1. Perceived Fairness and Motivation of
Students in the Workplace
Background
• Previous studies have shown that perceived job
fairness and justice are predictive of employee
motivation and job attitudes in the workplace.
(Zapata-Phelan, 2008)
• Intrinsic motivation is particularly more predictive of
perceived justice and fairness in the workplace.
(Zapata- Phelan, 2008)
• Many studies have shown that these two are highly
correlated within the organizational setting; however,
not much research has been established on the basis
of students in the workforce.
Hypotheses
• H1: Intrinsic motivation will be positively correlated
with distributive justice
• H2: Intrinsic motivation will be positively correlated
with procedural justice
• H3: Intrinsic motivation will be positively correlated
with interactional justice
Method
Procedure: Based on previous valid measures, we created a
cohesive scale pertaining to intrinsic motivation and all three
justice’s. We then took the items and entered them into a Qualtrics
survey.
*The criteria for participation was that the individual had to be enrolled in at
least 6 course credits and be working a minimum of 10 hours per week
Participants: N= 26. The school participants attended varied (e.g.
Arizona State University, University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado
State University, & University of Nebraska). 62% of the
participants were from CSU. Class level ranged from Freshman to
Senior level and most labeled themselves as Caucasian regarding
race/ethnicity.
Measures:
• Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) (Guay et al., 2000)
Intrinsic Motivation Items Cronbach's alpha= .95
• Four Component Model of Procedural Fairness (Blader et al.,
2002)
Coefficient alpha= .96
• Interpersonal
• Procedural
• Distributive
Ashley Bamberg, Alex Beck, & Diana
Sanchez, M.S.
Implications
• We need a larger sample size with individuals
from a variety of grade levels in order to make
more legitimate assumptions.
• Student jobs can vary significantly and typically
are entry level jobs, so this may be another factor as
to why their perceived fairness is high.
• We need to have a larger sample size. We did not
have enough variance so our ranges were restricted.
• Future research should focus on applying this to
the organizational level so that we can more in-
depth understand employees perceptions of
fairness in the workplace and the correlations it
may have with employee motivation.
Results
• Our most significant finding was that intrinsic
motivation did not have a correlation regarding
perceived fairness with any of the justices’; however,
the justices were all highly correlated with one
another.
Intrinsic Interactions
• Procedural justice: r= .180
• Distributive justice: r=-.013
• Interactional justice: r=.283
Justice Interactions
• Procedural & Interactional: r= .753
• Interactional & Distributive: r= .740
• Distributive & Procedural: r= .695
Purpose
• To explore if student workers with higher levels of
intrinsic motivation tend to perceive their
organization as more fair.
Correlation Table
References
• 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 (3).
• Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. (2002). 13. Justice and Empathy: What
motivates people to help others?. The justice motive in everyday life, 226.
• Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2008). Managerial Motivation for Justice Rule
Adherence: Using Self-determination Theory as a Framework (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida).
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Gender 1.72 .458 - -
2.University
Employed
1.81 .402 - -
3.Procedural
Justice
4.53 1.08 .695** .753** .180
-
4.Distributive
Justice
4.84 1.11 .695** .740** .013 -
5.Interactional
Justice
4.88 1.07 .753** .740** .283 -
6. Intrinsic
Motivation
4.68 1.01 .180 -.013 .283 -
Note. Gender was coded as 1=male 2=female. University Employed was coded as 1=Yes 2=No. Procedural Justice was coded
as 1=Correlation with Distributive Justice 2=Correlation with Interactional Justice 3=Correlation with Intrinsic Motivation.
Distributive Justice was coded as 1=Correlation with Procedural Justice 2=Correlation with Interactional Justice 3=Correlation
with Intrinsic Motivation. Interactional Justice was coded as 1=Correlation with Procedural Justice 2=Correlation with
Distributive Justice 3=Correlation with Intrinsic Motivation. Intrinsic Motivation was coded as 1=Correlation with Procedural
Justice 2=Correlation with Distributive Justice 3=Correlation with Interactional Justice.
**p<.01