Procedural Fairness Responses in the Context of Self-Uncertainty CONSTANTINE SEDIKIDES, DAVID DE CREMER, CLAIRE M. HART, and LIEVEN BREBELS F rom one vantage point, the world appears to be an uncertain place. Political changes, economic downturns, and natural disasters seem to work interactively in an increasingly interdependent and shrinking globe to punctuate the unpredict- ability of daily life. To make matters worse, terror management theory (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986) reminds us that we are about as significant as lima beans in an indifferent universe where bad things (such as death, for example) can happen at any time. From another vantage point, though, the world seems to be a reasonably secure place. Many countries have stable democratic regimes, flourishing economies, and high- quality health systems with units ready for emergency action. In addition, some people cope better with fear of death than others by internalizing cultural norms and strivingfor symbolic immortality (see Landau et al., Chapter 11). Likewise, from one vantage point, the social environment appears to be highly fluid. Sometimes people succeed at performance tests or romantic pursuits, and at other times they fail. Sometimes they are told they are insightful and socially adept, and at other times they are told they are rather clueless and socially inept (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003; see also Leippe & Eisenstadt, Chapter 3, and Reich & Arkin, Chapter 17). In addition, mixed messages often put people in a quandary (Sedikides & Green, 2000, 2004). A friend may praise one's good listening skills but criticize their haircut. A partner may exalt one's dependability but lament their fashion sense. The editors of an edited volume may com- pliment the authors' informal and dialectical writing style but wonder how the write-up has anything to do with the objectives of the volume. From another vantage point, though, the social environment can be relatively stable. Following their adolescent and early adult years, most people settle on professional situations and close relationships that offer rela- tively predictable reward or feedback contingencies (see Chang-Schneider & Swann, Chapter 12). And, eventually, the volume editors are bound to settle in recognition of the authors' brilliance. This social duality appears to be mirrored in the self-concept. From one vantage point, the self-concept is not necessarily the most rock-solid of structures. Self-descriptions vary markedly on a day-to-day basis (Allen & Potkay, 1973). They also vary depending on intrapersonal factors, such as ease of retrieval. For example, people are more likely to rate themselves as assertive when they have the easy task of retrieving 6 assertive behaviors rather than the difficult task of retrieving 12 assertive behaviors (Schwarz et al., 1991).