Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

DOI 10.1007/s10755-017-9388-9

Justice in the Higher Education Classroom:

Students’ Perceptions of Unfairness and Responses
to Instructors

Rebecca M. Chory 1 & Sean M. Horan 2 & Marian L. Houser 2

Published online: 20 January 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract We investigated college students’ perceptions of instructor unfairness and their

emotional and behavioral reactions to perceived injustice. Results obtained from 397 under-
graduates from three universities in the United States indicate that anger and dissent were the
strongest emotional and behavioral responses to injustice. Furthermore, disgust mediated the
influence of injustice on student behaviors most damaging to professors—taking action,
expressing verbal aggression, and dissenting to authority. Stress mediated the effect of injustice
on the most constructive student behaviors—changing their approach and engaging in the
class. We discuss the implications of the results of our study for the student-instructor
relationship and learning in the contemporary higher education environment.

Keywords Justice . Fairness . Student as Consumer

Rebecca M. Chory (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is Associate Professor in the Department of Management
at Frostburg State University. She may be contacted at rmchory@[Link]. Her research interests include
fairness and ethics in instructional and organizational contexts, workplace relationships, and antisocial organi-
zational behavior.
Sean M. Horan (Ph.D., West Virginia University) is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication
Studies at Texas State University. His research centers upon affection, deception, safer sex communication,
workplace romance, and justice.
Marian L. Houser (Ph.D., University of Tennessee-Knoxville) is Professor in the Department of Communica-
tion Studies at Texas State University. Her research focuses on instructional communication and the student-
teacher relationship in organizations, training, health campaigns, and interpersonal relationships.

* Rebecca M. Chory
rmchory@[Link]

1
Department of Management, Frostburg State University, 101 Braddock Rd., Frostburg, MD
21532-2303, USA
2
Department of Communication Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
322 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

Without question, fairness in higher education is important. In the classroom it impacts not
only student satisfaction and evaluations of instructors (Tata 1999), but also learning and
classroom behavior (e.g., Chory-Assad 2002). Moreover, fairness concerning the distribution
of resources may influence administrators’ and professors’ job performance, commitment, and
satisfaction (Fitzgerald et al. 2014; Hnat et al. 2015). Whether driven by a business model
emphasizing student satisfaction, managerialism, the perspectives of today’s students, changes
in pedagogy, or some other force (Baker et al. 2008; Fitzgerald et al. 2014; Hnat et al. 2015;
Ko 2014; Morris 2016; Natale and Doran 2012; Singleton-Jackson et al. 2010), fairness in
higher education has become increasingly salient. Given the significance of fairness and its
implications for faculty members, administrators, and students, we examined college students’
emotional and behavioral responses to their perceptions of instructor unfairness. The knowl-
edge gained from this study increases our understanding of students’ judgments and reasoning
regarding fairness and provides insight as to how professors and administrators can better
navigate the changing higher education landscape.

Fairness in Contemporary Higher Education

Faced with financial constraints and an ever more competitive environment, many colleges
and universities have adopted a business model that positions students as consumers who must
be satisfied (Hoffman and Kretovics 2004; Howell and Buck 2012). Viewing students as
consumers seems to be effective for some areas within higher education institutions (e.g., food
services), but instructors are less enthusiastic about this model as it pertains to their interactions
with students (Hoffman and Kretovics 2004). In any case, research indicates that student
perceptions of fairness and behaviors associated with fairness are related to student satisfaction
(Howell and Buck 2012; Tata 1999). For instance, classroom management techniques, such as
explaining grading procedures and course policies, being flexible in scheduling make-up tests
and meetings, and providing feedback predicted a higher level of student satisfaction as did
student perceptions of the course workload, including their judgments of its reasonableness,
scheduling, and time demands (Howell and Buck 2012). Students have associated these same
behaviors and perceptions with justice in the classroom (e.g., Horan et al. 2010). Changes in
pedagogy, such as an increase in team-based learning and the assessment of individual
students’ contributions to group work, have also brought issues related to fairness to the
forefront (e.g., see Ashworth et al. 1997; Ko 2014).
Althoff Fridley (2009) and Twenge (2009) asserted that the current generation of college
students (i.e., Millennials) differs from prior generations in ways that support the increased
importance of fairness. Many of today’s young people have a sense of entitlement; they believe
that the world owes them something and that they deserve certain privileges. Due to the
cultural emphasis on individualism, entitled students think they can do anything if they believe
in themselves; and they see others’ opinions as unimportant (Althoff Fridley 2009; Twenge
2009). Related to entitlement, many contemporary students have higher expectations of
success and are overconfident, which can cause them to fail to recognize when they need to
act in order to improve their performance (Althoff Fridley 2009; Twenge 2009). As a result,
they may blame their Bunfair^ professors when they do not receive the positive feedback they
had anticipated (Althoff Fridley 2009; Carless 2006). Likewise, students with a strong belief in
their entitlement expect high grades simply for trying, working hard, and attending class, not
just for excellent performance, an expectation that conflicts with grading the final product, a
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 323

practice traditionally regarded as fair (Ko 2014). These students may also expect to take make-
up exams at their convenience and to have regular exams be rescheduled if they interfere with
personal plans (Greenberger et al. 2008; Twenge 2009).
In addition, millennial students tend to see themselves as consumers of higher education;
and they desire choice, control, and instant gratification. They tend to be self-interested and
more focused on grades to get a job than on learning for its own sake (Singleton-Jackson et al.
2010; Twenge 2009). For example, Millennials want their instructors to tell them exactly what
they need to do to earn high grades and to deliver this information in a manner they deem
appropriate (Twenge 2009). Instructors who fail to comply with such requests or meet such
expectations risk being labeled Bunfair.^ In contrast, when students benefit from unfairness,
such as when instructors accept late work even when doing so goes against policy, they may
perceive it as justified (Carless 2006). Along the same lines, Millennials are not afraid to ask
faculty members to bend the rules unfairly in their favor (Baker et al. 2008).

