 2000, p. 229, emphasis in original). The three needs are autonomy, competence, and

relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The need for autonomy refers

to feeling in control of one's behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Autonomy

does not refer to total freedom or independence, but rather it refers to feeling connected to one's

actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Sheldon et al. (2003) describe autonomy as

"felt volition" (p. 366). The need for competence suggests that people want to feel effective and

capable. According to Ryan and Deci (2002), the need for competence guides people towards

greater challenges in an attempt to learn new skills. Relatedness refers to the desire to experience

a sense of belonging, both socially (e.g., with the community at large) and interpersonally (e.g.,

with other people) (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002).

According to basic needs theory, the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness positively affects one's well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Previous research has

been consistent with this proposition (e.g Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser & Ryan,










1999). Two of the self-determination theories, cognitive evaluation theory and causality

orientations theory, offer potential antecedents to need satisfaction. Cognitive evaluation theory

focuses on contextual factors as antecedents of need satisfaction. For example, positive feedback

may increase perceptions of one' s abilities, helping to fulfill one's need for competence (Deci &

Moller, 2005). In contrast, causality orientations theory emphasizes the effects of individual

differences on intrinsic motivation, which in turn affects need satisfaction (for a review, see

Sheldon et al., 2003). For instance, an autonomy orientation is predicted to increase resiliency

towards controlling situations, thus increasing the likelihood of satisfying one's need for

autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985a).

Between cognitive evaluation theory and causality orientations theory, the latter has

received significantly less attention in the self-determination literature (Sheldon et al., 2003).

Despite the comparative popularity of cognitive evaluation theory, an often discussed limitation

is that it only applies to inherently interesting tasks. In other words, cognitive evaluation theory

is silent on boring tasks, as evidenced by the inclusion criteria used in Deci et al.'s (1999) meta-

analysis. "Because the field of research being evaluated concerns reward effects on people's

intrinsic motivation for interesting activities, we included in the primary meta-analyses only

studies, or conditions within studies, in which the interest value of the target tasks was at least

neutral." (p. 635). This issue makes it particularly difficult to apply cognitive evaluation theory

to the workplace, as many jobs involve at least some mundane tasks.

Organismic integration theory is an attempt to resolve cognitive evaluation theory's

emphasis on interesting tasks by suggesting that there are several forms of extrinsic motivation

(Table 1). Organismic integration theory begins with the assumption that as humans, we have a

desire to grow and internalize our behaviors with our sense of selves (Deci & Ryan, 2002).










Internalization, which "refers to the process through which an individual acquires an attitude,

belief, or behavioral regulation and progressively transforms it into a personal value, goal, or

organization" is viewed as a continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, p. 130). The more internalized a

behavior becomes, the more likely the behavior occurs autonomously (i.e., in a self-determined

fashion). Using the concept of internalization, Deci and Ryan (1985a) proposed a taxonomy of

extrinsic motivation, ranging from no self-determination to complete self-determination. In other

words, extrinsic motivation can range from controlled to autonomous. In fact, Deci and Ryan

(1985a) borrow from the developmental psychology literature to suggest that behaviors can

increase in internalization over time. However, organismic integration theory was not meant as a

stage theory, meaning that people do not necessarily move through the types of extrinsic

motivation, eventually reaching the most integrated forms of motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005).

In terms of work behaviors, the key component of self-determination theory is the assertion that

behaviors that are not intrinsically motivating can still be internalized.

The least internalized of the four forms of extrinsic motivation is external motivation. This

type of motivation is equivalent to that referenced by operant conditioning theory (Skinner,

1953). When individuals experience external motivation, their behavior is controlled or

motivated by external contingencies (e.g., "Because of the various fringe benefits this j ob

provides") (Gagne et al., 2006). In order to experience external motivation, one has to anticipate

the potential consequences associated with a particular behavior. Thus, when behavior is

externally motivated, it likely occurs in an attempt to either avoid consequences (e.g.,

punishment) or attain consequences (e.g., praise) (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Because externally

motivated behavior is guided by external contingencies, the withdrawal of contingencies is likely

to eliminate the behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a).









hItrojected motivation suggests that external contingencies have been somewhat

internalized, and it is those internalized contingencies that guide behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a).

In other words, consequences are administered internally rather than externally, yet the internal

contingencies regulating behavior are not integrated into one's sense of self. When motivation is

introjected, external contingencies are no longer needed to continue the behavior. Instead,

individuals are motivated to engage in behaviors due to internal contingencies, such as avoiding

feelings of guilt or shame or enhancing feelings of self-worth (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). An

individual engaged in a behavior for introj ected reasons may report doing so "because I will feel

bad about myself if I don't" (Ryan & Connell, 1989, p. 752). However, introj ected motivation is

still not self-determined because contingencies, albeit internal, still regulate behavior (Deci &

Ryan, 1985a).

Identified motivation is experienced when behavior is consciously seen as important or

valuable. When experiencing identified motivation, people identify with the behavior, though

they still recognize the instrumentality of the behavior for achieving personal goals. According to

Deci and Ryan (2002), this type of extrinsic motivation is somewhat autonomous. Thus,

identification suggests that behaviors occur because the individual personally supports them

(e.g., "Because I think this activity is good for me") (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000, p.

184). It is possible that identified motivations are not completely integrated into the self.

However, identified motivations are clearly more self-determined than either introj ected or

external motivation.

Integrated motivation occurs when one identifies completely with the behavior. In other

words, every aspect of one's sense of self is congruentt with the behavior. This type of motivation

is the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, and is consistent with complete









internalization. Although one wholly identifies with behavior, it is still instrumental and

therefore not intrinsically regulated. When compared with identified motivation, the distinction

between the two types of motivation becomes blurred, both theoretically and empirically.

Conceptually, both integrated and identified motivation are described as autonomous, with

identified being "relatively autonomous" (Gagne & Deci, 2005, p. 335) and identified being

"completely autonomous." Also, both motivations are described as integrated with one's sense of

self, though identified motivation can still be compartmentalized to only certain aspects of one' s

self. Empirical research has also tended to focus on one versus the other. For instance, Ryan and

Connell (1989) examined external, introjected, identification, and intrinsic motives, without

mention of integrated motivation (see also Guay et al., 2000). Even some reviews choose to

discuss identified and omit integrated motivation (e.g., Sheldon et al., 2003). Moreover,

integrated motivation also shares some conceptual similarities with intrinsic motivation (Ryan &

Deci, 2002), making it difficult to tease them apart. Due to the ambiguity regarding integrated

motivation, this dissertation omits it entirely.

The motivational distinctions described by self-determination theory can be seen in other

literatures as well (for reviews, see Gagne & Deci, 2005; Sheldon et al., 2003). For instance,

Kohlberg' s (1969) cognitive moral development theory mirrors the extrinsic motivation

continuum in self-determination theory. The first stage of moral development suggests that moral

behavior occurs because of a concern or fear of punishment. Stage two suggests that the benefits

received from others motivate moral behavior. The descriptions for stage one and two mirror that

of extrinsic motivation. The third stage resembles introj ected motivation, in that moral behavior

is based on others' expectations. Recall that introj ected motivation suggests that avoiding

feelings of guilt drive behavior. Thus, an individual in the third stage of moral development










might be moral to avoid letting others down. The highest stages of moral development suggest

that moral behavior is based on one's moral principles. These behaviors occur more

autonomously, similar to identified motivation.

There are also similarities between self-determination theory's motivational distinctions

and the three organizational commitment components, namely continuance, normative, and

affective (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Organizational commitment is typically defined as a

psychological state that decreases the likelihood that employees will turnover (i.e. leave the

organization). When the costs of leaving are too high, individuals are likely to experience

continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). These individuals are less likely to turnover

because they feel they have to stay with the organization. Continuance commitment resembles

external motivation in that both suggest behaviors are motivated by external constraints. A

subsequent addition to the framework was normative commitment, defined as felt obligation or

responsibility to stay (Allen & Meyer, 1990). These individuals are less likely to turnover

because they feel they ought to stay. Normative commitment can be thought of as a type of

introj ected motivation, because staying with a company is viewed as a means of avoiding guilt.

When an individual is emotionally attached to an organization, they are said to experience

affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Individuals that are effectively commitment to the

organization remain at the organization because of a true desire to do so (e.g., I want to stay),

resembling intrinsic motivation.

Self-determination theory can even be compared to the literature on power. In this

literature, scholars usually distinguish between different motivational processes for accepting

influence, namely internalization, identification and compliance (Kelman, 1958). Internalization

resembles intrinsic motivation in that behavioral changes occur due to intrinsic interest.









Identification is similar to identified motivation in that although one identifies with the behavior,

the behavior is still instrumental. The process of identification suggests accepting influence due

to a desire to maintain a relationship, though the individual does identify with the behavior.

Compliance suggests that behavioral or attitudinal changes occur because of an expectation for

reward, or to simply avoid negative consequences associated with noncompliance (Kelman,

1961). It is therefore similar to extrinsic motivation.

Applying SDT to Managers Justice Rule Adherence

The applicability of self-determination theory is substantial. In educational research, self-

determination research has focused on evaluating the effectiveness of various learning

environments (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Sports activities also provide a nice context to study

intrinsic motivation, as people normally play sports to have fun. Self-determination theory has

also been applied to the workplace, with some research focusing on the effects of contingent

rewards on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). However, few studies examine the four

types of extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Instead, some scholars choose to examine only a

few of the extrinsic motivations (e.g., Koester, Losier, Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996; Ryan,

Rigby, & King, 1993). Others lump them together into an autonomy continuum (e.g., Grolnick &

Ryan, 1987) and some contrast autonomy and controlled motivations (e.g., Williams, Grow,

Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

The motivational distinctions proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000) in self-determination

theory offer a good framework for evaluating why managers adhere to justice rules. This

dissertation proposes that managers may have different motivations for adhering to justice rules,

with the type of motivation experienced affecting employees' perceptions of justice rule

adherence. Although the amount of motivation may not differ depending on the type of

motivation experienced, self-determination theory suggests that the quality of functioning will










(Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, the processes through which motivations are acted up vary

depending on how internalized the motivation is, with intrinsic motivation capturing the

strongest degree of internalization.

A look at the broader literature of work motivation can help explain the importance of self-

determination theory's motivation types. Work motivation describes three primary motivational

outcomes: direction, intensity, and persistence (Kanfer, 1990). The direction of behavior

indicates one's behavioral choices. This outcome is applicable when there are mutually exclusive

options, such as deciding whether to work or not to work. Intensity refers to how much effort is

exerted towards the behavioral choice (Kanfer, 1990). Task effort is a frequently used measures

of intensity (Kanfer, 1990). Persistence suggests the maintenance of the behavioral choice over

time (Kanfer, 1990). The upcoming passages suggest that the frequency of effort (i.e., intensity)

and persistence of effort directed towards justice rule adherence depends on the motivation tyipe

experienced. This dissertation will refer to frequency of effort rather than intensity, as frequency

of effort more clearly captures intensity as it is likely to operate when attempting to adhere to

justice rules. My general prediction is that, although both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations

should equally affect direction of effort, the frequency of effort and persistence of effort should

decline as motivations become less self-determined.

Intrinsic motivation is an exemplar of self-determined motivation (Deci, 1975). According

to Deci and Ryan (1985a), intrinsic motivation is based on an inherent interest in a task or

activity. Thus, intrinsically motivated individuals are likely to behave in accordance with their

interests by exerting effort directed towards the intrinsically motivating task (Ryan & Connell,

1989). If intrinsic motivation is indeed marked by stronger intensity of effort, it follows that

managers with an intrinsic motivation for fair treatment will create opportunities to adhere to










justice rules. For example, a manager might go out of his or her way to gather employees'

opinions, thereby fulfilling Leventhal's (1980) representative rule for procedural justice.

Alternatively, a manager might go out of his or her way to provide explanations to employees,

thereby fulfilling Bies and Moag' s (1986) justification rule. In this case, the manager is doing

those things simply because he or she enj oys doing them.

Frequency of effort is also relevant for intrinsic motivation, as it implies an intensity of

task directed attention. This is demonstrated by the fact that intrinsically motivated individuals

create situations that are congruent with their interests (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Deci & Ryan,

1985a). Moreover, intrinsically motivated behaviors occur naturally, almost instinctively (Deci

& Ryan, 2000). The inherent interest associated with intrinsic motivation should make it easier to

focus attention towards intrinsically motivating tasks, as tasks that are intrinsically motivating

should be more resistant to distractions (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005). Increased

focus of attention is beneficial to performance, as performance tends to decline as attention is

focused away from the task at hand (Beal et al., 2005; Kahneman, 1973). In sum, intrinsic

motivation should positively affect justice rule adherence to the extent that intrinsic motivation

allows for a greater frequency of effort.

In addition, intrinsically motivated individuals demonstrate task persistence, as evidenced

by the popular free-choice measure of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Deci & Ryan, 1985a).

The protocol for measuring intrinsic motivation in this manner typically consists of the

experimenter leaving the room for a valid reason to create the free-choice period. During this

time, the participants are unaware they are being watched, and have other activities to work on.

Whether or not participants return to the task at hand during this time is used as a measure of

intrinsic motivation. Free-choice measures not only capture direction of effort, but also how long









participants spend on the task, which is a clear operationalization of persistence of effort (for a

review, see Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Thus, I propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to interpersonal, informational, and
procedural justice.

The mechanisms explaining the effects of identified motivation on behaviors are similar to

those of intrinsic motivation, given that identified motivation shares some similarities with

intrinsic motivation. According to Deci and Ryan (1985a), autonomous motivation (e.g.,

identified and intrinsic) produces greater initiative than controlled motivation. Individuals that

are motivated for identified reasons believe in the importance and value of the behavior (Deci &

Ryan, 1985a). Thus, managers who experience identified motivation for justice rule adherence

are likely to demonstrate initiative by seeking and taking advantage of opportunities that arise, as

doing so allows them to behave in accordance with their values. In fact, Greenberg (1988)

suggested that "others' beliefs in one's fairness may help reinforce one's identity" (p. 157).

Managers experiencing a genuine concern for employees should find it easy to continually

suppress their own biases when making decisions. Moreover, these individuals should also

adhere to the ethicality rule of procedural justice, which suggests that procedures used should be

compatible with one's moral and ethical values (Leventhal, 1980). Similarly, identified

motivation should also make it easier for managers to adhere to informational justice rules. A

manager that believes in the value of being open and honest with their employees is likely to do

so, thereby fulfilling Bies and Moag's (1986) truthfulness dimension.

Identified motivation should not only affect the direction of effort, but it should affect the

frequency of effort exerted towards the task at hand. Individuals that experience identified

motivation identify with the importance of the task at hand, which, according to Beal et al.

(2005), should make it easier for the individual to focus attention towards the task. However,









identified motivation is a form of extrinsic motivation, which suggests that the behavior is

considered instrumental. The instrumentality associated with identified motivation should result

in less frequent effort when compared to intrinsic motivation. Specifically, the instrumentality

associated with identified is a potential distraction which intrinsic motivation lacks. According to

Beal et al. (2005), off-task distractions are detrimental to performance, irrespective of the source.

In addition, the fact that identified motivation is only somewhat internalized could also pose

distractions, subsequently affecting effort frequency.

Identified motivation is also proposed to affect persistence of effort (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Because behavior is autonomously chosen and consistent with one's internal values, individuals

should find it easier to sustain effort levels than more controlled motivations (Sheldon & Elliot,

1999). The importance of autonomously engaging in a task is evidenced by previous research

demonstrating more persistence of effort than that demonstrated by more controlled forms of

motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Williams et al., 1996). However, identified motivation

should lead to a weaker persistence of effort than intrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic

motivation and identified motivation are similar in terms of self-determination, intrinsic

motivation suggests an inherent interest and enj oyment in the task at hand, which identified

motivation lacks (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The importance of task enjoyment on persistence cannot

be overstated, as intrinsically motivating tasks "should have a relative advantage over less

intrinsically motivating tasks in terms of combating distraction and cognitive interference" (Beal

et al., 2005: p. 1059). With respect to justice rule adherence, identified motivation will likely

demonstrate weaker relationships than that of intrinsic motivation. Thus, I propose the following

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Identified motivation is positively related to interpersonal, informational, and
procedural justice, albeit more weakly than that of intrinsic motivation.









Introj ected motivation is a more controlled form of motivation than either identified or

intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The difference between introjected motivation and

more autonomous forms of motivation is that introj ected motivation consists of internal

contingencies guiding one' s behavior. Some of the exemplars of introj ected motivation discussed

by Deci and Ryan (1985a) are concerns about the approval of others and the avoidance of

negative feelings such as guilt and shame. In terms of justice rule adherence, it is likely that

some managers are motivated to adhere to justice rules in order to avoid experiencing negative

feelings. For instance, refraining from deceit (i.e., informational justice) should prevent feelings

of guilt that might occur if a manager is in fact deceitful. Attempting to suppress biases by

abandoning personal self-interests (Leventhal, 1980) is one way to avoid feeling badly about

oneself. Similarly, adhering to Bies and Moag's (1986) propriety rule should specifically prevent

feelings of shame (Kelman, 1973).

Introj ected motivation should also affect the frequency of effort exerted. Although

introj ected motivation is not as autonomous as intrinsic or identified, partial internalization has

occurred. In fact, research has demonstrated that introj ected motivation is positively correlated

with effort intensity, albeit not as strongly as identified motivation (Ryan & Connell, 1989).

However, there are some potentially negative consequences associated with introj ected

motivation. Some scholars have speculated that managers may distance themselves from

employees to avoid criticism (Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra, 1993). If a manager is motivated by

the approval of others, as introj ected motivation implies, he or she might be likely to refrain from

adhering to justice rules in an effort to maintain feelings of self-worth. For example, an

introj ectedly motivated manager might provide fewer explanations (i.e., low levels of

informational justice) when discussing a negative performance evaluation than a more









autonomously motivated manager. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1998), some managers

distance themselves from employees as a way of avoiding blame in layoff situations.

The nature of introj ected motivation is such that behavioral persistence might be

hampered, as introj ected motivation involves managing "conflicting impulses" such as should I

refrain from a behavior, or should I not refrain from a behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, p. 136). In

fact, Deci and Ryan (1985a) have likened introj ected motivation to self-control, as the individual

is internally administering positive or negative sanctions. According to Muraven and Baumeister

(2000, p. 247) "exerting self-control may consume self-control strength, reducing the amount of

strength available for subsequent self-control." This logic suggests that the controlled nature of

introj ected motivation may make it difficult to maintain high levels of effort levels. Research

contrasting autonomous and controlled motivation has in fact demonstrated that effort is less

persistent when motivated is more controlled (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Thus, introj ected motivation still leads to effort directed towards the focal behavior (Deci &

Ryan, 1987), albeit less consistently than that of more autonomous forms of motivation. Thus, I

propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Introj ected motivation is positively related to interpersonal, informational, and
procedural justice, albeit more weakly than that of intrinsic and identified motivations.

Externally motivated behaviors, the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, occur

due to external contingencies (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Some of the exemplar contingencies

discussed by Deci and Ryan (1985a) are the avoidance of punishment or the attainment of

positive outcomes. In terms of justice rule adherence, Greenberg and Cohen (1982) have

speculated that some justice behaviors may occur for instrumental reasons. For example, some

managers may adhere to justice rules to avoid negative consequences. In terms of informational

justice, managers might offer excuses (i.e., high levels of informational justice) as a way of










preventing conflicts between him/herself and employees. Abiding by the procedural justice rule

of ethicality is also a potential means of avoiding negative consequences. Justice rule adherence

is also associated with beneficial outcomes (for a review, see Colquitt et al., 2001), and thus

some managers might adhere to justice rules to reap certain rewards. For instance, treating

employees with sincerity and respect, as indicated by high interpersonal justice, is associated

with beneficial outcomes such as trust (Colquitt et al., 2001). Thus, motivation to adhere to

justice rules, albeit for external reasons, should positively affect effort directed towards the focal

behavior.

External motivation should result in weaker frequency of effort than introj ected motivation

because no internalization of the external contingencies has occurred (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Still,

Ryan and Deci (2006) suggest that external contingencies can be powerful with respect to

controlling or eliciting behavior. Externally motivated behaviors are still motivated, and

therefore should lead to the focal behavior despite being based on external contingencies. In fact,

behavioral theories are based on the premise that reinforcers, such as extrinsic rewards, actually

enhance performance (Skinner, 1953). However, it is likely that effort intensity is weakest with

respect to external motivation, as individuals are likely to do the minimum required to achieve

the desired outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2006). In fact, external motivation demonstrates some of the

most inconsistent relationships with effort intensity, as compared to other forms of motivation

(Ryan & Connell, 1989). Moreover, it is possible that external motivation may have unintended

negative effects on justice rule adherence. For instance, Patient and Skarlicki (2005) suggested

that one of the reasons managers fail to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules is

the avoidance of litigation, a type of external motivation.









Persistence of effort might also suffer when managers are externally motivated. According

to Ryan and Deci (2006), this negative consequence should be attributed to the lack of self-

determination inherent with external motivation, as controlled motivations are inherently less

reliable than autonomous motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). However, a more specific reason

may lie in the contingencies related to external motivation. As defined by Deci and Ryan

(1985a), external motivation includes the motivating potential of avoiding negative

consequences, which more autonomous motivations lack. It is possible that the avoidance aspect

of external motivation is detrimental to effort persistence. Previous research has demonstrated

that individuals focused on avoiding potential losses were less likely to demonstrate task

persistence than those focusing on potential gains (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Moreover, external

motivation has been shown to have weaker effects than intrinsic motivation on the persistence of

effort--a key predictor of performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vallerand, 1997). Thus, I

hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4: External motivation is positively related to interpersonal, informational, and
procedural justice, albeit weaker than that of introj ected motivation.

All of the above hypotheses have notably omitted distributive justice, which was

previously defined as the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965; Homans,

1961). The nature of distributive justice lessens the potential impact of motivations on adherence

to distributive justice rules, for two primary reasons. First, distributive justice issues come up

less frequently, as issues pertaining to distributive justice become relevant primarily in resource

allocation contexts only (Adams, 1965). In fact, Bies (2005) has noted that distributive justice

issues are typically explored in exchange contexts such as specific organizational decisions or

resource allocations, while other forms of justice are more relevant in everyday encounters

between employees and managers. Second, managers normally have less control over










distributive justice than other justice dimensions, as distributive justice is more structural in

nature. The characteristics of resource allocation contexts tend to constrain a manager' s ability to

influence outcome allocations (Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). For example, contractual

agreements may stipulate pay increases as a certain percentage of current income, irrespective of

performance. Therefore, motivations for justice rule adherence are not hypothesized to predict

distributive justice. However, this dissertation will still include a measure of distributive justice

for use as a control variable.

Moderators of Justice Motivation Effects

The previous section built a case for the effects of motivation on adherence to justice rules.

However, it is well known that behavior is not solely a function of motivation. Rather, behavior

is a function of both motivation and situational factors (e.g., Campbell, 1990). An important

situational factor affecting behavior is opportunity (e.g., Campbell, 1990). If managers are given

the opportunity to adhere to justice rules, then motivation should be a strong predictor of

behavior. However, if opportunities are lacking, the relationship between motivation and justice

rule adherence should be weaker. Therefore, it is likely that the relationships hypothesized for

motivation and justice rule adherence are moderated by a manager' s opportunity to adhere to

justice rules.

One potential indicator of interaction opportunity is structural distance (Napier & Ferris,

1993). Napier and Ferris' (1993) conceptualization of structural distance includes two indicators

(opportunity to interact and spatial distance) that capture dyadic interaction between a leader and

his or her followers, with each indicator capturing a slightly different aspect of the interaction.

Opportunity to interact encompasses a manager' s overall accessibility, as well as the potential for

social contact both at work and outside of work (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Spatial distance,

sometimes discussed as physical proximity (e.g., Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984;










Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005) refers to task interaction

opportunities between a manager and his or her employees (Napier & Ferris, 1993). These

dimensions of structural distance indirectly reflect the potential for interaction between a

manager and his or her employees. Therefore, this dissertation will focus on the construct of

structural distance.

Several leadership scholars have suggested that structural distance creates fewer interaction

opportunities between managers and employees (Bass, 1990; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999;

Howell et al., 2005). Consequently, fewer interaction opportunities can negatively affect

interaction quality between a manager and his or her employees. For example, structural distance

is thought to negatively affect communication (for a review, see Bass, 1990), as some qualitative

research suggests that frequency of communication decreases as structural distance between

employees increases (Gullahorn, 1952). In addition, structural distance may hinder a manager' s

ability to provide timely feedback (Howell et al., 2005).

Some scholars even suggest that structural distance may neutralize the effects of leader

behaviors, in effect making leadership irrelevant (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Conversely, structural

proximity provides ample interaction opportunities, which affects a manager' s influence (Bass,

1990). In essence, structural distance acts as a moderator of leadership behaviors. Structural

distance is relevant to motivation for justice rule adherence because it becomes more practical to

adhere to justice rules when structural distance is low. In other words, structural proximity

should make it easier for managers to act on their motivations. According to Leventhal (1980),

one method of adhering to the accuracy rule of procedural justice is keeping detailed, accurate

records of pertinent information. Informal sorts of record-keeping are more difficult to do in high

distance situations, so the effects of being motivated to adhere to procedural justice should be










neutralized in such settings. In order to adhere to the representativeness rule, employees' basic

concerns and values should be taken into consideration (Leventhal, 1980). It becomes easier to

adhere to the representativeness rule when structural distance is low, as the effects of being

motivated should be maximized in these situations. Adhering to Bies and Moag's (1986)

justification rule becomes easier if opportunities to give explanations increase. Thus, the positive

effects of motivation should be maximized when these opportunities are present (i.e., in low

distance situations). Structural distance should also affect the timeliness of explanations (i.e.,

informational justice), as structural distance should make it more difficult to provide timely

explanations. In other words, the constraints associated with structural distance should neutralize

the beneficial effects of motivation on informational justice.

In sum, structural distance should maximize the effects of motivation on justice rule

adherence. This prediction will be tested using Napier and Ferris' (1993) structural distance

indi caters.

Hypothesis Sa: Opportunity to interact moderates the relationship between the motivation types
and justice perceptions, such that the relationships become stronger as opportunity to interact
mecreases.
Hypothesis 5b: Spatial distance moderates the relationship between the motivation types and
justice perceptions, such that the relationships become stronger as spatial distance decreases.

Personality

The secondary purpose of this dissertation is to establish a set of managerial traits that may

predict managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. According to self-determination theory,

individual differences are important to the study of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Self-

determination theory specifically suggests that individual differences in causality orientations

affect one' s tendency to experience certain types of motivation across different situations (Ryan

& Deci, 2006). Although causality orientations have been examined in the self-determination

literature, they are seldom discussed in the personality literature. An evaluation of the personality









literature might provide traits that specifically impact motivation for justice rule adherence.

Therefore, this dissertation focuses on personality traits taken from the personality literature

rather than self-determination theory.

The search for identifiable personality characteristics dates back over a century (for a

review, see John & Srivastava, 1999). Sir Francis Galton (1884) was one of the first scholars to

suggest a revolutionary guide for the study of personality: the "lexical hypothesis." The lexical

hypothesis suggests that the most important, most relevant personality characteristics are

encoded in language. One of the first landmark personality studies asked 1300 raters to analyze a

set of 60 adj ectives (Thurstone, 1934). Thurstone (1934) asked the raters to think of one person

and identify each adj ective they might use to describe this particular individual. Using these

ratings, Thurstone (1934) concluded that all sixty adj ectives could be accounted for by five

independent factors, an uncanny foreshadowing of current personality theory. Around the same

time, Allport and Odbert (1936) expanded on the lexical hypothesis to compile their list of

adj ectives. Using an unabridged English dictionary, Allport and Odbert (1936) compiled a list of

almost 18,000 personality relevant words. Although the sheer size of the list was overwhelming,

Allport and Odbert (1936) identified personality traits, temporal states, and behavioral

descriptors as three categories relevant to personality. However, these categories offered little in

terms of an organizing framework.

Cattell (1943) was the first scholar to use Allport and Odbert' s (1936) adj ective list in an

attempt to assemble a personality framework. Because Allport and Odbert' s (1936) adj ective list

was clearly too unwieldy, Cattell (1943) focused on less than 25 percent of the list. Using his

knowledge of personality along with various clustering procedures, Cattell (1943) reduced the

list of terms to 3 5 clusters. In subsequent analyses, Cattell (1945) condensed that list even









further, proposing 12 personality factors. Cattell's (1943, 1945) work was impactful because it

stimulated additional research in the area of personality. In fact, several scholars have re-

examined Cattell's (1945) factor structure. One of the most impactful works was that of Fiske

(1949). Using a shortened version of Cattell's (1947) personality scale, Fiske (1949)

demonstrated that Hyve factors fit the data best. Fiske' s (1949) results were in sharp contrast to

Cattell's (1945) 12 factors.

Tupes and Christal (1961) set out to resolve the inconsistencies between the works of

Cattell and Fiske by re-analyzing Cattell (1947) and Fiske' s (1949) correlation matrices. A total

of eight correlation matrices were analyzed, with all analyses suggesting "fiye relatively strong

and recurrent factors and nothing more of any consequence" (Tupes & Christal, 1961, p. 14).

Although Tupes and Christal (1961) suggested Hyve factors, some scholars were still troubled by

the disparity between analyses using the same data. This disparity led to additional studies, such

as that of Norman (1963). Using Cattell's (1947) adj ective descriptors, Norman' s (1963) data

collection resulted in five factors, the same as that of Tupes and Christal (1961).

However, unlike Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963) offered names for the Hyve

factors: extroversion or surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and

culture. The descriptors used for the extroversion factor consisted of talkative, adventurous,

sociable, and frank, while agreeableness was described by the terms good-natured, not jealous,

mild, and cooperative. The descriptors used for conscientiousness were tidy, responsible,

scrupulous, and persevering, while emotional stability was described by the terms poised, calm,

composed, and not hypochondriacal. Finally, culture consisted of the following terms: artistically

sensitive, intellectual, refined, and imaginative. Although there has been some disagreement on









the exact nature of these five factors (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990), they

eventually became known as the "Big Five" (Goldberg, 1981).

Norman' s continued skepticism compelled him to derive a new list of adj ectives,

essentially leading him to update Allport and Odbert' s (1936) work. Norman' s (1967) adj ective

list was eventually culled down to 75 categories. Although Norman did little with his new

adj ective list, it was eventually utilized by a scholar named Goldberg. Goldberg (1990) used

Norman' s (1967) adjective list, in addition to his own, in an attempt to "demonstrate the

generality of the Big-Five representation within sets of trait terms that are far more representative

of the total English trait lexicon than were those included in any previous study" (Goldberg,

1990, p. 1217). To achieve this goal, Goldberg (1990) conducted several studies, all of which

yielded some variation on the Big Five traits. As noted by several scholars (e.g., McCrae &

Costa, 1985), Goldberg' s (1990) factor structure was remarkably similar to that of Tupes and

Christal (1961), with the exception of the fifth factor being labeled intellect as opposed to

culture.

