Procedural and Interactive Justice scale


The measure, (Procedural and Interactive Justice) developed by Farh et al. (1997), assesses employee percep­ tions about both formal procedures and informal interactions in an organiza­ tion concerning pay decisions. It contains a subscale for participation, which describes the extent to which formal procedures are present that ensure employees have input into pay and performance appraisal decisions; appeal mechanism, which describes the extent to which there are formal appeal pro­ cedures present and followed in the organization; and interactive justice, which describes the extent to which supervisors enact the formal procedures that are in place. The interactive justice subscale is based on previous evi­ dence suggesting that actions taken by managers and supervisors as they implement procedures and explain decisions are indicators to employees that procedural justice exists.


Coefficient alpha for the participation subscale was .71, alpha for the appeal mechanism subscale was .81, and alpha for the interactive justice subscale was .88 (Farb et al., 1997).


Employee participation correlated positively with distributive justice, inter­ active justice, existence of an appeal mechanism, pay satisfaction, organiza­ tional commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Participation correlated negatively with education level. Existence of an appeal mecha­ nism correlated positively with organizational citizenship behaviors, pay satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Interactive justice correlated positively with organizational citizenship behaviors, pay satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Farh et al., 1997).


Farb, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese soci­ ety. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444. Items were taken from text, pp. 431-432. Copyright© 1997. Reproduced with permission.


Responses are obtained on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

Participation items:

  1. Managers at all levels participate in pay and performance appraisal decisions
  2. Through various channels, my company tries to understand employees’ opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions
  3. Pay decisions are made exclusively by top management in my company; others are excluded from this process (R)
  4. My company does not take employees’ opinions into account in designing pay and performance appraisal policies (R)

Appeal mechanism items:

  1. The company has a formal appeal channel
  2. The company imposes a time limit within which the responsible parties must respond to the employee’s appeal
  3. Employees’ questions concerning pay or performance appraisal are usually answered promptly and satisfactorily

Interaction items:

  1. My supervisor is thoroughly familiar with my job performance
  2. My supervisor allows me to tell my side of the story in performance evaluation
  3. My supervisor lets me know my appraisal outcomes and provides justification
  4. My supervisor lets me know my pay raise and annual bonus and provides justification
  5. My supervisor reviews my performance with me and discusses plans or objectives to improve my performance

Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored.

This content is licensed under a CC-BY license. The CC-BY licenses grant rights of use the scales in your studies (the measurement instrument and its documentation), but do not replace copyright. This remains with the copyright holder, and you have to cite us as the source.

Mohammed Looti, PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES (2023) Procedural and Interactive Justice scale. Retrieved from DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31575.96163