Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia
© PI-ME, Pavia 2010
http://gimle.fsm.it
Marko Elovainio1, Tarja Heponiemi1, Timo Sinervo1, Nicola Magnavita2
Organizational justice and health; review of evidence
1 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
2 Institute of Occupational Medicine, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
ABSTRACT. Organizational justice is a construct defining the
quality of social interaction at work. Organizational justice can
be divided into three categories: procedural justice (fairness
of the decision-making procedures), distributive justice (fairness
of outcomes) and relational justice (equity and fairness in the
interpersonal treatment of employees by their supervisors).
Organizational justice is related to employees’ health and
well-being. Low perceived justice has been shown to be
associated with experienced stress reactions and related
physiological and behavioral reactions, such as inflammation,
sleeping problems, cardiovascular regulation and cognitive
impairments, and with a high rate of work absenteeism.
This paper is a review of the literature on organizational
justice and its impact on workers’ health.
Key words: work organization, fairness, health, well-being.
RIASSUNTO. EFFETTI DELLA GIUSTIZIA ORGANIZZATIVA
SULLA SALUTE: UNA REVISIONE DELL’EVIDENZA SCIENTIFICA.
Il concetto di giustizia organizzativa definisce
la qualità dell’integrazione sociale sul lavoro. La giustizia
organizzativa si articola in tre categorie: giustizia procedurale
(correttezza percepita del processo decisionale), giustizia
distributiva (percezione dei risultati del processo decisionale)
e giustizia relazionale (percezione di ricevere un trattamento
franco e corretto da parte dei superiori).
La giustizia organizzativa si correla con la salute e il benessere
dei lavoratori. È stato osservato che un basso livello di
giustizia si associa con la comparsa di reazioni fisiologiche
e comportamentali allo stress, come flogosi, disturbi del sonno,
alterazioni dell’omeostasi cardiovascolare e compromissione
cognitiva, e con un alto tasso di assenteismo lavorativo.
In questo lavoro viene riportata una revisione della letteratura
riguardante la giustizia organizzativa e le sue ripercussioni
sulla salute dei lavoratori.
Parole chiave: organizzazione del lavoro, giustizia, salute,
benessere.
Supplemento B, Psicologia
2010; Vol. 32, N. 3: B5-B9
ISSN 1592-7830
Major theoretical models of organizational justice
Organizational justice is a construct defining the qual-
ity of social interaction at work (1-3). Organizational jus-
tice theorists have identified at least three different cate-
gories of events that can be evaluated in terms of justice.
These categories are outcomes, processes, and interper-
sonal interactions. Following these categories, justice
evaluations regarding to outcomes are specified as distrib-
utive justice, evaluations regarding to fairness of
processes are named procedural justice, and justice re-
garding to interpersonal interactions are judged in terms of
interactional or relational justice (4-5).
The initial interest in the area of organizational justice
considered distributive justice and perceptions of equity
(6), but more recent research has emphasized procedural
and relational justice (7). Procedural justice refers to the
extent to which decision-making procedures are applied
consistently, free from bias, accurate, correctable, ethical,
and representative of all concerns (8). Relational justice
refers to the quality of treatments employees experience in
their interpersonal interactions during the completion of
organizational processes; specifically, to polite and con-
siderate treatments received from their supervisors (9).
The health effects of organizational justice
Organizational justice has been related to emotional
reactions (10), and low perceived justice has been shown
to play an important role in the health and well-being of
employees (11-13). It has been associated with job dissat-
isfaction, retaliation, workplace aggression, lower work
commitment and withdrawal (14-17). Previous research
also suggests that factors associated with justice percep-
tions, such as discrimination may be related to factors that
influence susceptibility to illness, such as elevated unfa-
vorable serum lipids and negative feelings (18-19).
Low justice has also been shown to increase risk of
mental distress, psychiatric disorders, sickness absence,
and poor self-rated health status (20-22). In addition, epi-
demiological studies suggest that low organizational jus-
tice may also contribute to serious health problems, such as
cardiovascular disease (23) and cardiovascular death (24).
