Fairness and Health Care Decision Making: Testing the Group Value Model of Procedural Justice

Considerable research has supported the notion that procedural justice is important to individuals independent of outcome considerations. Tyler and his associates (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind and Earley, 1992; Tyler, 1989) proposed that this is so because procedural justice serves a group value function. In the present research, we explored aspects of this group value formulation in a real life health care context. Specifically, we assessed the relationship between individuals' appraisals of procedural justice following health care treatment decisions as well as (i) expectations for different consequences to self; (ii) estimates of how they were viewed by the health care authorities; (iii) attributions about the reasons for their treatment; and (iv) ratings of emotional reactions. Results confirmed many components of the relational, group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind and Earley, 1992; Tyler, 1989). Specifically, respondents who felt that they had been treated fairly expected that their status and their relationship with the health care decision maker and others in their health care group would improve; perceived that the health care decision maker would rate them positively on a variety of personality dimensions; felt that the health care decision maker's interactions with them revealed quite a lot about the decision-maker's personality characteristics; and indicated increased levels of pride and pleasure as well as lower levels of anger as a result of their treatment. Results were discussed from several frameworks including Markus and Kitayama's (1991) concept of the independent and the interdependent self.     

Revisiting the role of distributive justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory

Objectives

Tyler’s theory of legitimacy identified procedural justice and distributive justice as antecedents of legitimacy, but placed distributive justice in a relatively minor position compared with procedural justice. This has led to researchers paying less attention to distributive justice in the development of theory, despite consistent findings that distributive justice is important to a number of outcomes for criminal justice authorities. This report uses uncertainty management theory to revisit Tyler’s legitimacy model and gain a more nuanced understanding of distributive justice.

Methods

The proposed model is tested using a series of latent variable analyses conducted on a sample of 2169 adults and a factorial vignette design. The vignette design randomly manipulates outcome favorability and officer behavior during a hypothetical traffic stop. Multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models are then utilized to test the impact of these manipulations on perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice. This is followed by a structural equation model that tests the relationships between procedural justice, distributive justice, and legitimacy.

Results

Officer behavior is a primary predictor of both procedural justice and distributive justice. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that distributive justice judgments are shaped by perceptions of procedural justice. Accordingly, distributive justice mediates the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy.

Conclusions

Distributive justice should not be treated as a competing explanation for legitimacy evaluations, but as a concept that contextualizes why procedural justice is important.

     

Coming to Terms with the Past in Germany after 1945 and 1989: Public Judgments on Procedures and Justice

Germany presents the unique case of a society that has been forced to come to terms with its past twice within a fifty‐year period. This double experience can contribute to our understanding of the legal processes of lustration. This paper examines a largely neglected dimension of this phenomenon: justice judgments by the general population. Justice judgments about the Nuremberg Trials and denazification after 1945 are compared to analogous procedures that took place in post‐communist East Germany after 1989. The study uses two theoretical models in its comparative approach: the Leventhal model, and the "group value" model of procedural justice set forth by Lind and Tyler. The analysis is based on survey data collected by the Office of the Military Government of the U.S. (OMGUS) from 1945 to 1949, and survey data taken in East Germany from 1989 to 1994. The results lend support to the "group value" model for the specific situation of social transition. During both periods justice judgments developed according to analogous patterns. The German experience yields some important lessons for legal policies of lustration.     

Opening the Black Box Between Justice and Reactions to Unfavorable Outcomes in the Workplace

Though several studies have shown that the perception of social justice can effectively reduce negative attitudinal and behavioral reactions to an unfavorable outcome, few studies have tried to empirically test explanations of this mitigating effect. The present study was undertaken to fill this gap by examining under what conditions social justice suppresses negative reactions, such as exit, neglect, and aggressive voice, and stimulates positive reactions, such as considerate voice and patience. Two potential moderators were derived from the control model (Thibaut and Walker, 1975, 1978) and the group-value model (Lind and Tyler, 1988, Tyler and Lind, 1992). Ninety-eight teachers participated in the study. Results support the hypotheses that overall procedural and distributive justice discourage negative reactions, particularly when employees value control or standing, or both. Moreover, distributive justice stimulates positive reactions (i.e., considerate voice) when employees value control. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

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.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.     

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.     

Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy

Objectives

This study tests the generality of Tyler’s process-based model of policing by examining whether the effect of procedural justice and competing variables (i.e., distributive justice and police effectiveness) on police legitimacy evaluations operate in the same manner across individual and situational differences.

Methods

Data from a random sample of mail survey respondents are used to test the “invariance thesis” (N = 1681). Multiplicative interaction effects between the key antecedents of legitimacy (measured separately for obligation to obey and trust in the police) and various demographic categories, prior experiences, and perceived neighborhood conditions are estimated in a series of multivariate regression equations.

Results

The effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy is largely invariant. However, regression and marginal results show that procedural justice has a larger effect on trust in law enforcement among people with prior victimization experience compared to their counterparts. Additionally, the distributive justice effect on trust in the police is more pronounced for people who have greater fear of crime and perceive higher levels of disorder in their neighborhood.

Conclusion

The results suggest that Tyler’s process-based model is a “general” theory of individual police legitimacy evaluations. The police can enhance their legitimacy by ensuring procedural fairness during citizen interactions. The role of procedural justice also appears to be particularly important when the police interact with crime victims.