Lexical approach proponents have focused intently on establishing a personality structure.

However, some scholars have focused on developing personality questionnaires. Arguably the

most notable work in this area has come from Costa and McCrae. While Cattell was one of the

first to develop a widely used questionnaire based on the lexical approach (the 16PF), he did so

based on his 12 factors (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1976). Based on other scholars' works

suggesting five factors rather than twelve (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal,

1961), Costa and McCrae (1976) decided to analyze the 16PF in an attempt to create a new

personality scale. Their results yielded three factors resembling three of the Big Five factors:

neuroticism (also called emotional stability), extraversion, and openness. These three factors









became part of a new personality scale named the NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1985). McCrae and

Costa (1985) then examined additional scales measuring the two missing factors, namely

agreeableness and conscientiousness (see also McCrae & Costa, 1987). These studies

demonstrated adequate convergence between the NEO scales and Big Five adj ective-based

measures (McCrae & Costa, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Costa and McCrae (1992) eventually

published a revised NEO, which not only measures the Big Five factors, but also allows for the

measurement of several facets that make up each factor.

The importance of personality to the study of organizational behavior should not be

minimized. In fact, Hogan (2004, p. 20) recently suggested that "every aspect of organizational

behavior and dynamics is related to personality, and that the fundamental question in

organizational theory concerns organizational effectiveness, that organizational effectiveness is a

function of leadership, and that leadership is a function of personality." In addition, the Big Five

gives us a common language from which to work. Several decades of research using peer report,

self-report, and expert ratings in a variety of samples have consistently demonstrated five

replicable factors (for a review, see McCrae & Costa, 1999).

Still, scholars have struggled with the issue of whether to use broad, general traits such as

the Big Five, or narrow, specific traits as predictors of important organizational outcomes (for

reviews, see Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, &

Dunnette, 1996). This issue has been termed the "bandwidth-fidelity" trade-off (Hogan &

Roberts, 1996). Bandwidth refers to the amount of information obtained by a specific

measurement while fidelity refers to reliability or accuracy of measurement (Cronbach, 1960).

The tradeoff occurs because as the amount of information increases (bandwidth), the internal

consistency of that information decreases (fidelity). According to Cronbach (1960), one way to









deal with this trade-off is to base measurement decisions on the complexity of the criteria in

question. In other words, when criteria are complex, complex predictors are most useful.

Conversely, validity increases when narrow predictors are used to predict more specific criteria

(Hogan & Roberts, 1996). This issue is seldom debated, as evidenced by the following statement

by Hogan and Roberts (1996, p. 629) "We know of no body of evidence that questions

Cronbach's proposals."

If we apply Cronbach' s (1960) propositions to the justice literature, they seem to suggest a

focus on traits narrower than that of the Big Five, for the following reasons. First, organizational

justice dimensions are arguably more narrow than, for example, overall job performance--a

decidedly broad criterion. Following this logic, the predictors used should match the criteria in

question, suggesting a focus on narrower traits. Second, broad traits have not explained much

variance in managerial justice rule adherence. A recent study by Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and

Goldstein (2007) examined the effects of leader personality on managerial adherence to justice

rules, as perceived by several employees. Their results demonstrated that leader neuroticism

negatively predicted supervisory adherence to procedural justice rules. However, this was the

only significant effect out of all 12 potential main effects.

Other research in the area of organizational justice has examined the Big Five traits as

moderators of justice effects. Unfortunately, even these effects tend to be small or non-existent.

For instance, Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluck (1999) did not find support for their hypothesized

interaction between agreeableness and organizational justice. Instead, they found support for a

more complicated three way interaction between agreeableness, distributive justice and

interactional justice (Skarlicki et al., 1999). Colquitt, Scott, Judge, and Shaw (2006) also

examined interactions between the justice dimensions and the Big Five, but failed to demonstrate










any significant effects, despite using several justice dimensions and several behavioral reactions

as outcomes. Scott and Colquitt (2007) examined interactions between all Big Five traits and

distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on four outcomes. A total of 60 interactions

were tested, with only two reaching adequate significance levels. In contrast, both Colquitt et al.

(2006) and Scott and Colquitt (2007) identified several significant interactions using narrow

traits. Taken together, these results suggest that the use of the Big Five in the justice literature

has been mostly fruitless.

Based on previous research in the area of organizational justice, this dissertation will

focus on narrow managerial traits. However, a focus on narrow traits does not suggest eschewing

the Big Five, as they are themselves composed of lower level traits. In fact, several scholars

suggest that the Big Five can be understood as a hierarchy (Goldberg, 1993). For instance, Costa

and McCrae (1992) suggest that neuroticism is made up of the following narrow traits: anxiety,

hostility, depression, impulsiveness, vulnerability, and self-consciousness. Therefore, this

dissertation will focus on the Big Five as an organizing framework, while specifically using

narrow traits as predictors of motivation for justice rule adherence and perceptions of

organizational justice. This approach retains the "common language" offered by the Big Five

while also focusing on narrow traits that should match the specificity of the motivational and

justice criteria. Although hypotheses will be offered only for narrow traits, the broader

dimensions will also be measured for comparative purposes.

Personality and Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence

Personality traits can be defined as basic tendencies that we infer from observable patterns

of behavior (McCrae & Costa, 1999). According to McCrae and Costa' s (1999) Five Factor

theory, traits affect behaviors through their effect on characteristic adaptations, defined as

"concrete manifestations of basic tendencies" (p. 69). Some examples of characteristic










adaptations are attitudes, beliefs, values, acquired skills, and learned behaviors (McCrae &

Costa, 1996). Although basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations are distinct, sometimes

the lines are blurred between the two, as evidenced by commonly used items in personality

measures. Personality questionnaires often include items about one's attitudes, beliefs, habits,

and preferences--a clear reflection of characteristic adaptations rather than basic tendencies

(McCrae & Costa, 1996). However, it is important to recognize that basic tendencies are just

that, tendencies. Without the enactment or manifestation of traits that occur through

characteristic adaptations, traits would simply be unrealized potential (McCrae & Costa, 1996).

Personality traits affect the way people think, the way they feel, and the way they behave

(McCrae & Costa, 1996). Personality traits also influence an individual's motivational choices

(Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). A clear summary of the effects of personality is

provided by Mount et al. (2005, p. 447): Personality traits "influence choices individuals make

about which tasks and activities to engage in, how much effort to exert on those tasks, and how

long to persist with those tasks." Therefore, personality should affect the type of motivation (e.g.,

intrinsic, identified, introj ected, and external motivation) a manager experiences towards justice

rule adherence.

It is important to note that there are several conceptualizations of the Big Five, such as

Goldberg' s (1990), Saucier and Ostendorf' s (1999), and Costa and McCrae's (1992) versions.

Although all conceptualizations include the Big Five broad traits, the narrow traits sometimes

vary between scholars. For example, Goldberg (1990) includes warmth as a facet of

agreeableness while Costa and McCrae (1992) suggest that warmth is a facet of extraversion.

Instead of choosing one conceptualization over another, I have focused on the most theoretically

relevant narrow traits, which requires that I sample from multiple perspectives. Therefore, my









narrow traits may come from Goldberg (1990), Saucier and Ostendorf (1999), or Costa and

McCrae's (1992) conceptualizations.

One trait that is particularly relevant to intrinsic motivation is altruism, which is

considered a narrow trait loading on agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Saucier and

Ostendorf~ s (1999) conceptualization of agreeableness includes the narrow trait generosity,

which can be likened to altruism (see also Goldberg, 1990). Altruism is described by adj ectives

such as charitable, thoughtful, unselfish, and generous (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These

adj ectives seem particularly relevant to intrinsic motivation because they tend to be other-

focused, and intrinsic motivation for justice rule adherence can be thought of as a type of other-

focus task. Moreover, intrinsic motivation suggests a lack of interest in personal rewards, which

is similar to that of trait altruism. According to Staub (1978, p. 10), "A prosocial act may be

judged altruistic if it appears to have been intended to benefit others rather than to gain either

material or social rewards." Therefore, managers that are altruistic may adhere to justice rules

based on the inherent enj oyment gained out of assisting others, not based on potential rewards.

Put differently, managers high on trait altruism likely demonstrate behaviors which suggest a

genuine interest in their employees, such as adhering to justice rules.

Hypothesis 6: Altruism is positively related to intrinsic motivation.

Straightforward' individuals may be likely to adhere to justice rules for identified reasons.

The narrow trait of straightforwardness loads on agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These

individuals tend to be sincere, frank, and ingenuous (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Recall that

identified motivation suggests that behavior occurs because it is consistent with one's values

(Deci & Ryan, 1985a). It is likely that straightforward individuals will adhere to truthfulness and

justification rules of informational justice because doing so is consistent with being









straightforward. In addition, managers who are straightforward most likely value abiding by

justice rules. Straightforward individuals most likely see the importance in adhering to justice

rules and therefore act in ways that are consistent with their values.

Managers possessing trait reliability are also likely to adhere to justice rules for identified

reasons. Reliability is conceptualized as a narrow trait of conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1990;

Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). These individuals are described as dependable, responsible, reliable,

and respectful (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). Reliable individuals are also described as

conscientious by Goldberg (1990). Individuals who are reliable are likely to adhere to justice

rules because of identified reasons. Recall that identified motivation suggests that the focal

behavior is accepted as important and valuable (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Trait reliability suggests

that individuals take pride in being dependable and respectful. Therefore, reliability likely affects

the respectability rule of interpersonal justice and the consistency rule of procedural justice. Put

differently, adhering to justice rules likely occurs because doing so is consistent with a reliable

individual's espoused self-concept.

Hypothesis 7a: Straightforwardness is positively related to identified motivation.

Hypothesis 7b: Reliability is positively related to identified motivation.

Introj ected motivation for justice rule adherence is likely affected by the narrow trait

anxiety. Anxiety is considered a facet of neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990).

Anxious individuals are typically afraid, fearful, and prone to worry (Costa & McCrae, 1992;

Goldberg, 1990). Saucier and Ostendorf (1999) conceptualize neuroticism as including the

narrow trait insecurity, similarly described as fretful and nervous. In fact, students with trait test

anxiety were more likely to worry about their academic performance (Elliott & McGregor,

1999). Moreover, these individuals were more likely to adopt an avoidance goal regulation,









which suggests a focus on avoiding negative outcomes such as looking badly (Elliot &

McGregor, 1999). Recall that introj ected motivation is consistent with the avoidance of a

negative appearance. Therefore, it is likely that anxious individuals worry about whether or not

they are adhering to justice rules. The tendency to worry should motivate these individuals to

adhere to justice rules for introj ected reasons.

The dutifidness narrow trait also seems relevant to introj ected motivation. According to

Costa and McCrae' s (1992) five factor conceptualization, dutifulness is a narrow trait of

conscientiousness. Dutiful individuals tend to abide by ethical principles and moral obligations

(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Introjected motivation for justice rule adherence suggests that a

manager adheres to justice rules because they think they ought to adhere to justice rules. Dutiful

individuals most likely adhere to justice rules because they feel they should, an idea similar to

that of introj ected motivation. Recall that introj ected motivation also suggests an avoidance of

negative feelings (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The moral obligations felt by dutiful individuals may

lead to introj ected motivation, as adhering to justice rules may prevent feelings of guilt or shame.

Hypothesis Sa: Anxiety is positively related to introj ected motivation.

Hypothesis 8b: Dutifulness is positively related to introj ected motivation.

Trait ambition likely leads to external motivation for justice rule adherence. Ambition is

considered a narrow trait loading on conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1990). Ambitious individuals

tend to be enterprising, ambitious, and opportunistic (Goldberg, 1990). Other Big Five

conceptualizations include facets similar to ambition, such as industriousness (Saucier &

Ostendorf, 1999) and achievement-striving (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Using justice rule

adherence for external reasons, such as "getting ahead," is one potential manifestation of trait

ambition. Recall that external motivation was previous described as being conceptually similar to










continuance commitment. Interestingly, a recent study reported that conscientiousness was

positively related to continuance commitment (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006). Extrapolating

from these results, I propose that ambitious individuals are likely to experience external

motivation for justice rule adherence.

Hypothesis 9: Ambition is positively related to external motivation.

Summary

This dissertation attempts to identify different reasons why managers may be motivated to

adhere to justice rules. The motivational distinctions proposed by self-determination theory

appropriately describe potential motivations for justice rule adherence. For example, a manager

may treat his or her employees fairly for external reasons (e.g., "Because I don't want to be

punished"), for introj ected reasons (e.g., "Because I don't want to feel guilty"), for identified

reasons (e.g., "Because I see myself as a fair manager"), or for intrinsic reasons (e.g., "Because I

truly enj oy being fair"). I also propose that structural distance moderates these relationships, as

having the opportunity to engage in justice rule adherence should make it easier for a manager to

act on his or her motivations.

The second purpose of this dissertation is to establish a set of narrow managerial traits that

may predict managerial motivations for justice rule adherence. This dissertation proposes that

altruism predicts intrinsic motivation, straightforwardness and reliability predict identified

motivation, anxiety and dutifulness predict introj ected motivation, and ambition predicts external

motivation. Taken together, my propositions form a model which suggests that managerial

motivations for justice rule adherence act as mediating mechanisms between the narrow

personality traits and organizational justice (Figure 2).

Hypothesis 10: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between trait
altruism and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.










Hypothesis 11: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between the
narrow traits straightforwardness and reliability, and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal,
and informational justice.
Hypothesis 12: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between the
narrow traits dutifulness and anxiety and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and
informational justice.
Hypothesis 13: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between trait
ambition and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample and Procedures

Alumni from a large southeastern university were recruited to participate in this

dissertation. A list of 2500 names was randomly drawn from a database of 7000 registered

alumni who were known to be employed full-time. Potential participants received a postcard in

the mail explaining that the purpose of the study is to assess attitudes about supervisory

behaviors. The postcards stated that the potential participants are eligible for the study if they are

1) employed full-time, 2) not self-employed, 3) have a direct supervisor, and 4) have a colleague

that reports directly to the same supervisor. The potential participants were asked to provide this

information on the postcard and mail it back. Potential participants can check one of three boxes,

1) interested and eligible for the study, 2) not interested but eligible, or 3) not eligible.

Out of the 2500 mailings, 775 of those were returned undeliverable. Of the remaining 1725

that were presumably delivered, 568 participants did not meet the eligibility requirements, and

thus are not included in the final response rate. Participants that decide to participate received a

link to an online survey. This survey included measures of organizational justice in addition to

measures of structural distance. The survey also asked participants to provide email addresses for

their immediate supervisor and a coworker. I then emailed the supervisor and coworker the email

links for their respective surveys. The supervisor survey contained measures of managerial

motivation for justice rule adherence. The coworker survey contained measures of managerial

personality. Past research has shown that peer ratings of personality are as valid, or even more

valid, than self-ratings (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Moreover, the use of three ratings provides a

procedural remedy for avoiding common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003). All participants, including the supervisor and coworker, earned $5 cash










payment for their participation. Approximately 12% of the alumni agreed to participate in the

study, for a total of 136. Out of the 136 alumni that have agreed to participate, 81% participated

(110). However, completed data (including supervisor and coworker data) was obtained from 54

alumni .

To supplement the alumni data, I used executive IVBA students enrolled in an

organizational behavior course at a large, southeastern university. All employees worked full

time and the maj ority of them held managerial positions. The research proj ect was described as

an investigation of the relationship between j ob attitudes and j ob behaviors. The individuals were

given a packet containing a survey, instructing them to fill out the employee survey and return it

in the postage paid envelope provided. The employees were then instructed to email their

supervisor and coworker with links to an online survey. The supervisors and coworkers were

given a $5 Starbucks gift card in exchange for their participation. Packets were given to a total of

56 employees with 5 1 returned for a response rate of 91%. Of the 54 employees who returned

surveys, 46 of them (85%) had their supervisor and coworker participate resulting in an overall

response rate of 81%.

A total of 161 employees (103 male, 58 female) participated in the study. The participants

came from a variety of industries, including information technology, healthcare, banking,

financial services, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and engineering. The participants were

40 years old on average (SD = 9. 19) and had been with their organizations for an average of 8.85

years (SD = 8.16). The sample was 79% Caucasian, with other ethnicities as follows: Hispanic

(5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (9%), African American (3.5%). Some participants choose "other"

as their ethnicity (4%).









Measures

Procedural justice. Procedural justice was measured using the scale developed and

validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the procedures used to make

decisions about their pay, evaluations, promotions, rewards, etc. The items assessed adherence to

Leventhal's (1980) and Thibaut and Walker' s (1975) justice rules. The seven-item scale

included: "Are you able to express your views and feelings during those procedures?", "Can you

influence the decisions arrived at by those procedures?", "Are those procedures applied

consistently?", "Are those procedures free of bias?", "Are those procedures based on accurate

information?", "Are you able to appeal the decisions arrived at by those procedures?" and "Do

those procedures uphold ethical and moral standards?" All items used a response scale ranging

from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent, with a coefficient alpha of .86.

Interpersonal justice. Interpersonal justice was measured using the scale developed and

validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the interpersonal treatment received

from their managers. The items assessed adherence to Bies and Moag's (1986) respect and

propriety rules (see also Greenberg, 1993). The four-item scale included: "Has your supervisor

treated you in a polite manner?", "Has your supervisor treated you with dignity?", "Has your

supervisor treated you with respect", and "Has your supervisor refrained from improper remarks

or comments?" All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 =

To a Very Large Extent, with a coefficient alpha of .90.

Informational justice. Informational justice was measured using the scale developed and

validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about managerial explanations and

communications given about decision-making procedures. The items assessed adherence to Bies

and Moag' s (1986) truthfulness and justification rules (see also Greenberg, 1993). The five-item

scale included: "Has he/she been candid when communicating with you?", "Has he/she










explained decision-making procedures thoroughly?", "Were his/her explanations regarding

procedures reasonable", "Has he/she communicated details in a timely manner?" and "Has

he/she tailored communications to meet individuals' needs?". All items used a response scale

ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent, with a coefficient alpha

of .88.

Distributive justice. Distributive justice was measured using the scale developed and

validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the outcomes received from their

supervisor, such as pay, rewards, evaluations, promotions, assignments, etc. The five-item scale

included: "Do those outcomes reflect the effort you have put into your work?", "Are those

outcomes appropriate for the work you have completed?", "Do those outcomes reflect what you

have contributed to your work?", and "Are those outcomes justified, given your performance?"

All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large

Extent, with a coefficient alpha of .95

Opportunity to interact. Opportunity to interact was measured with an ad hoc scale based

on Napier and Ferris' (1993) conceptualization of this construct. Napier and Ferris (1993)

discuss social contact and accessibility as two important aspects of interaction opportunity.

Participants were asked about their own relationship with their supervisor. The four-item scale

included: "My supervisor is accessible", "I often have to wait to talk to my supervisor" (R), "I

can interact with my supervisor on a frequent basis", and "I often have the opportunity to interact

with my supervisor." All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =

Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .75.

Spatial distance. Spatial distance was measured using the scale developed by Kerr and

Jermier (1978). The three-item scale included: "The nature of my j ob is such that my immediate










superior is seldom around me when I'm working", "On my job my most important tasks take

place away from where my immediate superior is located", and "My immediate superior and I

are seldom in actual contact or direct sight of one another." All items used a response scale

ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .84.

Managerial Personality. The focal employee' s coworker was asked to provide measure of

narrow managerial traits. The instructions were as follows: "Listed below are a number of

statements that may or may not apply to your coworker' s supervisor. Choose a number for each

statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. Then circle

that number."

Altruism. Altruism was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg, Johnson, Eber,

Ashton, Cloninger, and Hough (2006). The ten-item scale included: "Makes people feel

welcome", "Anticipates the needs of others", "Loves to help others", "Is concerned about

others", "Has a good word for everyone", "Look down on others (R)", "Is indifferent to the

feelings of others (R)", "Makes people feel uncomfortable (R)", "Turns his/her back on others

(R)", and "Takes no time for others (R)" All items used a response scale ranging from 1 =

Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .95.

Straightforwardness. Straightforwardness was measured using IPIP scale developed by

Goldberg et al. (2006). The ten-item scale included: "Would never cheat on his/her taxes",

"Sticks to the rules", "Believes that honesty is the basis for trust", "Keeps his/her promises", "Is

true to his/her own values", "Knows how to get around the rules (R)", "Cheats to get ahead (R)",

"Puts people under pressure (R)", "Pretends to be concerned for others (R)", and "Takes

advantage of others (R)." All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to

5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .87.









Anxiety. Anxiety was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg et al. (2006). The

ten-item scale included: "Worries about things", "Fears for the worst", "Is afraid of many

things", "Gets stressed out easily", "Gets caught up in his/her problems", "Is not easily bothered

by things (R)", "Is relaxed most of the time (R)", "Is not easily disturbed by events (R)",

"Doesn't worry about things that have already happened (R)", and "Adapts easily to new

situations (R)." All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =

Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .91.

Dutifulness. Dutifulness was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg et al.

(2006). The ten-item scale included: "Tries to follow the rules", "Keeps his/her promises",

"Pays his/her bills on time", "Tells the truth", "Listens to his/her conscience", "Breaks rules

(R)", "Breaks his/her promises (R)", "Gets others to do his/her duties (R)", "Does the opposite of

what is asked (R)", and "Misrepresents the facts (R)." All items used a response scale ranging

from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .88.

Reliability. Reliability was measured using the adj ective scale developed by Saucier and

Ostendorf (1999). Coworkers were asked to use the following list of traits to describe their

coworker' s supervisor as accurately as possible. Please write a number indicating how accurately

a trait describes the supervisor. The eight-item scale included: "Reliable", "Dependable",

"Responsible", "Prompt", "Punctual", "Respectful", "Undependable (R)", and "Unreliable (R)."

All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Extremely Inaccurate to 9 = Extremely

Accurate, with a coefficient alpha of .92.

Ambition. Ambition was measured using an adj ective scale developed by Goldberg

(1990). Coworkers were asked to use the following list of traits to describe their coworker' s

supervisor as accurately as possible. Please write a number indicating how accurately a trait










describes the supervisor. The three-item scale included: "Ambitious," "Enterprising," and

"Opportunistic." All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Extremely Inaccurate to 9 =

Extremely Accurate, with a coefficient alpha of .74.

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using the Big Five Inventory (BFI)

(John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Coworkers were asked to indicate the extent to which they

agreed with the following statements about their coworker's supervisor. The nine-item scale

included: "Does a thorough j ob," "Does things efficiently," "Makes plans and follows through,"

"Is a reliable worker," "Perseveres until the task is finished," "Is easily distracted (R)," "Can be

somewhat careless (R)," "Tends to be lazy (R)," and "Tends to be disorganized (R)." All items

used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a

coefficient alpha of .89.

Agreeableness. Agreeableness was measured using the BFI (John et al., 1991). Coworkers

were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their

coworker' s supervisor. The nine-item scale included: "Is kind to almost everyone," "Likes to

cooperate with others," "Is helpful and unselfish with others," "Has a forgiving nature," "Is

generally trusting," "Tends to find fault with others (R)," "Starts quarrels with others (R)," "Can

be cold and aloof (R)," and "Is sometimes rude to others (R)." All items used a response scale

ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .92.

Neuroticism. Neuroticism was measured using the BFI (John et al., 1991). Coworkers were

asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their

coworker's supervisor. The nine-item scale included: "Can be moody," "Is sometimes depressed

or blue," "Gets nervous easily," "Can be tense," "Worries a lot," "Remains calm in tense

situations (R)," "Is emotionally stable, not easily upset (R)," "Is relaxed and handles stress well










(R),"and "Is outgoing and sociable(R)." All items used a response scale ranging from 1 =

Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .90.

Content Validation

The measures of motivation for justice rule adherence used in this study were validated

using Hinkin and Tracey's (1999) content validation method. Undergraduates from a large

southeastern university were recruited to participate. In exchange for participation, all

participants received one extra credit point. Participants were asked to complete an online survey

for the content validation of the motivation for justice rule adherence scales. The items used in

the motivation scales were adapted from the following scholarly works: Guay et al., (2000),

Ryan and Connell (1989), and Gagne et al. (2006). The first author also created several of her

own motivation for justice rule adherence items.

The participants rated each of the 48 items (12 items for each type of justice motivation) on

the extent to which they believe the items was consistent with the four motivation types. The

response choices ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Each page corresponded with a

different motivation type, while providing the definition for one of the motivation types at the

top of the page. Intrinsic motivation was defined as "the engagement in an activity or task

because of the inherent enj oyment or interest in that particular activity." Identified motivation

was defined as "the engagement in an activity or task because of the inherent value and

important of that particular activity." Introj ected motivation was defined as "the engagement in

an activity or task because of the internal contingencies associated with that particular activity,

such as preventing feelings of guilt or shame, or enhancing feelings of self-worth." External

motivation was defined as "the engagement in an activity or task because of the external

contingencies associated with that particular activity, such as the avoidance of punishment or the

attainment of rewards." The items were then randomly distributed throughout each page. In other










words, the participants responded to each of the 48 items four times, once on each page. The

online format of the survey allowed for several versions of the questionnaire, which helped

control for response bias due to ordering effects.

The Hinkin and Tracey (1999) procedure was then used to winnow the 48 items down to a

more manageable set of 16 items (4 items per motivation type). Specifically, a one way ANOVA

was used to test whether each item was rated as more consistent with one of the definitions then

with the other three. Any items with insufficient "between definitions" variance in the expected

direction were dropped. The set of 48 items was winnowed down to a set of 16; four items for

each motivation dimension (Table 3-1). While several items were accurately rated as being most

consistent with their respective definitions, the best four items were chosen. Figure 3-1 shows the

ANOVA results for the combined four-item scales. As depicted, each scale demonstrated the

expected pattern of results.

Motivation for justice rule adherence Participants were asked about why they treat

employees fairly. The instructions were as follows: "If given the opportunity to treat employees

in a fair manner, why might you choose to do so? For the purposes of this questionnaire,

"treating employees fairly" means using consistent and unbiased decision-making procedures

that result in equitable outcomes and communicating with employees in an honest and respectful

way." The items assessed intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external motivation as

conceptualized by Deci and Ryan's (1986) self-determination theory. The four-item intrinsic

motivation scale included: "Because I think being a fair manager is inherently satisfying.",

"Because I have a good time when I treat employees fairly.", "Because being a fair manager is

something I get a kick out of.", "Because treating employees fairly is fun for me." The four-item

identified motivation scale included: "Because being a fair manager is personally meaningful to










me.", "Because treating employees fairly is an essential goal to me.", "Because I think being a

fair manager matches my core values.", "Because treating employees fairly fits my basic

philosophy." The four-item introj ected motivation scale included: "Because I might feel

embarrassed if I was unfair to my employees.", "Because being unfair would feel humiliating to

me.", "Because treating employees unfairly would harm my self-regard.", "Because treating

employees unfairly would make me feel guilty." The four-item external motivation scale

included: "Because I would receive a poor evaluation if I act unfairly.", "Because treating

employees unfairly jeopardizes my job security.", "Because being unfair would create hassles on

the job.", and "Because I would experience penalties if I treated employees unfairly."

I tested the factor structure of the motivation stales with a confirmatory factor analysis

using LISREL 8.52 (Jiireskog & Siirbom, 1996). The following fiye factor structures were tested

by entering the covariance matrix of the items into LISREL 8.52 (Jiireskog & Siirbom, 1996): (a)

the hypothesized four-factor model for motivation, which includes intrinsic motivation,

identified motivation, introj ected motivation, and external motivation (b) an alternate three factor

model that includes an intrinsic motivation factor, identified motivation factor, and a "controlled

motivation" factor (combining introj ected motivation and external motivation) (c) an alternate

two factor model that includes an intrinsic motivation factor and an "extrinsic motivation" factor

(combining identified motivation, introj ected motivation, and external motivation), (d) an

alternative two factor model that includes an "autonomous motivation" factor (combining

intrinsic motivation and identified motivation) and a "controlled motivation" factor (combining

introj ected motivation and external motivation), and (e) a one factor model (combining all

motivation types). Fit statistics for the hypothesized four-factor model were as follows: X2 (98, N

= 111) = 229.96, p < .001; X2/df= 2.35; CFI = .94; RMR = .08. Acceptable model fit is usually









inferred when the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom falls below 3, when CFI rises above

.90, when RMSEA is .08 or lower, and when RMR is .10 or lower (Browne & Cudeck, 1993;

Kline, 2005). As expected, the four-factor measurement model fit the data significantly better

than alternative measurement models as judged by a chi-square difference test (Table 3-2). All

16 factor loadings were statistically significant and averaged as follows: intrinsic motivation

(.82), identified motivation (.91), introjected motivation (.89), and external motivation (.81).











