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.     

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance Among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK

Attitudes toward legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance, and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.     

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 the Assessment of Civil Justice in Japan

In analyzing the data from a structured interview survey with Japanese litigants of civil trials, we examined the relationships between their perceptions of outcomes and process of the trials, responses to the trials, and evaluation of the judicial system. The results showed that both favorability of trial outcomes and procedural fairness of trials increased satisfaction with the trial outcomes and evaluation of the judicial system. Satisfaction was largely determined by perceived favorability, while the evaluation of the judicial system was largely determined by perceived procedural fairness, suggesting a justice bond effect that justice fortifies people's societal commitment. Consistent with procedural justice theories, the perception of procedural fairness was increased by the sense of control and the appraisal of relational factors, though both were affected by favorability.     

An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice: Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the integration of distributive and procedural justice in positive and negative outcome allocations. The framework consists of seven basic assumptions, seven propositions, and seven groups of interrelated hypotheses. The expected outcome offers a coherent program for future justice research based on the realization that distributive and procedural aspects of fairness cannot be meaningfully treated (1) in isolation from one another, and (2) without taking into account the valence of the allocated outcome. The framework should also reveal the need to reassess existing distributive and procedural justice study conclusions that neglected to examine the interactive effects of the allocation outcome (distribution) and the procedure and the outcome valence.     

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.     

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.     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.     

Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

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.     

Speed of Decision-Making as a Procedural Justice Principle

The uncertainty management theory (Lind and Van den Bos, Research in organizational behavior 24, 181–223, 2002; Van den Bos and Lind, Advances in experimental social psychology, pp. 1–60, 2002) proposes that perceived fairness decreases experienced uncertainty, and, thus, the importance of fairness is enhanced under higher uncertainty. For example, the six procedural justice principles (Leventhal, Social exchange: advances in theory and research pp. 27–55, 1980) can be seen to reduce uncertainty in the long run by producing higher quality decisions. However, the decision-making process itself also may cause uncertainty, especially when the process is prolonged. Thus, we bring the speed of the decision-making process into discussion as one justice principle. We suggest that people use speed-related information as heuristic information and substitute lacking procedures-related information by drawing inferences from the speed of the decision-making. We propose that the speed of decision-making has a twofold effect on perception of procedural fairness: very fast and very slow decision-making processes are perceived to produce more uncertainty than moderate time processes, and consequently, a moderate process is expected to be related with more positive fairness perceptions than very slow or very fast processes. The statement was further tested by examining the mediating role of procedural fairness perceptions in the relationship between speed and its one consequence, perceived legitimacy, with a survey sample (N = 846) in the context of Finnish forest policy. The analysis confirmed the hypotheses. The role of speed as a justice rule and its contribution to the uncertainty management theory is discussed.     

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.     

PROFILING AND POLICE LEGITIMACY: PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,ATTRIBUTIONS OF MOTIVE,AND ACCEPTANCE OF POLICE AUTHORITY*

This paper reports the results of four studies that investigate racial profiling as an attribution about police motives. Each study explores, first, the types of police behavior that heighten or lessen the occurrence of profiling attributions and, second, the consequences of such attributions. Results support prior studies in finding that judgments about whether the police are profiling are associated with the level of public support for the police. The studies then extend the analysis of subjective profiling judgments by examining their antecedents. The findings support the procedural justice hypothesis that the fairness with which the police exercise their authority influences whether members of the public view the police as profiling.     

Procedural Justice,Outcome Favorability and Emotion

This study investigated the effects of procedural justice on discrete emotional responses. Based upon the cognitive appraisal model of emotion, it was argued that the experience of procedural justice (or injustice) allows individuals to derive meaning from favorable and unfavorable allocation decisions. Thus, procedural justice works with outcome favorability to produce a variety of emotional states. These ideas were tested in a laboratory experiment. As predicted, two happiness-related emotions (happiness and joy) and a sadness-related emotion (disappointment) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability. Two anger-related emotions (anger and frustration) were highest when an unfavorable outcome occurred because of an unfair procedure. Higher levels of guilt and anxiety were reported when an unfair procedure resulted in a favorable outcome. Contrary to predictions, a third happiness-related emotion (pride) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability.     

The Role of Societal Benefits and Fairness Concerns Among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients

Four experiments examined the role of costs and benefits versus procedural and distributive justice for procedural fairness and procedural evaluations among decision makers and decision recipients. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the responses of actual judges in a 2 (high versus low benefit) x 2 (search procedure conducted respectfully versus disrespectfully) randomized factorial. In both studies judges evaluated procedures differently than is typical among samples of decision recipients: outcome concerns strongly influenced both procedural evaluations and procedural fairness while procedural concerns such as voice and respect were minimally influential. Whereas fairness concerns continued to be important among these decision makers, outcome fairness was more influential than procedural fairness. Studies 3 and 4 varied role (authority versus subordinate), procedural respect, and societal benefits. Both experiments supported our predictions that procedural criteria would dominate the procedural evaluations of subordinates whereas outcome concerns such as societal benefits would dominate the procedural evaluations of authorities.     

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.     

The Process Matters: Fairness in Repository Siting For Nuclear Waste

Siting contested infrastructure such as repositories for nuclear waste very often faces strong local resistance. One major reason for this opposition may arise because siting processes do not appropriately consider fairness issues such as transparency, the availability of options, or the sufficient involvement of concerned and affected people. The aim of this study was to analyze people’s concerns related to justice in siting nuclear waste. Besides procedural aspects, both distributive justice and outcome valence are considered important and therefore the “total fairness model” by T?rnblom and Vermunt (Soc Justice Res 12:39–64, 1999) was used as a framework. In three quasi-experimental studies (N ₁ = 53; N ₂ = 56; N ₃ = 83) applying conjoint analysis, respondents ranked 11 vignettes with the three attributes procedural justice, distributional justice, and outcome valence. Each vignette represents a realistic scenario of a site selection process for the disposal of nuclear waste in Switzerland. All the three studies yield a consistent result: vignettes representing a situation with a fair process are top-ranked by respondents; situations with negative outcome valence are ranked lowest; distributive issues turned out to be of minor importance. We conclude that procedural fairness should be given more attention in any kind of contested infrastructure siting and that real-world examples like the one discussed here can inform justice research.     

“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。     

Procedural justice at German courts as seen by defendants and juvenile prisoners

The article summarizes German research on procedural and distributive justice at criminal courts. The first German field studies addressing these topics are presented. Procedural justice characteristics like neutrality, courtesy, equal consideration of evidence, voice, and fairness of procedural rules are relevant for Germans. A study on juvenile prisoners shows no support for equity theory and some for the Group Value model. Lay assessors receive positive evaluations by juvenile prisoners.