Classroom Justice

The study of fairness in higher education is based on organizational justice theory and research
(see Chory-Assad 2002; Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004b; Fitzgerald et al. 2014; Hnat et al.
2015). Accordingly, individuals use equity, need, equality, or some other rule to determine the
fairness of a given distribution (Adams 1965; Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004b; Fitzgerald et al.
2014; Hnat et al. 2015). For example, administrators tend to rely on equity (e.g., publications,
external funding) to distribute resources in higher education (Fitzgerald et al. 2014; Hnat et al.
2015). Academic deans and department chairs perceived distributing compensation among
faculty members based on equity as fairer and more likely to occur than compensation based
on equality or need. However, they perceived distributing resources to departments based on
equity and need to be equally fair and likely to occur (Fitzgerald et al. 2014).
In the instructional context, students’ evaluations of the fairness of outcomes or processes is
known as classroom justice (Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004b). Three types of classroom
justice have been examined. Classroom distributive justice may be defined as perceptions of
the fairness of the outcomes of an instructional transaction (Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004b;
Homans 1961). Horan et al.’s (2010) research suggests that student grades are the most salient
instructional outcome. Classroom procedural justice refers to perceptions of the fairness of the
processes used to distribute resources or outcomes in the instructional context (Chory-Assad
and Paulsel 2004b). For instance, Ashworth et al. (1997) found that the process by which
instructors assigned grades for group work (i.e., all students get the same mark vs. different
marks depending on their contributions) influenced students’ perceptions of fairness. Class-
room interactional justice (Chory 2007) refers to the fairness and quality of interpersonal
treatment of students by instructors when procedures are implemented or outcomes are
allocated (Bies and Moag 1986; Paulsel and Chory-Assad 2005). Showing respect for students
and being open to their opinions are related to student perceptions of interactional justice
(Chory 2007) and teaching excellence (Donaldson 1991). In contrast, students described
professors who did not acknowledge their ideas and who insulted their performance as unjust
(Horan et al. 2010); and such actions were perceived as negative turning points in their
relationships with instructors (O’Neill and Todd-Mancillas 1992).
The only direct investigation of the validity of the classroom justice conceptualization,
measures, and research results was conducted by Horan et al. (2010) using qualitative
324 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

methods. They wanted to discover whether students experienced the emotions and engaged in
the behaviors that prior, forced-choice, quantitative research had shown were related to
classroom justice. They also wanted to know whether the items in the classroom justice scales
reflected issues students considered when evaluating fairness. Although the results of the Horan
et al. (2010) research were largely consistent with the existing quantitative classroom justice
research, the theoretical process underlying this research, that is, how and why students
respond as they do to perceptions of instructor unfairness, was still unexamined. To address
this lack in the research, Horan et al. (2010) recommended that measures be developed from
their qualitative results and that the relationships between students’ emotional and behavioral
responses to unfairness be quantitatively analyzed. In response to their recommendation and in
order to explain more fully the effects of unfairness in the classroom, we combined qualitative
and quantitative methods in an investigation of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral
processes at play in students’ perceptions of and responses to classroom injustice.

Rationale and Hypotheses

We predicted that students would report a variety of unfair instructor behaviors, with grade-
related problems likely to be the most common such behavior because students expect high
grades in exchange for paying tuition (see Chory and Offstein 2016b). Horan et al.’s (2010)
research supports the primacy of grades in that they found the most commonly reported unfair
instructor behaviors, as perceived by students, concerned grades, [in]competence, or [un]like-
lihood of success in the course. To replicate these results and to check their validity, we
articulated hypothesis one.

H1: Students will report instructor behaviors concerning grades as the most common
type of perceived unfair behavior.

Colquitt (2001) argued that perceptions of justice have Bsocioemotional^ outcomes. Sim-
ilarly, Carless (2006) found that some students were emotionally distressed by poor grades and
claimed that their instructors was biased or unfair. Justice perceptions are also related to
student affect and motivation (Chory-Assad 2002; Colquitt 2001). Injustice is said to lead to
anger and frustration (Chory-Assad 2002; Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004b), which is support-
ed by research showing that anger was students’ most common emotional response to
injustice, followed by feeling pained; and frustration was the third most common response
(Horan et al. 2010). In short, students tend to experience negative emotions, especially anger,
in response to injustice. Whereas Horan et al.’s results were obtained via qualitative measures,
we assessed students’ emotions via quantitative measures. As such, we offer hypothesis two.

H2: Students will report anger as their strongest emotional response to perceived
classroom injustice.

Instructor unfairness is also related to student behavior. For instance, students’ perceptions
of injustice predicted a stronger likelihood that they would be aggressive and hostile toward
instructors, seek revenge on and deceive instructors, and resist instructors’ attempts to influ-
ence them (Chory-Assad 2002; Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004a, b; Claus et al. 2012; Colquitt
2001; Horan et al. 2013; Paulsel and Chory-Assad 2005). Using qualitative measures, Horan
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 325

et al. (2010) observed that the most common behavioral response to injustice was dissent
(52.1%; i.e., complaining about the unfair incident), followed by inaction or acceptance
(31.4%). Informed by these results, we predicted students would engage in similar behaviors
in response to perceived injustice; but we measured their behaviors using quantitative mea-
sures. Accordingly, we articulated our third hypothesis.

H3: Students will report dissent as their strongest behavioral response to perceived
classroom injustice.

Various theories suggest that students’ reactions to unfairness produce emotions that drive
them to try to correct the unfairness and to dispel their negative feelings. For instance, equity
theory (Adams 1965) asserts that individuals perceive injustice and experience anger and
frustration when they believe that outcomes are not commensurate with their contributions
(Sprecher 1992). To relieve this tension, individuals seek to restore equity by reducing their
contributions so that the contributions match the level of reward received or by harming the
person(s) seen as responsible for the injustice. In addition, Spector’s (1997) model applied to
the instructional context suggests that students experience frustration that may lead to aggres-
sion when they perceive their goals to be blocked by unfairness (Chory-Assad 2002).
Hypothesis four tests these theoretical assertions.

