“程序公正感受”研究及其启示

从 #" 世纪 ’" 年代开始,西方学者对程序公正的研究从伦理哲学分析转向社会心理学分析,试图揭示程序公正的心理规律。研究发现：程序公正的要素并没有绝对标准,具有一定的情境敏感性;不过,程序公正在促进人们接受法律、法律决定和从事积极行为等方面具有比结果公正更为重要的地位,这种现象甚至具有跨越文化、种族、性别的普遍性。为了对此进行解释,西方学者提出了发言权理论、团体价值理论、人际关系理论和公正启发理论等模式,各自都具有一定的解释力。不过,程序公正也有可能成为社会权威转移真实矛盾“欺骗”社会成员的统治策略。对于转型期的我国,程序公正感受研究带给我们的不是其具体的结论,而是告诉我们,研究公正问题时,应当抛开宏大话语,努力探寻中国人心目中的公正观。     

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its expected-value (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

Procedural Justice in Resolving Family Conflict: Implications for Youth Violence Prevention

The fairness of our legal system is often judged by individuals and the public at large along dimensions of procedural and distributive justice. People seem to care about how legal decisions are made as well as about the specific outcomes reached by juries and judges. In fact, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice or injustice may influence public perceptions and confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. This paper focuses mainly on procedural justice. Using an ecological framework, we tested the hypothesis that older adolescents use the same or similar criteria for evaluating fairness in the context of family decision making that people in general use to evaluate the fairness of legal processes and decisions. We also tested the hypothesis that family decision-making procedures that are perceived to be unfair contribute to increased risk for acting out and deviant behavior among older adolescents. Principal components analysis confirmed that older adolescents use several distinct criteria for evaluating procedural fairness in the family context and that these criteria are comparable to those that people use to evaluate the fairness of legal procedures (rational and objective treatment conveying personal respect, consistent and non-discriminatory treatment reflecting social status or standing, and instrumental participation or having "an opportunity to be heard"). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis confirmed that procedural justice factors are associated with adolescent deviant behavior. We discuss implications for adolescent deviance and youth violence prevention.     

Process matters: petitions systems in Britain’s legislatures

Over the past 15 years petitions systems have become embedded in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and more recently the House of Commons. This article uses the concept of procedural justice, with its emphasis on the fairness of the process by which decisions are made, as an analytical tool to explore four case studies of petitions systems in British legislatures, considering, in particular, the extent to which they enable voice, decision-making and transparency. It illustrates that the application of ideas of procedural justice not only provides us with a useful tool for analysing petitions systems in representative political institutions, but also potentially provides a framework of ideas from which petitions systems, and perhaps other participatory initiatives, may learn.     

Punishment,Accountability, and the New Juvenile Justice

The juvenile justice system has undergone radical change in the past three decades. The procedural revolution that began at the end of the 1960s with the Gault decision has more recently evolved into a substantive revolution. The changes in juvenile justice have been many and in some instances drastic, particularly in the apparent demise of the rehabilitative ideal. New theories or models have emerged, incorporating terminology such as punishment, justice, and accountability into the vocabulary of juvenile justice practitioners and the lexicon of state juvenile codes. The transformation in the philosophy and underlying goals of the system has been well-documented over the past decade or so. It is now time to ask critical questions about the significance and meaning of this transformation and to bring attention to unresolved issues. This article suggests the issues that need to be addressed in order to make both practical and philosophical sense out of the changes in the mission of “juvenile justice.”     

Political Ideology,Perceived Threat,and Justice Towards Immigrants

In multiethnic societies, issues of justice and fairness have become the focus of intense public debate. Although current psychological theories of distributive and procedural justice concentrate on multiple normative rules that guide allocation decisions, there is little research that focuses on the particular relationship between immigrants as recipients and members of the host society as allocators. In the present study Germans were asked about their opinions as to what Turkish immigrants in Germany deserve or are entitled to and to which degree they pose a threat to German culture. Political orientation of the allocator turns out to be an important predictor of how distributive and procedural justice concerns are evaluated. Both conservatives and liberals exhibit a different conception of what counts as distributive justice. With regard to procedural justice, however, liberals and conservatives did not differ much. Moreover, perceived threat to German culture is significantly related to distributive justice but not to procedural justice.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

A Hierarchical Analysis of Correctional Officers’ Procedural Justice Judgments of Correctional Institutions: Examining the Influence of Transformational Leadership

A substantial body of prior research has demonstrated the significant positive effect of organizational procedural justice on institutional policy compliance. However, research examining the antecedents of organizational procedural justice is only just beginning to emerge in the criminal justice literature. Due to the potential for institutional deviance and the importance of rule adherence among individuals in positions of authority, we believe it is important to investigate correctional officers’ procedural justice perceptions. As such, this study examines 929 correctional officers over 40 institutions to identify if criteria for fairness, leadership style, and officer and institutional characteristics influence officers’ perceptions of procedural justice. Results from hierarchical linear regression indicate that the ability to have a say in decisions, a sense that institutional rules are impartial, and perceptions that management leads through motivation and encouragement significantly increases correctional officers’ perceptions of procedural justice. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