B6
Mechanisms linking organizational justice to health outcomes
Potential mechanisms underlying the associations be-
tween low perceived organizational justice and health out-
comes have also been studied. As for many other psy-
chosocial factors at work, a plausible mechanism through
which perceived organizational injustice may affect health
is prolonged stress. Perceived injustice has been shown to
be associated with experienced stress reactions (12) and
related physiological and behavioral reactions, such as in-
flammation, sleeping problems, cardiovascular regulation
and cognitive impairments.
Prolonged (chronic) inflammation is part of the ather-
osclerotic process and is a predictor of chronic conditions,
such as coronary heart disease and some respiratory and
musculoskeletal diseases. According to the results of Elo-
vainio et al.(25), organisational injustice is associated with
increased long-term levels of inflammatory markers, such
as interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein. This results was
based on the prospective Whitehall II cohort study of
nearly 5000 British civil servants aged 35-55 years at
study entry. The long term associations were largely inde-
pendent of covariates, such as age, employment grade,
body mass index and depressive symptoms.
It has also been found, that the risk for increased low-
frequency band systolic arterial pressure variability was
3.8 to 5.8 times higher in employees with low justice than
in employees with high justice (26). Low perceived justice
was also related to an 80% excess risk of reduced high-fre-
quency heart rate variability compared to high perceived
justice, but this association was not statistically signifi-
cant. These findings suggest that cardiac disregulation is
one stress mechanism through which a low perceived jus-
tice of decision-making procedures and interpersonal
treatment increases the risk of health problems.
Disturbed sleep is another marker of prolonged stress,
which is suggested to be a common indicator of prolonged
negative emotional states and related physiological
changes. Sleep represents the daily process of physiologi-
cal restitution and recovery and lack of sleep has effects
on immune system and metabolism. Elovainio et al. (27)
showed that perceived unfair treatment at workplace is as-
sociated with increased risk of poor sleep quality in men
and women. Furthermore, it has been found that one po-
tential mechanism through which justice at work may af-
fect health is poor sleep quality (28).
It has also been found, using the Whitehall II cohort,
that low long-term levels of perceived organisational jus-
tice are associated with impaired cognitive functions, such
as memory, inductive reasoning and vocabulary, already in
midlife (29). These associations were independent of co-
variates, such as age, occupational grade, behavioural
risks, depression, hypertension and job strain.
Uncertainty, job control, and organizational justice
The idea, proposing that perception of injustice is
caused by discrepancy between efforts and rewards, re-
G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010; 32:3, Suppl B, Psicol
http://gimle.fsm.it
sembles assumptions behind most of the classic occupa-
tional stress theories (30). A recent explanation for the
strong effects of experiences of organizational justice on
human reactions was offered by van den Bos, Wilke, and
Lind (31), who proposed that fairness matters to people,
because it helps them to deal with uncertainty. This un-
certainty model is based on the previous theory called
fairness heuristic theory (32,33) suggesting that people
especially need fairness judgments when they are con-
cerned about potential problems associated with social
interdependence and socially-based identity processes.
The tension between the benefits of interdependence on
the one hand and the risks associated with interdepen-
dence on the other has been termed the fundamental so-
cial dilemma (34).
This dilemma is concerned with the question of
whether one can trust others (35). According to fairness
heuristic theory, if people do not have information about
the authority’s trustworthiness, procedural fairness
serves as a heuristic substitute in the process of deciding
how to judge the trustworthiness. As a consequence, fair-
ness heuristic theory suggest, that when people do not
have information about authority’s trustworthiness, they
will react more positively towards the outcome they re-
ceived from the authority when they believe that the au-
thority had been employing fair as opposed to unfair pro-
cedures. On the other hand, this theory also suggests that
when people do have direct, explicit information about
authority’s trustworthiness they are less in need of pro-
cedural fairness as a heuristic substitute and less strong
fair process effects should occur.
According to a more generalized uncertainty man-
agement model of fairness judgments, people become es-
pecially attentive to the information they need to form
fairness judgments when they find themselves in unclear
or unpredictable situations (36-38). Solid, firmly con-
structed fairness judgments either remove uncertainty or
alleviate much of the discomfort that uncertainty would
otherwise generate. Furthermore, when forming fairness
judgments people make predictable leaps of judgment to
resolve uncertainties they encounter within the fairness
judgment process. According to van den Bos and Lind’s
uncertainty management model (37), fairness is impor-
tant for people because fairness judgments are an effec-
tive and readily available device for handling the various
uncertainties they face. Following this, it is reasonable to
assume that perceived injustice in an uncertain situation
represents a greater health risk than in a more certain and
predictable situation.