Table 3-1. Justice motivation items included in the content validation study
Items
Intrinsic Motivation Because treating employees fairly is inherently enjoyable.
Because I think being a fair manager is inherently satisfying.*
Because being a fair manager is delightful.
Because I have a good time when I treat employees fairly.*
Because being a fair manager is stimulating.
Because I have fun when I am a fair manager.
For the moments of happiness that being a fair manager brings me.
For the joy I feel while being a fair manager.
Because being a fair manager is something I get a kick out of.*
Because treating employees fairly is fun for me. *
Because treating employees fairly is personally gratifying.
Identified Motivation Because being fair is fundamentally important to me.
Because being fair is essential in my opinion.
Because being a fair manager is a key value to me.
Because being a fair manager is a valuable goal of mine.
Because being fair is consistent with my values.
Because being fair is a personal goal of mine.
Because being a fair manager is important to me.
Because being a fair manager is personally meaningful to me.*
Because being a fair manager fits my personal values.
Because treating employees fairly is fundamental in my opinion.
Because treating employees fairly is an essential goal to me.*
Because I think being a fair manager matches my core values.*
Because treating employees fairly is a key belief of mine.
Because I think being a fair manager is consistent with my beliefs.
Because treating employees fairly fits my basic philosophy.*
Introjected Motivation Because treating employees fairly makes me feel more decent as a person.
Because I would feel guilty if I treated employees unfairly.
Because I might feel a sense of regret if I treated my employees unfairly.
Because being a fair manager makes me feel better about myself.
Because I might feel embarrassed if I was unfair to my employees.*
Because treating employees fairly would make me feel proud.
Because I would feel ashamed of myself if I were unfair.
Because I would feel pleased with myself if I acted fairly.
Because being unfair would feel humiliating to me.*
Because being unfair would reduce my self-respect.
Because treating employees unfairly would harm my self-regard.*
Because treating employees unfairly would make me feel guilty.*
Because being an unfair manager would make me feel worse about myself.
External Motivation Because being fair helps me avoid negative consequences.
Because there are negative repercussions for treating employees unfairly.
Because I would receive a poor evaluation if I act unfairly.*
Because treating employees unfairly jeopardizes my job security.*
Because being unfair would create hassles on the job.*
Because being a fair manager could get me valuable benefits.
Because treating employees fairly could earn me a favorable evaluation.
Because being a fair manager brings praise from other people.
Because there are positive consequences associated with treating employees fairly.
Because I receive valuable perks when I treat employees fairly.
Because I would experience penalties if I treated employees unfairly.*
Because treating employees fairly is associated with beneficial consequences.
Because being a fair manager is linked to positive outcomes.
* Final items used in dissertation hvvothesis testing









Table 3-2. Comparison of alternative factor structures for motivation for justice rule adherence
Model X2 (df) X2 diff (df) CFI RMR
Hypothesized Four-Factor Model 229.96 (98) --- .94 .08
Intrinsic, Identified, and Controlled Model 456.22 (101) 226.26 (3) .83 .13
Intrinsic and Extrinsic 656.39 (103) 426.43 (5) .73 .18
Autonomous and Controlled 635.70 (103) 407.74 (5) .74 .20
One-Factor Model 803.50 (104) 573.54 (6) .66 .19
Note. n 111 after listwise deletion. All X2 ValUeS are significant at p < .001.
























O 360


O


340
O








320






Intrinsic Identified Introjected External
Motivation Types



4 20




400






O








340




320

Intrinsic Identified Introjected External
Motivation Types



Figure 3-1. Hinkin and Tracey (1999) ANOVA results for four-item scales used in dissertation
hypothesis tests.
















































I I
Identified Introjected External
Motivation Types


3 70-


360



O





O



330















O













II




Intrinsic






Fiue31 otne


Identified Introjected External
Motivation Types









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4-1 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the

variables in the study, with the coefficient alphas for each scale shown on the diagonal. The table

reveals several relationships between personality traits and the motivation types. Altruism, a

facet of agreeableness, was positively related to intrinsic (r = .18) and external motivation (r =

.19). The relationship between trait reliability, a facet of conscientiousness, and introj ected

motivation was also significant (r = .20). Straightforwardness, a facet of agreeableness, was

positively correlated with introjected (r = .24) and external motivation (r = .29). Ambition, a

facet of conscientiousness, was negatively correlated with identified (r = -.23), introj ected (r = -

.20), and external motivation (r = -.17). These results are notable because they are not same-

source linkages, given the use of coworker ratings of supervisor personality and supervisor

ratings of motivation. Comparing those results with the broad dimensions of the Big Five,

conscientiousness was positively related to intrinsic (r = .19), identified (r = .18), introj ected (r =

.37), and external motivation (r = .21). However, neither agreeableness nor neuroticism

demonstrated significant relationships with the motivation types. This is an interesting point

because narrow facets of agreeableness (altruism and straightforwardness) demonstrated

significant relationships with three out of the four motivation types. Thus, focusing on the

narrow traits offered additional information that may have been missed if focusing solely on the

broad Big Five traits.

It is also important to examine the justice dimensions, and their relationships with various

personality traits. Altruism was positively related to interpersonal (r = .26) and informational

justice (r = .28). Similar effects were observed for the conscientiousness facet of trait reliability,









with interpersonal (r = .24) and informational justice (r = .29). Straightforwardness was also

positively related to interpersonal (r = .22) and informational justice (r = .26). Dutifulness, a

facet of conscientiousness, demonstrated significant relationships with procedural (r = .18),

interpersonal (r = .22), and informational justice (r = .30). Anxiety, a narrow trait of neuroticism,

exhibited negative relationships with interpersonal (r = -.24) and informational justice (r = -.19).

The broad Big Five traits were also significantly correlated with interpersonal and informational

justice. Conscientiousness was positively related to interpersonal (r = .18) and informational

justice (r = .28). Agreeableness was also positively related to interpersonal (r = .32) and

informational justice (r = .32). Neuroticism demonstrated significant negative effects for

interpersonal (r = -.33) and informational justice (r = -.35). Taken together, these results

demonstrate a similar pattern of results with the narrow and broad traits when using justice as an

outcome. Thus, focusing on either narrow or broad traits would lead to similar results.

Yet another set of important links are those between motivation and justice perceptions.

While no hypotheses were made for distributive justice, it demonstrated a positive relationship

with intrinsic motivation (r = .17). Thus, supervisors that report engaging in fair treatment

because of inherent enj oyment are seen as more distributively just by their employees.

Unfortunately, none of the hypothesized relationships for procedural, interpersonal, or

informational justice were significant.

Tests of Hypotheses

Motivation to justice hypotheses. The main effects hypotheses linking motivation to

justice were tested using structural equation modeling. Given my small sample size, I tested the

model in Figures 4-1 using a "partially latent" approach where scale scores were used as single

indicators of the latent variables with error variances set to (1-alpha)*variance (Kline, 2005). I

allowed the disturbance terms for procedural and informational justice to covary given that









informational justice is often used to judge procedural justice. I also allowed the disturbance

terms for interpersonal and informational justice to covary to represent unmeasured common

causes, such as a higher-order interactionall justice" factor. Fit statistics were as follows: X2 (

= 100) = 1 5.1 1, p < .00 1; X2/df = 1 5. 11; CFI = .89; RMR = .03.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that intrinsic motivation would be positively related to procedural,

interpersonal, and informational justice. As seen in Figure 4-1, intrinsic motivation was not

significantly related to either procedural (b = -.07), interpersonal (b = .10), or informational

justice (b = -.20). Therefore, this Hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that

identified motivation would be positively related to procedural, interpersonal, and informational

justice, albeit more weakly than intrinsic motivation. As shown in Figure 4-1, identified

motivation was not significantly related to either procedural (b = .00), interpersonal (b = .08), or

informational justice (b = -.06). To test the progressively weakening effects, I used equality

constraints, which force two or more parameters to equal one another (Kline, 2005). I then ran a

chi-square difference test (Kline, 2005) to compare the model with and without the equality

constraint, with the expectation that significantly better fit will result from the model without the

equality constraint. First, I constrained the path from intrinsic motivation to procedural justice

and the path from identified motivation to procedural justice as equal. A chi-squared difference

test indicated no significant difference between the two models (Table 4-2). I then constrained

the path from intrinsic motivation to interpersonal justice and the path from identified motivation

to interpersonal justice as equal. Again, no significant difference was found between the two

models. The third constraint examined was the path from intrinsic motivation to informational

justice and the path from identified motivation to informational justice. A chi-squared difference

test indicated no significant difference between the two models. Thus, the progressively









weakening effects predicted by Hypothesis 2 were not supported, which is not surprising, given

how similar the regression coefficients were for intrinsic and identified motivation.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that introj ected motivation would be positively related to

procedural justice, interpersonal, and informational albeit more weakly than that of identified

motivation. As depicted in Figure 4-1, introjected motivation was not significantly related to

procedural (b = -.17) or informational justice (b = .08), but was significantly related to

interpersonal justice (b = -.30). To test the progressively weakening effects, I constrained the

path from identified motivation to procedural justice and the path from introj ected motivation to

procedural justice as equal. A chi-squared difference test indicated no significant difference

between the two models (Table 4-2). I then constrained the path from identified motivation to

interpersonal justice and the path from introj ected motivation to interpersonal justice as equal.

Again, no significant difference was found between the two models. The third constraint

examined was the path from identified motivation to informational justice and the path from

introj ected motivation to informational justice. A chi-squared difference test indicated no

significant difference between the two models. Thus, the weakening effects depicted by

Hypothesis 3 were not supported, which is again not surprising, given the similarity in the

regression coefficients.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that external motivation would be positively related to procedural

justice, interpersonal, and informational albeit more weakly than that of introj ected motivation.

As shown in Figure 4-1, external motivation was not significantly related to either procedural (b

=.19), interpersonal (b = .03), or informational justice (b = .12). To test the weakening effect, I

constrained the path from introj ected motivation to procedural justice and the path from external

motivation to procedural justice as equal. A chi-squared difference test indicated no significant









difference between the two models (Table 4-2). I then constrained the path from introj ected

motivation to interpersonal justice and the path from external motivation to interpersonal justice

as equal. Again, no significant difference was found between the two models. The third

constraint examined was the path from introj ected motivation to informational justice and the

path from external motivation to informational justice. A chi-squared difference test indicated no

significant difference between the two models. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Distance moderation predictions. Hypotheses Sa-b predicted that structural distance

would moderate the relationships between the motivations for justice rule adherence and

procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, respectively. The regressions used to test

these hypotheses are shown in Table 4-3. The first step of the regressions includes intrinsic

motivation, identified motivation, introjected motivation, and external motivation. The second

step in the regression includes the structural distance variables (opportunity for interaction and

spatial distance). While no main effect predictions were made for structural distance, the data

suggest that opportunity to interact was positively related to procedural (r = .34), interpersonal (b

=.31), and informational justice (b = .38). It should be noted that these links are same source

and therefore should be interpreted with caution. The third step of the regression includes the

motivation x structural distance product terms, with product terms created after mean-centering

the independent variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). As shown in the third step of

Table 4-3, none of the expected interactions were statistically significant. Therefore, hypotheses

Sa-b were not supported.

Personality to motivation hypotheses. The main effects hypotheses linking personality to

motivation were tested using structural equation modeling. Given my small sample size, I tested

the model in Figures 4-1 to 4-4 using a "partially latent" approach where scale scores were used









as single indicators of the latent variables with error variances set to (1-alpha)*variance (Kline,

2005). I allowed the disturbance terms for intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external

motivation to covary to represent unmeasured common causes, such as a higher-order

"motivation" factor. Fit statistics were as follows: X2 (18 N= 100) = 43.91, p < .001; X2 df-

2.44; CFI = .95; RMR = .08.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that altruism would be positively related to intrinsic motivation. As

shown in Figure 4-2, this hypothesis was supported (b = .21). Thus, supervisors who were

described by coworkers as caring and accepting reported more inherent enj oyment in acting in a

fair way. Hypothesis 7 a-b predicted that straightforwardness and reliability would be positively

related to identified motivation. This hypothesis was not supported, as neither

straightforwardness nor reliability demonstrated a significant effect on identified motivation.

Hypothesis 8 a-b predicted an effect of dutifulness and anxiety on introj ected motivation. As

depicted in Figure 4-2, this hypothesis was supported, as both dutifulness and anxiety were

significant predictors of introj ected motivation (b = .44 and .17, respectively). Thus, supervisors

described by coworkers as honest and anxious reported engaging in fair treatment in order to

avoid feelings of guilt. Hypothesis 9 predicted that ambition would be positively related to

external motivation. This Hypothesis was supported, as ambition was a significant predictor of

external motivation (b = .55). Thus, supervisors described by coworkers as enterprising and

opportunistic reported engaging in fair treatment in order to avoid negative consequences

associated with failing to treat employees fairly. Taken together, these results suggest that

supervisor personality traits are relevant to motivation to engage in justice rule adherence.

However, it is also important to examine the effect of broad personality traits on

motivation for justice rule adherence. Recall that several scholars suggest that the Big Five can









be understood as a hierarchy (Goldberg, 1993). Thus, a focus on narrow traits begs the question,

do the broad Big Five traits demonstrate similar effects, as they are themselves composed of

lower level traits? In general, scholars have struggled with the issue of choosing broad traits vs.

narrow, specific traits as predictors of important organizational outcomes (for reviews, see

Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). As

stated previously, this issue has been termed the "bandwidth-fidelity" trade-off (Hogan &

Roberts, 1996). Thus, the question is whether the theoretical nuances offered by narrow, specific

traits is worth losing some information gained by using broad traits. Therefore, I tested an

additional model in which the structural paths were drawn from the narrow trait predictions. For

example, anxiety is a narrow trait of neuroticism; therefore the corresponding structural path for

neuroticism should be the same as that of anxiety. Fit statistics for the broad traits model were as

follows: X2 (6 N= 100) = 12. 16, p < .001; X2/df= 2.027; CFI = .96; RMR = .04. As shown in

Figure 4-3, agreeableness was not significantly related to either intrinsic (b = .12) or identified

motivation (b = .04). Although conscientiousness was not significantly related to identified

motivation (b = .06), it did demonstrate significant, positive relationships with introj ected and

external motivation (b = .49 and .38, respectively). As shown in Figure 4-3, neuroticism was not

significantly related to introj ected motivation (b = .04).

I also combined the narrow and broad traits into one model (Figure 4-4). This model was

tested to demonstrate whether the narrow, specific traits predict incremental variance above and

beyond the broad, Big Five traits. The results suggest that while altruism was significantly

related to intrinsic motivation (b = .71), agreeableness was not (b = -.52). Neither

straightforwardness nor agreeableness were significantly related to identified motivation (b = .10

and .03, respectively). Similar results were obtained for conscientiousness and its narrow trait









reliability (b = .19 and -.20, respectively). Fit statistics for the combined traits structural model

were as follows: X2 (24 N= 100) = 51.60, p < .001; X2/df= 2.15; CFI = .98; RMR = .06. As

shown in Figure 4-4, neither anxiety nor neuroticism were significantly related to identified

motivation (b = .20 and -.10, respectively). While dutifulness was not significantly related to

introjected motivation (b = -.05), conscientiousness did demonstrate significant, positive

relationships with introj ected and external motivation (b = .40 and .44, respectively). However,

ambition was not significantly related to external motivation (b = -.02). These results suggest that

the narrow traits and broad dimensions exert few significant independent effects on the

motivation variables, which is not surprising, given the necessarily high level of multicollinearity

in these analyses.

Tests of mediation. Hypotheses 14-17 predicted that motivation for justice rule adherence

mediates the relationship between the narrow traits and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal,

and informational justice. To test these hypotheses, I utilized the three step mediation test

recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). In the first step of this procedure, one must

demonstrate a significant relationship between the predictor variable (personality) and the

mediator variable (motivation for justice rule adherence). The second step of the procedure

requires that the mediator (motivation for justice rule adherence) demonstrate a significant

relationship with the outcome variable (justice perceptions), when controlling for the predictor

variable (personality). The final step requires demonstrating a significant relationship between

the predictor variable and the outcome variable, with that relationship becoming reduced or non-

significant when the mediator is controlled. As reported previously (Figure 4-2), the results do

partially support the first step. Specifically, altruism was positively related to intrinsic

motivation, dutifulness and anxiety were significant predictors of introj ected motivation, and









ambition was a significant predictor of external motivation. With respect to the second step, only

one relationship was significant: introj ected motivation was negatively related to interpersonal

justice. Moreover, this relationship was not in the predicted direction. According to Baron and

Kenny (1986) a relationship between the mediator and outcome is a prerequisite for mediation.

Due to the lack of mediator-outcome relationships, there is no need to test mediation.










Table 4-1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Altruism 4.02 .70 .95
2. Reliability 6.83 1.11 .63* .92
3. Straightforwardness 3.92 .59 .72* .65* .87
4. Dutifulness 4.03 .59 .69* .63* .83* .88
5. Anxiety 2.43 .67 -.45* -.36* -.48* .47* .91
6. Ambition 7.02 1.51 .05 .07 -.04 .05 -. 10
7. Conscientiousness 4.25 .45 .60* .74* .63 .63* -.34*
8. Agreeableness 4.10 .47 .86* .59* .67* .66* -.50*
9. Neuroticism 2.27 .62 -.65* -.41* -.57* -.56* .77*
10. Intrinsic Motivation 3.54 .82 .18* .10 .13 .01 -. 15
11. Identified Motivation 4.67 .47 .05 .09 .13 .04 .07
12. Introj ected Motivation 3.64 1.01 .13 .20* .26* .13 -.04
13. External Motivation 3.29 .88 .19* .13 .29* .13 .11
14. Procedural Justice 3.72 .72 .09 .11 .09 .18* -.02
15. Interpersonal Justice 4.58 .60 .26* .24* .22* .22* -.24*
16. Informational Justice 3.84 .78 .28* .29* .26* .30* -. 19*
17. Distributive Justice 3.72 .97 .02 .03 .05 .15 -.12
18. Spatial Distance 3.35 1.22 -.02 .00 -.03 -. 10 .04
19. Opportunity to Interact 4.07 .71 .10 .21* .18* .20* -. 10
Note. n =100-161. p <.05, one-tailed.










Table 4-1. Continued
Variable 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Altruism
2. Reliability
3. Straightforwardness
4. Dutifulness
5. Anxiety
6. Ambition .74
7. Conscientiousness .05 .89
8. Agreeableness .00 .54* .92
9. Neuroticism -.08 -.46* -.71* .90
10. Intrinsic Motivation -.05 .19* .08 -. 14 .86
11. Identified Motivation -.23* .18* .08 .01 .30* .88
12. Introj ected motivation -.20* .37* .11 -. 15 .53* .42* .91
13. External Motivation -.17* .21* .16 .00 .25* .02 .35*
14. Procedural Justice -.02 .12 .05 -. 10 -.02 -.03 -.06
15. Interpersonal Justice -.07 .18* .32* -.33* .03 .02 -.11
16. Informational Justice .05 .28* .32* -.35* .01 .02 .06
17. Distributive Justice -.10 .08 .00 -.08 .17* .08 .07
18. Spatial Distance .02 .04 -.03 .01 .06 .20* -.05
19. Opportunity to Interact .02 .15 .19* -. 11 .02 -.06 -.03
Note. n =100-161. p <.05, one-tailed.










Table 4-1. Continued
Variable 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Altruism
2. Reliability
3. Straightforwardness
4. Dutifulness
5. Anxiety
6. Ambition
7. Conscientiousness
8. Agreeableness
9. Neuroticism
10. Intrinsic Motivation
11. Identified Motivation
12. Introj ected Motivation
13. External Motivation .85
14. Procedural Justice .13 .86
15. Interpersonal Justice -.02 .50* .90
16. Informational Justice .12 .62* .61* .88
17. Distributive Justice .13 .56* .40* .52* .95
18. Spatial Distance -.15 -.14* .04 -. 12 -.04 .84
19. Opportunity to Interact .19* .34* .31* .38* .24* -.36* .75
Note. n =100-161. p <.05, one-tailed.









Table 4-2. Comparison of various equality constraints for motivation justice linkages
Model X2 (df) X2 diff (df) CFI RMR
Model without Constraints 15.11 (1) --- .89 .03
Intrinsic/Identified to Proc Constrained 15.24 (2) .13 (1) .89 .03
Intrinsic/Identified to Inter Constrained 15.12 (2) .01 (1) .90 .03
Intrinsic/Identified to Info Constrained 15.53 (2) .42 (1) .89 .03

Identified/Introj ected to Proc Constrained 15.52 (2) .41 (1) .89 .03
Identified/Introj ected to Inter Constrained 17.18 (2) 2.06 (1) .88 .03
Identified/Introj ected to Info Constrained 15.37 (2) .26 (1) .89 .03

Introj ected/Extemal to Proc Constrained 16.95 (2) 1.84 (1) .88 .04
Introj ected/Extemal to Inter Constrained 16.70 (2) 1.59 (1) .88 .04
Introjected/Extemal to Info Constrained 15.14 (2) .03 (1) .90 .03

Note. n = 100 after listwjise deletion. X2 ValUeS































































Introj ected x Interact
Extemal x Interact
Note. n = 112 after listwise deletion. p ,< .05, two-tailed. to ~z< .10, two-tailec


Table 4-3. Moderated regressions used to test hypotheses Sa-b
Procedural Justice Model 1 Model 2


Model 3


R2 AR2
.03 .03


R2 h2
.03 .03


2
R


E


B
-.02
.04
-.09
.14?


B
-.02
.03
-.08


AR2 B
.03 .03 -.05
.19
-.07
.12
.06 .03 .02
.24*
.16 .10 -. 11
.10
.02
.11
.02
-.37
-.20
.03


1. Intrinsic Motivation
Identified Motivation
Introj ected Motivation
External Motivation
2. Spatial Distance
Opportunity to Interact
3. Intrinsic x Distance
Identified x Distance
Introj ected x Distance
Extemal x Distance


.12
.06 .03 .03
.20"f


Intrinsic x Interact
Identified x Interact
Introj ected x Interact
Extemal x Interact
Note. n = 112 after listwise deletion. p < .05, two-tailed. "f p < .10, two-tailed.


Table 4-3. Continued
Interpersonal Justice



1. Intrinsic Motivation
Identified Motivation
Introj ected Motivation
External Motivation
2. Spatial Distance
Opportunity to Interact
3. Intrinsic x Distance
Identified x Distance
Introj ected x Distance
Extemal x Distance
Intrinsic x Interact
Identified x Interact


Model 1


Model 2


Model 3


AR2 B
.03 .08
.09
-.12?
.02


R2 h2 B
.03 .03 .07
.05
-.10
.00
.08 .05 .09"
.20"


R2 AR2 B
.03 .03 .05
-.01
-.09
.02
.085f .05Jf .13*
.24*
.13 .05 .13
-.06
-.07
-.01
.05
-.27
-.05
.02





Table 4-3. Continued
Informational Justice


Model 1


Model 2


Model 3


R2 AR2 B
.02 .02 -.06
.02
.03
.10


R2 h2 B
.02 .02 -.06
.00
.04
.07
.07* .05* .07
.28*


R2 AR2 B
.02 .02 -. 10
.15
.06
.09
.07* .05* .05
.27*
.13 .06 .00
.22
.03
-.04


1. Intrinsic Motivation
Identified Motivation
Introj ected Motivation
External Motivation
2. Spatial Distance
Opportunity to Interact
3. Intrinsic x Distance
Identified x Distance
Introj ected x Distance
Extemal x Distance


Intrinsic x Interact
Identified x Interact
Introj ected x Interact
Extemal x Interact
Note. n = 112 after listwise deletion. p < .05, two-tailed. "f p < .10, two-tailed.


.10
-.05
-.10
.00












-07


S.10 \
-.20\


\


.00

08

- 06


I


-.30*









.03


Figure 4-1. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 1-4
























-02
-...Identified
Reliability(C) Motivation
Straightforward(A) ..
for rule adherence
.10


Figure 4-2. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. Each narrow trait has a letter
beside it. That letter corresponds to the broad trait that subsumes that narrow trait. C
represents conscientiousness, A represents agreeableness, and N represents
neuroticism. p <.05, one-tailed.
















Intrinsic
SMotivation
Sfor rule adherence


Agreeableness ~

.04


Z
Z
Z


Z


Identified
Motivation
for rule adherence


.06

.49*


Neuroticism .4


Figure 4-3. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. p < .05, two-tailed




















Agreeableness
.03



Reliability (c) -. Identified
Straightforward (A) -,Motivation
for rule adherence


10


-0 2
Ambition (C)- -


Figure 4-4. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. Each narrow trait has a letter
beside it. That letter corresponds to the broad trait that subsumes that narrow trait. C represents
conscientiousness, A represents agreeableness, and N represents neuroticism. p < .05, two-
tailed.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Although research has shown that employee perceptions of the degree to which managers

adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance

in employee attitudes and behaviors, a key question remains unexplored: why do managers

adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First,

I used self-determination theory to identify four different reasons why managers might adhere to

justice rules. Clearly not all managers adhere to justice rules for the same reasons. Thus, it is

possible that whereas some managers may genuinely want to adhere to justice rules for its own

sake, it is likely that other managers do so as a means to other ends. The second purpose was to

identify managerial traits, taken from narrow facets of the Big Five, which predict managerial

motivation for justice rule adherence and employee justice perceptions.

What stood out most from this study were the effects of personality on justice rule

adherence, none of which were same source. Specifically, I found that the narrow traits of

conscientiousness, trait reliability and dutifulness (Goldberg, 1990; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999),

were positively related to interpersonal and informational justice. Recall that interpersonal and

informational justice capture the rules outlined by Bies and Moag (1986), with interpersonal

justice referring specifically to the respect and propriety rules while informational justice

consists of the truthfulness and justification components. Thus, managers described as reliable

and dependable, as well as punctual and responsible, were also seen as more respectful and

truthful. Individuals high on trait reliability are more likely to adhere to social norms and

conventions, thus explaining their propensity to adhere to the respect and propriety rules of

interpersonal and the truthfulness rule of informational justice. Similarly, it is likely that dutiful









individuals regard low interpersonal and informational justice as unethical; therefore they should

be more likely treat employees with respect, propriety, and sincerity.

Conscientiousness also predicted procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.

This is consistent with the usual conceptualization of conscientiousness, which consists of

competence, orderliness, and reliability (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990; Saucier &

Ostendorf, 1999). Thus, managers seen by their employees as efficient were also said to be more

likely to adhere to procedural justice rules, as conceptualized by Leventhal (1980). These rules

include consistency, accuracy, representativeness, ethicality, bias suppression, and correctability

(Leventhal, 1980). One way conscientiousness might positively affect procedural justice is

through detailed record keeping, making it easier for them to adhere to the accuracy rule.

Conscientious supervisors were also more likely to adhere to interpersonal and informational

justice rules. Therefore, managers described as orderly and capable by their coworkers were also

seen by their employees as more respectful and truthful. One explanation for this effect is that

conscientious supervisors are likely to feel that adhering to interpersonal and informational

justice rules by treating employees with respect and sincerity is one of the many obligations of a

good supervisor.

Altruism and straightforwardness were positively related to interpersonal and

informational justice. Thus, managers described as giving and sincere were also described as

adhering to the respect and truthfulness rules of interpersonal and informational justice. This is

consistent with Costa and McCrae' s (1992) conceptualization of altruism, described by

adj ectives such as charitable, thoughtful, unselfish, and generous, as well as their

conceptualization of straightforwardness, described as a propensity to be sincere, frank, and

ingenuous. Altruistic supervisors are likely generous with the time they spend with their










employees, which should make it easier to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice

rules. Supervisors high on trait straightforwardness, described as sincere and frank individuals,

are likely to adhere to the respect rules of interpersonal justice and the truthfulness rule of

informational justice. Similar effects were observed for agreeableness, the broad trait subsuming

trait altruism and trait straightforwardness (Goldberg, 1990). These results are consistent with

Goldberg' s (1990) conceptualization of agreeableness, which includes adj ective descriptors such

as warm, courteous, and amicable. Specifically, agreeable supervisors are more likely to put

themselves in their employee's shoes (i.e., empathize with them), and therefore should also be

more likely to understand the importance of treating employees with sincerity and respect.

Yet another narrow trait predicting justice rule adherence was that of anxiety. Unlike the

previous traits, anxiety demonstrated negative effects with both interpersonal and informational

justice. Thus, managers described as nervous and tense were less likely to treat their employees

with respect and less likely to provide truthful explanations. It is likely that anxious managers are

preoccupied with their own issues, thus decreasing their ability to adherence to interpersonal and

informational justice rules. Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) have made similar

arguments with respect to citizenship behaviors. Specifically, they speculated that emotionally

stable (i.e., low neuroticism) individuals might possess more of the psychological stamina

needed to engage in discretionary behaviors, because they would be less preoccupied with their

own problems. Neuroticism, the broad trait subsuming anxiety, demonstrated similar effects with

justice perceptions. This is consistent with Costa and McCrae's (1992) conceptualization of

neuroticism, described as prone to experience depressive affect and more likely to experience

insecurity and bitterness. Their increased propensity to experience negative emotional states

should increase the probability of negative encounters with employees. For example, neurotic










supervisors might be more likely to disrespect their employees and fail to provide justifications

for their actions.

It is also important to mention the effects of personality on motivation for justice rule

adherence. Conscientiousness demonstrated positive effects with intrinsic, identified,

introjected, and external motivation. Conscientious individuals are likely to understand just how

important justice rule adherence is, and may agree with many reasons or motivations to do so.

After all, these individuals are typically described as competent. These results are particularly

interesting, given that the narrow traits making up conscientiousness were expected to predict

three out of the four justice motivations. However, evaluating the narrow traits of

conscientiousness as predictors provides additional insights into these relationships. While trait

reliability was positively related to introj ected motivation, dutifulness was unrelated to the

motivation types. Perhaps the dependability and responsibility aspects of trait reliability lead

these individuals to worry about appearing to behave in ways inconsistent with their self-

concept. Interestingly, ambition was negatively related to identified, introjected, and external

motivation. It is possible ambitious supervisors they lack motivation for justice rule adherence.

Their efforts may be focused instead on their own task performance. Taken together, these

results suggest that the conscientiousness effects are likely driven primarily by trait reliability

rather than dutifulness.

Contrary to expectations, motivation for justice rule adherence was unrelated to employee

justice perceptions. Based on SDT, I had expected that the four justice motivations would

provide four different reasons for adhering to justice rule. Unexpectedly, none of the four

motivations predicted justice in either the structural equation models or in a zero-order sense.

This is surprising because the psychometric properties of my measure were good, and personality










did predict the justice motivations. A supplementary data collection effort can provide some

insight into these non significant findings. Specifically, I collected data on managerial

perceptions of their own justice rule adherence in an attempt to compare supervisor and

employee perceptions. Although same source, using managerial perceptions of their own justice

rule adherence does demonstrate some significant effects with justice motivation. Three of the

four justice motivations significantly predicted procedural justice (r = .17 for intrinsic, r = .3 5 for

identified, and r = .18 for introj ected motivation). In addition, identified motivation significantly

predicted interpersonal justice (r = .37). These data suggest that motivation for justice rule

adherence does predict how fairly supervisors think they themselves are. However, there is

surprisingly little correspondence between supervisor and employee perceptions of justice rule

adherence. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice are correlated a mere r = .14, as are

informational justice perceptions. Interpersonal justice demonstrated somewhat higher agreement

r = .19, but still a relatively small effect size.

It may therefore be that this disconnect when judging justice explains the lack of a

relationship between justice motivation and employee perceptions of justice rule adherence. The

lack of correspondence between supervisor and employee measures of justice is quite interesting,

though not completely unexpected in hindsight. We can use the literature on leader-member

exchange (LMX) to provide some context for the across-source correlations listed above. In

general, the LMX literature has reported moderate convergence between supervisor and

employee measures of LMX. Specifically, Gerstner and Day (1997) report a meta-analytic

uncorrected correlation of .29 between employee and supervisor reported LMX. In addition, the

literature on mentor-protege relationships typically demonstrates moderate to weak agreement

between mentors and proteges (Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, &









Marchese, 2006). For example, Wanberg et al. (2006) found that mentors and proteges

demonstrated surprisingly low agreement on the amount of psychosocial mentoring received by

the protege (r = .14).

