It is arguable that self-efficacy leads to learning efficiency through the manifestation of motivation to learn. Training motivation can be described as a specific desire on the part of the trainee to learn the content of the training program (Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) offers an explanation as to why self-efficacy may relate to motivation: those who are high in self-efficacy may achieve favorable outcomes of persistence, intensity, and direction, which are the psychological processing factors of motivation (Kanfer, 1991), and thus they may be more motivated. In addition, the need- motive-value theory (Kanfer) specifies that individuals’ personality, values, and motives create between-person differences in motivation. Hence, for instance, conscientiousness associates with training motivation due to the differing goals conscientious and unconscientious people set. Empirical researchers have shown a positive relationship between self-efficacy and training motivation (e.g., Carlson, Bozeman, Kacmar, Wright, & McMahan, 2000; Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Quiñones, 1995). Hence we posited that:
Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy will be positively related to training motivation; trainees with high self-efficacy will be more motivated to learn than will those with low self-efficacy.

There is a robust positive relationship between training motivation and learning. Training motivation can influence the willingness of an employee to attend the training program (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993), to exert energy toward the program (Ryman & Biersner, 1975), and to transfer what they learn in the program into the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Adult learning theorists (Knowles, 1984; Scheer, 1979) postulated that adults will learn only what they feel a desire to learn. Researchers have shown that motivation to learn is related to learning and completion of training programs (e.g., Baldwin, Magjuka, & Loher, 1991; Hicks & Klimoski, 1987) and is likely to have a direct impact on training outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2000; Martocchio & Webster, 1992; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992; Noe, 1986; Quiñones, 1995). Colquitt et al. demonstrated that even if trainees possess the ability to learn the content of a course, they might fail to benefit from training because of low motivation. This implies that the “g-centric” approach to trainability is not sufficient and should be accompanied by a trainee’s motivation to learn. We postulated that:
Hypothesis 3: Training motivation will be positively related to learning; trainees with high training motivation will learn better than will those with low training motivation.

Taken together, we argue that training motivation serves as a partial mediator between self-efficacy and learning. While the need-motive-value theory and the adult learning theory alluded above combine to suggest that self-efficacy may exert influences through motivation to learn, as described previously, a portion of the literature has supported the direct effect of distal variables on learning. Thus, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: Training motivation will partially mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and learning.

Organizational justice theory (Gilliland, 1994) and person-environment fit theory (Kristof, 1996) are used to explain why situational factors can interact with individual variables in predicting training motivation. Organizational justice refers to employees’ perceptions of the fairness of the outcomes of organizational decisions (distributive justice), procedures through which the decisions are made (procedural justice), and the interactional experiences they have with the decision maker (interactional justice). Organizational justice researchers investigated how employees’ fairness perceptions were related to specific organizational decisions, such as those pertaining to staffing (Gilliland), pay raises (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg,1987), performance appraisal (Greenberg, 1986; Landy, Barnes- Farrell, & Cleveland, 1980), layoffs (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; Konovsky & Brockner, 1993), drug testing (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), discipline (Green- berg, 1994), and training motivation (Quiñones, 1995). Thus organizational justice serves as a situational characteristic that influence individuals’ decision making.

Past researchers have shown that individual and situational antecedents are related to training-related variables such as motivation and performance. They have focused merely on how the main effects of these factors influence outcome variables. For instance, Mathieu et al. (1992) examined the first order impacts of the individual characteristics (i.e., trainees’ career planning and job involvement) and the situational influences (i.e., training assignment and situational constraints such as adequacy of equipment and time allocated for task completion) had on motivation to learn. In another study, Mathieu, Martineau, and Tannenbaum (1993) explored the direct relationships between individual variables (e.g., initial performance, achievement motivation)/situational constraints (e.g., extracurricular activities, other classes’ workload) and mid-course self-efficacy. Quiñones (1995) attested that trainees’ perceptions of distributive and procedural justice regarding their training assignment (remedial vs. advanced) and self-efficacy were both related to motivation to learn. Researchers have not yet inspected how the individual and situational traits interact to influence training motivation. In the current study we take a step further to investigate the interaction effect of organizational fairness perceptions and self-efficacy on training motivation. Investigating justice perceptions is crucial in the remedial training setting because fairness perceptions are formed by employees who failed in their previous training program which they will carry to their next program. Examining how these past perceptions or treatments influence trainees’ motivation and learning in their subsequent training situation will inform theories in the organizational justice and training literature.