According to the uncertainty management model, sit-
uations, whether social or not, that provoke feelings of
uncertainty, doubt, or confusion provide the stimulus for
seeking and using fairness judgments. The key element
is the salience of either the unpredictability of future
events or the inconsistency between important cogni-
tions, experiences, or behaviors. In previous conceptions
of the uncertainty management model, the range of un-
certainty-provoking, unpredictable situations was very
broad. In the current paper, we tried to specify this some-
what and, on the basis of previous literature, argue for
G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010; 32:3, Suppl B, Psicol
http://gimle.fsm.it
operationalizing the work-related uncertainty through
two sources: lack of control over working times, and re-
cent negatively experienced changes at work.
The concept of control refers to power or mastery of
the environment as a means for maintaining homeostasis,
which may be reduced in stress situations. Controlling
aversive situations make individuals believe that the con-
sequence is created by their own response (39), thus in-
creasing predictability and reducing uncertainty. Thus,
control implies the power to reverse, attenuate or remove
the source of threat. Competent decisions that enable the
individual to control a potentially threatening situation
are fundamental aspects of homeostasis, and are likely to
reduce feelings of uncertainty.
A form of control that has been shown to relate with
health at work is control over working times, that is au-
tonomy with regard to worktime (worker control over the
duration, position, and distribution of his/her worktime)
(40-42). Compared to other forms of job control 43),
which refers to multiple dimensions of control within
work (opportunities to participate and use skills), the di-
mension of work-time control is located at the work/non-
work interface. The different dimensions of control may
bear a varying relevance on health across individuals and
across time. Low work-time control may hamper the suc-
cessful combination of work-life demands with unavoid-
able nonwork responsibilities, thus creating a sense of
uncertainty and unpredictability reaching beyond a
working day.
A meta analysis has linked flexible scheduling, con-
trol over the beginning and end of a workday, with lower
absenteeism (44). Low control of worktime at the occu-
pational level has been linked with an increased risk of
hospitalization and cardiovascular disease (41,42). A re-
cent cross sectional study showed an association be-
tween perceived low worktime control and poor health
among women, but not among men (40).
Important sources of uncertainty in modern work life
include continuous and rapid changes. According to the
findings of Vahtera and co-workers (45), negative
changes in the psychosocial work environment have
detrimental effects on the health of employees. Their re-
sults showed that a combination of poor psychosocial
work characteristics and an adverse change in some other
psychosocial factor, such as predictability of the work
environment or possibilities for participation in decision
making, was associated with the greatest risk of subse-
quent illness. We suggest that perceived negative
changes in the work environment reflect a state in which
employees are not able to affect things in predictable
ways and, in this way, negative changes constitute one
source of uncertainty at work.
We examined whether the combination of uncertainty
(lack of work-time control, and negative changes at
work) and organizational justice (i.e., justice of decision-
making procedures and interpersonal treatment) con-
tributes to sickness absence. Results of hierarchical re-
gression models on 7,083 male and 24,317 female
B7
Finnish public sector employees showed that after ad-
justment for age, income, and health behaviors low pro-
cedural and interactional justice were related to long
sickness-absence spells. In accordance with the uncer-
tainty management model, these associations were de-
pendent on experienced work-time control and perceived
changes at work (46).
We also extended previous research in studying
whether working in high justice work place would pro-
tect from health effects following environmental stres-
sors outside work (47). Using a prospective longitudinal
design, we studied the relationships between organiza-
tional justice and sickness-related absences both before
and after a major life event among 25459 public sector
employees working in 2551 work units. Sickness ab-
sences covered the period from 36 months prior to the
event until 30 months after the event. According to the
results, the increase in sickness absences after the event
was bigger and stayed at a higher level even 30 months
after the event, among those who perceived the manage-
ment practices in their work unit to be relatively unfair.