Aside from examining main effects, this dissertation also proposed structural distance as

a moderator of the motivation to justice rule adherence effects. Unexpectedly, structural distance

variables did not moderate the motivation and justice perception relationships. Opportunity to

interact was not a significant moderator of any of the four effects, nor was spatial distance.

However, opportunity to interact was directly related to employee perceptions of procedural,

interpersonal, and informational justice. Thus, employees reporting that their managers are

accessible were also more likely to report them as being procedurally, interpersonally, and

informationally fair. According to Leventhal (1980), one method of adhering to the accuracy rule

of procedural justice is keeping detailed, accurate records of pertinent information. In addition,

adhering to the representativeness rule requires consideration of employees' basic concerns and

values (Leventhal, 1980). Clearly adhering to these procedural justice rules is likely more

difficult when interaction opportunities are low. For instance, the informal sort of record-keeping

required by the accuracy rule is more difficult if supervisors and employees rarely interact. In

addition, interaction opportunities should increase a supervisor' s knowledge of his or her

employee's basic concerns and values, thus making adherence to the representative rule easier.

Opportunity to interact also demonstrated positive direct effects on interpersonal and

informational justice. Adhering to Bies and Moag' s (1986) justification rule should become

easier if opportunities to interact with employees increase, therefore providing additional

opportunities to provide explanations. Previous research is consistent with this line of thinking,

as structural distance may hinder a manager' s ability to provide timely feedback (Howell et al.,










2005). In general, that frequency of communication decreases as structural distance between

employees increases (Gullahorn, 1952). Consequently, fewer interaction opportunities can

negatively affect interaction quality between a manager and his or her employees. Note,

however, that these relationships were observed using same-source data. Thus, future research

should examine these relationships using non same-source data, as these results offer a number

of other avenues for future research.

First and foremost, future research should examine potential mediators of the opportunity

to interact-justice effects, noted above. One potential explanation of this effect is that increased

interaction opportunities are likely capable of providing employees with explanations for unfair

treatment. To be specific, increased interaction likely exposes employees to their supervisor's

daily interactions. This increased exposure may provide built in explanations for a manager' s

justice rule adherence, or lack thereof. While explanations may not always be beneficial,

explanations can potentially improve perceptions of justice rule adherence. This is consistent

with previous research, which suggests that explanations have beneficial effects on justice

perceptions (for a review, see Bobocel & Zdaniuk, 2005). In fact, a recent meta-analysis found

that explanations were positively related to both procedural and distributive justice, though

interpersonal and informational justice were not examined (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003).

Conversely, low levels of interaction can be problematic for a different reason; in this case unfair

instances are likely to loom large. In other words, while increased interactions may not change

the likelihood of fair treatment, it may make it easier for employees to recount instances of fair

treatment.

Future research might also integrate personality and opportunity to interact, as certain

supervisors might be more inclined to seek out positions in which interaction with employees is










high. Previous theorizing is consistent with this proposition, in that personality, among other

variables, predicts job choice. In fact, several theoretical works, including Schneider' s attraction-

selection-attrition model (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998), Holland's (1985)

vocational choice model, and person-job fit (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997), address the idea that

people make work related choices, at least to some extent, based on their personalities. In

addition, personality traits influence an individual's motivational choices (Mount et al., 2005). In

other words, personality influences the extent to which certain tasks are valued, and therefore

how much effort and persistence is exerted on these tasks (Mount et al., 2005). With respect to

interaction opportunities, it is likely that certain personality traits may lead to increased effort

directed towards creating these high employee interaction opportunities. Interestingly, my data

suggest that supervisors rated by their coworkers as high on reliability, straightforwardness,

dutifulness, as well as agreeableness had employee' s report high levels of interaction

opportunities. Previous research is consistent with these findings, as agreeableness has been

linked with communion striving, defined as behaviors meant to obtain and develop personal

relationships at work (Barrick et al., 2002). Thus, agreeable supervisors should be more likely to

create high interaction opportunities, as a way to develop relationships with their employees.

Limitations

This dissertation has some limitations that should be noted. For example, the sample size

was limited for some of the tests of hypotheses. Although data was collected for over one

hundred and sixty focal employees, significant attrition occurred due to the requirement of two

additional data sources, that of the supervisor and a coworker. However, it is important to note

that the unsupported hypotheses did not seem to be a function of low statistical power. The

average regression coefficient for the motivating to justice rule adherence hypotheses was only

.07. Thus, the unsupported hypotheses can be attributed to the very low effect sizes found.










Moreover, some of the effects were not in the predicted direction, which is clearly not a power

1SSUe.

Another important limitation to consider is that this study consisted of a correlational

field study, which raises concerns about internal validity. In fact, Pedhazur and Schmelkin

(1991) suggested that causation cannot be inferred without manipulating the independent

variable. Similarly, Stone-Romero and Rosopa (2004) asserted that longitudinal or experimental

data is needed to confirm mediation. While this is a valid concern for most correlational field

studies, the use of personality as the independent variable diminishes this concern somewhat.

According to most personality scholars, the Big Five personality traits tend to be thought of as

heritable psychological tendencies (Loehlin, 1992; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998).

Consistent with this proposition, previous research has demonstrated that personality tends to

remain consistent throughout time (Ilies & Judge, 2003; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). In fact,

Costa and McCrae (1994) have demonstrated relatively strong test-retest correlations for adults,

around .50 to .80. Thus, it is likely that separating the measures over a short span of time would

not have altered the personality results in any meaningful way.

Practical Implications

Despite these limitations, the results of this study offer a number of practical implications.

To increase the likelihood of fair treatment, one can hire managers that are more likely to treat

employees fairly. Specifically, these results suggest that conscientiousness, agreeableness, and

neuroticism are traits that predict interpersonal and informational justice. The use of

conscientiousness as a selection tool has more advantages than just increased fair treatment.

Previous research has demonstrated that conscientiousness had a moderate positive effect on task

performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In fact, many Fortune 1000 companies either currently

use, or are planning on using, personality tests in the workplace (Piotrowski & Armstrong,










2006). Such tests could be used as selection tools in jobs where a significant supervisory

component is present, or as placement tools when employees in technical positions are promoted

into managerial roles.

These results also suggest that increasing interaction opportunities between employees and

their supervisors might have beneficial effects on justice perceptions. Specifically, this study

suggests that employees reporting increased interaction opportunities and supervisor accessibility

also perceive their supervisors as more likely to adhere to procedural, interpersonal,

informational, and distributive justice rules. This is an important Einding because changes in the

nature of work may make interaction opportunities rarer, negatively affecting justice perceptions.

For example, organizations are increasingly offering flexible work arrangements and

telecommuting opportunities (SHRM Foundation, 2001). These types of changes are likely to

affect employee supervisor interactions by making face-to-face interactions more difficult. In a

discussion of the changing nature of work, House (1995) echoed the importance of employee-

supervisor interactions, by writing: "Interaction facilitation by supervisors will become

increasingly important in the twenty-first century because of the enhanced complexity of work

and proliferation of autonomous team-oriented work groups" (p. 434). Thus, when interaction

opportunities are relatively rare, supervisors should be more aware of their adherence to justice

rules.

In these situations, providing training on justice rule adherence might be particularly

beneficial. Previous research has demonstrated that leaders can be trained successfully on

procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice principles (Greeenberg, 1999; Skarlicki &

Latham, 1996). However, justice training, as currently conceptualized, is likely to have little

effect if employee-supervisor interaction opportunities are rare. Therefore, it might make more









sense to focus justice training on justice behaviors that can be enacted, in distance environments,

as well as face-to-face contexts. For example, supervisors might be taught to create opportunities

to provide their employees with explanations over email or via voicemail, thus adhering to

informational justice rules as conceptualized by Bies and Moag (1986).










LIST OF REFERENCES


Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated
bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 43-90). New York: Academic Press.

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63
1-18.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
M~onoguraphs, 47, No. 211.

Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of
intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
34, 915-922.

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673-704.

Aristotle. (1759). Hobbes translation ofAristotle art ofrhetoric. London: Gale Group.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1 173-1 182.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and j ob performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on
the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 81, 261-
272.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Tests
of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 43-51.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill 's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial application, 3r edition. New York: The Free Press.










Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of
affective influences on performance: Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 90, 1054-1068.

Bies, R. J. 2005. Are procedural and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg
& J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.
J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in
organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural
fairness judgments. Academy of2anagentent Journal, 31, 676-685.

Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational
j usti ce? In J. Greenb erg & J. A. C olquitt (Ed s.), The handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 469-498). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Cameron, K., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1993). Downsizing and redesigning organizations. In
G. Huber & W Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 19-63). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal
ofAbnornzal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-507.

Cattell, R. B. (1945). The principal trait clusters for describing personality. Psychological
Bulletin, 42, 129-169.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors.
Psychonsetrika, 12, 197-220.

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1976). Handbook for the sixteen personality
factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: IPAT.










Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analy sis. Organizational Behavior and H~uman Decision Processes, 86, 287-321 .

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis: Erratum. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1215.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A
historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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, 99, 110-127.

Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice
affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A.
Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: A cluster
analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology, 31, 564-570.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEOPI-R: Revised NEO personality/ inventory and
NEO five-factor inventory. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). "Set like plaster?" Evidence for the stability of adult
personality. In T. Heatherton & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21-
40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd edition). New York: Harper Row.










Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations. Promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and H~uman Decision Processes,
69, 117-132.

de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New
York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and' Social Psychology, 18, 105-1 15.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology ofself-determination. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for
understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In A. J.
Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), H~and'book of competence and motivation (pp. 579-597).
New York: Guilford Publications.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 39-80.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and' self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientation scale: Self-determination
in personality. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 19, 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 53, 1024-103 7.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. PsychologicallInquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the
basis of distributive justice. Journal of SociallIssues, 31, 137-150.

Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of
personality. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.










Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The
role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal ofPersonality and' Social
Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic
motivation-Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan
(1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677-691.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 76,
628-644.

Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the big five personality constructs to
organizational commitment. Personality and'Individ'ual Differences, 41, 959-970.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 1L: Row, Peterson.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different
sources. Journal of Abnornzal and' Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.

Fiske, D. W. (1994). Two cheers for the big five! PsychologicallInquity, 5, 123-124.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of2anagentent Journal, 32, 1 15-130.

Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial
distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of2anagentent Journal, 41, 79-87.

Gagne, M., Forest, J., Batistelli, A., Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Gilbert, M. H.,
Grenier, S., Aube, C., & Morin, E. (2006). Validation of the motivation at work scale
(MAWS) using self-determination theory. Unpublished manuscript, Concordia
University .

Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179-185.

Gerstner, C., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 82, 827-844.

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and' social psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.










Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor
structure. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,
48, 26-34.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &
Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-
domain personality measures. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In
J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 3 89-43 5).
New York: Academic Press.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of2anageenten
Review, 12, 9-22.

Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an image of justice: Looking fair on the j ob. Academy of
Management Executive, 11, 155-157.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75, 561-568.

Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching
fairness in human resource nzanagentent (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and'
Human Decision Processes, 54, 8 1-103.

Greenberg, J. & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations.
In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 437-
469). New York: Academic Press.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 52,
890-898.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion,
24, 175-213.










Gullahorn, J. T. (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix.
Socionsetry, 15, 123-134.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation.
Or ganizational Research M~ethods, 2, 175-186.

Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the big Hyve and
circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology,
63, 146-16.

Hogan, R. (2004). Personality psychology for organizational researchers. In B. Schneider & D.
B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and' Organizations (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 7, 627-637.

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul .

House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard
(Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411-450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. M. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting
follower performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 680-694.

Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership
and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273-
285.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of
motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and
adjustment in a factory setting. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of
personality. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 750-759.

Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological
collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 884-899.










John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory versions 4a and
54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social
Research.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big fiye trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), H~andbook ofpersonality:
Theory and research (2nd ed., pp: 102-137). New York: Guilford.

Joireskog, K. G., & Soirbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user 's reference guide. Moorseville, IN:
Scientific Software, Inc.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions.
Academy of2anagement Journal, 36,80-105.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D.
Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), H~andbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of psychological needs for autonomy and
relatedness to vitality, well-being, and mortality in a nursing home. Journal ofApplied
Social Psychology, 29, 935-954.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of
attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 5 1-60.

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Information Quarterly, 25, 57-78.

Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of
victims and victimizer. Journal ofSociallssues, 29, 25-61.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and H~uman Performance, 22, 3 75 -403.

Klauss, R., & Bass, B. M. (1982). Interpersonal communication in organizations. New York:
Academic Press.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.

Koester, R., Losier, G. F., Vallerand, R. J., & Carducci, D. (1996). Identified and introjected
forms of political internalization: Extending self-determination theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1025-1036.











Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization.
In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook ofsocialization theory (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of
subordinate assertive behavior on managers' interactional fairness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 73 1-744.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: effects of adult surveillance and
extrinsic rewards on children' s intrinsic motivation. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 31, 479-486.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations.
In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
9, pp. 91-131). New York: Academic Press.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study
of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis (Eds.),
Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and
measure-specific components of the Big Five personality factors. Journal ofResearch in
Personality, 32, 43 1-453.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological M~ethods, 7, 83-104.

Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. (2005). Interpersonal and informational justice:
Identifying the differential antecedents of interactional justice behaviors. In S. W.
Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates
fairness in organizations? (pp. 79-103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Mayer, D. M., Nishii, L. H., & Schneider, B. (2007). The precursors and products of justice
climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel
Psychology, 60, 929-963.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence
and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.










McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987).Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-
90.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor
model ofpersonality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O.
P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153).
New York: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr, & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised
NEO personality inventory. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 84, 261-270.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 69, 372-378.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher order dimensions of
the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 447-478.

Mowday, R. T. (1979). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. M. Steers &
L. W. Porter (Eds.), M~otivation and work behavior (pp. 53-71). New York: Academic
Press.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and the depletion of limited resources:
Does elf-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.

Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management
Review, 3, 321-357.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal ofAbnornzal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Nornzative operating characteristics
for a university population. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychology, University of
Michigan.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement
for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 7, 609-626.










Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers don't always do the right thing when
delivering bad news: The role of empathy, self-esteem, and moral development in
interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & Van den Bos,
K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149-178). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. (2006). Current recruitment and selection practices: A national
survey of fortune 1000 firms. North American Journal ofPsychology, 8, 489-496.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of
leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker
relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 271-293.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality from
childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 3-25.

Ross, M. (1975). Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 32, 245-254.

Ross, M., Karniol, R., & Rothstein, M. (1976). Reward contingency and intrinsic motivation in
children: A test of the delay of gratification hypothesis. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 33, 442-447.

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 36, 397-427.










Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749-761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.) Handbook ofself-
determination research (pp. 3-33). New York: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does
psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal ofPersonality, 74, 1557-
1585.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their
relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 65, 586-596.

Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the big five personality
factors: A cross-language replication. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76,
613-627.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to
sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 7, 639-655.

Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are organizational justice effects bounded by individual
differences? Group and Organization Management, 32, 290-325.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable:
Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice
perceptions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 1597-1609.

Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A
test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 83,
462-470.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546-557.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999).Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
being: The self-concordance model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76,
482-497.

Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying
self-determination theory to organizational research. In J. J. Martocchio & G. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 3 57-393).
Boston, MA: Elsevier.










Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizationaljustice: The search for
fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.

SHRM Foundation. (2001). SHRM~2001 benefits survey. Society for Human Resource
Management.

Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship
between fairness and retaliation. Academy of2anagement Journal, 42, 100-108.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
test of organizational justice theory. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 81, 161-169.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and' human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and' morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1).
New York: Academic Press.

Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2004). Inference problems with hierarchical multiple
regression-based tests of mediating effects. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (Vol. 23, pp. 249-290). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Shaw, J. C. Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of
the effects of explanations. Journal ofAppliedPsychology, 88, 444-458.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. Cahifornia Law Review, 66, 541-566.

Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1-32.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings
(Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US. Air Force.

Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with
formal leaders. Journal ofPersonality and' Social Psychology, 41, 642-655.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 271-360.

Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers
to modes of adjudication. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 4, 295-3 10.

Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protege predictors
and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 410-423.










Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational
predictors of weight loss and weight-loss management. Journal ofPersonality and' Social
Psychology, 70,115-126.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan is a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida' s Warrington

College of Business. She earned her B.S. in psychology at the University of Florida. Her

research interests include organizational justice, personality, and motivation. Her work has been

published in the Academy of Management Journal and the Journal of Applied Psychology. She

will join the faculty at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the summer of 2008.





PAGE 1

MANAGERIAL MOTIVATION FOR JUSTIC E RULE ADHERENCE: USING SELFDETERMINATION THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK By CINDY P. ZAPATA-PHELAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan 2

PAGE 3

Id like to dedicate this dissert ation to my family. To my mother my best friend, Magaly Jerez, who always strived to give me the best in life even if it meant making personal sacrifices. You are, and have always been, an inspiration to me. To the memory of my father, Carlos Jerez, who always emphasized the importance of an education. I will always treasure all those late nights of algebra homework! Id also like to dedicate th is dissertation to my wonderful husband, Richard Phelan. Thank you for being patient as I followed my dreams, and fo r always believing in me, especially during the times I lost faith in myself. I love you! 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although this dissertation is my own, it would not have been possible were it not for the assistance of many along the way. I would like to acknowledge everyone that has helped me during my years at the University of Florida. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr. Jason A. Colquitt, for providing me with the t ools necessary to succeed. He has always been extremely generous with his time, providing bo th encouragement and guidance when I have needed it. His patience and support helped deve lop me into the scholar I am today. All around, he has been everything an advisor should be and more. I have high hopes that I will be able to emulate his mentorship, to benefit my future stud ents. For the role he has played in my academic development, I am eternally grateful. I am also thankful for having an exceptiona l doctoral committee and wish to thank Dr. Timothy A. Judge, Dr. Jeffrey A. LePine, and Dr. James Algina for their continual support and encouragement. Their feedback helped me significantly improve this dissertation. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................23 Self-Determination Theory .....................................................................................................23 Applying SDT to Managers Justice Rule Adherence ......................................................34 Moderators of Justi ce Motivation Effects .......................................................................43 Personality ..............................................................................................................................45 Personality and Motivation fo r Justice Rule Adherence .................................................51 Summary ..........................................................................................................................56 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................58 Sample and Procedures ...........................................................................................................58 Measures .................................................................................................................................60 Content Validation ..................................................................................................................65 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........73 Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................................73 Tests of Hypotheses ................................................................................................................74 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......92 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................99 Practical Implications ...........................................................................................................100 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................117 5

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1. Motivation types ....................................................................................................................20 3-1. Justice motivation items include d in the content validation study ........................................69 3-2. Comparison of alternative factor structur es for motivation for justice rule adherence .........70 4-1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations ..................................................................82 4-2. Comparison of various equa lity constraints for motivation justice linkages ....................85 4-3. Moderated regressions used to test hypotheses 5a-b .............................................................86 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Current state of the or ganizational justice literature ..............................................................21 1-2. Model of hypothesized relationships .....................................................................................22 3-1. Hinkin and Tracey (1999) ANOVA results for four-item scales used in dissertation hypothesis tests ..................................................................................................................71 4-1. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 1-4..........................................................88 4-2. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9..........................................................89 4-3. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 6-9..........................................................90 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy MANAGERIAL MOTIVATION FOR JUSTIC E RULE ADHERENCE: USING SELFDETERMINATION THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK By CINDY P. ZAPATA-PHELAN August 2008 Chair: Jason A. Colquitt Major: Business Administration Although research has shown that subordinate perceptions of the degree to which managers adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance in subordinate attitudes and behaviors, a ke y question remains unexplored: why do managers adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First, this dissertation uses self-deter mination theory to identify four different reasons why managers adhere to justice rules (intrinsic, identified, intr ojected, and external motivation). In other words, whereas some managers may genuinely want to a dhere to justice rules for its own sake, it is likely that other managers do so as a means to ot her ends. The second purpose of this dissertation was to identify managerial traits, taken from narrow facets of the Big Five, that predict managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. Managerial motives for justice rule adherence were then proposed as mediating mechanisms, explaining the relationship between managerial traits and subordinate pe rceptions of justice rule adherence. The moderating role of structural distance was also examined, given that managers who are more proximal to their subordinates will gain more frequent opportunities to adhere to justice rules. The results of this study suggest that managerial traits predict both managerial mo tivations for justice rule adherence, as well as subordinate perceptions of jus tice rule adherence. Unexpected ly, managerial motivations for 8

PAGE 9

justice rule adherence did not pred ict subordinate perceptions of ju stice rule adherence. It should also be noted that structural distance did not moderate these effects, though it did demonstrate main effects with subordinate percep tions of justice rule adherence. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Although interest in issues of justice dates back to Aristotle (Aristotle, 1759), organizational justice, a term coined by Greenberg (1987) to describe peoples perceptions of fairness in an organizational context, did not gain widespread intere st until the early 1960s. During the past fifty years, the organizational ju stice literature has gone through several changes (for a review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). One of the first influential contributions to the organizat ional justice litera ture came from Adams (1965). Adams (1965) developed equity theory, which suggests that indi viduals compare the rati o of their inputs, or what they bring to a job, and thei r outcomes, defined as what they receives in return, to the ratio of a referent other. Individuals experience overp ayment inequity if the referent other receives fewer outcomes relative to their inputs. Underpayme nt inequity is experienced if the referent other receives more outcomes relative to their inputs. The theory also outlines the processes that occur once an inequity is perceived. Using c ognitive dissonance as a framework (Festinger, 1957), Adams (1965) suggested that perceived inequities are cognitively taxing. To deal with the distress caused by inequity, one can alter ones inputs or outcomes, attempt to change the referent others inputs or outcomes, or wit hdraw from the situation depending on whether overpayment or underpayment is experienced. Up to this point, equity theory only consid ered the impact of di sproportionate outcomes. However, equity theory is now viewed as co mprising one part of a larger literature on distributive justice, which includes Leventhal s (1976) and Deutschs (1 975) articulations of the equity, equality, and need ru les. Distributive justice now refers to whether an appropriate allocation norm is utilized, and is commonly defined as the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Leventhal, 1976). Despite the evol ution of distributive 10

PAGE 11

justice issues, equity theory is not without cr iticism (for reviews, see Adams & Freedman, 1976; Greenberg, 1982; Mowday, 1979). In spite of its limitations, equ ity theory created e nough interest in justic e issues to move the literature in a new direc tion. Beginning in the 1970s, just ice researchers expanded their attention from reactions caused by inequity to a focus on the perceived fairness of decisionmaking processes used to determine outcomes. This new justice dimension was labeled procedural justice (Leventhal 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Thibaut and Walkers (1975) interest in procedural justice stemmed from research on fairness perceptions in the context of legal dispute resolutions. Their initial research focused on the distinct ion between adversarial systems, which separate procedures and outcomes, and inquisitorial systems, in which a judge controls both the process and outcome. Using a trial simulati on, Walker, LaTour, Lind, and Thibaut (1974) found that irrespective of the verdict, particip ants preferred trials using adversarial systems to those using inquisitorial procedures. These results are important because they demonstrated that the use of fair procedures could positively affect satisfaction with the procedure and verdict. This st ream of research led Thibaut and Walker to conceptualize procedural justice in terms of the degree of contro l a procedure affords, or more specifically, an optimal distribution of contro l (Thibaut & Walker, 1975, p. 2) In their subsequent work, Thibaut and Walker (1978) focused on two specific types of control: deci sion control, which is the degree to which one has control over the fina l outcome, and process control, defined as the degree to which one has control over the various procedures used to determine the final outcome. Although the work of Thibaut and Walker (197 8) focused on dispute resolution contexts, Leventhal (1980) argued that pro cedural justice concerns were also relevant to the reward allocation contexts commonly discussed in equity theory research. Leventhal (1980) outlined six 11

PAGE 12

specific procedural justice rules: consiste ncy, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicali ty. According to Leventhal (1 980), procedures should display consistency across time and indivi duals while also minimizing pers onal biases. Fair procedures should also reflect accurate, va lid information to minimize errors, and allow opportunities to change or even reverse decisions. Finally, proced ures should be both representative of the parties involved and consistent with the fundamental ethical values of the parties involved. Initial research involving pro cedural justice focused on distin guishing it from distributive justice. Some studies attempted to factor-analy tically distinguish procedural and distributive justice (Greenberg, 1986) while others focused on establishing distinct relationships between the two justice dimensions and various outcom es (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Tyler & Caine, 1981). As expect ed, several studies su pported procedural justice as a distinct construct. Moreover, some research suggested that procedural justice had significantly stronger effects on some outcome s than did distributive justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Tyler & Caine, 1981). While discussions of procedural justice alluded to issues of process fairness (e.g., Leventhal, 1980), justice scholars did not take interest in interpersonal is sues until Bies and Moags (1986) discussion of intera ctional justice, which they defi ned as the perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment. Similar to Leventhals (1980) approach with procedural justice, Bies and Moag (1986) identified four intera ctional justice rules: truthfulne ss, justification, propriety, and respect. Although the interactional justice terminology was seldom used initially, research did begin examining the various rules proposed by Bies and Moag (1986). One of the first studies to examine the justification component was conduc ted by Bies and Shapiro (1988). Their results demonstrated that justifications positive ly influenced fairness perceptions. 12

PAGE 13

Although these results imply that providing justifications is important, Bies and Shapiro (1988) embedded procedural justi ce within conceptualiz ation of interactiona l justice. Moorman (1991) was actually the first to empi rically separate interactional ju stice from procedural justice. In this study, Moorman (1991) examined the effect s of distributive, proce dural, and interactional justice on citizenship behaviors, defined as be haviors that are discre tionary, not directly recognized by the formal reward system, and that help promote the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). His re sults supported a relationship betw een interactional justice and four out of five dimensions of citizenship beha vior. Greenberg (1990), in turn, was the first to evaluate the effects of intera ctional justice on coun terproductive outcomes. Greenberg (1990) used three manufacturing plants initiating a te mporary pay cut to evaluate the effects of interactional justice on actual be havioral outcomes. In the adequate explanation condition, he manipulated the justification a nd respect rules by providing an adequate justification for the temporary pay cut. In the inadequate explana tion condition, employees were merely notified of the impending pay cut. The third condition consisted of a control group which did not receive a temporary pay cut. The plant assigned to th e inadequate explanation condition experienced significantly higher theft and tu rnover than any other condition. A few years later, Greenberg (1993a) suggested separating Bies and Moags (1986) interactional justice rules into two justice facets : interpersonal justice, which captures the respect and propriety rules, and informational justice, described as the truthfulness and justification components. Greenbergs (1993b) initial study su pported the separation of interpersonal and informational justice. In this study, undergraduates were asked to perform a clerical task for payment. Both interpersonal and informational ju stice were then independently manipulated. In the high interpersonal ju stice condition, participants were treated respectfully while the low 13

PAGE 14

interpersonal justice condition exposed participants to a disinterested experimenter. Informational justice was manipulated by either providing or omitting an explanation for the payment received. The results confirmed Gree nbergs (1993b) hypothesis; interpersonal and informational justice had unique effects on thef t. A more recent study by Colquitt (2001) provided additional evidence in the form of fact or analytic data supporting the separation of interactional justice, specifically demonstrating that th e four dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and info rmational) predicted different kinds of outcomes. As this overview has indicated, most field studies in the literat ure utilize subordinate perceptions of managers adherence to the various justice rules as the independent variable in the causal system, predicting a number of attitudinal and behavioral variables (for a review, see Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005). Recent meta -analyses have cemented the importance of the four justice dimensions in predicting various outcomes (CohenCharash & Spector, 2001; 2002; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001) For instance, Colquitt et al.s (2001) review demonstrated that most of the variance e xplained by the justice dime nsions in withdrawal was due to distributive justice, whereas pro cedural justice demonstrated the strongest relationships with task performance, job satisfaction, and organi zational commitment. Interpersonal and informational justice dimens ions also predicted key outcomes, such as citizenship behavior and negative reactions (Colquitt et al., 2001). Despite knowing that organizational justice does demonstrate significant effects on organizational outcomes, the last fifty years have left us with an important gap in the literature (Figure 1). To date, we know relatively little about why managers adhere to justice rules, as only a handful of justice scholars have begun to ex amine antecedents to subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence. Patient and Skarlicki (2005) recently echoed a similar sentiment, writing: 14

PAGE 15

Almost no research has explored fairness from the perspective of the transgressor By exploring why managers deliver bad news in ways that are likely to be regarded as insensitive and unfair, we focus on justice as a dependent variable. This line of inquiry is relatively underresearched (p. 152). One of the first studies to examine a pot ential justice antecedent was conducted by Korsgaard, Roberson, and Rymph (1998). These author s proposed that subordi nate behaviors, in the form of assertive communication, may act as effective influence tactics and result in increased justice rule adherence on behalf of the manager. In the first of two studies, undergraduates were asked to evaluate the perf ormance of another participant on a critical thinking skills test. In actuality, a confeder ate served as the participant and therefore performance was held constant across conditi ons. In the high assertiveness condition, the confederate responded to the participants performance feedback using an assertive predetermined script. In this c ondition, the confederat e spoke in a confident manner, maintained eye contact, listened attentively to the participant, and directly questioned the participants feedback. In the low assertiveness condition, confederates responded to the feedback received by making vague statements, indirectly disagreeing with the feedback, and failing to maintain both good eye contact and body posture. As expected, participants in th e high assertiveness condition were more likely to provide the confederates w ith procedural justice in the form of process control and decision control, and informational justice in the form of justifications for the feedback provided. Korsgaard et al. (1998) also conducted a second study using employees at a large retail firm. In this study, employees were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: assertive communication training, formal appraisal training, and informal appraisal training. 15

PAGE 16

Unfortunately the results from th is study did not demonstrate a si gnificant effect of assertiveness training on employees perceptions of organizational justice. Scott, Colquitt, and Zapata-Phelan (2007) chose a slightly different approach by focusing on the influence of subordinate characteristics ra ther than behaviors on ma nagerial justice rule adherence. They specifically examined the eff ects of subordinate char isma on perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice using a sample from a large national insurance company. Using an approach/avoidance framework, these au thors suggested that ch arismatic subordinates could actually increase positive sentiments and decrease negative sentiments felt by a manager, thus positively affecting interpersonal and info rmational justice. As expected, their results demonstrated that positive and negative sentim ents fully mediated the relationship between managerial perceptions of subor dinate charisma and subordinate perceptions of interpersonal justice. Unexpectedly, the results were not significant for informational justice, though managerial perceptions of s ubordinate charisma did predic t subordinate perceptions of procedural justice. In contrast to the subordinate approach taken by Korsgaard et al. (1998) and Scott et al. (2007), Masterson, Byrne, and Mao (2005) and Patie nt and Skarlicki (2005) were some of the first scholars to propose managerial-focused ch aracteristics as determin ants of justice rule adherence, with a specific fo cus on interactional justice. Ma sterson et al. (2005) suggested managerial empathy and managerial agreeableness as two characteristics that might influence interpersonal justice, in add ition to proposing subordinate char acteristics as antecedents of informational justice. Patient and Skarlicki (200 5) also proposed managerial empathy as an antecedent to interactional justice, in addition to managerial feelin gs of self-worth and level of 16