The theory of P-E fit may also shed light on the interaction effect of justice on motivation to learn. P-E fit is grounded in the situational strength theory (Mischel, 1977). This theory describes strong situations as those in which appropriate behaviors are clear and expectations of the environment are met. The possibility of exerting the influence of an individual’s differences is low in such situations preventing interpersonal variables from predicting outcomes. Contrarily, in a weak situation when environments are unpredictable and proper behaviors are unclear, the personality-outcome association is likely to emerge. In early work such as that by Pervin (1968), it was assumed that for each individual, there are situations which more or less match the characteristics of his/her personality and this agreement, in turn, resulted in higher performance, higher satisfaction, and less stress. Therefore, it is more constructive to see how an individual’s traits and situation combined to affect performance than to attribute all outcomes to individual differences. The same can be applied to explain how the interplay between self-efficacy and organizational justice affects training motivation. We proposed that organizational injustice should create a weak circumstance in which the trainees are treated without dignity, proper manners, and respect and in which the instructor does not explain the procedures thoroughly and fails to communicate details. This situation will lead to unclear expectations of behaviors and an unpredictable environment. Hence, the motivation about training of individuals with high self-efficacy will be more distinct from the motivation of those with low self-efficacy. Thus, we predicted the following:
Hypothesis 5: Distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice will each moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and training motivation, such that the relationship will be more positive where a low level of justice exists.

The participants consisted of 250 undergraduate business students in eight remedial training classes offered by a business college. The remedial class provided an opportunity for the students who had failed the previous class (i.e., accounting or finance) in a regular semester to recoup the semester credits. The remedial class offered training on the same subject as the one that the students had failed and thus was lecture and classroom style; students had to pass the final examination to gain the credits. Each of the eight training classes lasted 64 to 96 hours and contained 30-50 trainees. The average age of participants was 19 years old (SD = 1.9); 23% were male.

At the beginning of the training program, surveys were distributed to the trainees who were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The survey measured training motivation, trainees’ perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice of the previous course, self-efficacy, and demographic characteristics. Each trainee’s course grade was obtained at the end of the class. A total of 308 surveys were distributed and the final number of usable surveys was 250.

Variables relevant to the current study, as well as their corresponding sources of information, are described below. In addition to the following variables, the respondent’s age was collected as a control variable.

Training motivation Ten items adapted from Noe and Wilk (1993) were used to assess training motivation. Sample items include: “I am willing to exert considerable effort in the training program in order to improve my skills” and “I believe I tend to learn more from training programs than most people”. Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α of this measure was .82.

Learning The trainee’s actual course grade from the remedial training (on the basis of a 100-point grade scale) was obtained to assess his/her learning.

Self-efficacy Participants responded to an 8-item scale adapted from Noe and Wilk (1993) to assess trainee’s confidence in his/her own skills and abilities. A sample item was: “I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my classmates”. Participants were asked to rate how accurately each item described them on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α was .71.

Distributive justice Three items adapted from Leventhal (1980) and Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) were used to assess trainees’ perceived distributive justice towards the class they failed (e.g., “My own hard work will lead to recognition as a good student” and “My grade will represent a fair and accurate picture of my actual learning performance”). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α of this measure was .71.

Procedural justice Three items adapted from Leventhal (1980) and Sweeney and McFarlin (1997) were used to assess trainees’ perceived procedural justice towards the class they previously failed. Participants responded to these items using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). For example, one item was: “The procedures of learning rating were free of bias”. The resulting scale reliability was α = .77.

Interactional justice Seven items adapted from previous research (Bies & Moag, 1986; Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998) were used to assess trainees’ perceived fairness of their previous instructor in the class that they failed. Sample items include: “The previous instructor of this course would refrain from improper remarks or comments” and “Students’ questions and problems were responded to quickly”. Participants indicated their level of agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The observed scale reliability was α = .81.

In Hypotheses 1-4 we postulated that self-efficacy would be positively related to learning and training motivation, training motivation would be positively predictive of learning, and training motivation would be the partial mediator of the relationship between self-efficacy and learning. These hypotheses were tested via Baron and Kenny’s (1986) regression procedure for testing mediation effects. Baron and Kenny specified that for a mediation effect to occur, (a) the predictor must correlate with the outcome variable, (b) the predictor must correlate with the proposed mediator, (c) the mediator must correlate with the outcome variable, and (d) the predictor must still correlate with the outcome variable when the mediator is also included in the regression equation. The analyses are shown in Table 2. In each part of the analysis, we controlled for age. Table 2 indicates that self-efficacy was a significant predictor of learning (β = .36, p < .01) and training motivation (β = .51, p < .01) and training motivation was significantly predictive of learning (β = .45, p < .01). Thus Hypotheses 1-3 were supported. Furthermore, self-efficacy was still significantly correlated with learning (β = .18, p < .05), to a lesser degree, when motivation was also included in the equation, meaning that training motivation acted as a partial mediator of the relationship between self- efficacy and learning. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

In Hypothesis 5 we posited an interaction effect of self-efficacy and organizational justice on training motivation. This hypothesis was tested using hierarchical multiple regression analyses. We entered age, self-efficacy, and one organizational justice at a time in Step 1. Step 2 included the hypothesized interaction term. The results are presented in Table 3. Analyses revealed that interactional justice moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and training motivation (∆R2 = .02, p < .05). The interaction term accounted for an additional 2% of the variance of training motivation scores. Hence, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported.

To better understand the interaction effect found, we plotted and displayed the effect in Figure 2 following procedures suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983). In Figure 2, values for training motivation were plotted at high and low levels of interactional justice. Reliable positive relationships were found between self- efficacy and training motivation at both 1 SD above (β = .32, p < .01) and 1 SD below (β = .59, p < .01) the mean interactional justice. The slope of the line predicting training motivation from self-efficacy appears to be steeper for low interactional justice than for high interactional justice. This further supports our prediction in Hypothesis 5 with respect to interactional justice.

Prior research investigating the antecedents of training motivation or learning has been mainly focused on direct individual correlates. In this study we further scrutinized individual and contextual predictors of training outcomes. Our first finding was that the importance of delineating how individual differences predict motivation to learn and the subsequent learning in the remedial training setting was confirmed. The results supported previous findings that in the remedial setting, an individual with high self-efficacy would be more motivated to learn and achieved better training performance (e.g., Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Quiñones, 1997). In our study we extended the social learning theory and called attention to carefully investigating the mechanism through which individual characteristics are correlated with learning outcomes.

Second, our study results further showed that – in the remedial training – interactional justice acted as a situational component that moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and motivation to learn. Specifically, for those who perceived low interactional justice, the more self-efficacy they possessed, the more motivated they were for training. This relationship was not so apparent for those who perceived high interactional justice. This confirms our predict- ion of the relationship in weak situations. Moreover, this can also be explained by the idea of a deficient environment; that is, for those who experienced unfair treatment in the previous class, even low self-efficacy can generate their great motivation to learn in order to work against the unfair treatment. This idea of a deficient environment being able to lead to favorable outcomes was evidenced by George and Zhou (2001), who found that negative moods were positively related to creative performance.

The findings gained in this study have significant practical implications. First and foremost, organizations should increase trainees’ self-efficacy prior to the actual training program. Researchers have shown that self-efficacy is trainable (Karl, O’Leary-Kelly, & Martocchio, 1993). Thus, the more employees are trained to believe in their ability to learn, the more they are willing to gain knowledge and the greater will be the mastery of the program. Specifically, to increase trainees’ self-efficacy, managers can inform trainees of the training attributes, training environment, content complexity, and the like. The information provided should be realistic and appropriate. Hicks and Klimoski (1987) showed that realistic information about training was more helpful for trainees’ pretraining preparations and motivations than was positive, but exaggerated, information.