Similar patterns were found for each of the distributive,
procedural and interactional dimensions of organiza-
tional justice.
Other outcomes of organizational justice. Italian studies
We have also previously shown that, besides health,
organizational justice is important, for example, for the
productivity of the organization (48), quality of care in
nursing homes (49) employees’ possibilities to connect
work and family live (50) and attitudes towards retire-
ment (51). In addition, organizational justice may help to
buffer the negative effects of poor health (51).
Studies about organizational justice are currently per-
formed in Italy. The Justice Measure 20-items question-
naire (JM20), proposed by Jason A. Colquitt (52), has
been recently translated into Italian and validated (53).
The instrument showed very good reliability (Cron-
bach’s alpha= 0.92), and maintained the theoretical sub-
division of the original questionnaire into sub-scales
concerning relational, distributive, and procedural jus-
tice. It has been observed that the questionnaire may be
useful and stimulating to enlarge the existing stress mod-
els and capturing new aspects of the psychosocial work
environment (54).
In sum, there is rapidly growing body of evidence
suggesting that organizational justice is associated with
wide variety of health outcomes of employees, that there
are plausible behavioral and physiological mechanisms
linking justice perceptions to health outcomes, and that
these mechanisms are related to prolonged stress fol-
lowed unfair treatment. Furthermore, there are results
suggesting that unfair treatment may intensify health ef-
fects of other environmental stressors and that working
in a high justice work environment may protect em-
ployee from health problems.
B8 G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010; 32:3, Suppl B, Psicol
http://gimle.fsm.it

Table I. Studies examining an association between organizational justice and health

Author(s) and year Sample Study design Outcome measure(s) Type of justice Health
measure effect
Elovainio et al. 2002 Female hospital Cross-sectional Self-rated health, minor Moorman’s procedural Yes
employees psychiatric disorders, and relational justice
and recorded absences
due to sickness
Kivimäki, Elovainio, Hospital employees Prospective cohort Self-rated health, Moorman’s procedural
Vahtera & Ferrie 2003 study psychiatric morbidity, justice Yes
and sickness absence
Kivimäki, Elovainio, Female hospital Prospective Psychiatric disorders Moorman’s procedural Yes for
Vahtera, Virtanen employees and relational justice procedural
& Stansfeld 2003 justice, no for
relational
justice
Tepper 2001 sample 1) employees of a Prospective Psychological distress Distributive and Yes
large public organization procedural justice
sample 2) residents of a
moderate-sized city
Kivimäki et al. 2005 Civil servants aged 35-55 Prospective Risk of incident CHD Relational justice Yes
Elovainio, Leino-Arjas Factory workers Prospective Cardiovascular death One item measure of
et al. 2006 experienced justice Yes
Elovainio et al. 2010 Middle-aged civil Prospective long-term levels of Relational justice Yes
servants inflammatory markers

14) Folger R, Konovsky MA. Effects of procedural and distributive

References
1) Greenberg J, Cropanzano R. Advances in organization justice.
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, Ca., 2001.
2) Konovsky MA. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on
business organizations. J Manag 2000; 26: 489-511.
3) Lind EA, Tyler TR. The social psychology of procedural justice.
Plenum, New York. 1988.
4) Cohen-Charash Y, Spector PE. The role of justice in organizations:
A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes 2001; 86: 278-321.
5) Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter CO, Ng KY. Justice at
the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. J Appl Psychol 2001; 86: 425-445.
6) Adams J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L, ed. Ad-
vances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New
York. 1967; 2: 267-299.
7) Cropanzano R, Byrne ZS, Bobocel DR, Rupp DE. Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organiza-
tional justice. J Vocat Behavior 2001; 58: 164-209.
8) Cropanzano R, Ambrose ML. Procedural and distributive justice are
more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research
agenda. In: Greenberg J, Cropanzano R, eds. Advances in organiza-
tion justice. Stanford University Press 2001; 119-151.
9) Bies RJ. International (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In:
Greenberg J, Cropanzano R, eds. Advances in organization justice.
Stanford University Press, 89-118.
10) Weiss HM, Suckow K, Cropanzano R. Effects of justice conditions
on discrete emotions. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84: 786-794.
11) Brockner J, Wiesenfeld BM. An integrative framework for explaining
reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.
