Abstract
The Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale (DPJS), developed by Paul D. Sweeney and Dean B. McFarlin in 1997, is an established psychometric instrument designed to evaluate employee perceptions of workplace fairness across two fundamental domains: structural resource allocation and administrative decision-making mechanisms. Rooted in social exchange theory and classical organizational justice paradigms, the DPJS operationalizes fairness through a 24-item self-report questionnaire divided into two distinct dimensions: a 13-item Procedural Justice subscale and an 11-item Distributive Justice subscale. Items are measured using an anchored 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), containing carefully balanced positively keyed and reverse-scored items to control for acquiescence response bias.
Psychometric evaluations from Sweeney and McFarlin’s foundational investigation demonstrated robust internal consistency, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .84 for procedural justice and .81 for distributive justice. Confirmatory factor analysis verified that distributive justice and procedural justice represent empirically distinct, non-redundant theoretical constructs rather than artifacts of a generalized halo effect or single common workplace sentiment. Criterion-related and construct validity assessments substantiate that both dimensions correlate positively with key organizational outcomes, including employee compensation levels, intent to stay, overall job satisfaction, supervisory performance evaluations, and organizational commitment. Moreover, procedural justice uniquely accounts for variance associated with organizational tenure and demographic factors. As a cornerstone instrument in industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior, the scale provides researchers and diagnosticians with a rigorous tool for assessing organizational climate, leadership equity, and systemic institutional fairness.
Keywords
Distributive justice, procedural justice, organizational justice, workplace fairness, psychometrics, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance appraisal, turnover intentions, employee equity.
Authors
The scale was developed and psychometrically validated by Paul D. Sweeney and Dean B. McFarlin. At the time of the instrument’s initial validation and publication in 1997, both researchers conducted pioneering empirical work in organizational behavior and industrial relations at the University of Dayton and associated research centers.
- Paul D. Sweeney, Ph.D. — Professor of Management, Department of Management and Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, United States. Dr. Sweeney’s research specializes in organizational justice, wage inequality perceptions, cross-cultural management, and employee satisfaction dynamics.
- Dean B. McFarlin, Ph.D. — Professor of Management and former Department Chair, School of Business Administration, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio (subsequently serving as Dean and Hugh L. McColl, Jr. Chair of Leadership at the Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte). Dr. McFarlin is an internationally recognized scholar in international management, leadership equity, organizational justice, and executive decision-making.
Correspondence regarding the original research was primarily directed to the Department of Management and Marketing, School of Business Administration, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-2235, USA.
Purpose
The fundamental purpose of the Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale is to provide an empirically validated diagnostic and investigative framework capable of disentangling how workers perceive the fairness of outcomes received from the fairness of the institutional processes utilized to determine those outcomes. In contemporary organizational settings, employees continuously monitor administrative environments to ascertain whether reward allocations, performance reviews, promotions, disciplinary measures, and organizational changes are executed equitably, transparently, and consistently.
From an applied perspective, organizations frequently encounter dysfunctions such as voluntary employee turnover, burnout, active disengagement, counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and formal grievance filings. Human resource practitioners and organizational development consultants deploy the DPJS to conduct climate audits, identify structural weaknesses in performance appraisal mechanisms, isolate perceived supervisory bias, and evaluate the perceived legitimacy of administrative dispute resolution frameworks. By isolating procedural justice from distributive justice, organizational leadership can determine whether dissatisfaction stems from tangible compensation constraints (e.g., budgetary limitations impacting raises) or systemic administrative failures (e.g., obscure promotion criteria, lack of grievance appeal avenues, or inadequate performance feedback).
In academic and field research, the DPJS serves as a vital measurement instrument for examining hypotheses derived from social exchange theory, equity theory, and leadership frameworks such as Leader–Member Exchange (LMX). Researchers utilize the instrument to test moderating and mediating models of organizational behavior, such as the differential effects of procedural versus distributive justice on cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Specifically, literature demonstrates that while distributive justice tends to predict item-specific, outcome-oriented reactions (such as pay satisfaction and job satisfaction), procedural justice functions as an overarching institutional barometer that predicts attitudes toward the broader system, including institutional trust, citizenship behaviors, and institutional commitment.
Psychological Construct
The construct of organizational justice refers to the perceptual and cognitive evaluations individuals make concerning the fairness of treatment, processes, and allocations in work settings. The DPJS conceptualizes and isolates two core dimensions of this broader construct:
1. Procedural Justice (13 Items)
Procedural justice represents the perceived fairness of the rules, protocols, structural mechanisms, and formal processes utilized to reach organizational determinations. Rather than evaluating the physical or financial outcome itself, procedural justice evaluates the systemic integrity of the decision-making apparatus. As operationalized within Sweeney and McFarlin’s scale, procedural justice is multi-faceted and encompasses several critical sub-domains:
- Process Voice and Appeal Mechanisms: The presence and adequacy of formal systems that allow employees to voice concerns, appeal evaluations, or challenge adverse personnel actions (e.g., “There are adequate procedures to get my performance rating reconsidered if necessary”).
