{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022284122562674095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005571030640668524, 'mean_word_length': 6.045751633986928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disentangling the effects of voice: the incremental roles of opportunity, behavior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural fairness.

Many voice studies have failed to distinguish among voice opportunity, perceived voice opportunity, voice behavior, and voice instrumentality. Thus, the authors sought to clarify the roles of each in determining procedural fairness perceptions. Controlling for the effect of voice opportunity, each of the 3 remaining constructs was hypothesized to predict fairness. Furthermore, voice instrumentality was hypothesized to moderate the effect of voice behavior on fairness. Undergraduates (N = 102; 81 for some analyses) participated in an orientation-week design simulation in which voice opportunity was manipulated. The results indicated significant incremental effects of perceived voice opportunity and the predicted Voice Instrumentality x Voice Behavior interaction. Fairness was lowest for individuals who were denied voice opportunity, perceived less voice opportunity, and provided high levels of noninstrumental voice behavior.