H4: Students’ emotional responses to perceived classroom injustice will mediate the
relationship between classroom injustice and student behavioral responses to that
injustice.

The Study

Participants and Procedures

The participants in this study were 397 undergraduates (64.6% female) from three public
universities in the United States in 2011.1 The schools were selected based on convenience and
researchers’ personal contacts. Two schools were in the mid-Atlantic region; one had a student
population of about 30,000 and the other had about 10,000 students. The third was a Hispanic
Serving Institution (i.e., at least 25% of its undergraduates identify as Hispanic) located in the
South, with about 35,000 students. Thirty-six percent of the participants in our sample (n =
143) were drawn from the larger mid-Atlantic school, 37.3% (n = 148) from the smaller mid-
Atlantic school, and 26.7% (n = 106) from the Hispanic Serving Institution. As with the
schools, the courses in which data collection occurred were selected based on convenience,
availability, and the researchers’ personal contacts. Students voluntarily and anonymously

1
Although we collected the data in late 2011, our results are consistent with recent research in which data were
collected from late 2013 (Chory and Offstein 2016a, 2017) to late 2015 (Offstein and Chory 2016), supporting
the validity of our results. For instance, student perceptions of classroom unfairness and instructor behaviors
associated with unfairness were associated with students believing the instructor was less ethical and predicted a
stronger likelihood students would engage in offensive and aggressive communication toward the instructor,
disengage from the course, and be dissatisfied with their grades (Chory and Offstein 2016a, 2017; Offstein and
Chory 2016).
326 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

participated in the study by completing paper questionnaires during class time in Communi-
cation Studies courses. The researchers did not collect data in their own classes.
With the permission and cooperation of the given course instructor, the researchers entered
the classroom and distributed the questionnaires to students. The researchers remained present
to answer questions while students completed the questionnaires. Upon completion, the
researchers collected the questionnaires, thanked the students for their participation, and exited
the classrooms. The research had been approved by the Institutional Review Board, and all
participants gave their informed consent prior to participating.
Participants were 18 to 29 years old (M = 20.02, SD = 1.81) and had been in college from 1
to 7 years (M = 2.31, SD = 1.41). Over half (53.5%) reported on male instructors and 46.5% on
female instructors. Because the prompt (see below) required students to think back on all their
college/university experiences, students reported on instructors who taught a variety of
subjects. Most students received (or expected to receive) a grade of a B (45.2%) in the course
taught by the instructor they reported on, followed by the receipt or expectation of an A
(25.0%), C (18.2%), D (8.1%), and other (3.6%). They reported their satisfaction with the
grade on a scale from 1 = Not Satisfied to 4 = Satisfied (range = 1 to 4, M = 2.05, SD = 1.01).
The questionnaire contained one open-ended item to assess student perceptions of class-
room injustice and the instructor behaviors associated with injustice, quantitative items to
assess students’ emotional (30 items) and behavioral (40 items) responses to injustice, and
demographic items. Because we developed the emotional and behavioral responses measures
for this study, we factor analyzed the items for these constructs prior to testing hypotheses.

Measures

Classroom Injustice We assessed classroom injustice with the following open-ended item,
which appeared at the top of the first page of the questionnaire:
Teachers communicate and behave in memorable ways. From all your college/university
experiences, describe in detail a time when an instructor of yours did or said something
you thought was UNFAIR. What did the teacher say or do that made you think he/she
was unfair? In the space below, please describe, in as much detail as possible, what
happened (i.e., what he/she said and did). (Horan et al. 2010, p. 459)
Students handwrote their responses to this item (i.e., their descriptions of the unfair incident)
directly in the space provided on the questionnaire. These responses were then unitized and
coded for the type of classroom injustice and the instructor behaviors representing each type.
First, the lead author and a graduate student unitized participants’ unfairness descriptions
(n = 397, 1 per participant). As in Horan et al.’s (2010) study, some of the responses described
incidents involving more than one type of injustice. Coders treated each violation as a separate
unit. We assessed interrater reliability in unitizing with the responses of 52 participants (13%
of the sample), consistent with Neuendorf’s (2002) recommendation that subsamples for
reliability tests be greater than 50. Guetzkow’s (1950) U was used to test interrater reliability
in unitizing. It was acceptable at .02. In the 52 participants’ responses, the coders identified 79
of the same units and differed on five units. The coders then independently unitized the rest of
the sample and resolved disagreements via discussion. In all, they identified 543 justice
violations (units).
Second, the 543 justice violations were categorized according to the type of injustice using
Horan et al.’s (2010) three-category scheme. Distributive justice violations were defined as
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 327

instances in which the outcome allocated by the instructor was deemed unfair by students;
procedural justice violations involved instructors engaging in a course-related process deemed
unfair by students; and interactional justice violations were marked by instructors communi-
cating with students in a manner deemed unfair by students. Analyses of 15% (n = 80
violations) of the sample indicated 100% intercoder agreement. The coders then independently
coded the rest of the sample and resolved disagreements via discussion. A one-sample chi-
square indicated that students most frequently reported violations of procedural justice (n =
296, 54.5%), followed by distributive (n = 158, 29.1%) and interactional (n = 89, 16.4%)
injustice, χ2 (3) = 85.25, p < .001. Note that results for the three classroom justice categories
were also reported in Chory et al. (2014).
Third, coders identified the specific instructor behaviors that violated the three types of
justice. These behaviors were then classified using Horan et al.’s (2010) instructor behavior
categories: four types of behaviors represented distributive injustice (e.g., unfair grades), nine
represented procedural injustice (e.g., scheduling/workload), and six represented interactional
justice (e.g., singled out student).
Intercoder reliability analyses conducted on 15% (n = 80 violations) of the sample indicated
that the coders agreed on 90% (procedural) to 93% (interactional) of the categories. Potter and
Levine-Donnerstein’s (1999) adaptation of Scott’s pi ranged from .88 to .91. Most of the
behaviors identified were captured by Horan et al.’s (2010) instructor behavior categories with
two exceptions: instructor [un]availability (the perception that instructors were not able to
meet with students and did not return emails) and informational injustice (the perception that
instructors did not explain their grading decisions or procedures), which represented 1.0% and
0.5%, respectively, of all unjust behaviors. Furthermore, coders merged Horan et al.’s not
enforcing policy and not following through categories because of their conceptual overlap.
This revised category made up 10.1% of all the unfair instructor behaviors reported. These
behaviors exemplifying classroom injustice and their frequencies appear in Table 1.