- Systemic Transparency and Predictability: The degree to which organizational policies, performance standards, and criteria for advancement are clearly communicated and comprehended by employees (e.g., “I understand the performance appraisal system being used in this organization”).
- Protection and Whistleblowing Climate: The psychological safety and formal freedom workers experience to identify organizational infractions without fearing administrative retribution (e.g., “I am not afraid to ‘blow the whistle’ on things I find wrong with my organization”).
- Ethical Alignment and Impartiality: The perceived neutrality and equity of disciplinary measures, affirmative action advancements, and structural shifts (e.g., “In general, disciplinary actions taken in this organization are fair and justified”).
2. Distributive Justice (11 Items)
Distributive justice reflects the perceived equity and fairness of the ends, allocations, or outcomes that an employee receives from their organization. Grounded heavily in classic resource-exchange paradigms, this construct examines whether outcomes such as base compensation, unscheduled pay increases, merit bonuses, formal promotions, and public recognition correspond appropriately to employee inputs, effort, and performance quality. Operational aspects measured by the DPJS include:
- Merit-Based Allocation Alignment: The direct contingency between high performance and tangible economic outcomes (e.g., “Promotions or unscheduled pay increases here usually depend on how well a person performs on his/her job”).
- Performance Rating Accuracy: The extent to which formal evaluations represent a truthful, uninflated, and unbiased reflection of real job performance rather than irrelevant administrative criteria (e.g., “My performance rating presents a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance”).
- Consequential Accountability: The presence of symmetrical consequences for both outstanding contributions and chronic underperformance (e.g., “I will be demoted or removed from my position if I perform my job poorly” versus “I will get a cash award or unscheduled pay increase if I perform especially well”).
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework undergirding the Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale synthesizes four major lines of sociopsychological and organizational scholarship:
1. Adams’ Equity Theory (1965)
J. Stacy Adams’ Equity Theory provides the conceptual foundation for the distributive justice dimension. Adams posited that individuals continuously evaluate the ratio of their personal work outcomes (e.g., pay, fringe benefits, status, recognition) relative to their perceived inputs (e.g., education, hours worked, cognitive effort, technical skill) and compare this ratio against relevant social referents. When individuals detect an inequitable balance—either underpayment inequity or overpayment inequity—cognitive dissonance emerges, prompting behavioral adjustments (e.g., reduced productivity, absenteeism) or psychological rationalizations. The distributive subscale directly operationalizes whether rewards are apportioned in direct alignment with inputs.
2. Thibaut and Walker’s Dispute Resolution Paradigm (1975)
The procedural justice paradigm originated in the legal psychology investigations of John W. Thibaut and Laurens Walker (1975). They demonstrated that disputants distinguished sharply between decision control (control over actual legal outcomes) and process control (the opportunity to articulate evidence and express one’s case, commonly termed “voice”). Thibaut and Walker revealed that individuals deem proceedings fair and accept negative outcomes far more readily when process control is guaranteed, establishing that process fairness possesses intrinsic psychological value separate from the final outcome.
3. Leventhal’s Six Procedural Rules (1980)
Gerald S. Leventhal extended procedural justice into non-legal, organizational allocations, identifying six normative criteria that structural procedures must satisfy to be deemed fair:
- Consistency: Allocative procedures must be applied consistently across persons and across time.
- Bias Suppression: Decision-makers must prevent personal self-interest or prejudice from influencing the outcome.
- Accuracy of Information: Decisions must be based on comprehensive, high-quality, and verified data.
- Correctability: Formal opportunities must exist to appeal, modify, or overturn flawed decisions.
- Representativeness: The concerns, values, and perspectives of all affected parties must be integrated into the process.
- Ethicality: Procedures must adhere to fundamental ethical and moral standards.
The 13 procedural items in the DPJS directly capture these dimensions, explicitly incorporating Leventhal’s criteria regarding correctability (reconsideration procedures), accuracy (objective performance standards), and consistency.
4. McFarlin and Sweeney’s Two-Factor Justice Model (1992, 1997)
Prior to and throughout their 1997 study, Sweeney and McFarlin advanced a consolidated “two-factor model” of organizational justice. They argued that distributive justice predominantly influences person-referenced outcomes—such as individual job satisfaction, personal pay satisfaction, and subjective career optimism. In contrast, procedural justice serves as the primary predictor of system-referenced outcomes—including trust in organizational leadership, organizational commitment, and collective citizenship behaviors. The 1997 scale was designed to provide empirical instruments specifically calibrated to test the interactive and structural relationships predicted by this two-factor model.
Validity
Extensive psychometric assessments have demonstrated the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale.
Construct and Discriminant Validity
A central theoretical contention in organizational psychology was whether procedural and distributive justice represent distinct psychological phenomena or reflect a singular, generalized attitude toward management. Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) addressed this utilizing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Structural modeling demonstrated that a two-factor model specifying independent distributive and procedural dimensions provided a significantly superior fit to the observed data compared to a rival single-factor (unidimensional justice) model. The empirical independence of the two factors demonstrated that employees maintain distinct cognitive representations of systemic administrative rules versus tangible outcome receipts.
Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion-related validity was confirmed across a series of bivariate and multivariate analyses conducted with standard organizational markers:
- Organizational Commitment and Intent to Stay: Both procedural and distributive justice displayed statistically significant positive correlations with organizational commitment and negative correlations with voluntary turnover intentions. Procedural justice consistently demonstrated a stronger predictive weight for institutional commitment, confirming theoretical expectations regarding system-referenced attitudes.
- Job Satisfaction: Both dimensions correlated robustly and positively with overall job satisfaction, with distributive justice demonstrating heightened predictive power over specific task- and pay-oriented satisfaction indices.
- Performance Appraisals and Supervisor Evaluations: Distributive justice showed high convergent validity with the fairness of supervisory performance ratings, whereas procedural justice demonstrated significant associations with supervisory trust and positive external performance ratings assigned to the employee.
- Demographic Correlates: Procedural justice demonstrated distinct empirical relationships with organizational tenure and gender, with male employees reporting marginally higher procedural justice scores across specific administrative criteria—an empirical finding that underscored the scale’s sensitivity in uncovering gender-based differences in organizational socialization and authority perceptions.
Reliability
The Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale demonstrates high internal consistency across both research and organizational field applications. In the original psychometric validation study by Sweeney and McFarlin (1997), reliability metrics were calculated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha:
- Procedural Justice Subscale (13 items): α = .84
- Distributive Justice Subscale (11 items): α = .81
Both values exceed the classical psychometric threshold of .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein for basic research, as well as the .80 criterion standard commonly required for applied organizational diagnostics. The high internal consistency across both scales indicates substantial item homogeneity without problematic redundancy.
Item-total correlation coefficients in empirical assessments consistently show positive values ranging above .40, with reverse-scored items exhibiting satisfactory discriminative power once properly inverted. Subsequent organizational replications across varied corporate, governmental, and healthcare cohorts have routinely demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .80 to .89 for the procedural justice subscale, and from .78 to .86 for the distributive justice subscale, evidencing stability across occupational contexts.
Factor Analysis
The dimensional structure of the DPJS was rigorously examined using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches. During scale validation, the authors utilized confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation to test competing structural models:
Model Comparison and Goodness-of-Fit
The hypothesized two-factor oblique model—positing correlated but structurally distinct procedural and distributive justice latent constructs—was contrasted against a one-factor unconstrained model where all 24 items loaded onto a single general justice factor. The two-factor formulation demonstrated significantly superior fit metrics across multiple indices:
- Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): Exhibited acceptable fit for the two-factor specification, surpassing standard thresholds.
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI) & Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently demonstrated values exceeding .90 for the two-factor model, whereas the single-factor model demonstrated unacceptable degradation of fit (CFI < .80).
- Chi-Square Difference Test (Δχ²): The chi-square difference test between the single-factor and two-factor models yielded a statistically significant difference (p < .001), definitively confirming multidimensionality.
Factor Loadings
Item loadings onto their respective latent factors were uniformly robust and statistically significant (p < .01). Procedural justice items loaded substantially on the procedural latent construct (standardized parameter estimates typically spanning .45 to .75), reflecting high operational cohesion around grievance mechanisms, system transparency, and objective appraisals. Distributive justice items loaded significantly onto the distributive latent construct (standardized estimates spanning .42 to .78), clustering around performance-contingent rewards, promotion likelihood, and compensation fairness.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The structural characteristics of the Distributive and Procedural Justice Scale are summarized as follows:
- Instrument Type: Standardized self-report psychometric questionnaire.
- Target Population: Adult working populations, including corporate, public sector, healthcare, educational, and industrial personnel.
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online web-based survey.
- Total Item Count: 24 items.
- Procedural Justice Subscale: 13 items (Items 1 to 13).
- Distributive Justice Subscale: 11 items (Items 14 to 24).
- Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale anchored as follows:
- 1 = Strongly Disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
- 4 = Agree
- 5 = Strongly Agree
- Scoring and Inversion Rules:
- Reverse-scored items are indicated with (R). Prior to computing scale scores, these items must be reversed such that: 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1.
- Procedural Justice Reverse Items: Item 1, Item 3, Item 6.
- Distributive Justice Reverse Items: Item 15 (Distributive 2), Item 16 (Distributive 3), Item 17 (Distributive 4), Item 19 (Distributive 6).
- Subscale scores are typically calculated by averaging the response values of the items within each subscale, yielding a composite score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 for Procedural Justice and 1.00 to 5.00 for Distributive Justice. Higher scores represent higher perceived fairness.
- Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The scale was formally published in 1997 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 18, Iss. 1, pp. 83–98), authored by Paul D. Sweeney and Dean B. McFarlin. The scale items were published in full in Appendix 1 of the article.
The copyright is held by the original publishers, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. In accordance with standard academic publishing conventions, the items are widely accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and formal citation are accorded to Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) and John Wiley & Sons. Organizations seeking to deploy the scale within commercial assessment systems, proprietary software platforms, or consulting products should verify licensing requirements or contact the publisher’s rights and permissions department.
References
- Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
- Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
- Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/256361
- Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
- Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
- Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
- McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637. https://doi.org/10.5465/256489
- Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1022
- Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 83–98.