PAGE 17

moral development. Though no empirical work has them propositions, these propositions are an important first step in the developmen t of managerial justice antecedents. This dissertation takes a managerial focus to justice antecedents, similar to that of Masterson et al. (2005) and Patie nt and Skarlicki (2005). One purpos e of this dissertation is to identify different reasons why managers may be motivated to adhere to justice rules. Do managers treat subordinates fairly because they genuinely want to treat s ubordinates fairly, or do managers treat subordinates fairly merely to a void the negative consequences associated with treating subordinates unfairly? It is likely that some managers treat subordinates fairly because they want to while others treat subordinates fairly because they feel they have to or ought to I propose that managers may treat subordin ates fairly for different reasons. The theoretical grounding for this dissertations major predictions will be provided by selfdetermination theory (SDT). Self-determination th eory is a theory of mo tivation that focuses on motives that drive behavior re gulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The motives can be separated into two types, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, with extrinsic motivati on consisting of four subtypes (Table 1-1). The first form of extr insic motivation is external motivation, which suggests that behavior regulation occurs because of specific external contingencies, such as avoiding punishment or seeking rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Introjected motivation is more internalized than external motivation, though behavior is still con tingent on internal consequences. Identified motivati on suggests that the indi vidual has both acce pted and identifies with the behavior. Integrated motivation, though still a form of extrinsic motivation, suggests that an individual has not only id entified with the behavior, but has also integrated the behavior into ones self-concept. Intrinsic motivation suggests that behavior regulation is completely selfdetermined. In sum, SDT differentiates the content of goals or outcomes and the regulatory 17

PAGE 18

process through which the outcomes ar e pursued, making predictions for different contents and different processes. (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227, emphasis in original). A recent review by Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, and Judge (2003) stated that selfdetermination theory was flexible enough to expl ain several organizational processes, such as transformational leadership and goal commitment among others. Moreover, they suggested that their intent in discussing such a wide range of organizational phenomena is to demonstrate the potentially far-reaching applicab ility of SDT and thereby, hope fully, to stimulate additional theorizing and research in other domains (S heldon et al., 2003, p. 370). Though they did not suggest pairing self-determinati on theory with the ju stice literature, th e motives proposed by self-determination theory appropria tely describe potential motivati ons for justice rule adherence. For example, a manager may adhere to justice rule s for external reasons (e.g., Because I want to be rewarded), for introjected reasons (e.g., Becau se I dont want to feel guilty), for identified or integrated reasons (e.g., Because I see myself as a fair manager), or for intrinsic reasons (e.g., Because I truly enjoy being fair). The second purpose of this dissertation is to es tablish a set of managerial traits that may predict managerial motives for justice rule adhere nce, as self-determination theory suggests that individual factors influence behavi or regulation. One potentially fruitf ul avenue is that of the Big Five (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, 1981; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961). The Big Five is a five-factor framework consisting of the following traits: extraversion (including positive emotions and assertiveness), agreeablene ss (including compliance, straightforwardness, and altruism), conscientiousness (including dutiful ness, achievement orientation, and reliability), neuroticism (including anxiety and vulnerability), and openness to experience (including ideas and values) (Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). Though there is some disput e as to the nature of the 18

PAGE 19

narrow traits that make up the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldbe rg, 1990; Hofstee, de Raad, & Goldberg, 1992; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), the Big-Five framework is a well accepted model of personality stru cture (Fiske, 1994). Thus, I utilized th e Big Five framework to identify narrow managerial traits that might affect subordinate perceptions of justice rule adherence, with managerial motives for justice rule adherence act ing as the mediating mechanism. The sections that follow describe these propositions in greater detail. 19

PAGE 20

Table 1-1. Motivation types Regulation Type d d d Motivation Externa l Motivation Introjecte Motivation Identifie Motivation Integrate Motivation Intrinsic Definitio n ies nd unishments contingencies uch as guilt and pride ation nd recognition of the r f the behavior with ones inherent interest Behavior regulated by external ontingenc c such as rewards a p Behavior regulated by internal s Behavior regulated by ones appreci a behavior Behavio regulated by the integration o identity Behavior regulated by Least selfdeterm ined (controlled) utonomous) Example item: Why are you engaged in this activity? Because it would create hassles on the job Because I would feel ashamed of myself Because it is an essential goal to me Because it is part of who I am Because it is inherently satisfying Selfetermined d (a 20

PAGE 21

21 Subordinate Perceptions of Justice Rule Adherence:Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Subordinate Behaviors:Job Performance Withdrawal Citizenship Behavior Counterproductive Behavior Subordinate Attitudes:Outcome Satisfaction Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Perceived Organizational Support ?Managerial Characteristics Figure 1-1. Current state of the organizational justice literature.

PAGE 22

22 Introjected Motivation for rule adherence Procedural Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Dutifulness Anxiety External Motivation for rule adherence Intrinsic Motivation for rule adherence Identified Motivation for rule adherence Reliability Straightforwardness Altruism Ambition Structural Distance Figure 1-2. Model of hypothe sized relationships.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory is a meta-theory co mprised of four motivation theories (for reviews, see Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Gagn & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Sheldon et al., 2003): cognitive evaluati on theory, causality orientations theory, basic needs theory, and organismic integration theory. The first theory to develop was that of cognitive evaluation theory, which focuses on the undermining effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the inherent enjoyment or interest in that particular activity (Deci, 1975). The development of causality orientations theory took the focus away from extrinsic factors such as rewa rds, by suggesting that individual differences should also have an impact on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Relatedly, basic needs theory proposes that need satisfaction is essential for ones well being (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Organismic integration theory places le ss emphasis on intrinsic motivation, focusing instead on identifying various form s of extrinsic motivation, some of which can be beneficial (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The evolu tion of each of these theories has helped develop self-determination theory into the broad theory of motivation th at it is today. Thus, a clear understanding of self-determi nation theory requires an understa nding of the theories that comprise it. One of the first precursors to cognitive eval uation theory was the work conducted by de Charms (1968). De Charms (1968) sought to concentrate on motivation as the most proximal antecedent to causation, as it is our motivations, our intentions, that lead us to cause certain behaviors. He specifically suggested that ev en though one initiates a behavior, intentional causality could be separated into internal and external perceived locus of causality, derived from 23

PAGE 24

Heiders (1958) perceived locus of causality (PLOC) construct. De Charms (1968) also proposed that one experiences intrinsic motivation when on e is the primary causal agent for a particular behavior (internal perceived locus of causality) while extrinsic motivation is experienced when external events are the primary causes of beha vior (external perceived locus of causality). Consistent with what is now known as cognitive evaluation theory, de Charms (1968) proposed that a change in locus of causality from internal to external, such as that caused by the addition of an external reward, likely reduces intrin sic motivation. Deci and Ryans (1985a) cognitive evaluati on theory expanded on de Charms (1968) proposition by suggesting that ex trinsic rewards undermine intrin sic motivation because they undermine ones desire to be self-determining (i.e., autonomously choosing ones behavior) and competent. Initial research in this area focuse d on self-determination by examining the potential undermining effects of monetary rewards on in trinsic motivation (for reviews, see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Sp ecifically, rewards are thought to undermine self-determination because they are usually pe rceived as controlling (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Deci (1971) initially examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation using a sample of college students. In this study, Deci (1971) assigned partic ipants to one of two conditions, both of which included working on four timed intrinsically motivating puzzles. The participants in the experimental condition were paid $1 for each completed puzzle while the control group participants were not paid. To meas ure intrinsic motivation, Deci relied on what is now known as the free-choice met hod, meaning that subjects were observed during a free-choice period to determine whether they would choose to continue working on the puzzles despite the lack of an extrinsic reward. Intrinsic motivati on was inferred by the amount of time participants spent on the puzzles during the free-choice period. Over the c ourse of working on the four 24

PAGE 25

25 puzzles, the participants in the experimental condition experienced a decrease in intrinsic motivation relative to that of the control group, presumably due to a decrease in selfdetermination stemming from the monetary reward. Subsequent research attempted to establish a dditional extrinsic factors that, when present, decrease intrinsic motivation. Both Ross (1975) a nd Ross, Karniol, and Rothstein (1976) tested the effects of food rewards on intrinsic motivation. As expected, rewards in the form of food decreased intrinsic motivation for two different tasks. Lepper and Greene (1975) chose to reward preschool-aged participants w ith an opportunity to play wi th a fun toy. They found that rewarding participants with an opportunity to play had an undermining effect on intrinsic motivation to work on a puzzle. Lepper and Greene (1975) also examined an additional extrinsic factor, surveillance. Their results revealed that watching participants while they worked on a puzzle task decreased intrinsic motivation. Thes e results correspond with cognitive evaluation theory in that they suggest that intrinsic mo tivation is decreased when extrinsic factors are interpreted as controlling and undermining self-determination. Although several individual stud ies support the undermining e ffects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, meta-analyses have b een less than optimistic Cameron and Pierce (1994) conducted a meta-analysis on the relations hip between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. After examining 94 studies, they conc luded that our overall findings suggest that there is no detrimental effect of extrinsic re wards on intrinsic motivation (p. 394). A more recent meta-analysis was conducted by Eisenbe rger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999). They found that extrinsic rewards have differential effect s on motivation, depending on how the extrinsic reward is presented. Extrinsic rewards communicating task significance increase intrinsic motivation while rewards that trivialize the task d ecrease intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger et al.,

PAGE 26

26 1999). Even Deci and colleagues (1999) meta-analysis did not fully support cognitive evaluation theory. Their results suggest that while perfor mance contingent rewards negatively affected objective free-choice measures of intrinsic motiva tion (k =101), there was no undermining effect for self-report measures of intr insic motivation (k = 84) (Deci et al., 1999). Taken together, these meta-analyses suggest that while extrinsic rewards can theoretically undermine intrinsic motivation, it is an effect that does not necessa rily occur with great frequency in practice. A second proposition laid out by cognitive evaluati on theory is that extrinsic rewards that increase perceptions of competence will actu ally increase intrinsic motivation towards challenging tasks. For instance, Anderson, Manoogian, and Reznick (1976) examined the effects of positive feedback on intrinsic motivation us ing preschool-aged children. In addition to demonstrating that monetary rewards undermine in trinsic motivation, their results also showed an increase in intrinsic motivation when particip ants received verbal positive feedback. Metaanalytic results have reached similar conclusions, demonstrating that positive feedback is positively related to both object ive (e.g., free-choice observation) and subjective (e.g., selfreport) measures of intrinsi c motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Cognitive evaluation theorys focus on extrinsic or contextual factors was later counterbalanced by causality or ientations theorys emphasis on the motivational effects of individual differences. Although contextual fact ors affect motivation, Deci and Ryan (1985b) observed that different people se em to respond differently to the same events (p. 110). This observation led to causality orientations theory, which suggests that individual differ with respect to causality orientations, described as ones or ientation towards a particular type of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Deci and Ryan (1985b) proposed that causality orie ntations affect both the kinds of environments people seek out a nd the way people react to different kinds of

PAGE 27

environments (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Three individual differences (i.e., causality orientations) have been associated with this theory: autonom y orientation, control or ientation, and impersonal orientation. Individuals high on autonomy or ientation, previously termed internal orientation (Deci, 1980), tend to experience the environment in ways conducive to self-deter mination (i.e., internal locus of causality). These individuals are also in clined to seek out situations that allow for genuine choice, and generally perceive situatio ns as encouraging choice. Conversely, control oriented individuals are likely to prefer situations that dictate appropriate behavior. Thus, these individuals tend to use situat ional constraints as motivat ors (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Unlike autonomy oriented individuals, t hose high on control orientation experience the environment as controlling, offering limited choices (i.e., extern al locus of causality). Individuals high on impersonal orientation tend to experience the envir onment as so controlling that behavior occurs irrespective of the indi viduals intentions. An individual with an impersonal orientation experiences trouble coping with contingencies, along with a general tendency towards perceived incompetence. Impersonal orienta tion likely results in amotivati on, which refers to a lack of behavioral intentions (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Deci & Ryan, 2000). When an individual experiences amotivation, behavior either does not occur at all, or it occurs unint entionally (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Although causality orientations theory doe s not specifically outline other individual differences, there are clearly some traits that are similar to the causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). For example, self-esteem or self-appraisal, are somewhat similar to autonomy orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Self-consciousness, which refers to an individuals tendency to attend to either private aspect s of the self (private self-consciousness) or public aspects of the 27

PAGE 28

self (public self-consciousness), shares some similariti es with control orie ntation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Locus of control, whic h is the tendency to believe that outcomes are determined either by external forces (external locus of control) or internal forces (internal locus of control), is fairly similar to impersonal orientation, particularly external locus of control (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Previous research has suppor ted these assertions, demonstrating that self-esteem, locus of contro l, and public and privat e self-consciousness are significantly related to the various causality orient ations (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Unlike causality orientations theorys focu s on individual differences, the basic needs theory posits that all individuals ha ve three basic needs, defined as innate psychological nutriments that are essentia l for ongoing psychological grow th, integrity, and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 229, emphasis in original). The three needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). The need for autonomy refers to feeling in control of one s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Autonomy does not refer to total freedom or independence, but rather it refers to fe eling connected to ones actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Sheldon et al. (2003) describe autonomy as felt volition (p. 366). The need for competence s uggests that people want to feel effective and capable. According to Ryan and Deci (2002), th e need for competence guides people towards greater challenges in an attempt to learn new skills Relatedness refers to th e desire to experience a sense of belonging, both socially (e.g., with th e community at large) and interpersonally (e.g., with other people) (Deci & Ry an, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2002). According to basic needs theory, the satisfa ction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness positively affects ones well-bei ng (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Previous research has been consistent with this pr oposition (e.g Ilardi, Leone, Kasse r, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser & Ryan, 28

PAGE 29

1999). Two of the self-determination theories cognitive evaluation theory and causality orientations theory, offer potential antecedents to need satisfaction. C ognitive evaluation theory focuses on contextual factors as antecedents of need satisfaction. For example, positive feedback may increase perceptions of ones abilities, help ing to fulfill ones need for competence (Deci & Moller, 2005). In contrast, causa lity orientations theory empha sizes the effects of individual differences on intrinsic motivation, which in turn affects need satisfaction (for a review, see Sheldon et al., 2003). For instance, an autonomy orie ntation is predicted to increase resiliency towards controlling situations, thus increasi ng the likelihood of satisfying ones need for autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Between cognitive evaluation theory and causal ity orientations theory, the latter has received significantly less attention in the se lf-determination literatur e (Sheldon et al., 2003). Despite the comparative popularity of cognitive ev aluation theory, an often discussed limitation is that it only applies to inherently interesting tasks. In other words, cognitive evaluation theory is silent on boring tasks, as evidenced by the inclusion criteria used in De ci et al.s (1999) metaanalysis. Because the field of research being evaluated concerns rewa rd effects on people's intrinsic motivation for interesting activities, we included in the primary meta-analyses only studies, or conditions within studies, in which the interest value of the target tasks was at least neutral. (p. 635). This issue makes it particularly difficult to apply cogni tive evaluation theory to the workplace, as many jobs involve at least some mundane tasks. Organismic integration theory is an attemp t to resolve cognitive evaluation theorys emphasis on interesting tasks by suggesting that th ere are several forms of extrinsic motivation (Table 1). Organismic integration theory begins with the assumption that as humans, we have a desire to grow and internaliz e our behaviors with our sense of selves (Deci & Ryan, 2002). 29

PAGE 30

Internalization, which refers to the process through which an i ndividual acquires an attitude, belief, or behavioral regulation and progressively transforms it in to a personal value, goal, or organization is viewed as a continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, p. 130). The more internalized a behavior becomes, the more likely the behavior occurs autonomously (i.e., in a self-determined fashion). Using the concept of internalization, Deci and Ryan (1985a) proposed a taxonomy of extrinsic motivation, ranging from no self-determination to complete self-determination. In other words, extrinsic motivation can range from cont rolled to autonomous. In fact, Deci and Ryan (1985a) borrow from the developmental psychology literature to suggest that behaviors can increase in internalization over time. However, organismic integr ation theory was not meant as a stage theory, meaning that people do not neces sarily move through the types of extrinsic motivation, eventually reaching the most integr ated forms of motivation (Gagn & Deci, 2005). In terms of work behaviors, the key component of self-determination theory is the assertion that behaviors that are not in trinsically motivating can still be internalized. The least internalized of the four forms of extrinsic motivation is external motivation This type of motivation is equivalent to that referenced by operant conditioning theory (Skinner, 1953). When individuals experien ce external motivation, their behavior is controlled or motivated by external contingencies (e.g., Becaus e of the various fringe benefits this job provides) (Gagn et al., 2006). In order to expe rience external motivation, one has to anticipate the potential consequences associated with a pa rticular behavior. Thus, when behavior is externally motivated, it likely occurs in an attempt to either avoid consequences (e.g., punishment) or attain consequences (e.g., prai se) (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Because externally motivated behavior is guided by ex ternal contingencies, the withdraw al of contingencies is likely to eliminate the behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). 30

PAGE 31

Introjected motivation suggests that extern al contingencies have been somewhat internalized, and it is those inte rnalized contingencie s that guide behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). In other words, consequences are administered inte rnally rather than externally, yet the internal contingencies regulating behavior are not integrated into ones se nse of self. When motivation is introjected, external contingenc ies are no longer needed to co ntinue the behavior. Instead, individuals are motivated to engage in behaviors due to internal contingencies, such as avoiding feelings of guilt or shame or enhancing fee lings of self-worth (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). An individual engaged in a behavior for introjecte d reasons may report doing so because I will feel bad about myself if I dont (Ryan & Connell, 1989, p. 752). However, introjected motivation is still not self-determined because contingencies, albeit internal, still regulate behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Identified motivation is experienced when behavior is consciously seen as important or valuable. When experiencing identified motivat ion, people identify with the behavior, though they still recognize the instrument ality of the behavior for achievi ng personal goals. According to Deci and Ryan (2002), this type of extrinsi c motivation is somewhat autonomous. Thus, identification suggests that behaviors occur be cause the individual pers onally supports them (e.g., Because I think this activity is good for me) (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000, p. 184). It is possible that identif ied motivations are not complete ly integrated into the self. However, identified motivations are clearly more self-determine d than either introjected or external motivation. Integrated motivation occurs when one identifies comple tely with the behavior. In other words, every aspect of ones sense of self is c ongruent with the behavior. This type of motivation is the most self-determined form of extrinsi c motivation, and is consistent with complete 31

PAGE 32

internalization. Although one wholly identifies with behavior, it is st ill instrumental and therefore not intrinsically regul ated. When compared with iden tified motivation, the distinction between the two types of motiv ation becomes blurred, both th eoretically and empirically. Conceptually, both integrated and identified motivation are described as autonomous, with identified being relatively autonomous (Ga gn & Deci, 2005, p. 335) and identified being completely autonomous. Also, both motivations are described as integrated with ones sense of self, though identified motivation ca n still be compartmentalized to only certain aspects of ones self. Empirical research has also tended to focu s on one versus the other. For instance, Ryan and Connell (1989) examined external, introjected, identification, and intrinsic motives, without mention of integrated motivation (see also Guay et al., 2000). Even some reviews choose to discuss identified and omit integrated motiv ation (e.g., Sheldon et al., 2003). Moreover, integrated motivation also shares some conceptual similarities with intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2002), making it difficult to tease them apart. Due to the ambiguity regarding integrated motivation, this dissertation omits it entirely. The motivational distinctions described by self -determination theory can be seen in other literatures as well (for review s, see Gagn & Deci, 2005; Sheldon et al., 2003). For instance, Kohlbergs (1969) cognitive moral developmen t theory mirrors the extrinsic motivation continuum in self-determination theory. The first stage of moral development suggests that moral behavior occurs because of a concern or fear of punishment. Stage two suggests that the benefits received from others motivate moral behavior. The descriptions for stage one and two mirror that of extrinsic motivation. The third stage resembles introjected motivation, in that moral behavior is based on others expectations Recall that introjected motivation suggests that avoiding feelings of guilt drive behavior. Thus, an individual in the third stage of moral development 32

PAGE 33

might be moral to avoid letti ng others down. The highest stages of moral development suggest that moral behavior is based on ones mora l principles. These behaviors occur more autonomously, similar to identified motivation. There are also similarities be tween self-determination theorys motivational distinctions and the three organizational commitment compon ents, namely continuance, normative, and affective (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Organizationa l commitment is typically defined as a psychological state that decrease s the likelihood that employees will turnover (i.e. leave the organization). When the costs of leaving are too high, individuals are likely to experience continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). These individuals are less likely to turnover because they feel they have to stay with the organization. C ontinuance commitment resembles external motivation in that both suggest behavi ors are motivated by external constraints. A subsequent addition to the framework was norma tive commitment, defined as felt obligation or responsibility to stay (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Th ese individuals are less likely to turnover because they feel they ought to stay. Normative commitment can be thought of as a type of introjected motivation, because staying with a co mpany is viewed as a means of avoiding guilt. When an individual is emotiona lly attached to an organizatio n, they are said to experience affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Indivi duals that are affectively commitment to the organization remain at the organization b ecause of a true desire to do so (e.g., I want to stay), resembling intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory can even be comp ared to the literatur e on power. In this literature, scholars usually distinguish between different motivational processes for accepting influence, namely internaliza tion, identification and complian ce (Kelman, 1958). Internalization resembles intrinsic motivation in that behavioral changes occur due to intrinsic interest. 33

PAGE 34

Identification is similar to identified motivation in that although one identi fies with the behavior, the behavior is still instrumental. The process of identification suggests accepting influence due to a desire to maintain a relationship, though th e individual does iden tify with the behavior. Compliance suggests that behavioral or attitudina l changes occur because of an expectation for reward, or to simply avoid ne gative consequences associat ed with noncompliance (Kelman, 1961). It is therefore simila r to extrinsic motivation. Applying SDT to Managers Justice Rule Adherence The applicability of self-determination theory is substantial. In edu cational research, selfdetermination research has focused on evalua ting the effectiveness of various learning environments (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Sports activ ities also provide a nice context to study intrinsic motivation, as people normally play spor ts to have fun. Self-determination theory has also been applied to the workplace, with some research focusing on the effects of contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a ). However, few studies examine the four types of extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Instead, some scholars choose to examine only a few of the extrinsic motivations (e.g., Koeste r, Losier, Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996; Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993). Others lump them together in to an autonomy cont inuum (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1987) and some contrast autonomy and controlled motivations (e.g., Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). The motivational distinctions proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000) in self-determination theory offer a good framework for evaluating why managers adhere to justice rules. This dissertation proposes that managers may have different motivations for adhering to justice rules, with the type of motivation e xperienced affecting employees perceptions of justice rule adherence. Although the amount of motivation may not differ depending on the type of motivation experienced, self-determination theory suggests that the quality of functioning will 34

PAGE 35

(Deci & Ryan, 2000). In other words, the processes through which motivations are acted up vary depending on how internalized the motivation is, with intrinsic motivation capturing the strongest degree of internalization. A look at the broader literature of work motiv ation can help explain the importance of selfdetermination theorys motivation types. Work motivation describes three primary motivational outcomes: direction, intensity, and persistence (Kanfer, 1990). The direction of behavior indicates ones behavioral choices. This outcome is applicable when there are mutually exclusive options, such as deciding whether to work or not to work. Intensity refers to how much effort is exerted towards the behavioral choice (Kanfer, 1990) Task effort is a frequently used measures of intensity (Kanfer, 1990). Persistence suggests the maintenance of the behavioral choice over time (Kanfer, 1990). The upcomi ng passages suggest that the frequency of effort (i.e., intensity) and persistence of effort directed towards justice rule adherence depends on the motivation type experienced This dissertation will refer to frequency of effort rather than intensity, as frequency of effort more clearly captures intensity as it is likely to operate when attempting to adhere to justice rules. My general prediction is that, although both intrinsic a nd extrinsic motivations should equally affect direction of effort, the frequency of effort and persistence of effort should decline as motivations become less self-determined. Intrinsic motivation is an exemplar of self -determined motivation (Deci, 1975). According to Deci and Ryan (1985a), intrin sic motivation is based on an inhe rent interest in a task or activity. Thus, intrinsically motivated individuals are likely to behave in accordance with their interests by exerting effort directed towards th e intrinsically motivating task (Ryan & Connell, 1989). If intrinsic motivation is indeed marked by stronger intensity of effort, it follows that managers with an intrinsic motivation for fair treatment will create opportunities to adhere to 35

PAGE 36

justice rules. For example, a manager might go out of his or her way to gather employees opinions, thereby fulfilling Leventhals (1980) representative rule for procedural justice. Alternatively, a manager might go out of his or her way to provide explanations to employees, thereby fulfilling Bies and Moags (1986) justification rule. In this case, the manager is doing those things simply because he or she enjoys doing them. Frequency of effort is also relevant for intr insic motivation, as it implies an intensity of task directed attention. This is demonstrated by the fact that intrinsica lly motivated individuals create situations that are congruent with th eir interests (Deci & Ry an, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Moreover, intrinsically mo tivated behaviors occur naturally, almost instinctively (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The inherent interest associated with intrinsic motivation should make it easier to focus attention towards intrinsically motivating ta sks, as tasks that are intrinsically motivating should be more resistant to distractions (Beal, Weiss, Barr os, & MacDermid, 2005). Increased focus of attention is beneficial to performance, as performance tends to decline as attention is focused away from the task at hand (Beal et al., 2005; Kahneman, 1973). In sum, intrinsic motivation should positively affect justice rule a dherence to the extent that intrinsic motivation allows for a greater fr equency of effort. In addition, intrinsically motivat ed individuals demons trate task persistence, as evidenced by the popular free-choice measure of intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The protocol for measuring intrinsic motivati on in this manner typical ly consists of the experimenter leaving the room for a valid reas on to create the free-c hoice period. During this time, the participants are unaware they are being watched, and ha ve other activities to work on. Whether or not participants return to the task at hand during this time is used as a measure of intrinsic motivation. Free-choice measures not only capture direction of e ffort, but also how long 36

PAGE 37

participants spend on the task, which is a clear op erationalization of persistence of effort (for a review, see Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Thus I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1 : Intrinsic motivation is positively relate d to interpersonal, informational, and procedural justice. The mechanisms explaining the effects of iden tified motivation on behaviors are similar to those of intrinsic motivation, gi ven that identified motivation sh ares some similarities with intrinsic motivation. According to Deci and Ryan (1985a), autonom ous motivation (e.g., identified and intrinsic) produces greater initia tive than controlled motivation. Individuals that are motivated for identified reasons believe in the importance and value of the behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Thus, managers who experience iden tified motivation for justice rule adherence are likely to demonstrate initiati ve by seeking and taking advantage of opportunities that arise, as doing so allows them to behave in accordance with their values. In fact, Greenberg (1988) suggested that others beliefs in ones fairness may help reinforce ones identity (p. 157). Managers experiencing a genuine concern for employees should find it easy to continually suppress their own biases when making decisi ons. Moreover, these individuals should also adhere to the ethicality rule of procedural justice, which suggests that procedures used should be compatible with ones moral and ethical va lues (Leventhal, 1980). Similarly, identified motivation should also make it easier for managers to adhere to informa tional justice rules. A manager that believes in the value of being ope n and honest with their employees is likely to do so, thereby fulfilling Bies and Moag s (1986) truthfulness dimension. Identified motivation should not only affect the direction of effort, but it should affect the frequency of effort exerted towards the task at hand. Individuals that experience identified motivation identify with the impor tance of the task at hand, which, according to Beal et al. (2005), should make it easier for the individual to focus attent ion towards the task. However, 37

PAGE 38

identified motivation is a form of extrinsic motivation, which suggests that the behavior is considered instrumental. The instrumentality asso ciated with identified motivation should result in less frequent effort when compared to intrinsic motivation. Specifically, the instrumentality associated with identified is a potential distract ion which intrinsic motivation lacks. According to Beal et al. (2005), off-task distr actions are detrimental to performa nce, irrespective of the source. In addition, the fact that identi fied motivation is only somewhat internalized could also pose distractions, subsequently affecting effort frequency. Identified motivation is also proposed to affect persistence of effort (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Because behavior is autonomously chosen and consistent with ones internal values, individuals should find it easier to sustain e ffort levels than more controll ed motivations (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). The importance of autonomously engaging in a task is evidenced by previous research demonstrating more persistence of effort than that demonstrated by more controlled forms of motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Williams et al., 1996). However, identified motivation should lead to a weaker persistence of effo rt than intrinsic motivation. Although intrinsic motivation and identified motivation are simila r in terms of self-determination, intrinsic motivation suggests an inherent interest and enjoyment in the task at hand, which identified motivation lacks (Deci & Ryan, 1985a ). The importance of task enjoyment on persistence cannot be overstated, as intrinsically motivating tasks should have a rela tive advantage over less intrinsically motivating tasks in terms of combating distraction a nd cognitive interference (Beal et al., 2005: p. 1059). With respect to justice rule adherence, id entified motivation will likely demonstrate weaker relationships than that of intrinsic motivation. Thus, I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 : Identified motivation is positively relate d to interpersonal, informational, and procedural justice, albeit more weakly than that of intrinsic motivation. 38

PAGE 39

Introjected motivation is a more controlled fo rm of motivation than either identified or intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The difference between introjected motivation and more autonomous forms of motiv ation is that introjected motivation consists of internal contingencies guiding ones behavior. Some of the exemplars of introjected motivation discussed by Deci and Ryan (1985a) are concerns about the approval of others and the avoidance of negative feelings such as guilt and shame In terms of justice rule adherence, it is likely that some managers are motivated to adhere to justice rules in order to avoid experiencing negative feelings. For instance, refraining from deceit (i.e ., informational justice) should prevent feelings of guilt that might occur if a manager is in fact deceitful. Attempting to suppress biases by abandoning personal self-interests (Leventhal, 19 80) is one way to avoid feeling badly about oneself. Similarly, adhering to Bies and Moags (1986) propriety rule should specifically prevent feelings of shame (Kelman, 1973). Introjected motivation should also affect the frequency of effort exerted. Although introjected motivation is not as autonomous as intrinsic or identified, partial internalization has occurred. In fact, research has demonstrated that introjected motivation is positively correlated with effort intensity, albeit not as strongly as identified motivati on (Ryan & Connell, 1989). However, there are some potentially negative consequences associated with introjected motivation. Some scholars have speculated that managers may distance themselves from employees to avoid criticism (Cameron, Freeman, & Mishra, 1993). If a manager is motivated by the approval of others, as introj ected motivation implies, he or she might be likely to refrain from adhering to justice rules in an effort to main tain feelings of self-worth. For example, an introjectedly motivated manage r might provide fewer explanations (i.e., low levels of informational justice) when discussing a ne gative performance evaluation than a more 39