Student Emotional Responses We assessed students’ emotional responses to classroom injus-

tice with a 30-item quantitative measure developed for this study. We constructed the measure from
students’ open-ended emotional responses as observed by Horan et al. (2010). On the questionnaire
we informed participants that the items concerned how they felt about the unfair act they had just
described. We instructed them to indicate their agreement with the following Bemotional
statements.^ BI felt…^ preceded each item. Participants indicated their agreement with the items
on Likert scales ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
We subjected the items to principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation,
which produced a solution consistent with a five-component model that accounted for 59.95%
of the variance. Two items, hurt and disappointed, did not load cleanly on any component;
thus, we dropped them from analysis. The emotional responses’ factor analysis results appear
in Table 2.
Scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.00 for all emotions. Descriptive statistics were anger (M =
3.97, SD = .76, α = .91), disgust (M = 2.75, SD = .97, α = .84), humiliation (M = 2.25, SD =
.97, α = .86), helplessness (M = 3.54, SD = .95, α = .69), and stress (M = 3.40, SD = 1.06,
α = .76).

Student Behavioral Responses We assessed students’ behavioral responses to classroom

injustice with a 40-item quantitative measure developed for this study. We constructed the
measure from students’ open-ended behavioral responses as observed by Horan et al. (2010).
328 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

Table 1 Instructor classroom justice violations by type of perceived unfairness

n %

Distributive Justice Violations

Grade 128 79.0
BI answered a question wrong during a lab and was accused of not reading and received a 0 on the lab.^
Opportunities 23 14.2
BOne of my professors gave just the girls an extra credit opportunity because it had to do with the menstrual cycle, but she
never gave the boys a chance for extra credit.^
Instructor affect 7 4.3
BMy teacher focused more on the overachievers than the kids that struggled in his class. She [sic] spent more time helping
them and going more in depth then [sic] the kids that were doing bad in class. I was struggling in the class and seemed to get
ignored or had less one-on-one time with my teacher.^
Punishment 4 2.5
BOne time in chemistry class the teacher deducted 2 pts. from our labs for overflowing the solid waste container, I saw this as
unfair b/c it was one persons [sic] doing not the entire classes [sic].^
Total 162 100
Procedural Justice Violations
Class procedures 74 22.0
BTheir [sic] would be a quiz on material that was rairly [sic] covered at all in class.^
Grading procedures 66 19.6
BOne of my professors graded very subjectively. We worked in groups and all had basically the same answers (that’s what
we were supposed to do) and we all got different grades most of the time.^
Make-up/late/attendance policies 61 18.2
BMy teacher wouldn’t let me make up an assignment even though I missed for my grandfathers [sic] funeral.^
Schedule/Workload 45 13.4
BThe teacher assigned us a 100 point test for the next class that wasn’t labeled on the syllabus.^
Not following through 34 10.1
BWent against what was listed on the syllabus, i.e. said we were not allowed to have a formula sheet when it clear [sic] stated
on the syllabus that we could.^
Information for exams 29 8.6
B… professor taught the class extremely poorly. For our final she did not specify what would actually be on the test
(everything in the book was Bfair game^) and she gave us 18 short answer questions with out [sic] giving us any idea what
they’d be about.^
Instructor error 15 4.5
BThat one time, I turned in a report to my TA and she said that she did not get my report (possibly to due [sic] she lost it)
thus I did not get credit for it.^
Feedback 6 1.8
BI find it unfair when they don’t update your grades online so you don’t know until it’s too late how you’re doing.^
Availability 6 1.8
BI needed help b/t [between] classes during finals, a time when the professor had office hours…and they refused to meet
with me.^
Total 336 100
Interactional Justice Violations
Rude/insensitive 48 44.0
B…instructor was approached with questions and concerns about a class project. His response to the student was ‘Get out of
my face, you are annoying me, don’t bother coming to my office either.’ Wow!^
Implied/stated student was stupid 21 19.3
BAfter examining the results of an exam…I asked him about it, and rather than sympathize and give credit back, he laughed
at me and said something in front of the whole class implying I was dumb.^
Singled student out 15 13.8
BIn my composition class my teacher handed back our graded papers and asked if anyone had any questions. I asked the
teacher why I got a certain grade, and the teacher went on for 15 whole minutes describing why my paper sucked in front of
the entire class!^
Sexist/racist/prejudiced 11 10.1
BI had a professor who made jokes about females being inferior on a regular basis. This irritated me and I found it to be
unfair and in bad taste. He claimed it was a joke but I still found it to be inappropriate.^
Instructor Affect 6 5.5
BHad a teacher who… didn’t care about students.^
Accused student of wrongdoing 5 4.6
B…a professor wrongfully accused me of plagarism [sic]. I was 18 and completely unaware of the actions I could have
taken.^
Informational injustice 3 2.8
BAfter receiving comments on my graded essays such as ‘awkward sentences,’ I went to speak with her. She …refused to
reconsider my grade without explaining what her comments meant.^
Total 109 100

