中文摘要：

以160名中学教师为被试，采用2×2的完全随机设计，以模拟故事（scenarios）的方法呈现刺激，研究了在职称评定中分配不公正的前提下，程序公正／不公正，互动公正／不公正对教师的退缩行为（消极怠工、拒绝帮助、离职、对校长的消极态度）的影响。结果表明，在分配不公正条件下：（1）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的消极怠工程度；（2）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的拒绝帮助行为程度，而且交互作用显著；（3）互动公正影响教师对上司的消极态度，程序公正无显著影响；（4）程序公正和互动公正对离职意愿影响均不显著。

英文摘要：

Introduction Generally, organizational justice and injustice are deemed to be corresponding, suggesting that organizational injustice also has three dimensions, and has negative effect on an organization. Based on previous research, Jawahar proposed that different forms and combinations of justice perceptions were likely to lead to different forms of aggression, which also varied depending on the target of aggression and the manner in which harm was delivered to the victim. However, because Chinese culture emphasizes tolerance＇ and harmony＇, overt aggression seldom occurs. On the other hand, in part because organizations in China are undergoing system change, there is little or no absolute organizational justice, whereas distriboutive injustice is seen as a laminar phenomenon in Chinese organizations. Given these larger social and cultural contexts, it is deemed more fruitful and effective to study the effect of procedural and interactional justice on withdrawn rather than aggressive behaviors. Specifically, the present study aimed to investigate whether procedural and interactional justice would lead to different withdrawn behaviors of different magnitude. Method One hundred and sixty high school teachers participated in the present study. A 2 ×2 randomized design was adopted, with 4 hypothetical scenarios （consisting of information about the status of distributive injustice, procedural justice/injustice, and interactional justice/injustice） presented to the participants analyze their withdrawn behaviors （e.g absenteeism, tardiness, intention to quit, and negative attitudes toward the school principal）. MANOVA was performed to test the hypotheses. Results The results indicated that when staff promotion was perceived unfair （distributive injustice）, （1） both procedural and interactional justice had significant negative main effects on absenteeism; （2） procedural and interactional justice had a significant interaction effect on tardiness; （3） interactional justice had a significant m