PAGE 40

autonomously motivated manager. According to Folger and Skarlicki (1998), some managers distance themselves from employees as a wa y of avoiding blame in layoff situations. The nature of introjected motivation is su ch that behavioral persistence might be hampered, as introjected motivation involves ma naging conflicting impulses such as should I refrain from a behavior, or s hould I not refrain from a behavi or (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, p. 136). In fact, Deci and Ryan (1985a) have likened introjec ted motivation to self-control, as the individual is internally administering positive or negative sanctions. According to Muraven and Baumeister (2000, p. 247) exerting self-control may consume se lf-control strength, re ducing the amount of strength available for subsequent self-control. This logic suggests that the contro lled nature of introjected motivation may make it difficult to main tain high levels of effort levels. Research contrasting autonomous and controll ed motivation has in fact demons trated that effort is less persistent when motivated is more controlled (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Thus, introjected motivation still leads to effort directed towards the focal behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1987), albeit less consistently than that of more autonomous form s of motivation. Thus, I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3 : Introjected motivation is positively relate d to interpersonal, informational, and procedural justice, albeit more weakly than that of intrinsic and identified motivations. Externally motivated behaviors, the least au tonomous form of extrinsic motivation, occur due to external contingencies (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Some of the exemplar contingencies discussed by Deci and Ryan (1985a) are the a voidance of punishment or the attainment of positive outcomes. In terms of justice rule adherence, Greenberg and Cohen (1982) have speculated that some justice behaviors may occur for instrumental reasons. For example, some managers may adhere to justice rules to avoid negative consequences. In terms of informational justice, managers might offer excuses (i.e., high levels of informational justice) as a way of 40

PAGE 41

preventing conflicts between him/herself and empl oyees. Abiding by the procedural justice rule of ethicality is also a potential means of avoidi ng negative consequences. Justice rule adherence is also associated with beneficial outcomes (f or a review, see Colqu itt et al., 2001), and thus some managers might adhere to justice rules to reap certain rewards. For instance, treating employees with sincerity and respect, as indicate d by high interpersonal justice, is associated with beneficial outcomes such as trust (Colquitt et al., 2001). Thus, motivation to adhere to justice rules, albeit for external reasons, should positively affect effort directed towards the focal behavior. External motivation should result in weaker fr equency of effort than introjected motivation because no internalization of the external contingencies has occurr ed (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Still, Ryan and Deci (2006) suggest that external c ontingencies can be power ful with respect to controlling or eliciting behavior. Externally motivated beha viors are still motivated, and therefore should lead to the focal behavior despite being based on ex ternal contingencies. In fact, behavioral theories are based on the premise that re inforcers, such as extrinsic rewards, actually enhance performance (Skinner, 1953). However, it is likely that effort intensity is weakest with respect to external motivation, as individuals are likely to do the minimum required to achieve the desired outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2006). In fact, external motivation dem onstrates some of the most inconsistent relationships with effort intensity, as compar ed to other forms of motivation (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Moreover, it is possible that external motivation may have unintended negative effects on justice rule adherence. For instan ce, Patient and Skarli cki (2005) suggested that one of the reasons managers fail to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules is the avoidance of litigation, a type of external motivation. 41

PAGE 42

Persistence of effort might also suffer when managers are externally motivated. According to Ryan and Deci (2006), this negative consequen ce should be attributed to the lack of selfdetermination inherent with external motivation, as controlled motivations are inherently less reliable than autonomous motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). However, a more specific reason may lie in the contingencies re lated to external motivation. As defined by Deci and Ryan (1985a), external motivation includes the mo tivating potential of avoiding negative consequences, which more autonomous motivations l ack. It is possible that the avoidance aspect of external motivation is detrimental to effort persistence. Previous research has demonstrated that individuals focused on avoi ding potential losses were less likely to demonstrate task persistence than those focusing on potential gains (Crowe & Higgi ns, 1997). Moreover, external motivation has been shown to have weaker effect s than intrinsic motivation on the persistence of efforta key predictor of performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vallerand, 1997). Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4 : External motivation is positively relate d to interpersonal, informational, and procedural justice, albeit weaker than that of introjected motivation. All of the above hypotheses have notably omitted distributive justice, which was previously defined as the pe rceived fairness of decision outcomes (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961). The nature of distributive ju stice lessens the potential impact of motivations on adherence to distributive justice rules, for two primary reasons. First, di stributive justice issues come up less frequently, as issues pertaini ng to distributive justi ce become relevant primarily in resource allocation contexts only (Adams, 1965). In fact, Bies (2005) has noted that distributive justice issues are typically explored in exchange contexts such as sp ecific organizational decisions or resource allocations, while other forms of jus tice are more relevant in everyday encounters between employees and managers. Second, managers normally have less control over 42

PAGE 43

distributive justice than other justice dimensions, as distributive justice is more structural in nature. The characteristics of res ource allocation contexts tend to constrain a managers ability to influence outcome allocations (Sheppard, Lewick i, & Minton, 1992). For example, contractual agreements may stipulate pay increases as a certai n percentage of current income, irrespective of performance. Therefore, motivations for justice rule adherence are not hypothesized to predict distributive justice. However, this dissertation will still include a measure of distributive justice for use as a control variable. Moderators of Justic e Motivation Effects The previous section built a case for the effect s of motivation on adherence to justice rules. However, it is well known that behavior is not so lely a function of motivation. Rather, behavior is a function of both motivati on and situational f actors (e.g., Campbell, 1990). An important situational factor a ffecting behavior is opportunity (e.g., Campbell, 1990). If managers are given the opportunity to adhere to ju stice rules, then mo tivation should be a strong predictor of behavior. However, if opportunities are lacking, the relationship between motivation and justice rule adherence should be weaker. Therefore, it is likely that the relationships hypothesized for motivation and justice rule adhe rence are moderated by a managers opportunity to adhere to justice rules. One potential indicator of interaction opportunity is structural distance (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Napier and Ferris (1993) co nceptualization of st ructural distance includes two indicators (opportunity to interact and spatial distance) that capture dyadic interaction between a leader and his or her followers, with each indicator capturing a slightly different aspect of the interaction. Opportunity to interact encompasses a managers ove rall accessibility, as we ll as the potential for social contact both at work and outside of work (Napier & Ferris, 1993). Spatial distance, sometimes discussed as physical proximity (e.g., Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984; 43

PAGE 44

Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005) refers to task interaction opportunities between a manager and his or he r employees (Napier & Ferris, 1993). These dimensions of structural dist ance indirectly reflect the potential for interaction between a manager and his or her employees. Therefore, this dissertation will focus on the construct of structural distance. Several leadership scholars have suggested that structural distance creates fewer interaction opportunities between managers and employees (Bass, 1990; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Howell et al., 2005). Consequently, fewer inte raction opportunities can negatively affect interaction quality between a manager and his or her employees. For example, structural distance is thought to negatively a ffect communication (for a review, see Bass, 1990), as some qualitative research suggests that frequency of communication decreases as structural distance between employees increases (Gullahorn, 1952). In addition, structural distance may hinder a managers ability to provide timely feedback (Howell et al., 2005). Some scholars even suggest that structural di stance may neutralize the effects of leader behaviors, in effect making lead ership irrelevant (Kerr & Jermie r, 1978). Conversely, structural proximity provides ample interaction opportunities which affects a managers influence (Bass, 1990). In essence, structural distance acts as a modera tor of leadership behaviors. Structural distance is relevant to motivation for justice rule adherence because it becomes more practical to adhere to justice rules when structural distance is low. In ot her words, structural proximity should make it easier for managers to act on th eir motivations. According to Leventhal (1980), one method of adhering to the accuracy rule of pr ocedural justice is k eeping detailed, accurate records of pertinent information. Informal sorts of record-keeping are more difficult to do in high distance situations, so th e effects of being motivated to adhe re to procedural justice should be 44

PAGE 45

neutralized in such settings. In order to adhere to the repres entativeness rule, employees basic concerns and values should be taken into cons ideration (Leventhal, 1980). It becomes easier to adhere to the representativeness rule when struct ural distance is low, as the effects of being motivated should be maximized in these situat ions. Adhering to Bies and Moags (1986) justification rule becomes easier if opportunities to give explanations increase. Thus, the positive effects of motivation should be maximized when these opportunitie s are present (i.e., in low distance situations). Stru ctural distance should also affect th e timeliness of explanations (i.e., informational justice), as structural distance should make it more difficult to provide timely explanations. In other words, th e constraints associated with st ructural distance should neutralize the beneficial effects of motivation on informational justice. In sum, structural distance should maximize the effects of motiva tion on justice rule adherence. This prediction will be tested using Napier and Fe rris (1993) structural distance indicators. Hypothesis 5a : Opportunity to interact moderates the relationship between the motivation types and justice perceptions, such that the relationships become str onger as opportunity to interact increases. Hypothesis 5b : Spatial distance moderates the relationship between the motivation types and justice perceptions, such that th e relationships become stronger as spatial distance decreases. Personality The secondary purpose of this disse rtation is to establ ish a set of managerial traits that may predict managerial motivation for justice rule ad herence. According to self-determination theory, individual differences are important to th e study of motivation (R yan & Deci, 2006). Selfdetermination theory specifically suggests that individual differences in causality orientations affect ones tendency to experien ce certain types of motivation acr oss different situations (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Although causality orientations have been examined in the self-determination literature, they are seldom discussed in the person ality literature. An evaluation of the personality 45

PAGE 46

literature might provide traits that specifically impact motivation for justice rule adherence. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on personality traits taken from the personality literature rather than self-determination theory. The search for identifiable personality charac teristics dates back over a century (for a review, see John & Srivastava, 1999 ). Sir Francis Galton (1884) wa s one of the first scholars to suggest a revolutionary guide for the study of pe rsonality: the lexical hypothesis. The lexical hypothesis suggests that the most important, most relevant pe rsonality characteristics are encoded in language. One of the first landmark pers onality studies asked 1 300 raters to analyze a set of 60 adjectives (Thurstone, 1934). Thurstone (1934) asked the raters to think of one person and identify each adjective they might use to de scribe this particular individual. Using these ratings, Thurstone (1934) concluded that all si xty adjectives could be accounted for by five independent factors, an uncanny foreshadowing of current personality theory. Around the same time, Allport and Odbert (1936) expanded on the lexical hypothesis to compile their list of adjectives. Using an unabridged En glish dictionary, Allport and O dbert (1936) compiled a list of almost 18,000 personality relevant words. Although the sheer size of the list was overwhelming, Allport and Odbert (1936) iden tified personality traits, temp oral states, and behavioral descriptors as three categories rele vant to personality. However, th ese categories offered little in terms of an organizing framework. Cattell (1943) was the first scho lar to use Allport and Odberts (1936) adjectiv e list in an attempt to assemble a personality framework. Because Allport and Odberts (1936) adjective list was clearly too unwieldy, Cattell (1943) focuse d on less than 25 percent of the list. Using his knowledge of personality along with various clus tering procedures, Cattell (1943) reduced the list of terms to 35 clusters. In subsequent analyses, Cattell (1945) condensed that list even 46

PAGE 47

further, proposing 12 personality factors. Cattells (1943, 1945) work was impactful because it stimulated additional research in the area of personality. In fact, several scholars have reexamined Cattells (1945) factor structure. One of the most impactful works was that of Fiske (1949). Using a shortened versi on of Cattells (1947) pers onality scale, Fiske (1949) demonstrated that five factors fi t the data best. Fiskes (1949) resu lts were in sharp contrast to Cattells (1945) 12 factors. Tupes and Christal (1961) set out to resolve the inconsiste ncies between the works of Cattell and Fiske by re-analyzing Cattell (1947) a nd Fiskes (1949) correlation matrices. A total of eight correlation matrices were analyzed, with all analyses suggesti ng five relatively strong and recurrent factors and nothing more of any consequence (Tupes & Christal, 1961, p. 14). Although Tupes and Christal (1961) suggested five factors, some scholars were still troubled by the disparity between analyses using the same data This disparity led to additional studies, such as that of Norman (1963). Using Cattells (1947 ) adjective descriptors, Normans (1963) data collection resulted in five f actors, the same as that of Tupes and Christal (1961). However, unlike Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963) offered names for the five factors: extroversion or surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture. The descriptors used for the extroversion factor consis ted of talkative, adventurous, sociable, and frank, while agreeableness was de scribed by the terms good-natured, not jealous, mild, and cooperative. The descriptors used for conscientiousness were tidy, responsible, scrupulous, and persevering, while emotional stability was described by the terms poised, calm, composed, and not hypochondriacal. Finally, culture c onsisted of the followi ng terms: artistically sensitive, intellectual, refine d, and imaginative. Although there has been some disagreement on 47

PAGE 48

the exact nature of these five factors (e .g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990), they eventually became known as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1981). Normans continued skepticism compelled him to derive a new list of adjectives, essentially leading him to update Allport and Odberts (1936) work. Normans (1967) adjective list was eventually culled down to 75 categories. Although Norman did little with his new adjective list, it was ev entually utilized by a scholar name d Goldberg. Goldberg (1990) used Normans (1967) adjective list, in addition to his own, in an attempt to demonstrate the generality of the Big-Five representation within sets of trait terms that are far more representative of the total English trait lexicon than were those included in any pr evious study (Goldberg, 1990, p. 1217). To achieve this goal, Goldberg (1 990) conducted several studies, all of which yielded some variation on the Big Five tra its. As noted by several scholars (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1985), Goldbergs (1990) f actor structure was remarkably similar to that of Tupes and Christal (1961), with the exception of the fift h factor being labeled intellect as opposed to culture. Lexical approach proponents have focused intently on establis hing a personality structure. However, some scholars have focused on develo ping personality questionnaires. Arguably the most notable work in this area has come from Costa and McCrae. While Cattell was one of the first to develop a widely used questionnaire base d on the lexical approach (the 16PF), he did so based on his 12 factors (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1976). Based on other scholars works suggesting five factors rather than twelve (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961), Costa and McCrae (1976) decided to analy ze the 16PF in an attempt to create a new personality scale. Their results yielded three factors resembling three of the Big Five factors: neuroticism (also called emotional stability), extraversion, and openness. These three factors 48

PAGE 49

became part of a new personality scale named the NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1985). McCrae and Costa (1985) then examined additional scales measuring the two missing factors, namely agreeableness and conscientiousness (see al so McCrae & Costa, 1987). These studies demonstrated adequate convergence between th e NEO scales and Big Five adjective-based measures (McCrae & Costa, 1985; McCrae & Cost a, 1987). Costa and McCr ae (1992) eventually published a revised NEO, which not only measures th e Big Five factors, but also allows for the measurement of several facet s that make up each factor. The importance of personality to the study of organizational beha vior should not be minimized. In fact, Hogan (2004, p. 20) recently s uggested that every aspect of organizational behavior and dynamics is related to persona lity, and that the fundamental question in organizational theory concerns or ganizational effectiveness, that organizational effectiveness is a function of leadership, and that l eadership is a function of personality. In addition, the Big Five gives us a common language from which to work. Se veral decades of resear ch using peer report, self-report, and expert ratings in a variety of samples have consistently demonstrated five replicable factors (for a re view, see McCrae & Costa, 1999). Still, scholars have struggled with the issue of whether to us e broad, general traits such as the Big Five, or narrow, specific traits as predictors of importa nt organizational outcomes (for reviews, see Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). This issue has been termed the bandwidth-fidelity trade-off (Hogan & Roberts, 1996). Bandwidth refers to the am ount of information obtained by a specific measurement while fidelity refers to reliability or accuracy of measurement (Cronbach, 1960). The tradeoff occurs because as the amount of in formation increases (bandwidth), the internal consistency of that information decreases (fidelity). According to Cronbach (1960), one way to 49

PAGE 50

deal with this trade-off is to base measuremen t decisions on the complexity of the criteria in question. In other words, when criteria are complex, complex predictors are most useful. Conversely, validity increases when narrow predictors are used to predict more specific criteria (Hogan & Roberts, 1996). This is sue is seldom debated, as evid enced by the following statement by Hogan and Roberts (1996, p. 629) We know of no body of evidence that questions Cronbachs proposals. If we apply Cronbachs (1960) propositions to th e justice literature, they seem to suggest a focus on traits narrower than that of the Big Five, for the following reasons. First, organizational justice dimensions are arguably more narrow than, for example, ove rall job performancea decidedly broad criterion. Following this logic, the predictors used shoul d match the criteria in question, suggesting a focus on narr ower traits. Second, broad traits have not explained much variance in managerial justice rule adherence. A recent study by Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and Goldstein (2007) examined the eff ects of leader personality on ma nagerial adherence to justice rules, as perceived by several employees. Their results demonstrated that leader neuroticism negatively predicted supervisory adherence to pro cedural justice rules. However, this was the only significant effect out of a ll 12 potential main effects. Other research in the area of organizational justice has examined the Big Five traits as moderators of justice effects. Unfortunately, even these effects tend to be small or non-existent. For instance, Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluck (1999) did not fi nd support for their hypothesized interaction between agreeablene ss and organizational justice. Instead, they found support for a more complicated three way interaction betw een agreeableness, dist ributive justice and interactional justice (Skarlicki et al., 1999). Colquitt, Scott, Judge, and Shaw (2006) also examined interactions between the justice dimens ions and the Big Five, bu t failed to demonstrate 50

PAGE 51

any significant effects, despite using several justice dimensions and several behavioral reactions as outcomes. Scott and Colquitt (2007) examined interactions between all Big Five traits and distributive, procedural, and inte ractional justice on four outcome s. A total of 60 interactions were tested, with only two reaching adequate sign ificance levels. In contrast, both Colquitt et al. (2006) and Scott and Colquitt ( 2007) identified severa l significant intera ctions using narrow traits. Taken together, these results suggest that the use of the Big Five in the jus tice literature has been mostly fruitless. Based on previous research in the area of or ganizational justice, this dissertation will focus on narrow managerial traits. However, a fo cus on narrow traits does not suggest eschewing the Big Five, as they are themselves composed of lower level traits. In fact, several scholars suggest that the Big Five can be understood as a hierarchy (Goldberg, 1993). For instance, Costa and McCrae (1992) suggest that neuroticism is made up of the following narrow traits: anxiety, hostility, depression, impulsiveness, vulnerability, and self-consc iousness. Therefore, this dissertation will focus on the Big Five as an organizing framework, while specifically using narrow traits as predictors of motivation for justice rule adherence and perceptions of organizational justice. This a pproach retains the common la nguage offered by the Big Five while also focusing on narrow traits that should match the specificity of the motivational and justice criteria. Although hypotheses will be offered only for narrow traits, the broader dimensions will also be measured for comparative purposes. Personality and Motivation for Justice Rule Adherence Personality traits can be define d as basic tendencies that we infer from observable patterns of behavior (McCrae & Costa, 1999). According to McCrae and Costas (1999) Five Factor theory, traits affect behaviors through their effect on characteristic adaptations defined as concrete manifestations of basic tendencies (p. 69). Some examples of characteristic 51

PAGE 52

adaptations are attitudes, belie fs, values, acquired skills, a nd learned behaviors (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Although basic tendenc ies and characteristic adaptations are distinct, sometimes the lines are blurred between the two, as evid enced by commonly used items in personality measures. Personality questionnaires often include items about ones attitudes, beliefs, habits, and preferencesa clear reflection of characteris tic adaptations rather than basic tendencies (McCrae & Costa, 1996). However, it is important to recognize that basic tendencies are just that, tendencies. Without the enactment or manifestation of tra its that occur through characteristic adaptations, traits would simply be unrealized potential (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Personality traits affect the way people think, the way they feel, and the way they behave (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Personality traits also influence an i ndividuals motivational choices (Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). A clear summary of the effects of personality is provided by Mount et al. (2005, p. 447): Personality traits influ ence choices individuals make about which tasks and activities to engage in, how much effort to exert on those tasks, and how long to persist with those tasks. Therefore, pers onality should affect the type of motivation (e.g., intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external mo tivation) a manager experiences towards justice rule adherence. It is important to note that there are several conceptualizations of the Big Five, such as Goldbergs (1990), Saucier and Ostendorfs (1999), and Costa and McCraes (1992) versions. Although all conceptualizations include the Big Five broad traits, the narrow traits sometimes vary between scholars. For example, Goldberg (1990) includes warmth as a facet of agreeableness while Costa and McCrae (1992) suggest that warmth is a facet of extraversion. Instead of choosing one conceptua lization over another, I have focused on the most theoretically relevant narrow traits, which requires that I sample from multiple perspectives. Therefore, my 52

PAGE 53

narrow traits may come from Goldberg (1990), Saucier and Ostendorf (1999), or Costa and McCraes (1992) conceptualizations. One trait that is particularly relevant to intrinsic motivation is altruism which is considered a narrow trait loading on agreeab leness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Saucier and Ostendorfs (1999) conceptualiza tion of agreeableness includes the narrow trait generosity, which can be likened to altruism (see also Gold berg, 1990). Altruism is de scribed by adjectives such as charitable, thoughtful, unselfish, and generous (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These adjectives seem particularly relevant to intr insic motivation because they tend to be otherfocused, and intrinsic motivation for justice rule adherence can be thought of as a type of otherfocus task. Moreover, intrinsic motivation suggests a lack of interest in personal rewards, which is similar to that of trait altruism. Accordi ng to Staub (1978, p. 10), "A prosocial act may be judged altruistic if it appears to have been intended to benefit others rather than to gain either material or social rewards. Therefore, managers that are altruistic may adhere to justice rules based on the inherent enjoyment gained out of as sisting others, not based on potential rewards. Put differently, managers high on trait altruism likely demonstrate behaviors which suggest a genuine interest in their employees, such as adhering to justice rules. Hypothesis 6 : Altruism is positively rela ted to intrinsic motivation. Straightforward individuals may be likely to adhere to justice rules for identified reasons. The narrow trait of straightforwardness loads on agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These individuals tend to be sincer e, frank, and ingenuous (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Recall that identified motivation suggests that behavior occu rs because it is consistent with ones values (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). It is likely that straightforward individuals will adhere to truthfulness and justification rules of inform ational justice because doing so is consistent with being 53

PAGE 54

straightforward. In addition, managers who are straightforward most likely value abiding by justice rules. Straightforward individuals most likely see the importance in adhering to justice rules and therefore act in ways that are consistent with their values. Managers possessing trait reliability are also likely to adhere to justice rules for identified reasons. Reliability is conceptualized as a na rrow trait of conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1990; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). These individuals are de scribed as dependable, responsible, reliable, and respectful (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). Re liable individuals are also described as conscientious by Goldberg (1990). Individuals who are reliable ar e likely to adhere to justice rules because of identified reas ons. Recall that identified motivation suggests that the focal behavior is accepted as important and valuable (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Trait reliability suggests that individuals take pride in being dependable and respectful. Therefore, reliability likely affects the respectability rule of interpersonal justice and the consistency rule of procedural justice. Put differently, adhering to justice rules likely occurs because doing so is consistent with a reliable individuals espoused self-concept. Hypothesis 7a: Straightforwardness is positively related to iden tified motivation. Hypothesis 7b : Reliability is posit ively related to identified motivation. Introjected motivation for justice rule adhe rence is likely affected by the narrow trait anxiety Anxiety is considered a facet of neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990). Anxious individuals are typically afraid, fearful, and prone to worry (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990). Saucier and Ostendorf (1999) conceptualize neuroticism as including the narrow trait insecurity, similarly de scribed as fretful and nervous. In fact, students with trait test anxiety were more likely to worry about thei r academic performance (Elliott & McGregor, 1999). Moreover, these individuals were more likely to adopt an a voidance goal regulation, 54

PAGE 55

which suggests a focus on avoiding negative outcomes such as looking badly (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Recall that introjected motivati on is consistent with the avoidance of a negative appearance. Therefore, it is likely that anxious indivi duals worry about whether or not they are adhering to justice rules. The tendency to worry should motivate these individuals to adhere to justice rules for introjected reasons. The dutifulness narrow trait also seems relevant to introjected motivation. According to Costa and McCraes (1992) five factor concep tualization, dutifulness is a narrow trait of conscientiousness. Dutiful individuals tend to ab ide by ethical principles and moral obligations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Introjected motivation for justice rule adhe rence suggests that a manager adheres to justice rules because they think they ought to adhere to justice rules. Dutiful individuals most likely adhere to justice rules because they feel they should, an idea similar to that of introjected motivation. R ecall that introjected motivation also suggests an avoidance of negative feelings (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The moral obligations felt by dutiful individuals may lead to introjected motivation, as adhering to just ice rules may prevent feelings of guilt or shame. Hypothesis 8a: Anxiety is positively relate d to introjected motivation. Hypothesis 8b : Dutifulness is positively related to introjected motivation. Trait ambition likely leads to external motivation for justice rule adherence. Ambition is considered a narrow trait loading on conscien tiousness (Goldberg, 1990). Ambitious individuals tend to be enterprising, ambitious, and oppor tunistic (Goldberg, 1990). Other Big Five conceptualizations include f acets similar to ambition, such as industriousness (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999) and achievement-striving (C osta & McCrae, 1992). Using justice rule adherence for external reasons, su ch as getting ahead, is one pot ential manifestation of trait ambition. Recall that external motivation was previous described as being conceptually similar to 55

PAGE 56

continuance commitment. Interestingly, a recen t study reported that conscientiousness was positively related to continuance commitment (E rdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006). Extrapolating from these results, I propose that ambitious i ndividuals are likely to experience external motivation for justice rule adherence. Hypothesis 9 : Ambition is positively rela ted to external motivation. Summary This dissertation attempts to identify different reasons why managers may be motivated to adhere to justice rules. The motivational distinctions proposed by self-determination theory appropriately describe potential motivations for justice rule adherence. For example, a manager may treat his or her employees fairly for exte rnal reasons (e.g., Because I dont want to be punished), for introjected reasons (e.g., Because I dont want to feel guilty), for identified reasons (e.g., Because I see myself as a fair ma nager), or for intrinsic reasons (e.g., Because I truly enjoy being fair). I also pr opose that structural di stance moderates thes e relationships, as having the opportunity to engage in justice rule adhe rence should make it eas ier for a manager to act on his or her motivations. The second purpose of this dissertation is to esta blish a set of narrow managerial traits that may predict managerial motivations for justice ru le adherence. This dissertation proposes that altruism predicts intrinsic motivation, strai ghtforwardness and reliability predict identified motivation, anxiety and dutifulness predict introject ed motivation, and ambition predicts external motivation. Taken together, my propositions fo rm a model which suggests that managerial motivations for justice rule adherence act as mediating mechanisms between the narrow personality traits and organi zational justice (Figure 2). Hypothesis 10: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between trait altruism and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. 56

PAGE 57

Hypothesis 11: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between the narrow traits straightforwardness and reliability, and perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Hypothesis 12: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between the narrow traits dutifulness and anxiety and perceptions of pro cedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Hypothesis 13: Motivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between trait ambition and perceptions of procedural, in terpersonal, and informational justice. 57

PAGE 58

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample and Procedures Alumni from a large southeastern university were recruited to participate in this dissertation. A list of 2500 names was randomly drawn from a database of 7000 registered alumni who were known to be employed full-time. Potential participants received a postcard in the mail explaining that the purpose of the study is to assess attitudes about supervisory behaviors. The postcards stated that the potential participants are eligible for the study if they are 1) employed full-time, 2) not self-employed, 3) have a direct supervisor, and 4) have a colleague that reports directly to the same supervisor. The potential particip ants were asked to provide this information on the postcard and mail it back. Poten tial participants can check one of three boxes, 1) interested and eligible for the study, 2) not inte rested but eligible, or 3) not eligible. Out of the 2500 mailings, 775 of those were re turned undeliverable. Of the remaining 1725 that were presumably delivered, 568 participants did not meet the eligibility requirements, and thus are not included in the final response rate. Pa rticipants that decide to participate received a link to an online survey. This su rvey included measures of organi zational justice in addition to measures of structural distance. The survey also asked participants to provide email addresses for their immediate supervisor and a coworker. I then emailed the supervisor and coworker the email links for their respective surveys. The supervisor survey contained measures of managerial motivation for justice rule adherence. The cowork er survey contained measures of managerial personality. Past research has show n that peer ratings of personali ty are as valid, or even more valid, than self-ratings (Barrick & Mount, 1996). Moreover, the us e of three ratings provides a procedural remedy for avoiding common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). All particip ants, including the supervisor and coworker, earned $5 cash 58

PAGE 59

payment for their participation. A pproximately 12% of the alumni agreed to participate in the study, for a total of 136. Out of the 136 alumni that have agreed to participate, 81% participated (110). However, completed data (including superv isor and coworker data) was obtained from 54 alumni. To supplement the alumni data, I used executive MBA students enrolled in an organizational behavior c ourse at a large, southeastern university. All employees worked full time and the majority of them held managerial positions. The research project was described as an investigation of the relationship between job a ttitudes and job behaviors. The individuals were given a packet containing a survey, instructing th em to fill out the employee survey and return it in the postage paid envelope provided. The empl oyees were then instructed to email their supervisor and coworker with links to an on line survey. The supervisors and coworkers were given a $5 Starbucks gift card in exchange for thei r participation. Packets we re given to a total of 56 employees with 51 returned for a response rate of 91%. Of the 54 employees who returned surveys, 46 of them (85%) had their supervisor a nd coworker participate resulting in an overall response rate of 81%. A total of 161 employees (103 male, 58 female) participated in the study. The participants came from a variety of industries, includi ng information technology, healthcare, banking, financial services, telecommunications, pharmaceutical s, and engineering. The participants were 40 years old on average ( SD = 9.19) and had been with their or ganizations for an average of 8.85 years ( SD = 8.16). The sample was 79% Caucasian, with other ethnicities as follows: Hispanic (5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (9%), African American (3.5%). Some participants choose other as their ethnicity (4%). 59