On the questionnaire we informed participants that the items concerned what they said or did
about the unfair act they had just described. We instructed them to indicate their agreement
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 329

with the following Bbehavior statements^ using 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
We subjected the items to principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation,
which produced a solution consistent with a 12-component model that accounted for 68.13%
of the variance. Two components contained only one item; and another component with two
items was unreliable (α = .35, r = .21), so we dropped these components. Five items did not
load cleanly on any one component, and therefore we eliminated them. The nine retained
components explained 59.42% of the variance. The behavior items’ factor analysis results
appear in Table 3.
Scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.00. Descriptive statistics follow: took action (M = 2.79, SD = 1.10,
α = .87), dissented to authority (M = 2.14, SD = 1.03, α = .85), dissented to classmates (M = 3.79,

Table 2 Principal components factor analysis results for student emotional responses

Component

1 2 3 4 5

Anger
1. aggravated .818 −.053 .013 .111 .118
2. angry .788 .229 .051 .120 .086
3. annoyed .708 −.059 .070 .193 .207
4. appalled .552 .424 .229 −.071 .102
5. bitter .563 .306 .147 .296 .076
6. frustrated .725 −.002 −.096 .243 .302
7. furious .625 .511 .096 .096 .147
8. mad .715 .344 .045 .099 .022
9. pissed off .711 .306 .067 .134 .033
10. upset .555 .373 .090 .284 .166
Disgust
1. violated .061 .708 .233 .234 .086
2. betrayed .230 .459 .280 .376 .071
3. disgusted .302 .593 .127 .006 .148
4. hate .391 .645 .235 .062 .116
5. pained .044 .576 .354 .197 .262
6. repulsed .210 .702 .203 .213 .154
Humiliation
1. ashamed .151 .146 .795 −.049 .114
2. awkward −.003 .081 .811 .092 .074
3. embarrassed .066 .167 .849 .050 .035
4. humiliated .030 .332 .776 .157 .072
5. worthless −.037 .398 .480 .217 .205
Helplessness
1. powerless .226 .156 .101 .673 .264
2. cheated .386 .217 −.055 .630 .038
3. helpless .110 .045 .235 .683 .307
4. mistreated .212 .318 .067 .447 −.080
Stressed
1. overwhelmed .124 .192 .175 .124 .740
2. stressed .413 .055 .026 .128 .757
3. worried .142 .195 .089 .128 .712
Eigenvalue 10.47 3.45 1.65 1.34 1.09
% of Variance 34.89 11.49 5.49 4.46 3.62

Data with bold emphasis indicate the item belongs to the given component
330 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

Table 3 Principal components factor analysis results for student behavioral responses

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Took Action
1. I complained to the instructor. .83 .19 .10 .19 .12 .08 .08 .03 .04
2. I confronted the instructor .87 .17 .09 .17 .08 .10 .06 .05 .02
about the unfair incident.
3. I let it go.a −.62 −.26 −.13 −.10 .11 −.05 .08 −.17 .04
4. I talked to the instructor about .83 .14 .02 .15 .05 .06 .03 .01 .03
the unfairness incident.
5. I did nothing.a −.62 −.32 −.01 .01 .02 −.06 −.18 .06 −.15
6. I accepted it.a −.49 −.28 −.08 .04 .13 .05 .07 −.07 −.05
Dissented to Authority
1. I complained to another instructor, .38 .64 .12 .06 .04 .02 .07 .08 .10
advisor, or coach about the
instructor’s unfair behavior.
2. I reported the unfair incident to .20 .79 −.06 .18 .19 .07 .00 .05 −.03
the instructor’s supervisor (e.g.,
the dean, the chairperson).
3. I talked to the head of the .18 .76 .00 .21 .19 .05 −.01 .15 −.01
instructor’s department about
the instructor’s unfair behavior.
4. I talked to another instructor, .25 .77 .13 .08 .03 .03 .06 .12 .16
advisor, or coach about the
unfairness incident.
5. I reported the incident .18 .58 .20 .11 −.03 .10 .16 −.01 .04
on course/teacher evaluations.
Dissented to Others
1. I complained to other students .04 .03 .84 .10 .05 .06 .19 .00 .01
NOT in the class about the
instructor’s unfair behavior.
2. I talked to students NOT in .09 .07 .86 .07 −.04 −.03 .16 .03 .02
the class about the instructor’s
unfair behavior.
3. I complained to my family .11 .20 .64 −.03 .01 .01 .06 .21 .11
about the instructor’s unfair act.
4. I talked to my friends about .08 .01 .59 -.10 .06 -.05 .43 -.02 .09
the instructor’s unfair behavior.
Verbal Aggression to Instructor
1. I yelled at the instructor. .35 .12 .12 .74 .12 −.09 .03 .13 −.02
2. I said something mean to .08 .18 .00 .73 .22 .05 −.01 .08 .03
the instructor.
3. I told off the instructor. .23 .21 .02 .72 .27 .05 −.06 .03 −.04
Disengaged from Class
1. I stopped trying in the course. .04 .06 −.01 .15 .66 .15 .05 .01 .01
2. I dropped the class. .08 .07 .00 .18 .73 .06 −.04 .17 −.04
3. I stopped going to the class. −.04 .11 .00 .21 .80 −.04 −.03 .05 .04
Engaged with Class
1. I got motivated to do better .09 −.03 −.03 .07 −.24 .73 −.17 −.05 .25
in the course.
2. I studied harder in the course. .16 .02 −.02 −.07 −.07 .78 .08 −.04 .27
3. I asked for help in the course. .06 .25 .06 .02 .17 .65 .11 .25 −.09
Dissented to Classmates
1. I complained to other students .05 .06 .32 .03 .00 .01 .83 .06 .00
in the class about our instructor’s
unfair behavior.
2. I talked to other students in .14 .13 .26 .02 −.06 .04 .79 .15 .03
the class about the incident.
Experienced Physiological Upset
1. I got nervous. −.07 .04 .04 .05 .12 .36 .16 .69 −.03
2. I felt sick. .11 .26 −.08 .23 .10 −.11 .02 .61 .17
3. I felt my heart rate increase. .15 .10 .21 .11 .06 −.20 .12 .64 .23
Changed Approach to Class
1. I used the experience to .13 .03 .00 .01 −.02 .28 .12 .06 .76
approach the next assignment
differently.
2. I learned from the experience. .02 .15 .15 −.01 .05 .10 −.06 .12 .77
Eigenvalues 8.61 3.51 3.15 2.26 1.54 1.27 1.16 1.15 1.11
Percent of Variance 21.51 8.78 7.87 5.66 3.89 3.18 2.90 2.87 2.78
a
Item is reverse-scored
Data with bold emphasis indicate the item belongs to the given component
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 331