Psychol Bull 1996; 120: 189-208.
12) Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Helkama K. Organization justice evalua-
tions, job control, and occupational strain. J Appl Psychol 2001; 86:
418-424.
13) Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J. Organizational justice: evi-
dence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. Am J Public Health
2002; 92: 105-108.
justice reactions to pay raise decisions. Acad Manag J 1989; 32:
115-130.
15) Masterson SS, Lewis K, Goldman BM, Taylor MS. Integrating jus-
tice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and
treatment on work relationships. Acad Manag J 2000; 43: 738-748.
16) McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD. Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.
Acad Manag J 1992; 36: 626-637.
17) Moorman RH. Relationship between organizational justice and or-
ganizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influ-
ence employee citizenship? J Appl Psycholy 1991; 76: 845-855.
18) Richards JC, Hof A, Alvarenga M. Serum lipids and their relation-
ships with hostility and angry affect and behaviors in men. Health
Psychol 2000; 19: 393-398.
19) Räikkonen K, Matthews KA, Flory JD, Owens JF, Gump BB. Ef-
fects of optimism, pessimism, and trait anxiety on ambulatory blood
pressure and mood during everyday life. J Pers SocPsychol 1999;
76: 104-113.
20) Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Ferrie JE. Organisational jus-
tice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup Env-
iron Med 2003; 60: 27-34.
21) Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Virtanen M, Stansfeld SA.
Association between organizational inequity and incidence of psy-
chiatric disorders in female employees. Psychol Med 2003; 33:
319-326.
22) Tepper BJ. Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests
of main and interactive effects. Org Beh Hum Dec Proc 2001; 86:
197-215.
23) Kivimaki M, Ferrie JE, Brunner E, Head J, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, et
al. Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among
employees: the Whitehall II Study. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:
2245-2251.
24) Elovainio M, Leino-Arjas P, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M. Justice at work
and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. J Psycho-
somatic Res 2006; 61: 271-274.
25) Elovainio M, Ferrie JE, Singh-Manoux A, Gimeno D, De Vogli R,
Shipley M, Vahtera J, Brunner E, Marmot MG, Kivimäki M. Organ-
isational justice and markers of inflammation: the Whitehall II study.
Occup Environ Med 2010; 67: 78-83.
G Ital Med Lav Erg 2010; 32:3, Suppl B, Psicol
http://gimle.fsm.it
26) Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Puttonen S, Lindholm H, Pohjonen T,
Sinervo T. Organizational injustice and impaired cardiovascular au-
tonomic regulation among female employees. Occup Environ Med
2006; 63: 141-144.
27) Elovainio M, Ferrie JE, Gimeno D, De Vogli R, Shipley M, Brunner
EJ, et al. Organizational justice and sleeping problems: The White-
hall II study. Psychosomatic Medicine 2009; 71: 334-340.
28) Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Virta-
nen M. Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators be-
tween organizational justice and health. Health Psychol 2003; 22:
287-293.
29) Elovainio M, Ferrie JE, Singh-Manoux A, Gimeno D, De Vogli R,
Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, Brunner EJ, Marmot MG, Kivimäki M. Cu-
mulative exposure to high-strain and active jobs as predictors of cog-
nitive function: the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 2009;
66(1): 32-7
30) Vermunt R, Steensma H. Stress and justice in organizations: An ex-
ploration into justice processes with the aim to find mechanisms to
reduce stress. In: Cropanzano R, ed. Justice in the workplace: From
theory to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001; 2: 27-48.
31) Van den Bos K, Wilke HAM, Lind EA. When do we need procedural
fairness? The role of trust in authority. J Person Soc Psychol 1998;
75: 1449-1458.
32) Lind EA. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cog-
nitions in organizational relations. In: Greenberg J, Cropanzano R,
eds. Advances in organization justice. Stanford University Press,
2001: 56-88.
33) Van den Bos K, Lind EA, Wilke HAM. The psychology of proce-
dural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness
heuristic theory. In Cropanzano R, ed. Justice in the workplace:
From theory to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
2001; 2: 49-66.
34) Lind EA. Social conflict and social justice: lessons from the social
psychology of justice judgments. Leiden University Press. Leiden,
The Netherlands. 1995.