PAGE 60

Measures Procedural justice Procedural justice was measured using the scale developed and validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the procedures used to make decisions about their pay, evaluations, promotions rewards, etc. The items assessed adherence to Leventhals (1980) and Thibaut and Walkers (1975) justice rules. The seven-item scale included: Are you able to express your views a nd feelings during those procedures?, Can you influence the decisions arrived at by those pr ocedures?, Are thos e procedures applied consistently?, Are those procedures free of bi as?, Are those procedures based on accurate information?, Are you able to appeal the d ecisions arrived at by thos e procedures? and Do those procedures uphold ethical and moral standards? All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent with a coefficient alpha of .86. Interpersonal justice Interpersonal justice was measur ed using the scale developed and validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the interpersonal treatment received from their managers. The items assessed adherence to Bies and Moags (1986) respect and propriety rules (see also Greenbe rg, 1993). The four-item scale in cluded: Has your supervisor treated you in a polite manner?, Has your supe rvisor treated you with dignity?, Has your supervisor treated you with respect, and Has your supervisor refrained from improper remarks or comments? All items used a response scale ra nging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent with a coefficient alpha of .90. Informational justice Informational justice was measur ed using the scale developed and validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants we re asked about managerial explanations and communications given about decision-making pro cedures. The items assessed adherence to Bies and Moags (1986) truthfulness and justificati on rules (see also Greenberg, 1993). The five-item scale included: Has he/she been candid wh en communicating with you?, Has he/she 60

PAGE 61

explained decision-making procedures thorough ly?, Were his/her explanations regarding procedures reasonable, Has he/she communicat ed details in a timely manner? and Has he/she tailored communications to meet individu als needs?. All item s used a response scale ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent with a coefficient alpha of .88. Distributive justice Distributive justice was measured using the scale developed and validated by Colquitt (2001). Participants were asked about the outcomes received from their supervisor, such as pay, rewards, evaluations, pr omotions, assignments, etc. The five-item scale included: Do those outcomes reflect the effort you have put into your work?, Are those outcomes appropriate for the work you have co mpleted?, Do those outcomes reflect what you have contributed to your work?, and Are those outcomes justified, given your performance? All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = To a Very Small Extent to 5 = To a Very Large Extent with a coefficient alpha of .95 Opportunity to interact Opportunity to interact was meas ured with an ad hoc scale based on Napier and Ferris (1993) con ceptualization of this constr uct. Napier and Ferris (1993) discuss social contact and accessibility as tw o important aspects of interaction opportunity. Participants were asked about th eir own relationship with their supervisor. The four-item scale included: My supervisor is accessible, I often ha ve to wait to talk to my supervisor (R), I can interact with my supervisor on a frequent basis, and I often have the opportunity to interact with my supervisor. All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .75. Spatial distance. Spatial distance was measured usi ng the scale developed by Kerr and Jermier (1978). The three-item scale included: The nature of my job is such that my immediate 61

PAGE 62

superior is seldom around me when Im working On my job my most important tasks take place away from where my immediate superior is located, and My immediate superior and I are seldom in actual contact or direct sight of one another. All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .84. Managerial Personality The focal employees coworker wa s asked to provide measure of narrow managerial traits. The instructions we re as follows: Listed below are a number of statements that may or may not apply to your coworkers supervisor. Choose a number for each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. Then circle that number. Altruism Altruism was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Ashton, Cloninger, and Hough (2006). The ten-item scale included: Makes people feel welcome, Anticipates the needs of others, Loves to help others Is concerned about others, Has a good word for everyone, Look down on others (R), Is indifferent to the feelings of others (R), Makes people feel uncomfortable (R) Turns his/her back on others (R), and Takes no time for others (R) A ll items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .95. Straightforwardness. Straightforwardness was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg et al. (2006). The te n-item scale included: Would never cheat on his/her taxes, Sticks to the rules, Believes that honesty is the basis for trus t, Keeps his/her promises, Is true to his/her own values, Knows how to get around the rules (R), Ch eats to get ahead (R), Puts people under pressure (R), Pretends to be concerned for others (R), and Takes advantage of others (R). All items used a respon se scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, with a coefficient alpha of .87. 62

PAGE 63

Anxiety Anxiety was measured using IPIP scale developed by Go ldberg et al. (2006). The ten-item scale included: Worries about things Fears for the worst, Is afraid of many things, Gets stressed out easily, Gets caught up in his/her problems, Is not easily bothered by things (R), Is relaxed most of the time (R ), Is not easily disturbed by events (R), Doesn't worry about things that have already happened (R), and Adapts easily to new situations (R). All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .91. Dutifulness Dutifulness was measured using IPIP scale developed by Goldberg et al. (2006). The ten-item scale include d: Tries to follow the rule s, Keeps his/her promises, Pays his/her bills on time, Tells the truth, L istens to his/her conscience, Breaks rules (R), Breaks his/her promises (R ), Gets others to do his/her duties (R), Does the opposite of what is asked (R), and Misrepresents the facts (R). All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .88. Reliability Reliability was measured using the adjective scale developed by Saucier and Ostendorf (1999). Coworkers were asked to use the following list of traits to describe their coworkers supervisor as accurately as possibl e. Please write a number indicating how accurately a trait describes the supervis or. The eight-item scale include d: Reliable, Dependable, Responsible, Prompt, Punctual, Respectfu l, Undependable (R), and Unreliable (R). All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Extremely Inaccurate to 9 = Extremely Accurate with a coefficient alpha of .92. Ambition Ambition was measured using an adje ctive scale developed by Goldberg (1990). Coworkers were asked to use the following list of traits to describe their coworkers supervisor as accurately as possible. Please write a number indicating how accurately a trait 63

PAGE 64

describes the supervisor. The three-item scale included: Ambitious, Enterprising, and Opportunistic. All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Extremely Inaccurate to 9 = Extremely Accurate with a coefficient alpha of .74. Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured us ing the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). Coworkers were aske d to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their coworkers supervisor. The nine-item scale included: Does a thorough job, Does things efficiently, Mak es plans and follows through, Is a reliable worker, Perseveres until the task is finished, Is easily distracted (R), Can be somewhat careless (R), Tends to be lazy (R), and Tends to be disorg anized (R). All items used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .89. Agreeableness. Agreeableness was measured using the BFI (John et al., 1991). Coworkers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their coworkers supervisor. The nine-item scale incl uded: Is kind to almost everyone, Likes to cooperate with others, Is help ful and unselfish with others, Has a forgiving nature, Is generally trusting, Tends to find fault with othe rs (R), Starts quarrels with others (R), Can be cold and aloof (R), and Is sometimes rude to others (R). All item s used a response scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .92. Neuroticism Neuroticism was measured using the BF I (John et al., 1991). Coworkers were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their coworkers supervisor. The nine-item scale incl uded: Can be moody, Is sometimes depressed or blue, Gets nervous easily, Can be tense, Worries a lot, Remains calm in tense situations (R), Is emotionally stable, not easily upset (R), I s relaxed and handles stress well 64

PAGE 65

(R),and Is outgoing and sociab le(R). All items used a re sponse scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree with a coefficient alpha of .90. Content Validation The measures of motivation for justice rule adherence used in this study were validated using Hinkin and Traceys (1999) content valid ation method. Undergraduates from a large southeastern university were recruited to par ticipate. In exchange for participation, all participants received one extra credit point. Partic ipants were asked to complete an online survey for the content validation of the motivation for ju stice rule adherence scal es. The items used in the motivation scales were adapted from the following scholarly works: Guay et al., (2000), Ryan and Connell (1989), and Gagn et al. (2006). The first author also created several of her own motivation for justice rule adherence items. The participants rated each of the 48 items (12 items for each type of justice motivation) on the extent to which they believe the items was consistent with the four motivation types. The response choices ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Each page corresponded with a different motivation type, while providing the de finition for one of the motivation types at the top of the page. Intrinsic motivation was defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the inherent enjoyment or interest in that particular activity. Identified motivation was defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the inherent value and important of that particular ac tivity. Introjected motivation was defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the internal contin gencies associated with th at particular activity, such as preventing feelings of guilt or shame, or enhancing feelings of self-worth. External motivation was defined as the engagement in an activity or task because of the external contingencies associated with that particular activity, such as th e avoidance of punishment or the attainment of rewards. The items were then ra ndomly distributed throughout each page. In other 65

PAGE 66

words, the participants responded to each of the 48 items four times, once on each page. The online format of the survey allowed for severa l versions of the questionnaire, which helped control for response bias due to ordering effects. The Hinkin and Tracey (1999) procedure was th en used to winnow the 48 items down to a more manageable set of 16 items (4 items pe r motivation type). Specifically, a one way ANOVA was used to test whether each item was rated as more consistent with one of the definitions then with the other three. Any items with insufficient between definitions variance in the expected direction were dropped. The set of 48 items was winnowed down to a set of 16; four items for each motivation dimension (Table 3-1). While seve ral items were accurately rated as being most consistent with their respective definitions, the best four items were chosen. Figure 3-1 shows the ANOVA results for the combined four-item scales As depicted, each scale demonstrated the expected pattern of results. Motivation for justice rule adherence Participants were asked about why they treat employees fairly. The instructions were as foll ows: If given the opportunity to treat employees in a fair manner, why might you choose to do so? For the purposes of this questionnaire, treating employees fairly means using consis tent and unbiased decision-making procedures that result in equitable outcomes and communica ting with employees in an honest and respectful way. The items assessed intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external motivation as conceptualized by Deci and Ryans (1986) self -determination theory. The four-item intrinsic motivation scale included: Because I think being a fair manage r is inherently satisfying., Because I have a good time when I treat employees fairly., Because being a fair manager is something I get a kick out of., Because treating employees fairly is fun for me. The four-item identified motivation scale included: Because bei ng a fair manager is personally meaningful to 66

PAGE 67

me., Because treating employees fairly is an essential goal to me., Because I think being a fair manager matches my core values., Becau se treating employees fairly fits my basic philosophy. The four-item introjected motiva tion scale included: Because I might feel embarrassed if I was unfair to my employees., Because being unfair woul d feel humiliating to me., Because treating employees unfairly woul d harm my self-regard., Because treating employees unfairly would make me feel guilty. The four-ite m external motivation scale included: Because I would receive a poor eval uation if I act unfairly., Because treating employees unfairly jeopardizes my job security. Because being unfair w ould create hassles on the job., and Because I would experience pe nalties if I treated employees unfairly. I tested the factor structure of the motivation stales with a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.52 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). The follo wing five factor stru ctures were tested by entering the covariance matrix of the items into LISREL 8.52 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996): (a) the hypothesized four-factor model for motiv ation, which includes intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, introjected motivation, and external motivation (b) an alternate three factor model that includes an intrinsic motivation factor identified motivation factor, and a controlled motivation" factor (combining introjected motiva tion and external motivation) (c) an alternate two factor model that includes an intrinsic motiva tion factor and an extrinsic motivation factor (combining identified motivation, introjected motivation, and external motivation), (d) an alternative two factor model that includes an autonomous motivation factor (combining intrinsic motivation and identified motivation) an d a controlled motivation factor (combining introjected motivation and external motivation) and (e) a one factor model (combining all motivation types). Fit statistic s for the hypothesized four-factor model were as follows: 2 (98, N = 111) = 229.96, p < .001; 2 / df = 2.35; CFI = .94; RMR = .08. Acceptable model fit is usually 67

PAGE 68

inferred when the ratio of chi-square to degree s of freedom falls below 3, when CFI rises above .90, when RMSEA is .08 or lower, and when RMR is .10 or lower (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kline, 2005). As expected, the four-factor measur ement model fit the data significantly better than alternative measurement models as judged by a chi-square difference test (Table 3-2). All 16 factor loadings were statistically significant and averaged as follows: intrinsic motivation (.82), identified motivation (.91), introjected motivation (.89), a nd external motivation (.81). 68

PAGE 69

Table 3-1. Justice motivation items incl uded in the content validation study Items Intrinsic Motivation Because treating employ ees fairly is inherently enjoyable. Because I think being a fair manager is inherently satisfying.* Because being a fair manager is delightful. Because I have a good time when I treat employees fairly.* Because being a fair ma nager is stimulating. Because I have fun when I am a fair manager. For the moments of happiness that being a fair manager brings me. For the joy I feel while being a fair manager. Because being a fair manager is something I get a kick out of.* Because treating employees fairly is fun for me. Because treating employees fairly is personally gratifyin g. Identified Motivation Because being fair is fundamentally important to me. Because being fair is essential in my opinion. Because being a fair manager is a key value to me. Because being a fair manager is a valuable goal of mine. Because being fair is consistent with my values. Because being fair is a personal goal of mine. Because being a fair manager is important to me. Because being a fair manager is personally meaningful t o me.* on. fs. Introjected Motivation egard.* uilty.* External Motivation valuation. y. Final items used in dissert Because being a fair manager fits my personal values. Because treating employees fairly is fundamental in my opini Because treating employees fairly is an essential goal to me.* Because I think being a fair manager matches my core values.* Because treating employees fair ly is a key belief of mine. Because I think being a fair manager is consistent with my belie Because treating employees fairly fits my basic philosophy.* erson. Because trea ting employees fairly makes me f eel more decent as a p Because I would feel guilty if I treated employees unfairly. fairly. Because I might feel a sense of regret if I treated my employees un Because being a fair manager makes me feel better about myself. Because I might feel embarrassed if I was unfair to my employees.* Because treating employees fairly would make me feel proud. Because I would feel ashamed of myself if I were unfair. Because I would feel pleased w ith myself if I acted fairly. Because being unfair would feel humiliating to me.* Because being unfair woul d reduce my self-respect. Because treating employees unfairly would harm my self-r Because treating employees unfairly would make me feel g Because being an unfair manager woul d make me feel worse about myself Because being fair helps me avoid negative consequences. Because there are negative repercussi ons for treating employees unfairly. Because I would receive a poor ev aluation if I act unfairly.* Because treating employees unfairly jeopardizes my job security.* Because being unfair would create hassles on the job.* Because being a fair manager could get me valuable benefits. Because treating employees fairly coul d earn me a favorable e Because being a fair manager bri ngs praise from other people. Because there are positive consequences asso ciated with treating employees fairl Because I receive valuable perks when I treat employees fairly. Because I would experience penalties if I treated employees unfairly.* Because treating employees fairly is asso ciated with beneficial consequences. Because being a fair manager is linked to positive outcomes. ation hypothesis testing 69

PAGE 70

Table 3-2. Comparison CFI RMR of alternativ e factor structures for motiva tion for justice rule adherence Model 2 (df) 2 diff (df) Hypothesized Four-Factor Model 229.96 (98)--.94 .08 Intrinsi Intrinsic c, Identified, and Cont rolled Model 456.22 (101)26.26 (3) .83 2 426.43 (5) .1 .1 3 656.39 (103) etion. All 2 valu ant and Extrinsic Autonomous and Controlled .73 8 .20 6 803.50 (104) 35.70 (103) 407.74 573.54 (6) (5) .74 One-Factor Model .66 .19 Note n = 111 after list wise del es are signific at < .001. p 70

PAGE 71

Mean of Intrinsic Motivation3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Motivation TypesExternal Introjected Identified Intrinsic Motivation TypesExternal Introjected Identified Intrinsic Mean of Identified Motivation4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Figure 3-1. Hinkin and Tracey (199 9) ANOVA results for four-item scales used in dissertation hypothesis tests. 71

PAGE 72

Motivation TypesExternal Introjected Identified Intrinsic Mean of Introjected Motivation3.70 3.60 3.50 3.40 3.30 3.20 Motivation TypesExternal Introjected Identified Intrinsic Mean of External Motivation4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 Figure 3-1. Continued 72

PAGE 73

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Table 4-1 presents the means, standard devi ations, and zero-order correlations among the variables in the study, with the coefficient alpha s for each scale shown on the diagonal. The table reveals several relationships between personality traits and the motivation types. Altruism, a facet of agreeableness, was posit ively related to intrinsic ( r = .18) and external motivation ( r = .19). The relationship between tra it reliability, a facet of conscientiousness, and introjected motivation was also significant (r = .20). Straightforwardness, a facet of agreeableness, was positively correlated with introjected ( r = .24) and external motivation ( r = .29). Ambition, a facet of conscientiousness, was nega tively correlated with identified ( r = -.23), introjected ( r = .20), and external motivation (r = -.17). These results are notable because they are not samesource linkages, given the use of coworker rati ngs of supervisor pers onality and supervisor ratings of motivation. Comparing those results with the broad dimensions of the Big Five, conscientiousness was positively related to intrinsic ( r = .19), identified ( r = .18), introjected ( r = .37), and external motivation (r = .21). However, neither agreeableness no r neuroticism demonstrated significant relationships with the motivation types. This is an interesting point because narrow facets of agr eeableness (altruism and straightforwardness) demonstrated significant relationships with three out of th e four motivation types. Thus, focusing on the narrow traits offered additional information that may have been missed if focusing solely on the broad Big Five traits. It is also important to examine the justice di mensions, and their relationships with various personality traits. Altruism was pos itively related to interpersonal ( r = .26) and informational justice ( r = .28). Similar effects were observed for the conscientiousness facet of trait reliability, 73

PAGE 74

with interpersonal ( r = .24) and informational justice ( r = .29). Straightforwardness was also positively related to interpersonal ( r = .22) and informational justice ( r = .26). Dutifulness, a facet of conscientiousness, demonstrated si gnificant relationships with procedural (r = .18), interpersonal ( r = .22), and inform ational justice ( r = .30). Anxiety, a narrow trait of neuroticism, exhibited negative relationshi ps with interpersonal ( r = -.24) and inform ational justice ( r = -.19). The broad Big Five traits were also significantl y correlated with interpersonal and informational justice. Conscientiousness was posi tively related to interpersonal ( r = .18) and informational justice ( r = .28). Agreeableness was also pos itively related to interpersonal ( r = .32) and informational justice ( r = .32). Neuroticism demonstrated significant negative effects for interpersonal ( r = -.33) and inform ational justice ( r = -.35). Taken together, these results demonstrate a similar pattern of results with the narrow and broad traits when using justice as an outcome. Thus, focusing on either narrow or br oad traits would lead to similar results. Yet another set of important links are thos e between motivation and justice perceptions. While no hypotheses were made for distributive ju stice, it demonstrated a positive relationship with intrinsic motivation (r = .17). Thus, supervisors that repo rt engaging in fair treatment because of inherent enjoymen t are seen as more distribut ively just by their employees. Unfortunately, none of the hypothesized relations hips for procedural, interpersonal, or informational justice were significant. Tests of Hypotheses Motivation to justice hypotheses The main effects hypothe ses linking motivation to justice were tested using struct ural equation modeling. Given my sm all sample size, I tested the model in Figures 4-1 using a par tially latent approach where scal e scores were used as single indicators of the latent variables with error va riances set to (1-alpha) *variance (Kline, 2005). I allowed the disturbance terms for procedural an d informational justice to covary given that 74

PAGE 75

informational justice is often used to judge proc edural justice. I also allowed the disturbance terms for interpersonal and informational justice to covary to represent unmeasured common causes, such as a higher-order interactional justice factor. Fit statisti cs were as follows: 2 (1 N = 100) = 15.11, p < .001; 2 / df = 15.11; CFI = .89; RMR = .03. Hypothesis 1 predicted that intrinsic motivati on would be positively related to procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. As seen in Figure 4-1, intr insic motivation was not significantly related to either procedural ( b = -.07), interpersonal (b = .10), or informational justice (b = -.20). Therefore, this Hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that identified motivation would be positively related to procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, albeit more weakly than intrinsi c motivation. As shown in Figure 4-1, identified motivation was not significantly re lated to either procedural ( b = .00), interpersonal ( b = .08), or informational justice ( b = -.06). To test the progressively weakening e ffects, I used equality constraints, which force two or more parameters to equal one another (K line, 2005). I then ran a chi-square difference test (Kline, 2005) to co mpare the model with and without the equality constraint, with the expectation that significantly better fit will result from the model without the equality constraint. First, I constrained the path from intrinsic motivation to procedural justice and the path from identified motivation to proced ural justice as equal. A chi-squared difference test indicated no significa nt difference between the two models (Table 4-2). I then constrained the path from intrinsic motivation to interpersonal justice and the path from identified motivation to interpersonal justice as equal. Again, no significant difference wa s found between the two models. The third constraint examined was the pa th from intrinsic motivation to informational justice and the path from identified motivation to informational justice. A chi-squared difference test indicated no signi ficant difference between the two models. Thus, the progressively 75

PAGE 76

weakening effects predicted by Hypothesis 2 were not supported, which is not surprising, given how similar the regression coefficients we re for intrinsic and identified motivation. Hypothesis 3 predicted that introjected motivation would be positively related to procedural justice, interpersonal, and informational albeit more weakly than that of identified motivation. As depicted in Figur e 4-1, introjected motivation was not significantly related to procedural ( b = -.17) or informational justice ( b = .08), but was significantly related to interpersonal justice ( b = -.30). To test the progressively weakening effects, I constrained the path from identified motivation to procedural jus tice and the path from introjected motivation to procedural justice as equal. A chi-squared di fference test indicated no significant difference between the two models (Table 4-2). I then cons trained the path from identified motivation to interpersonal justice and the path from introjecte d motivation to interpersonal justice as equal. Again, no significant difference was found between the two models. The third constraint examined was the path from identified motivation to informational justice and the path from introjected motivation to informational justic e. A chi-squared difference test indicated no significant difference between the two models. Thus, the weakening effects depicted by Hypothesis 3 were not supported, which is again not surprising, given the similarity in the regression coefficients. Hypothesis 4 predicted that external motivati on would be positively related to procedural justice, interpersonal, and info rmational albeit more weakly than that of introjected motivation. As shown in Figure 4-1, external motivation was not significantly related to either procedural ( b = .19), interpersonal ( b = .03), or informational justice ( b = .12). To test the weakening effect, I constrained the path from introjected motivation to procedural justice and the path from external motivation to procedural justice as equal. A chi-squared differen ce test indicated no significant 76

PAGE 77

difference between the two models (Table 4-2). I then constrained the path from introjected motivation to interpersonal justice and the path fr om external motivation to interpersonal justice as equal. Again, no significant difference was found between the two models. The third constraint examined was the path from introjected motivation to informational justice and the path from external motivation to informational ju stice. A chi-squared difference test indicated no significant difference between the two mode ls. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Distance moderation predictions. Hypotheses 5a-b predicted that structural distance would moderate the relationships between the motivations for justi ce rule adherence and procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, respectively. The regressions used to test these hypotheses are shown in Ta ble 4-3. The first step of the regressions includes intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, introjected motivation, and external motivation. The second step in the regression includes th e structural distance variables (opportunity for interaction and spatial distance). While no main effect prediction s were made for structural distance, the data suggest that opportunity to interact was positively related to procedural ( r = .34), interpersonal ( b = .31), and informational justice ( b = .38). It should be noted th at these links are same source and therefore should be interpreted with caution. The third step of the regression includes the motivation x structural distance product terms, with product terms created after mean-centering the independent variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). As shown in the third step of Table 4-3, none of the expected interactions were statistically significant. Therefore, hypotheses 5a-b were not supported. Personality to motivation hypotheses The main effects hypotheses linking personality to motivation were tested using stru ctural equation modeling. Given my small sample size, I tested the model in Figures 4-1 to 4-4 using a partially latent approach where scale scores were used 77

PAGE 78

as single indicators of the latent variables with error variances set to (1-alpha)*variance (Kline, 2005). I allowed the disturbance terms for intr insic, identified, intr ojected, and external motivation to covary to represent unmeasur ed common causes, such as a higher-order motivation factor. Fit statistics were as follows: 2 (18 N = 100) = 43.91, p < .001; 2 / df = 2.44; CFI = .95; RMR = .08. Hypothesis 6 predicted that altruism would be positively related to intrinsic motivation. As shown in Figure 4-2, this hypothesis was supported ( b = .21). Thus, supervisors who were described by coworkers as caring and accepting repor ted more inherent enjoyment in acting in a fair way. Hypothesis 7 a-b predicted that straig htforwardness and reliability would be positively related to identified motivation. This hypothesis was not supported, as neither straightforwardness nor reliability demonstrated a significant effect on identified motivation. Hypothesis 8 a-b predicted an e ffect of dutifulness and anxiety on introjected motivation. As depicted in Figure 4-2, this hypothesis was supported, as both dutifulness and anxiety were significant predictors of introjected motivation ( b = .44 and .17, respectively). Thus, supervisors described by coworkers as honest and anxious repo rted engaging in fair treatment in order to avoid feelings of guilt. Hypothesis 9 predicted that ambition would be positively related to external motivation. This Hypothesis was supporte d, as ambition was a sign ificant predictor of external motivation (b = .55). Thus, supervisors described by coworkers as enterprising and opportunistic reported engaging in fair treatment in order to avoid negative consequences associated with failing to treat employees fair ly. Taken together, these results suggest that supervisor personality traits are relevant to mo tivation to engage in justice rule adherence. However, it is also important to examine the effect of broad personality traits on motivation for justice rule adherence. Recall that several scholars suggest that the Big Five can 78

PAGE 79

be understood as a hierarchy (Goldberg, 1993). Thus a focus on narrow traits begs the question, do the broad Big Five traits demonstrate similar effects, as they are themselves composed of lower level traits? In general, scholars have stru ggled with the issue of choosing broad traits vs. narrow, specific traits as pred ictors of important organizatio nal outcomes (for reviews, see Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvara n, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). As stated previously, this issue has been term ed the bandwidth-fidelity trade-off (Hogan & Roberts, 1996). Thus, the question is whether the theoretical nuan ces offered by narrow, specific traits is worth losing some information gained by using broad traits. Th erefore, I tested an additional model in which the structural paths we re drawn from the narrow trait predictions. For example, anxiety is a narrow trait of neuroticism; ther efore the corresponding structural path for neuroticism should be the same as that of anxiety. Fit statistics for the broad traits model were as follows: 2 (6 N = 100) = 12.16, p < .001; 2 / df = 2.027; CFI = .96; RMR = .04. As shown in Figure 4-3, agreeableness was not significan tly related to either intrinsic ( b = .12) or identified motivation ( b = .04). Although conscientiousness was not significantly rela ted to identified motivation ( b = .06), it did demonstrate significant, pos itive relationships w ith introjected and external motivation (b = .49 and .38, respectively). As shown in Figure 4-3, neuroticism was not significantly related to introjected motivation ( b = .04). I also combined the narrow and broad traits into one model (Figure 4-4). This model was tested to demonstrate whether th e narrow, specific traits predic t incremental variance above and beyond the broad, Big Five traits. The results su ggest that while altruism was significantly related to intrinsic motivation ( b = .71), agreeableness was not ( b = -.52). Neither straightforwardness nor agreeableness were signif icantly related to identified motivation ( b = .10 and .03, respectively). Similar results were obtaine d for conscientiousness and its narrow trait 79

PAGE 80

reliability (b = .19 and -.20, respectively). Fi t statistics for the combined traits structural model were as follows: 2 (24 N = 100) = 51.60, p < .001; 2 / df = 2.15; CFI = .98; RMR = .06. As shown in Figure 4-4, neither anxi ety nor neuroticism were signi ficantly related to identified motivation ( b = .20 and -.10, respectively). While dutif ulness was not signif icantly related to introjected motivation ( b = -.05), conscientiousness did de monstrate significant, positive relationships with introjecte d and external motivation ( b = .40 and .44, respectively). However, ambition was not significantly related to external motivation ( b = -.02). These results suggest that the narrow traits and broad dimensions exert few significant inde pendent effects on the motivation variables, which is not surprising, given the necessarily high level of multicollinearity in these analyses. Tests of mediation Hypotheses 14-17 predicted that mo tivation for justice rule adherence mediates the relationship between the narrow traits and perceptions of proc edural, interpersonal, and informational justice. To te st these hypotheses, I utilized the three step mediation test recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). In the fi rst step of this procedure, one must demonstrate a significant relationship between the predictor variable (personality) and the mediator variable (motivation for justice rule adherence). Th e second step of the procedure requires that the mediator (motivation for just ice rule adherence) demonstrate a significant relationship with the outcome variable (justice perceptions), when cont rolling for the predictor variable (personality). The final step requires demonstra ting a significant relationship between the predictor variable and the outcome variable, with that relationship becoming reduced or nonsignificant when the mediator is controlled. As reported previously (Figure 4-2), the results do partially support the first step. Specifically, altruism was positively related to intrinsic motivation, dutifulness and anxiet y were significant predictors of introjected motivation, and 80

PAGE 81

ambition was a significant predicto r of external motivation. With re spect to the second step, only one relationship was significant: introjected motivation was negatively related to interpersonal justice. Moreover, this relationship was not in the predicted direction. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) a relationship between the mediator and outcome is a prerequisite for mediation. Due to the lack of mediator-outcome relations hips, there is no need to test mediation. 81

PAGE 82

Table 4-1. Descriptive statis tics and zero-order correlations Variable M SD 1 2* 3* 4 5 1. Altruism 4.02 .70 .95 2. Reliability 6.83 1.11 .63* .92 3. Straightforwardness 3.92 .59 .72* .65* .87 4. Dutifulness 4.03 .59 .69* .63* .83* .88 5. Anxiety 2.43 .67 -.45* -.36* -.48* .47* .91 6. Ambition 7.02 1.51 .05* .07* -.04* .05* -.10* 7. Conscientiousness 4.25 .45 .60* .74* .63 .63* -.34* 8. Agreeableness 4.10 .47 .86* .59* .67* .66* -.50* 9. Neuroticism 2.27 .62 -.65* -.41* -.57* -.56* .77* 10. Intrinsic Motivation 3.54 .82 .18* .10* .13* .01* -.15 11. Identified Motivation 4.67 .47 .05 .09* .13* .04* .07* 12. Introjected Motivation 3.64 1.01 .13 .20* .26* .13* -.04* 13. External Motivation 3.29 .88 .19* .13 .29* .13* .11* 14. Procedural Justice 3.72 .72 .09* .11* .09* .18* -.02* 15. Interpersonal Justice 4.58 .60 .26* .24* .22* .22* -.24* 16. Informational Justice 3.84 .78 .28* .29* .26* .30* -.19* 17. Distributive Justice 3.72 .97 .02 .03* .05* .15 -.12 18. Spatial Distance 3.35 1.22 -.02 .00* -.03* -.10* .04* 19. Opportunity to Interact 4.07 .71 .10 .21* .18* .20* -.10* Note n = 100-161. p < .05, one-tailed. 82