The effects of procedural aspects and outcome salience on procedural fairness judgments

The effects of process control and decision control on procedural fairness judgements are examined with regard to the procedure used by commercial banks in granting business credits to entrepreneurs. Male and female entrepreneurs with experience in requests for business credits were interviewed about several aspects of the procedure for granting business credit. Respondents had either a positive or a negative experience with credit granting (i.e., the request was or was not rewarded). The outcome-oriented and the procedure-oriented explanations for the effects of process control on procedural fairness judgments are discussed. The results show that, contrary to expectation, process control had no effect on the procedural fairness judgments. On the contrary, perceived seriousness of treatment, as well as the predicted effects of decision control, did influence procedural justice judgments. Moreover, some support was found for the contention that seriousness of treatment functions as precondition for process control effects (Tyler, 1987). Neither the outcome-oriented, nor the procedure-oriented explanation could fully account for the findings. It is assumed that the specific aspects of the situation are responsible for the results, indicating how important the situational context is in research concerning procedural justice.     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.     

Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) and the Politics of Natural Justice under Settler‐Colonialism

This article examines the impact of the application of apparently impartial principles of procedural fairness and natural justice on the construction of “authentic” and “inauthentic” knowledge of Aboriginal culture. It discusses the progression of the Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) court cases and the legal construction of public participation in the making of political decisions affecting Aboriginal interests in land. In examining the politics of competing interests in land, this article reflects on the tension between Indigenous interests in land and settler developmentalism in relation to the Australian jurisprudence of procedural fairness and natural justice. The arguments running through the article concern the questions of the ways in which the liberal restraint on power is embodied in the impartial principles of administrative law, where that power creates rather than infringes upon rights, why it generates a particular legal construction of Aboriginal interests in land and cultural heritage, and the extent to which this plays a role in the maintenance of relations of settler‐colonial dispossession.     

Prison Legitimacy and Procedural Fairness: A Multilevel Examination of Prisoners in England and Wales

The procedural justice model has been widely used as an explanation for understanding legitimacy and compliance with the law, particularly within the context of policing. Central to this model is the importance of procedural fairness—in which the treatment of citizens and offenders by criminal justice agents can play a key role in building legitimacy and influencing compliance with legal rules and values. This paper examines the relationship between procedural fairness and legitimacy within the context of corrections. Drawing on data from a longitudinal survey of more than 3,000 prisoners across England and Wales, we identify an important link between procedural fairness and prisoner perceptions of legitimacy. We further examine variations in legitimacy in terms of individual prisoner characteristics, conditions within prison, as well as differences between prisons.     

Perceptions of justice: Clientele evaluations of conflict adjustment by a utility regulatory agency

During the past 15 years social psychological research on justice has evaluated hypotheses about linkages among various personal and institutional attributes and variables like outcome favorability and perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in decision-making contexts. This article reexamines hypotheses and findings about procedural and distributive justice using data from the dispute adjustment process used by a state regulatory agency. This study differs from any previous studies of perceptions of justice in two respects. First, the study employs data about the perceptions ofboth sides of a disputing experience before a public authority. Second, rather than using multiple regression and path analysis as in many past studies, we illustrate the value of hierarchical log-linear analysis as an analytical technique. The data analyzed through loglinear analysis permit us to reconsider previous conclusions about the procedural neutrality and participation in dispute adjustment and the linkage of these concepts to the legitimacy of the political regime.     

Juvenile diversion and the constitution

The juvenile justice system has been a product of interaction between legal and socio-medical forces since its inauguration near the end of the last century. While the socio-medical forces have, for the most part, been dominant over the years, concern for minimum legal standards has been a conspicuous part of the picture since the years 1966 to 1967. The result is serious attention to due process and fundamental fairness in court processing, and low tolerance for abridgement of such rights in the interests of attaining the social goal of rehabilitation. The question arises as to how early in the procedural chain for juveniles various due process rights should enter. Some have argued that important due process rights should be components in the process leading to probation, and even police, diversion. The central argument of this article is that broad directives regarding due process in diversion are inappropriate. Indeed, analysis of actual and potential losses of freedom associated with diversion decisions leads to the general conclusion that very few diversion programs require usual procedural rights. Moreover, a survey of case law indicates that there is little reason to expect that the procedural protections enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court so strongly in the 1960s will be extended by the courts to police (or probation) decisions on diversion in the 1980s.     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review

Manipulations of outcome favorability and outcome fairness are frequently treated as interchangeable, and assumed to have redundant effects. Perceptions of outcome fairness and outcome favorability are similarly presumed to have common antecedents and consequences. This research tested the empirical foundation of these assumptions by conducting a meta-analytic review of the justice literature (N = 89 studies). This review revealed that outcome fairness is empirically distinguishable from outcome favorability. Specifically: (a) there is weaker evidence of the fair process effect when the criterion is outcome fairness than when it is outcome favorability, (b) outcome fairness has stronger effects than outcome favorability, and equally strong or stronger effects as procedural fairness on a host of variables, such as job turnover and organizational commitment, and (c) manipulations of outcome fairness and favorability have stronger effects on perceptions of procedural fairness than the converse.