     

Children's criteria for procedural justice: Developing a Young People's Procedural Justice Scale

A Procedural Justice Scale for Young People was developed to examine the criteria that Grades 7 and 9 students thought were important in judging the fairness of the procedures used to judge a case of a hypothetical young thief. A 10-item scale was developed using unidimensional scaling and factor-analytic techniques. The study supports the earlier work on adults by Thibault and Walker (1978) and Tyler (1988) showing that for children too procedural justice concerns make a contribution to satisfaction with the outcomes and procedures of a case.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

Victims justice preferences in a collectivist,informal setting: The case of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

An abundance of research has emerged in the last 30 years focusing on justice preferences for victims of crime. In general, findings indicate that victims are interested in aspects of procedural justice, interactional justice, restorative justice, retributive justice and behavior control. Under certain conditions, however, these preferences may vary. One dimension that may lead to individuals diverging in their justice preferences is that of culture. The large majority of victimological research on victim legal preferences has been conducted in western jurisdictions. The current research adds to that body of knowledge by examining a different group: Bhutanese refugees residing in refugee camps in Nepal. This examination focuses on their collectivist status and how such cultural differences lead to different styles and characteristics of conflict resolution. It is hypothesized that victims in a collectivist society will primarily be interested in restoration, while voice to the decision maker, voice to the other party and retribution will not be important in predicting overall satisfaction. A multiple regression analysis confirms the hypotheses regarding voice toward the offender, restoration and retribution. Possible reasons for the remaining findings are discussed.     

Procedural justice in managerial selection: Identification of fairness determinants and associations of fairness perceptions

The study examined procedural fairness in managerial selection practices. A sample of professional managers were asked to make first, fairness judgments about managerial selection procedures in general; and second, specific fairness judgments based on their own previous experiences in applying for such positions. Using the general fairness ratings, the determinants of procedural fairness in selection were identified by the factor analysis technique. Five procedural factors (three process and two decision factors) accounted for 57.4% of the total variance. The factor scores derived from fairness ratings of specific selection procedures were then correlated with ratings of candidates' later organizational commitment, work satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. Results showed that process factors were significantly associated with candidate variables but decision factors were not. The findings were discussed in the context of current procedural justice theories.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Beyond normative constraints: Declining institutionalism and the emergence of substantive and procedural justice

Popular notions of what it means to be put on trial invariably generate thoughts of the adversarial criminal trial, most often before a judge and jury. However, the criminal trial as the site for the testing of evidence of wrongdoing via a model of proof that proceeds according to prescribed processes in a normative institutional milieu is in decline. Controversially, this decline has been met with resistance from the legal profession, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders seeking to preserve the due process model that defines the criminal trial as an adversarial exchange between state and defendant. While the due process model continues to dominate as popular conceptualisation, the twenty-first century criminal trial has changed to such an extent that it is no longer seen as the quintessential form for the meting out of procedural fairness and testing of state's evidence, that emerged toward the end of the seventeenth century. Rather, the rise of control orders, modifications to the law of evidence, and the right of the accused to confront their accuser, together with the inclusion of non-traditional agents of justice, specifically victims and the community, has brought forward an era of substantive and procedural justice that lies beyond the normative constraints of the criminal trial. Robed counsel and bewigged judges beware; the advent of substantive and procedural justice has allowed for greater innovation transgressing the orthodoxies of criminal law in common law systems of justice. This paper will consider the virtues of the introduction of a transgressive criminal procedure.     

Police Legitimacy and Citizen Cooperation in China: Testing an Alternative Model

Past research has identified several mechanisms of promoting citizen cooperation with the police, with Tyler’s process-based policing model being one of the most frequently tested frameworks in this line of inquiry. Using data collected from a large sample of residents in a large Chinese city, this study assesses an alternative model of Tyler’s work proposed by Tankebe (2013), positing that police legitimacy, embodied in four aspects of procedural justice, distributive justice, effectiveness, and lawfulness, affects people’s obligation to obey the police, which further influences their cooperation with the police. Results from second-order confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling analysis suggested that Tankebe’s work is supported by the Chinese data. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.     

Procedural justice research

During the past decade the study of the psychology of procedural justice has become well established within the field of justice. It has been widely found that people are as concerned with the fairness of the way decisions are made as they are with the fairness of those decisions (i.e., distributive justice). This paper identifies the questions which have dominated research on procedural justice during the past decade, discusses the conclusions which have been reached about those questions, and suggests important areas for future exploration by procedural justice researchers.     

Procedural Justice and Psychological Effects of Criminal Proceedings: The Moderating Effect of Offense Type

It is well-established that victims of crime have numerous preferences when encountering the criminal justice system. Often, research examines these preferences in terms of procedural justice, asserting that elements such as voice, respect, and fair treatment may lead to greater satisfaction and more positive experiences. Positive experiences also entail preventing secondary victimization by the legal system. Much of the research surrounding this topic, however, discusses victims of crime as a single entity. The current research examines if differences among crime victims, namely whether they suffered sexual or non-sexual victimizations, influence their legal preferences. Victims of sexual assault have undergone particularly traumatic and stigmatizing experiences that may warrant a greater need for expression and understanding of their harm. It is hypothesized that for victims of sexual assault, there will be a stronger association between procedural justice and negative psychological effects of criminal proceedings. Therefore, type of offense is examined as a moderator variable of this relationship. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that there is in fact an interaction effect for procedural justice and psychological effects, suggesting that these preferences are more desired by victims of sexual assault.