Our findings in this study also have significant theoretical implications. First, for the organizational justice theory, we attested that in the remedial setting, interactional justice serves as the only justice perception that influences antecedents of training motivation. Interactional justice has received more attention from organizational fairness researchers since the early 1990s when researchers began to delineate the associations between distributive, procedural, and interactional justices. While some researchers believe that these three types of justice intertwine to some extent (e.g., Greenberg, 1993; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993), others argue for the uniqueness and significance of interactional justice. In a study of events involving injustice, Mikula, Petrick, and Tanzer (1990) noted that “a considerable proportion of the injustices which were reported did not concern distributional or procedural issues in the narrow sense but referred to the manner in which people were treated in interactional interactions and encounters” (p. 133). In the present study, we extended this line of research and showed that in remedial training, contrary to distributive and procedural justice, interactional justice moderates how self-efficacy correlates with training motivation. We believe that it is the nature of interactional justice, which focuses on sensitive interpersonal treatment (e.g., explaining the rationale for decisions, communicating details, and meeting individuals’ needs), and not the decision or procedure per se, that is crucial to how self-efficacy associates with motivation.

Second, in this study we also extend the P-E fit theory. In most research about P-E fit employees are compared with the characteristics of their organization, group, job, coworker, and the like (Kristof, 1996). Relevant questions are whether or not the values of the person match those of the organization, whether or not the person fits the personality/demographic composition of the group, whether or not the person enjoys the job attributes, and whether or not the person is a good fit with the manager. In the current study we applied the idea of congruence to include the interplay between individual attitudes and organizational climate. Also, we extended the situational strength theory to include injustice as a weak situation in which the individual difference variable is allowed more variability to predict outcome variables. Thus, while prior researchers regarding congruence dealt with organizational settings such as organizational attraction, employee placement, and retention (Schneider, 1987), in our study we related fit to the arena of employee training and showed that injustice creates an environment where self- efficacy relates more positively to training motivation than justice does.

In general, results gained in this study enhance our understanding of modeling training motivation and learning. More research should be conducted to investigate how individual attributes and situational constraints are associated with training outcomes.

Adler, P. S. (1991). Capitalizing on new manufacturing technologies: Current problems and emergent trends in U.S. industry. In National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council: People and technology in the workplace (pp. 59-88). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Jr., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.

Axtell, C. M., Maitlis, S., & Yearta, S. K. (1997). Predicting immediate and longer-term transfer of training. Personnel Review, 26, 201-213.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-100.

Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of choice of trainee on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51-66.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-45). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 845-875.

Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational justice perspective. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 45- 75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carlson, D. S., Bozeman, D. P., Kacmar, K. M., Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2000). Training motivation in organizations: An analysis of individual-level antecedents. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 271-287.

Cheng, W.-L. (2000). Test of the MBA knowledge and skills transfer. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 837-852.

Cheng, W.-L., & Ho, C.-K. (2001). A review of transfer of training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30, 102-118.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678-707.

Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interactional treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interactional treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524.

Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 691-701.

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

Goldstein, I., & Gilliam, P. (1990). Training system issues in the year 2000. American Psychologist, 45, 134-143.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61.

Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interactional and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-297.

Guerrero, S., & Sire, S. (2001). Motivation to train from the workers’ perspective: Example of French companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 988-1004.

Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: A field experiment. The Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542-552.

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality and psychology (pp. 849-870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75- 170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Karl, K. A., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Martocchio, J. J. (1993). The impact of feedback and self- efficacy on performance in training. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 379-394.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf.

Konovsky, M. A., & Brockner, J. (1993). Managing victim and survivor layoff reactions: A procedural justice perspective. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 133-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698- 707.

Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.

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, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.

Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553-578.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46, 125-147.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational char- acteristics on measures of training effectiveness. The Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828-847.

Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3-14.

Mikula, G., Petrick, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 480-500.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of persona and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736-749.

Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497-523.

Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291-302.

Pervin, L. A. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., & Donovan, M. A. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624.

Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 226-238.

Quiñones, M. A. (1997). Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychologi- cal research (pp. 177-199). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rosow, J. M., & Zager, R. (1988). Training: The competitive edge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryman, D. H., & Biersner, R. J. (1975). Attitudes predictive of diving success. Personnel Psychology, 28, 181-188.

Scheer, W. (1979). Personnel administration handbook (2nd ed.). Chicago: Dartness.

Schneider B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-93.