SD = 1.19, α = .82, r = .70), dissented to others (M = 3.97, SD = .92, α = .80), verbal aggression
(M = 1.63, SD = .81, α = .80), disengaged from the class (M = 1.74, SD = .87, α = .74), engaged
with the class (M = 2.59, SD = .98, α = .64), experienced physiological upset (M = 2.40, SD = .98,
α = .61), and changed approach to class (M = 3.16, SD = 1.11, α = .60, r = .43).

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted that students would report behaviors concerning grades as the most
common manifestation of instructor unfairness. Results (see Table 1) indicate that the percep-
tion of unfair grades was indeed the most commonly reported unfair behavior. Other grade-
related behaviors concerned grading procedures, make-up/late/attendance policies, exam in-
formation, implied or stated stupidity, feedback, and informational injustice. In sum, over half
of the unfair behaviors students reported concerned grades. The first hypothesis was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that students would report anger as their strongest emotional
response to perceived injustice. Results of a within subjects ANOVA indicated the emotions
differed in strength, Wilks’ lambda = 0.23, F (4, 390) = 333.40, p < .001, partial eta2 = .77.
Post hoc analyses with the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that students most strongly agreed
they experienced anger, followed by helplessness and stress; then disgust; and, finally,
humiliation. Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that students would report dissent as their strongest behavioral
response to perceived injustice. Results of a within subjects ANOVA indicated the behavioral
responses differed in strength, Wilks’ lambda = 0.16, F (8, 372) = 241.73, p < .001, partial
eta2 = .84. Post hoc analyses with the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that students most
strongly agreed they dissented to others, followed by dissented to classmates, changed
approach to the class (e.g., completed the next assignment in a different manner), and took
action. Scores on engagement with the course and physiological upset were the next highest.
Finally, students reported dissent to authority, followed by verbal aggression and disengage-
ment as the lowest factors. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that students’ emotional responses to injustice would mediate the
relationship between student perceptions of instructor unfairness and their behavioral
responses. Using Hayes (2014) MEDIATE macro procedure for SPSS, Version 050213, we
tested nine mediation models, one for each behavior. Based on prior research (e.g., Chory
2007; Chory-Assad 2002; Chory-Assad and Paulsel 2004a, b; Claus et al. 2012; MacNell et al.
2015; Paulsel and Chory-Assad 2005), student sex, age, year in school, grade, school, grade
satisfaction, and instructor sex served as covariates. Pearson correlations appear in Table 4.
Bootstrap analyses (z = 5000 samples) with 95% bias corrected confidence intervals indi-
cate disgust, humiliation, and stress mediated the effect of instructor unfairness on student
behaviors.2 Specifically, disgust mediated unfairness’s effect on take action (.01, SE = .01),
dissent to authority (.02, SE = .01), verbal aggression (.01, SE = .01), and physiological upset
(.02, SE = .01). Humiliation mediated injustice’s effect on verbal aggression (.02, SE = .01),
physiological upset (.02, SE = .01), and changing one’s approach to the class (e.g., completing
the next assignment in a different manner; .03, SE = .01). Finally, stress mediated the relation-
ship between unfairness and physiological upset (.01, SE = .01), changing one’s approach to

2
Complete results are available from the first author.
332 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

the course (.01, SE = .01), dissent to classmates (.01, SE = .01), and engagement (.01, SE =
.01). In all cases, emotions and behaviors were positively related. Hypothesis 4 was partially
supported.

Discussion

The results of this study provide the first empirical explication of the processes involved in
students’ reactions to classroom injustice, and we believe that the implications of our findings
are varied and far-reaching. It is also important, however, to recognize that our results represent
students’ perceptions of fairness, which have been shown to differ from instructors’ (Carless
2006) and may not accurately reflect instructors’ behaviors.

Theoretical Implications

First, our results reinforce the finding that grades are of primary importance to students.
Overall, more than half of the unfair behaviors students identified concerned grades. These
results are likely reflective of today’s consumer-oriented higher education system (Hoffman
and Kretovics 2004; Howell and Buck 2012) in which students expect high grades in exchange
for having paid tuition (Chory and Offstein 2016b). The behaviors students considered unfair
validated past qualitative research, with two exceptions. In our study students identified

Table 4 Pearson correlations among student emotional responses and behavioral responses to perceived
classroom justice violations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Emotional Responses
1 Anger –
2 Disgust .64** –
3 Humiliation .28** .58** –
4 Helplessness .64** .60** .34** –
5 Stress .49** .45** .31** .48** –
Behavioral Responses
6 Took Action .41** .41** .18** .29** .19** –
7 Dissented to .39** .50** .26** .35** .29** .58** –
Authority
8 Dissented to .39** .24** .07 .28** .27** .20** .24** –
Classmates
9 Dissented to .49** .31** .11* .34** .27** .23** .28** .52** –
Others
10 Verbal Aggress. .18** .36** .27** .14* .09 .41** .45** .08 .11* –
to Instructor
11 Disengaged .12 *
.24 **
.24 **
.12 *
.15 **
.11 *
.28 **
.02 .09 .46** –
from Class
12 Engaged from .06 .09 .10* .15* .27** .21** .21** .06 .03 .06 −.08 –
Class
13 Experienced .36 **
.55 **
.44 **
.41 *
.51 *
.22 **
.37 **
.24 **
.26 **
.34 **
.32** .14* –
Physiolog. Upset
14 Changed .20** .23** .23** .23* .25* .19** .23** .10* .16** .09 .03 .36** .25**
Approach to Class
**
p < .0001; * p < .05
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 333

