人们在表达思想时，既可能使用精确语言，也可能使用模糊表述，而不确定性以及信息准确原则是判断决策程序是否公正的因素之一。前人研究发现，个体在决策前行使发言权时，精确发言能提升个体的程序公正感。但个体并不总是在决策前具有发言的机会，由于决策之后的发言往往令决策结果难以改变，在发言的目的发生变化之后，精确发言是否仍具有提升程序公正的作用？如何在决策之后行使发言权仍旧能够提升程序公正？由于不确定性能够放大个体感知程序公正的作用，当个体在决策后获得意见表达的机会时，模糊表述是否对决策后发言的程序公正具有积极作用？本研究旨在探讨信息传递的不确定性与发言时机对程序公正的影响及其心理机制。研究一通过6个子研究验证信息传递的不确定性与发言时机对程序公正的影响，结合独裁者博弈范式与情境实验，结果发现发言时机调节信息传递的不确定性对程序公正的作用，精确的发言适合在尚可影响结果的决策之前，而决策后结果已定的情况下，模糊表述则更让人感知程序公正，这表明存在决策后的隐晦发言效应。研究二通过3个子研究探索信息传递的不确定性影响程序公正的心理机制，采用现场实验与情境实验发现，积极错觉在其中起中介作用，个体对自身的意见表达容易产生乐观预期，从而提高程序公正的判断。研究三在组织中验证决策后的隐晦发言效应，以提高生态效度。在为期4周的追踪研究中再次重复了研究一的研究发现，并且通过构建的交叉滞后模型发现，信息传递的不确定性与程序公正是相互影响的并存在滞后效应，同时发言时机也会调节下一次信息传递的不确定性对程序公正的作用。理论上，首次在发言与程序公正的研究领域探索了个体意见表述精确性与发言时机的作用，并发现决策后的“隐晦发言效应”。这一发现表明，当决策已定或难以改变的情况下，个体倾向表达宽泛、模糊的意见减少与既定结果的冲突可能，并表示礼貌与合作性；方法上，首次探索在组织中采用追踪的方法研究发言与程序公正的关系，并建构信息传递的不确定性与程序公正的交叉滞后模型；实践上，本研究发现给予组织以及公共管理领域重要启示，在决策讨论中并非每一个人都能在相同时间点表达意见，而对于意见精确性的要求应因时机而异。
When people express their ideas, they may use both accurate language and vague expression, and the principle of accurate information is one of the factors to judge whether the decision-making process is fair. Previous studies have found that when individuals have the “voice” before making decisions, accurate speaking can improve their sense of procedural fairness. However, individuals do not always have the opportunity to express before decision making. Because it’s difficult to change the results after the decision making, so the purpose of the voice will change. Does accurate voice still can improve procedural fairness? How can the voice after a decision still improve procedural fairness? Due to the procedural fairness will be boosts in uncertain situations, when individuals have the opportunity to voice after decision making, inaccurate expression may have a positive effect on procedural fairness. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of voice accuracy and voice timing on procedural fairness and its psychological mechanism.Study 1 verifies the impact of voice accuracy and voice timing on procedural fairness through six sub-studies. Combining the dictator game and situational experiments, the results found that voice timing moderated the relationship of voice accuracy on procedural fairness. The accurate voice is suitable before the decision, and the inaccurate voice should express after the decision will feel more procedural fairness. This called the “vague voice effect after the decision”.Study 2 explored the psychological mechanism of the impact of voice accuracy on procedural fairness through three sub-studies. We found positive illusions play a mediating role, and individuals tend to have optimistic expectations of their own voice, thus improving the judgment of procedural fairness.Study 3 verifies the vague voice effect after the decision in the organization to improve the ecological validity. In a 4-week follow-up study, the findings of Study 1 were repeated again. We found that voice accuracy and procedural fairness influence each other and a lag effect through CLPM. At the same time, voice timing can also moderate the effect of voice accuracy on procedural fairness next time.According to the “vague voice effect after the decision”, this finding shows that when the decision has been made or is difficult to change, individuals tend to express inaccurate. Inaccurate opinions could reduce the possibility of conflict with the established results, and show politeness and cooperation. This paper is the first time to explore the relationship between voice and procedural fairness by using the tracking method in the organization, and construct a CLPM of voice accuracy and procedural fairness.
