APPEARANCES DO COUNT - THE EFFECTS OF OUTCOMES AND EXPLANATIONS ON DISPUTANT FAIRNESS JUDGMENTS AND SUPERVISORY EVALUATIONS

In a simulated three-issue organizational dispute, subjects were inter rupted by a third party (their supervisor) who recommended-and eventua lly imposed-one of five different outcomes. Each outcome provided subj ects the same overall payoff, though the arrangement of payoffs across each of the three issues varied The design allowed us to evaluate fou r different perspectives regarding negotiators' perceptions of their o utcomes. In addition, third parties provided justifications, apologies , or excuses for their actions. Fairness judgments and supervisory eva luations were most favorable when negotiators received an outcome refl ecting favorable settlements on the majority of the issues, or the mid point compromise; the least favorable reactions occurred when subjects received favorable outcomes on only their most important issue. Third parties who offered a justification for their actions were seen as fa irer than those offering apologies or excuses. The findings reiterate the importance of considering both the symbolic characteristics of out comes and the interactional justice inherent in different types of exp lanations.