PAGE 83

Table 4-1. Continued Variable 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Altruism 2. Reliability 3. Straightforwardness 4. Dutifulness 5. Anxiety 6. Ambition .74* 7. Conscientiousness .05 .89* 8. Agreeableness .00* .54* .92* 9. Neuroticism -.08 -.46* -.71* .90 10. Intrinsic Motivation -.05 .19* .08* -.14 .86* 11. Identified Motivation -.23* .18* .08 .01* .30* .88* 12. Introjected motivation -.20* .37* .11 -.15 .53* .42* .91* 13. External Motivation -.17* .21* .16 .00* .25* .02* .35* 14. Procedural Justice -.02 .12* .05 -.10 -.02* -.03* -.06* 15. Interpersonal Justice -.07 .18* .32* -.33* .03 .02* -.11* 16. Informational Justice .05 .28* .32* -.35* .01 .02* .06* 17. Distributive Justice -.10 .08* .00 -.08* .17* .08* .07* 18. Spatial Distance .02 .04* -.03* .01* .06* .20* -.05* 19. Opportunity to Interact .02 .15 .19* -.11* .021 -.06* -.03* Note n = 100-161. p < .05, one-tailed. 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-1. Continued Variable 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. Altruism 2. Reliability 3. Straightforwardness 4. Dutifulness 5. Anxiety 6. Ambition 7. Conscientiousness 8. Agreeableness 9. Neuroticism 10. Intrinsic Motivation 11. Identified Motivation 12. Introjected Motivation 13. External Motivation .85 14. Procedural Justice .13 .86* 15. Interpersonal Justice -.02 .50* .90* 16. Informational Justice .12 .62* .61* .88* 17. Distributive Justice .13 .56* .40* .52* .95* 18. Spatial Distance -.15 -.14* .04* -.12* -.04* .84* 19. Opportunity to Interact .19* .34* .31* .38* .24* -.36* .75 Note n = 100-161. p < .05, one-tailed. 84

PAGE 85

Table 4-2. Comparison of various equality constraints for motivation justice linkages Model 2 (df) 2 diff (df) CFI RMR Model without Constraints 15.11 (1) --.89 .03 Intrinsic/Identified to Proc Constrained 15.24 (2) .13 (1) .89 .03 Intrinsic/Identified to Inter Constrained 15.12 (2) .01 (1) .90 .03 Intrinsic/Identified to Info Constrained 15.53 (2) .42 (1) .89 .03 Identified/Introjected to Proc Constrained 15.52 (2) .41 (1) .89 .03 Identified/Introjected to Inter Constrained 17.18 (2) 2.06 (1) .88 .03 Identified/Introjected to Info Constrained 15.37 (2) .26 (1) .89 .03 Introjected/External to Proc Constrained 16.95 (2) 1.84 (1) .88 .04 Introjected/External to Inter Constrained 16.70 (2) 1.59 (1) .88 .04 Introjected/External to Info Constrained 15.14 (2) .03 (1) .90 .03 Note n = 100 after listwise deletion. 2 values 85

PAGE 86

Table 4-3. Moderated regressions used to test hypotheses 5a-b Procedural Justice Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B 1. Intrinsic Motivation Identified Motivation Introjected Motivation External Motivation .03 .03 -.02* .04* -.09* .14 .03 .03 -.02* .03* -.08* .12* .03 .03 -.05* .19* -.07* .12* 2. Spatial Distance Opportunity to Interact .06 .03 .03* .20 .06 .03 .02* .24* 3. Intrinsic x Distance Identified x Distance Introjected x Distance External x Distance Intrinsic x Interact Identified x Interact Introjected x Interact External x Interact .16 .10 -.11* .10* .02* .11* .02* -.37* -.20* .03* Note n = 112 after listwise deletion. p < .05, two-tailed. p < .10, two-tailed. Table 4-3. Continued Interpersonal Justice Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B 1. Intrinsic Motivation Identified Motivation Introjected Motivation External Motivation .03* .03* .08* .09* -.12 .02* .03* .03* .07* .05* -.10* .00* .03* .03* .05* -.01* -.09* .02* 2. Spatial Distance Opportunity to Interact .08* .05* .09 .20 .08 .05 .13* .24* 3. Intrinsic x Distance Identified x Distance Introjected x Distance External x Distance Intrinsic x Interact Identified x Interact Introjected x Interact External x Interact .13* .05* .13* -.06* -.07* -.01* .05* -.27* -.05* .02* Note n = 112 after listwise deletion. p < .05, two-tailed. p < .10, two-tailed. 86

PAGE 87

Table 4-3. Continued Informational Justice Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B R 2 R 2 B 1. Intrinsic Motivation Identified Motivation Introjected Motivation External Motivation .02* .02* -.06* .02* .03* .10* .02* .02* -.06* .00* .04* .07* .02* .02* -.10* .15* .06* .09* 2. Spatial Distance Opportunity to Interact .07* .05* .07* .28* .07* .05* .05* .27* 3. Intrinsic x Distance Identified x Distance Introjected x Distance External x Distance Intrinsic x Interact Identified x Interact Introjected x Interact External x Interact .13* .06* .00* .22* .03* -.04* .10* -.05* -.10* .00* Note n = 112 after listwise deletion. p < .05, two-tailed. p < .10, two-tailed. 87

PAGE 88

Introjected Motivation for rule adherence External Motivation for rule adherence Intrinsic Motivation for rule adherence Identified Motivation for rule adherence Procedural Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice -.07 -.20 .10 .00 .08 -.06 -.17 -.30* .08 .19 .12 .03 Figure 4-1. Structural equation model used to test hypotheses 1-4 88

PAGE 89

Introjected Motivation for rule adherence Dutiful (C) Anxiety(N) External Motivation for rule adherence Intrinsic Motivation for rule adherence Identified Motivation for rule adherence Reliability(C) Straightforward(A) Altruism (A) Ambition(C) Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism -.52 .21* .03 -.02 .10 .19 .44* .40* -.10 .55* .44* .17* Figure 4-2. Structural e quation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. Each narrow tr ait has a letter beside it. That letter corresponds to the broad trait that subsumes that narrow trait. C represents conscientiousness, A represents agreeableness, and N represents neuroticism. p < .05, one-tailed. 89

PAGE 90

Introjected Motivation for rule adherence Dutifulness Anxiety External Motivation for rule adherence Intrinsic Motivation for rule adherence Identified Motivation for rule adherence Reliability Straightforwardness Altruism Ambition Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism .12 .71* .04 .10 .06 .49* .38* .04 -.02 .05 .20 Figure 4-3. Structural equati on model used to test hypothe ses 6-9. p < .05, two-tailed 90

PAGE 91

Introjected Motivation for rule adherence Dutiful (C) Anxiety(N) External Motivation for rule adherence Intrinsic Motivation for rule adherence Identified Motivation for rule adherence Reliability (C)Straightforward (A) Altruism (A) Ambition (C) Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism -.52 .71* .03 -.20 .10 .19 .44* .40* -.10 -.02 .05 .20 Figure 4-4. Structural e quation model used to test hypotheses 6-9. Each narrow tr ait has a letter beside it. That letter corresponds to the broad trait that subsumes th at narrow trait. C represents conscientiousness, A represents agreeable ness, and N represents neuroticism. p < .05, twotailed. 91

PAGE 92

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Although research has shown that employee per ceptions of the degree to which managers adhere to procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice rules explains variance in employee attitudes and behaviors, a key question remains unexplored: why do managers adhere to those justice rules in the first place? The purpose of this dissertation was twofold. First, I used self-determination theory to identify four different reasons why managers might adhere to justice rules. Clearly not all managers adhere to justice rules for the same reasons. Thus, it is possible that whereas some managers may genuinely want to adhere to ju stice rules for its own sake, it is likely that other managers do so as a means to other ends. The second purpose was to identify managerial traits, taken from narrow f acets of the Big Five, wh ich predict managerial motivation for justice rule adherenc e and employee justice perceptions. What stood out most from this study were the effects of personality on justice rule adherence, none of which were same source. Specifically, I found that the narrow traits of conscientiousness, trait reliability and dutiful ness (Goldberg, 1990; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), were positively related to interpersonal and informational justice. Recall that interpersonal and informational justice capture th e rules outlined by Bies and Mo ag (1986), with interpersonal justice referring specifically to the respect and propriety rules while informational justice consists of the truthfulness and justification co mponents. Thus, managers described as reliable and dependable, as well as punctu al and responsible, were also seen as more respectful and truthful. Individuals high on tra it reliability are more likely to adhere to social norms and conventions, thus explaining their propensity to adhere to the respect and propriety rules of interpersonal and the truthfulness rule of informati onal justice. Similarly, it is likely that dutiful 92

PAGE 93

individuals regard low interpers onal and informational justice as unethical; therefore they should be more likely treat employees with respect, propriety, and sincerity. Conscientiousness also predicted procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. This is consistent with the usual conceptualiz ation of conscientiousness, which consists of competence, orderliness, and reliability (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Go ldberg, 1990; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). Thus, managers seen by their employ ees as efficient were also said to be more likely to adhere to procedural justice rules, as conceptualized by Leventhal (1980). These rules include consistency, accuracy, representativeness, ethicality, bias suppres sion, and correctability (Leventhal, 1980). One way conscientiousness might positively affect procedural justice is through detailed record keeping, making it easier for them to adhere to the accuracy rule. Conscientious supervisors were al so more likely to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Therefore, manage rs described as orderly and capable by their coworkers were also seen by their employees as more respectful and trut hful. One explanation for this effect is that conscientious supervisors are likely to feel th at adhering to interper sonal and informational justice rules by treating em ployees with respect and sincerity is one of the many obligations of a good supervisor. Altruism and straightforwardness were pos itively related to interpersonal and informational justice. Thus, managers described as giving and sincere we re also described as adhering to the respect and truthfulness rules of in terpersonal and informational justice. This is consistent with Costa and McCraes (1992) c onceptualization of a ltruism, described by adjectives such as charitable, thoughtful, unselfish, and generous, as well as their conceptualization of straightforw ardness, described as a propensity to be sincere, frank, and ingenuous. Altruistic supervisor s are likely generous with th e time they spend with their 93

PAGE 94

employees, which should make it easier to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Supervisors high on trait straightforwardness, described as sincere and frank individuals, are likely to adhere to the respect rules of in terpersonal justice and th e truthfulness rule of informational justice. Similar effects were obser ved for agreeableness, the broad trait subsuming trait altruism and trait strai ghtforwardness (Goldberg, 1990). These results are consistent with Goldbergs (1990) conceptualization of agreeable ness, which includes adjective descriptors such as warm, courteous, and amicable. Specifically, agreeable supervisors are more likely to put themselves in their employees shoes (i.e., empath ize with them), and therefore should also be more likely to understand the importance of tr eating employees with sincerity and respect. Yet another narrow trait predicting justice rule adherence was that of anxiety. Unlike the previous traits, anxiety demonstr ated negative effects with both interpersonal and informational justice. Thus, managers described as nervous a nd tense were less likely to treat their employees with respect and less likely to prov ide truthful explanations. It is likely that anxious managers are preoccupied with their own issues, thus decreasing their ability to adheren ce to interpersonal and informational justice rules. Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) have made similar arguments with respect to citizenship behaviors. Specifically, they speculated that emotionally stable (i.e., low neuroticism) individuals mi ght possess more of the psychological stamina needed to engage in discretionary behaviors, be cause they would be less preoccupied with their own problems. Neuroticism, the broad trait subsum ing anxiety, demonstrated similar effects with justice perceptions. This is consistent with Costa and McCraes (1992) conceptualization of neuroticism, described as prone to experience depressive affect and more likely to experience insecurity and bitterness. Their increased propensity to experience negative emotional states should increase the probability of negative encounters with em ployees. For example, neurotic 94

PAGE 95

supervisors might be more likely to disrespect their employees a nd fail to provide justifications for their actions. It is also important to mention the effects of personality on motiva tion for justice rule adherence. Conscientiousness demonstrated positive effects with intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external motivation. Conscientiou s individuals are likely to understand just how important justice rule adherence is, and may agree with many reasons or motivations to do so. After all, these individuals are typically described as competent. These results are particularly interesting, given that the narrow traits making up conscientiousness were expected to predict three out of the four justice motivations. However, evaluating the narrow traits of conscientiousness as predictors provides additional insights into these relationships. While trait reliability was positively relate d to introjected motivation, dutifulness was unrelated to the motivation types. Perhaps the dependability and responsibility asp ects of trait reliability lead these individuals to worry about appearing to be have in ways inconsistent with their selfconcept. Interestingly, ambiti on was negatively related to iden tified, introjected, and external motivation. It is possible ambitious supervisors th ey lack motivation for justice rule adherence. Their efforts may be focused instead on their own task performance. Taken together, these results suggest that the conscientiousness effects are likely driven primarily by trait reliability rather than dutifulness. Contrary to expectations, motivation for just ice rule adherence was unrelated to employee justice perceptions. Based on SDT, I had expect ed that the four justice motivations would provide four different reasons for adhering to justice rule. Un expectedly, none of the four motivations predicted justice in either the struct ural equation models or in a zero-order sense. This is surprising because the psychometric pr operties of my measure were good, and personality 95

PAGE 96

did predict the justice motivati ons. A supplementary data collection effort can provide some insight into these non significant findings. Specifically, I collected data on managerial perceptions of their own justi ce rule adherence in an attempt to compare supervisor and employee perceptions. Although same source, using managerial perceptions of their own justice rule adherence does demonstrate some significant effects with justice motivation. Three of the four justice motivations significantly predicted procedural justice ( r = .17 for intrinsic, r = .35 for identified, and r = .18 for introjected motivation). In addi tion, identified motivation significantly predicted interpersonal justice ( r = .37). These data suggest that motivation for justice rule adherence does predict how fairly supervisors think they themselves are However, there is surprisingly little correspondence between supervisor and employee perceptions of justice rule adherence. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice are correlated a mere r = .14, as are informational justice perceptions. Interpersonal justice demonstrated somewhat higher agreement r = .19, but still a relativel y small effect size. It may therefore be that this disconnect wh en judging justice explains the lack of a relationship between justice motivation and employ ee perceptions of justice rule adherence. The lack of correspondence between supervisor and empl oyee measures of justi ce is quite interesting, though not completely unexpected in hindsight. We can use th e literature on leader-member exchange (LMX) to provide some context for th e across-source correlations listed above. In general, the LMX literature has reported moderate convergence between supervisor and employee measures of LMX. Specifically, Gers tner and Day (1997) report a meta-analytic uncorrected correlation of .29 between employee a nd supervisor reported LMX. In addition, the literature on mentor-protg rela tionships typically demonstrates moderate to weak agreement between mentors and protgs (Raabe & B eehr, 2003; Wanberg, Kammeyer-Mueller, & 96

PAGE 97

Marchese, 2006). For example, Wanberg et al. (2006) found that mentors and protgs demonstrated surprisingly low agreement on the amount of psychosocial mentoring received by the protg (r = .14). Aside from examining main effects, this disse rtation also proposed structural distance as a moderator of the motivation to justice rule adhe rence effects. Unexpectedly, structural distance variables did not moderate the motivation and ju stice perception relationships. Opportunity to interact was not a significant m oderator of any of the four effects, nor was spatial distance. However, opportunity to interact was directly related to employee perceptions of procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. Thus employees reporting that their managers are accessible were also more likely to report them as being procedurall y, interpersonally, and informationally fair. According to Leventhal (19 80), one method of adhering to the accuracy rule of procedural justice is keeping detailed, accura te records of pertinent information. In addition, adhering to the representativene ss rule requires consid eration of employees basic concerns and values (Leventhal, 1980). Clearly adhering to these procedural justice rules is likely more difficult when interaction opportunities are low. For instance, the informal sort of record-keeping required by the accuracy rule is more difficult if supervisors and employees rarely interact. In addition, interaction opportunitie s should increase a superviso rs knowledge of his or her employees basic concerns and values, thus making adherence to the repres entative rule easier. Opportunity to interact also demonstrated positive direct effect s on interpersonal and informational justice. Adhering to Bies and Mo ags (1986) justification rule should become easier if opportunities to interact with empl oyees increase, therefore providing additional opportunities to provide explanations Previous research is consiste nt with this line of thinking, as structural distance may hinder a managers abi lity to provide timely feedback (Howell et al., 97

PAGE 98

2005). In general, that frequenc y of communication decreases as structural distance between employees increases (Gullahorn, 1952). Consequently, fewer intera ction opportunities can negatively affect interaction quality between a manager and his or her employees. Note, however, that these relationships were observed using same-source data. Thus, future research should examine these relationships using non same -source data, as these results offer a number of other avenues for future research. First and foremost, future research should ex amine potential mediators of the opportunity to interact-justice effects, noted above. One potentia l explanation of this e ffect is that increased interaction opportuni ties are likely capable of providing em ployees with explanations for unfair treatment. To be specific, increased interaction likely exposes employees to their supervisors daily interactions. This increas ed exposure may provide built in explanations for a managers justice rule adherence, or lack thereof. While explanations may not always be beneficial, explanations can potentially improve perceptions of justice rule a dherence. This is consistent with previous research, which suggests that ex planations have benefi cial effects on justice perceptions (for a review, see Bobocel & Zdan iuk, 2005). In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that explanations were positively related to both procedural and distributive justice, though interpersonal and informational justice were not examined (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003). Conversely, low levels of interaction can be problematic for a differe nt reason; in this case unfair instances are likely to loom large. In other word s, while increased interactions may not change the likelihood of fair treatment, it may make it ea sier for employees to recount instances of fair treatment. Future research might also integrate persona lity and opportunity to interact, as certain supervisors might be more inclined to seek out positions in which interaction with employees is 98

PAGE 99

high. Previous theorizing is consistent with th is proposition, in that personality, among other variables, predicts job choice. In fact, several theoretical works, includ ing Schneiders attractionselection-attrition model (Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998), Hollands (1985) vocational choice model, and person-job fit (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997), address the idea that people make work related choices at least to some extent, ba sed on their personalities. In addition, personality traits influence an individu als motivational choices (Mount et al., 2005). In other words, personality influences the extent to which certain tasks are valued, and therefore how much effort and persistence is exerted on these tasks (Mount et al., 2005). With respect to interaction opportunitie s, it is likely that certai n personality traits may lead to increased effort directed towards creating these high employee inte raction opportunities. In terestingly, my data suggest that supervisors rated by their cowork ers as high on reliabilit y, straightforwardness, dutifulness, as well as agreeableness had em ployees report high levels of interaction opportunities. Previous research is consistent w ith these findings, as agreeableness has been linked with communion striving, de fined as behaviors meant to obtain and develop personal relationships at work (Barrick et al., 2002). Thus, agreeable supervisors should be more likely to create high interaction o pportunities, as a way to develop re lationships with their employees. Limitations This dissertation has some limitations that s hould be noted. For example, the sample size was limited for some of the te sts of hypotheses. Although data was collected for over one hundred and sixty focal employees, significant attr ition occurred due to th e requirement of two additional data sources, that of the supervisor and a coworker. However, it is important to note that the unsupported hypotheses did not seem to be a function of low statistical power. The average regression coefficient for the motivati ng to justice rule adhe rence hypotheses was only .07. Thus, the unsupported hypotheses can be attri buted to the very low effect sizes found. 99

PAGE 100

Moreover, some of the effects were not in the predicted direction, which is clearly not a power issue. Another important limitation to consider is that this study consisted of a correlational field study, which raises concerns about internal validity. In fact, Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) suggested that causation cannot be inferred without manipula ting the independent variable. Similarly, Stone-Romero and Rosopa (2004) asserted that longit udinal or experimental data is needed to confirm mediation. While this is a valid concern for most correlational field studies, the use of personality as the independent variable dimi nishes this concern somewhat. According to most personality scholars, the Big Five personality traits tend to be thought of as heritable psychological tendencies (Loehlin, 1992; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998). Consistent with this proposition, previous research has demonstrat ed that personality tends to remain consistent throughout time (Ilies & Judge, 2003; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). In fact, Costa and McCrae (1994) have demonstrated relativ ely strong test-retest correlations for adults, around .50 to .80. Thus, it is likely th at separating the measures over a short span of time would not have altered the personality results in any meaningful way. Practical Implications Despite these limitations, the results of this st udy offer a number of practical implications. To increase the likelihood of fair treatment, one can hire managers that are more likely to treat employees fairly. Specifically, these results sugg est that conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism are traits that predict interper sonal and informational justice. The use of conscientiousness as a selection tool has more advantages than just increased fair treatment. Previous research has demonstrat ed that conscientiousness had a moderate positive effect on task performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In fact, many Fortune 1000 companies either currently use, or are planning on using, personality te sts in the workplace (Piotrowski & Armstrong, 100

PAGE 101

2006). Such tests could be used as selection t ools in jobs where a significant supervisory component is present, or as placement tools when employees in technical positions are promoted into managerial roles. These results also suggest that increasing in teraction opportunities between employees and their supervisors might have beneficial effects on justice perceptions. Specifically, this study suggests that employees reporting increased inter action opportunities and supervisor accessibility also perceive their supervisors as more like ly to adhere to procedural, interpersonal, informational, and distributive ju stice rules. This is an important finding because changes in the nature of work may make intera ction opportunities rarer, negativel y affecting justice perceptions. For example, organizations are increasingly offering flexible work arrangements and telecommuting opportunities (SHR M Foundation, 2001). These types of changes are likely to affect employee supervisor interactions by making face-to-face interactions more difficult. In a discussion of the changing nature of work, House (1995) echoed the importance of employeesupervisor interactions, by writing: Interaction facilitation by supervisors will become increasingly important in the twenty-first century because of the enhanced complexity of work and proliferation of autonomous team-oriented work groups (p. 434). Thus, when interaction opportunities are relatively rare, supervisors should be more aware of their adherence to justice rules. In these situations, providing training on justice rule adherence might be particularly beneficial. Previous research has demonstrated that leaders can be trained successfully on procedural, interpersonal, and informational ju stice principles (Greee nberg, 1999; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). However, justice training, as curren tly conceptualized, is likely to have little effect if employee-supervisor in teraction opportunities are rare. Therefore, it might make more 101

PAGE 102

sense to focus justice training on justice behaviors that can be enacted, in distance environments, as well as face-to-face contexts. For example, supe rvisors might be taught to create opportunities to provide their employees with explanations over email or via voicemail, thus adhering to informational justice rules as conc eptualized by Bies and Moag (1986). 102

PAGE 103

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 43-90). New York: Academic Press. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and di stributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research 1, 177-198. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurem ent and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 1-18. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (19 36). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs 47, No. 211. Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, 915-922. Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly 13 673-704. Aristotle. (1759). Hobbes translation of Aris totle art of rhetoric London: Gale Group. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderato r-mediator variable di stinction in social psychological research: Con ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 1173-1182. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1991) The big five personality dime nsions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology 81, 261272. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personali ty and job performance: Tests of the mediating effects of motiv ation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application, 3 rd edition. New York: The Free Press. 103

PAGE 104

Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance: Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 1054-1068. Bies, R. J. 2005. Are procedural a nd interactional justice conceptually distin ct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds .), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional ju stice: Communication criter ia of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their in fluence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676-685. Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 469-498). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. ( 1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cameron, K., Freeman, S., & Mishra, A. (1993). Downsizing and redesign ing organizations. In G. Huber & W Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign (pp. 19-63). New York: Oxford University Press. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcem ent, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research 64, 363-423. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeli ng the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of pers onality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38, 476-507. Cattell, R. B. (1945). The principal tra it clusters for describing personality. Psychological Bulletin 42, 129-169. Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika 12, 197-220. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1976). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF) Champaign, IL: IPAT. 104

PAGE 105

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 287-321. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis: Erratum. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89, 1215. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 425-445. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is or ganizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Gree nberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 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, 99, 110-127. Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal and counterproductive behavior ? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age di fferences in personality structure: A cluster analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology 31, 564-570. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEOPI-R: Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. Heathert on & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21 40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psyc hological testing (2 nd edition). New York: Harper Row. 105

PAGE 106

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. ( 1997). Regulatory focus and strategi c inclinations. Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69, 117-132. de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior New York: Academic Press. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated re wards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18 105-115. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. ( 1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsi c rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 627-668. Deci, E. L., & Moller, A. C. (2005). The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic motiva tion and self-determined extr insic motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 579-597). New York: Guilford Publications. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M (1980). The empirical e xploration of intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 13, 39-80. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self -determination in human behavior New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientation scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality 19, 109-134. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The suppor t of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 1024-1037. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines whic h value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues 31, 137-150. Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further sp ecification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 ,116-123. 106

PAGE 107

Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural ju stice and participation in task selection: The role of control in medi ating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 52, 1148-1160. Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivationNegative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin 125, 677-691. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxi ety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 628-644. Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Li nking the big five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences 41, 959-970. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44, 329-344. Fiske, D. W. (1994). Two cheers for the big five! Psychological Inquiry 5,123-124. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of pr ocedural and distributiv e justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal 32 115-130. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial distancing as a function of layoff blame. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 79-87. Gagn, M., Forest, J., Batistelli, A., Van den Br oeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Gilbert, M. H., Grenier, S., Aub, C., & Morin, E. (2006). Va lidation of the motivation at work scale (MAWS) using self-determination theo ry. Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University. Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L (2005). Self-det ermination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review 36, 179-185. Gerstner, C., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analyti c review of leader-mem ber exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 827-844. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 107

PAGE 108

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "descr iption of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 1216-1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist 48, 26-34. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personal ity Item Pool and the future of publicdomain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality 40 84-96. Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoi ding inequity in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389-435). New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of percei ved fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 340-342. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review 12, 9-22. Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an imag e of justice: Looking fair on the job. Academy of Management Executive 11, 155-157. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of paycuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568. Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1993b). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103. Greenberg, J. & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 437469). New York: Academic Press. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in childrens learning : An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 890-898. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of s ituational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion 24, 175-213. 108

PAGE 109

Gullahorn, J. T. (1952). Distance and friendship as factors in the gross interaction matrix. Sociometry 15, 123-134. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations New York: Wiley. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods 2, 175-186. Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integrati on of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 146-16. Hogan, R. (2004). Personality psychology for organi zational researchers. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and Organizations (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and no n-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17, 627-637. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-fir st century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411-450). San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. M. (1999). Th e ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694. Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the rela tionship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership Quarterly 16, 273285. Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23-1805. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritabili ty of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 750-759. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J ., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 884-899. 109

PAGE 110

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Pe rsonality and Social Research. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big fi ve trait taxonomy: Hist ory, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp: 102-137). New York: Guilford. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 users reference guide Moorseville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology 50 359-394. Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal 36 -105. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and indus trial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and or ganizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The rela tion of psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness to vitality, well-being, and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 935-954. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identificatio n, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution 2, 51-60. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion cha nge. Public Information Quarterly, 25, 57-78. Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral re straint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizer. Journal of Social Issues 29, 25-61. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes fo r leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22, 375-403. Klauss, R., & Bass, B. M. (1982). Interpersonal communication in organizations New York: Academic Press. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of st ructural equation modeling New York: Guilford Press. Koester, R., Losier, G. F., Vallerand, R. J., & Carducci, D. (1996). Identified and introjected forms of political internalization: Extending self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 1025-1036. 110

PAGE 111

Kohlberg, L. (1969). State and sequence: The cogn itive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally. Korsgaard, M. A., Roberson, L., & Rymph, R. D. (1998). What motivates fairness? The role of subordinate assertive behavior on managers interactional fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 731-744. Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on childrens intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 479-486. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of re wards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-131). New York: Academic Press. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done w ith equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of th e Big Five personality factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 431-453. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7, 83-104. Masterson, S. S., Byrne, Z. S., & Mao, H. ( 2005). Interpersonal and informational justice: Identifying the differential antecedents of in teractional justice behaviors. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 79-103). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Mayer, D. M., Nishii, L. H., & Schneider, B. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929-963. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Upda ting Norman's "adequate taxonomy": Intelligence and personality dimensions in natu ral language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 710-721. 111

PAGE 112

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987).Valid ation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 8190. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr (1996). To ward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-fact or model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality : Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-f actor theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139). New York: Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr, & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 84, 261-270. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing th e side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69, 372-378. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Do fairness perc eptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 845-855. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Sc ullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher order dimensions of the big five personality traits and th e big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447-478. Mowday, R. T. (1979). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizati ons. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 53-71). New York: Academic Press. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and the depletion of limited resources: Does elf-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin 126, 247-259. Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review 3, 321-357. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth -fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17 609-626. 112

PAGE 113

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citiz enship behavior: The good soldier syndrome Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Why managers dont always do the right thing when delivering bad news: The role of empat hy, self-esteem, and moral development in interactional fairness. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, D. P. Skarlicki, & Van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations? (pp. 149-178). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis : An integrated approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. (2006). Current recruitment and selection practices: A national survey of fortune 1000 firms. North American Journal of Psychology 8, 489-496. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situ ational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34, 21-63. Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24, 271. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin 126 3-25. Ross, M. (1975). Salience of re ward and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 245-254. Ross, M., Karniol, R., & Rothstein, M. (1976). Re ward contingency and intrinsic motivation in children: A test of the dela y of gratification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 442-447. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and th e facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 36, 397-427. 113

PAGE 114

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceive d locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.) Handbook of selfdetermination research (pp. 3-33). New York: University of Rochester Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulati on and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self -determination, and will? Journal of Personality 74, 15571585. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two t ypes of religious inte rnalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596. Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. ( 1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the big five personality factors: A cross-la nguage replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 613-627. Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsid ed by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639-655. Scott, B. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2007). Are or ganizational justice eff ects bounded by individual differences? Group and Organization Management 32, 290-325. Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Justice as a dependent variable: Subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 1597-1609. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleen or, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 462-470. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons as pr edictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, 546-557. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999).Goal st riving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal wellbeing: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 482-497. Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Ba rrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying self-determination theory to organizational re search. In J. J. Martocchio & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 357-393). Boston, MA: Elsevier. 114

PAGE 115

Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace New York: Lexington Books. SHRM Foundation. (2001). SHRM 2001 benefits survey Society for Human Resource Management. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100-108. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increas ing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology 81, 161-169. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior New York: Macmillan. Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and mora lity: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Rosopa, P. J. (2004). Inference problems with hierarchical multiple regression-based tests of mediating effects. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 23, pp. 249-290). Oxfo rd, UK: Elsevier. Shaw, J. C. Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 444-458. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review 66, 541-566. Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1-32. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurr ent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackla nd Air Force Base, TX: US. Air Force. Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 642-655. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in experimental social psychology 29, 271-360. Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4, 295-310. Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese M. (2006). Mentor and protg predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 410-423. 115

PAGE 116

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ry an, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70-126. 116

PAGE 117

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cindy P. Zapata-Phelan is a doc toral candidate at the University of Floridas Warrington College of Business. She earned her B.S. in psychology at the Universi ty of Florida. Her research interests include organizational justice, personality, and motivation. Her work has been published in the Academy of Management Journal and the Journal of Applied Psychology. She will join the faculty at th e Georgia Institute of Tec hnology in the summer of 2008. 117