Interactional Justice
Updated 2026-08-01
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
Introduced by Robert Bies and Joseph Moag and later split by Bies into interpersonal and informational justice. Interactional justice concerns the quality of treatment people receive while a decision is enacted, covering respect and politeness on one side and timely, candid explanation on the other. It predicts trust in authorities, emotional reactions, and behavioral intentions independently of distributive and procedural justice, and it matters most when outcomes are unfavorable.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Deliver bad news: give the reasoning before the verdict and use respectful language - Explain decisions: state the criteria used so the other person can understand the why - Read reactions: treat emotional response as information about treatment, not as fragility
Anchor fast decisions
People judge a decision partly by what they receive and partly by how they were treated while receiving it. A clear explanation lets them attribute the outcome to criteria rather than to personal rejection, and respectful delivery signals that the relationship is intact. When either element is missing, the same outcome feels like a verdict on their worth, producing resentment, withdrawal, and resistance.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactional_justiceverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS