Counterfactual Thinkings In Unfairness Judgment:the Moderating Role Of Fairness Dimension

In recent years, empirical researches based on the fairness theory have found that, counterfactual thinking is the cognitive drive of unfairness judgement. These leads to an important question:Which is the counterfactual thinking process of unfairness judgement? There are three models in different studies:(1) the three-factor model:unfairness judgement was drived by three counterfactual thinking components simultaneously; (2) the two-factor model:based on would counterfactual thinking, either kind of counterfactual thinking can prove the unfairness judgment; (3) the single factor model: unfairness judgement was drived by one counterfactual thinking component as enough. However, the effect of fairness dimension has being neglected. In the present research, we investigate the moderating role of fairness dimension in the counterfactual thinking process of unfairness judgement.Research one is a 3 (would counterfactual thinking:none VS. low VS. high) x 2 (could counterfactual thinking:low VS. high) x 2 (should counterfactual thinking: low VS. high) between-subjects situational experiment.416 Chinese students participated in this experiment voluntarily. A multivarite ANOVA showed that the main effect of would counterfactual thinking on outcome unfairness was significant, the main effect of could counterfactual thinking on interpersonal unfairness was significant, the main effect of should counterfactual thinking on procedural unfairness was significant, both interactions and other main effects was non-significant. We assumed this to reflect that the counterfactual thinking process of unfairness judgement is a single factor model, which is moderated by the fairness dimension. Specifically, the outcome unfairness judgement are seperately drived by would counterfactual thinking, the interpersonal unfairness judgement are seperately drived by could counterfactual thinking, the procedural unfairness judgement are seperately drived by should counterfactual thinking.Research two is a 3 (would counterfactual thinking:low VS. high) x 2 (could counterfactual thinking:low VS. high) x 2 (should counterfactual thinking:low VS. high) between-subjects situational experiment.284 Chinese students participated in this experiment voluntarily. A multivarite ANOVA showed the same results as research one. Specifically, weaken would counterfactual thinking can lower the outcome unfairness judgement, weaken could counterfactual thinking can lower the interpersonal unfairness judgement, weaken should counterfactual thinking can lower the procedural unfairness judgement.The discussion explains how these findings are in accordance with our integrative perspective on the work on fairness theory. The inconsistency of the result were also discussed. This paper also indicated that further research can develop this topic by extending moderators, context and paradigms.