Date of Original Version



Working Paper

Rights Management

All Rights Reserved

Abstract or Description

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances the likelihood of receiving desired outcomes, but subsequent research has generally argued that non-instrumental mechanisms actually underlie reactions to voice. In contrast to past research, we show that giving everyone voice does, in fact, lead them to believe that they are more likely to win a competition. However, this instrumental belief does not account for the effects of voice on perceived fairness. Results suggest that although voice does indeed have important instrumental meaning, this instrumentality does not actually explain why people value having a voice in the process.