Abstract
Emotion as Social Information Theory claims that in an ambiguous situation, people rely on others' emotions to make sense of the level of fairness encountered. We tested whether the information provided by emotions about the fairness of a procedure is still a significant factor in explaining individual differences in perception of variance, even in unambiguous situations. We assessed the effects of others' emotions on observers inferred procedural justice during (un)ambiguous situations when people are treated (un)fairly. We collected data using Qualtrics online survey software from 1012 employees across different industry services in the United States. The participants were assigned randomly to one of the 12 experimental conditions (fair, unfair, and unknown x happiness, anger, guilt, and neutral). The results indicated that emotions played a significant role in the psychology of justice judgments under the ambiguous situation, as predicted by the EASI, as well as under unambiguous conditions. The study revealed significant interactions between the procedure and emotion. These findings emphasized the importance of considering how others' emotions influence an observer's perception of justice. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings were also discussed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04640-y.