instructor unavailability and informational injustice as unfair acts. These behaviors made up
fewer than 2% of all unfair acts.
Second, the behavioral responses to injustice in which students most strongly agreed they
had engaged involved complaining and talking to others, which likely serve as a means for
students to vent their negative emotions without fear of penalty from instructors. Unfortunate-
ly, such behaviors are not likely to remedy the injustice or prevent it from reoccurring. The
behaviors students next strongly agreed they had enacted, such as changing one’s approach to
the class and taking action (e.g., confronting the instructor), may be constructive or destructive
responses as they depend on the actions the student takes (e.g., disrupting class or asking how
to improve) and what (s)he will do differently the next time (e.g., cheat or study harder). The
relationships observed between taking action and verbal aggression (r = .41, p < .0001) and
dissent to authority (r = .58, p < .0001) suggest that students took problematic or aggressive
action. In contrast, changing one’s approach was most strongly related to engaging with the
course (r = .36, p < .0001), suggesting that students studied harder or asked for help, seemingly
productive behaviors. In line with this reasoning, the behaviors students next agreed they had
enacted were engaging with the course and experiencing physiological upset (e.g., feeling
sick).
Dissent to authority, such as the professor’s dean, was the behavior students next agreed
they had enacted, followed by verbal aggression and disengagement (e.g., stop trying), all of
which are harmful to students or instructors. Dissenting to authority could damage instructors’
reputations and job prospects, especially if the instructors have not yet established their
credibility. These results also support the popular anecdotes that tell of students and their
parents complaining about unfair grades and dissatisfaction to administrators (e.g., Vinson
2013). Similarly, students verbally attacking faculty members is consistent with the culture of
student incivility (Baker et al. 2008). Student disengagement is likely to result in lower grades
and less learning. Fortunately, these behaviors do not appear to be common responses to
injustice.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, students’ emotional responses to injustice,
specifically their disgust, stress, and humiliation, explained their behavioral responses.
Not surprisingly, the emotional responses as a whole most strongly predicted physi-
ological upset. Although feeling sick or nervous may not be considered a behavior in
the traditional sense, it was identified by students as such in Horan et al.’s (2010)
study; and therefore we considered it a behavior here. It also served to validate our
newly constructed measure of emotions.
Disgust seems to predict the most problematic responses for instructors—students taking
action, engaging in verbal aggression, and dissenting to authority. When students believe their
instructors are unfair, they feel betrayed and violated, which can lead them to lash out by
yelling at instructors, attacking their character, or reporting them to external parties. As
previously discussed, in this study taking action appears to be aggressive and damaging in
nature. Even if the action is not destructive, it is directed at instructors—complaining,
confronting, or talking to them.
Stress, on the other hand, is associated with the most constructive student behav-
iors—changing one’s approach and engaging in the class—as well as dissenting to
classmates. Students whose perceptions of injustice left them feeling overwhelmed and
worried responded by learning from the experience and changing how they
approached the next assignment, which involved becoming more motivated, studying
more, and asking for help. Stressed students also tended to talk about the unfairness
334 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

with classmates, which may result in emotional support. Furthermore, dissenting to

classmates does not necessarily disrupt the course or threaten the instructor.
Humiliation predicted that students would be inclined to become verbally aggres-
sive and change their approach. Feeling ashamed, embarrassed, and worthless may
lead students to try to recover their dignity and/or gain power by changing their
approach to perform better in the course. Students responding to a perceived attack on
their identity with a verbally aggressive attack on the instructor may help them feel
avenged and powerful (Claus et al. 2012).
In short, the negative emotions students experience in response to their perceptions of
classroom injustice appear to drive them to behave primarily in ways to relieve their emotional
discomfort and secondarily in ways to solve the problem. This pattern of results is in line with
equity theory (Adams 1965) and empirically supports Chory-Assad’s (2002) instructional
application of Spector’s (1997) organizational frustration model. Namely, perceptions of
classroom injustice lead students to experience negative emotions that motivate them to
behave in ways to address the injustice and/or at least to relieve their negative emotions.

Practical Implications

As administrators seek to increase student satisfaction to enhance recruitment, reten-

tion, and graduation rates and given that student evaluation of instructors is used in
faculty personnel decisions, faculty members may feel pressured to relax course
policies and inflate grades (Chory and Offstein 2016b). At the same time, concerns
over declining academic standards and the push for more academic rigor, which
students and faculty conceptualize differently (Draeger et al. 2015), present faculty
members with an additional challenge that must be balanced against the competing
demands.
Given these conditions and our results, we recommend that instructors uphold
academic standards while engaging in behaviors to enhance student perceptions of
the fairness of these standards, as opposed to trying to fulfill students’ grade expec-
tations. Such behaviors could include effectively answering questions, providing
enjoyable interactions (Young et al. 2013), and using clearly established and explained
grading criteria (Tata 1999). Instructors should also avoid being verbally aggressive
with students (Claus et al. 2012). Carless (2006) recommended that students and
instructors discuss assessment processes and rules to align their judgments of fairness.
This practice likely enhances student perceptions of informational justice as it pro-
vides them with open and specific explanations and justifications concerning grading
procedures and decisions.
It is important to acknowledge that not all recommendations stemming from these results
may be advisable, practical, or effective. For instance, if students manage situations they
perceive to be unjust, it may equip them to succeed in their professional lives in which injustice
is bound to occur. As educators, we should consider such lessons and their associated rewards
and drawbacks. As administrators, we should not permit issues of student retention, attain-
ment, and satisfaction to govern or take precedence over faculty members’ professional
judgements of appropriate grades, difficulty of course material, and workload expectations.
As much as possible, keeping both students’ and professors’ views in mind, we should not
encroach upon the purview entrusted to the care of educators—what happens in their
classrooms.
Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336 335

Limitations

In addition to our single-perspective and common method of data collection, our study
was limited by the use of measures that have not yet been validated and a cross-
sectional design that does not allow causal relationships to be tested. Even though our
measures are new, item creation was based on valid qualitative research by Horan
et al. (2010). Furthermore, the scale reliabilities following factor analysis were ac-
ceptable. Researchers should continue to test the measures and conduct experiments to
assess responses as they occur in real time and to analyze the causal process
underlying the classroom justice phenomenon.