35) Tyler TR, Lind EA. A relational model of authority in groups. In:
Zanna MP, ed. Advances in experimental social psychology. Acade-
mic Press, 1992; 25: 115-191.
36) Van den Bos K. Uncertainty Management: The Influence of Uncer-
tainty Salience on Reactions to Perceived Procedural Fairness. J
Person Soc Psychol 2001; 80: 931-941.
37) Van den Bos K, Lind E. Uncertainty management by means of fair-
ness judgments. In: Zanna MP, ed. Advances in experimental social
psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2002; 34: 1-60.
38) Van den Bos K, Miedema J. Toward Understanding Why Fairness
Matters: The Influence of Mortality Salience on Reactions to Proce-
dural Fairness. J Person Soc Psychol 2000; 79: 355-366.
39) Miller SM. Controllability and human stress: Method, evidence and
theory. Behav Res Ther 1979; 17: 287-304.
Reprint request: Nicola Magnavita, M.D. - Institute of Occupational Medicine, “Agostino Gemelli” Hospital, Catholic University of Rome,
Largo A. Gemelli 8, I-00168 Rome, Italy - Phone: +39-349-3300367; Fax: +39-06-61909399 - E-mail: nicolamagnavita@gmail.com
B9
40) Ala-Mursula L, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Kevin MV, Pentti J. Em-
ployee control over working times: associations with subjective
health and sickness absences. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2002;
56: 272-278.
41) Alfredsson L, Spetz CL, Theorell T. Type of occupation and near-fu-
ture hospitalization for myocardial infarction and some other diag-
noses. Int J Epidemiol 1985; 14: 378-388.
42) Hammar N, Alfredsson L, Theorell T. Job characteristics and the in-
cidence of myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 277-284.
43) Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain.
Implication for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 1979; 24: 285
44) Baltes BB, Briggs TE, Huff JW, Wright JA, Neuman GA. Flexible
and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their ef-
fects on work-related criteria. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84: 496-513.
45) Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, Theorell T. Effect of change in the
psychosocial work environment on sickness absence: a seven year
follow up of initially healthy employees. J Epidemiol Comm Health
2000; 54: 484-493.
46) Elovainio M, Van den Bos K, Linna A, Kivimaki M, Ala-Mursula L,
Pentti J, et al. Combined effects of uncertainty and organizational
justice on employee health: testing the uncertainty management
model of fairness judgments among Finnish public sector employ-
ees. Social Science & Medicine 2005; 61: 2501-2512.
47) Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Linna A, Brockner J, Van den Bos J,
Greenberg J, et al. Does Organizational Justice Protect from Sick-
ness Absence Following a Major Life Event? Finnish Public Sector
study. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2009; 19: 240-246.
48) Heponiemi T, Elovainio L, Laine J, Pekkarinen L, Eccles M, Noro
A, et al. Productivity and employee’s organizational justice percep-
tions in long-term care for the elderly. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30:
498-507.
49) Pekkarinen L, Sinervo T, Elovainio M, Noro A, Finne-Soveri H.
Drug use and pressure ulcers in long-term care units: do nurse time
pressure and unfair management increase the prevalence? J Clin
Nurs 2008; 17: 3067-3073.
50) Heponiemi T, Elovainio M, Kouvonen A, Pekkarinen L, Sinervo T.
The effects of job demands and low job control on work-family con-
flict: The role of fairness in decision-making and management. J
Comm Psychol 2008; 36: 387-398.
51) Heponiemi T, Kouvonen A, Vänskä J, Halila H, Sinervo T, Kivimäki
M, et al. Health, psychosocial factors and retirement intentions
among Finnish physicians. OccupMed (London) 2008; 58: 406-412.
52) Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct
validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Jun; 86(3): 386-400.
53) Magnavita N, Bergamaschi A. Lo studio della giustizia sul lavoro.
Validazione della versione italiana del JM20 di Colquitt. G Ital Med
Lav Ergon 2008; 30(3) 2 Suppl: 449-450.
54) Magnavita N. Questionnaires for psychosocial risk assessment at
work. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008 Jan-Mar; 30(1 Suppl A): A87-97.