Conclusion

We believe that our study can allow us to say with confidence that fair grades, fair classroom
procedures, and fair interpersonal treatment by instructors are essential to successful student-
instructor relationships and higher educational outcomes. In short, classroom justice matters;
and students’ perceptions thereof matter.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, 2 (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic.
Althoff Fridley, C. (2009). Social implications of entitlement, a cautionary tale. Journal of Philosophy and
History of Education, 59, 88–91.
Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thome, P., & Students on the Qualitative Research Methods Course Unit. (1997).
Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and
assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 187–203.
Baker, S. D., Comer, D. R., & Martinak, M. L. (2008). All I’m askin’ is for a little respect: How can we promote
civility in our classrooms? Organization Management Journal, 5, 65–80.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on
Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–233.
Chory, R. M. (2007). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility
and classroom justice. Communication Education, 56, 89–105.
Chory, R. M., & Offstein, E. H. (2016a). Too close for comfort? Faculty-student multiple relationships and their
impact on student classroom conduct. Ethics & Behavior. doi:10.1080/10508422.2016.1206475.
Chory, R. M., & Offstein, E. H. (2016b). BYour professor will know you as a person^: Evaluating and rethinking
the relational boundaries between faculty and students. Journal of Management Education. doi:10.1177
/1052562916647986.
Chory, R. M., & Offstein, E. H. (2017). Outside the classroom walls: Perceptions of professor unethical out-of-
class conduct and student classroom incivility among American business students. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Chory, R. M., Horan, S. M., Carton, S., & Houser, M. L. (2014). Toward a further understanding of students’
emotional responses to classroom injustice. Communication Education, 63, 41–62.
Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation,
learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58–77.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004a). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and
interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly, 52, 98–114.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004b). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions
to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53, 253–273.
336 Innov High Educ (2017) 42:321–336

Claus, C. J., Chory, R. M., & Malachowski, C. C. (2012). Student antisocial compliance-gaining as a function of
instructor aggressive communication and classroom justice. Communication Education, 61, 17–43.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Donaldson, J. F. (1991). An examination of similarities and differences among adults’ perceptions of instructional
excellence in off-campus credit course programming. Innovative Higher Education, 16, 59–78.
Draeger, J., del Prado Hill, P., & Mahler, R. (2015). Developing a student conception of academic rigor.
Innovative Higher Education, 40, 215–228.
Fitzgerald, S. M., Mahony, D., Crawford, F., & Hnat, H. B. (2014). Distributive justice in higher education:
Perceptions of administrators. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 401–415.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of
personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1193–1204.
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 6, 47–58.
Hayes, A. F. (2014, October 06). SPSS MEDIATE macro syntax reference. Retrieved from [Link]
Hnat, H. B., Mahony, D., Fitzgerald, S., & Crawford, F. (2015). Distributive justice and higher education
resource allocation: Perceptions of fairness. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 79–93.
Hoffman, K. D., & Kretovics, M. A. (2004). Students as partial employees: A metaphor for the student-institution
interaction. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 103–120.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Understanding students’ classroom justice experiences
and responses. Communication Education, 59, 453–474.
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., Carton, S. T., Miller, E., & Raposo, P. C. J. (2013). Testing leader-member exchange
theory as a lens to understand students’ classroom justice perceptions and antisocial communication.
Communication Quarterly, 61, 497–518.
Howell, G. F., & Buck, J. M. (2012). The adult student and course satisfaction: What matters most? Innovative
Higher Education, 37, 215–226.
Ko, S. (2014). Peer assessment in group projects accounting for assessor reliability by an iterative method.
Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 301–314.
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of
teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 291–303.
Morris, L. V. (2016). Management and leadership in colleges and universities. Innovative Higher Education, 41, 1–3.
Natale, S. M., & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of Business Ethics,
105, 187–196.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
O’Neill, K. L., & Todd-Mancillas, W. R. (1992). An investigation into the types of turning point events affecting
relatonal change in student-faculty interactions. Innovative Higher Education, 16, 277–290.
Offstein, E. H., & Chory, R. M. (2016). Breaking bad in business education: Impacts on student incivility and
academic dishonesty. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. doi:10.1177/2329490616671709.
Paulsel, M. L., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Perceptions of instructor interactional justice as a predictor of
student resistance. Communication Research Reports, 22, 283–291.
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284.
Singleton-Jackson, J. A., Jackson, D. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2010). Students as consumers of knowledge: Are they
buying what we’re selling? Innovative Higher Education, 35, 343–358.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sprecher, S. (1992). How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to inequity in close
relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 57–69.
Tata, J. (1999). Grade distributions, grading procedures, and students’ evaluations of instructors: A justice
perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 263–271.
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching Generation Me.
Medical Education, 43, 398–405.
Vinson, K. E. (2013). Hovering too close: The ramifications of helicopter parenting in higher education. Georgia
State University Law Review, 29, 423–451.
Young, L. E., Horan, S. M., & Frisby, B. N. (2013). Fair and square? An examination of classroom justice and
relational teaching messages. Communication Education, 62, 333–351.
Innovative Higher Education is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.