Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible?

In a study of relocation decisions at seven different sites, procedural fairness was shown to be more sensitive to outcome fairness when respondents had less time to gather information about decision procedures. We interpret this finding to show that inaccessibility of information about decision procedures moderates the influence of outcome fairness judgments on procedural fairness judgments, such that outcome recipients rely more heavily on outcome fairness as a basis for forming procedural fairness judgments when information about decision procedures is not available. A second, laboratory study is reported that confirms the information inaccessibility explanation in the first study. When procedural information is available, procedural characteristics may be the primary bases for procedural fairness judgments, but when such information is unavailable, procedural fairness will likely be more sensitive to self-interest concerns. Future research should therefore take contextual factors such as accessibility to procedural information into account, given that there are likely to be differences on that dimension between organizational settings on the one hand and legal, political, and dispute resolution settings on the other. Information about decision procedures, generally accessible in legal, political, and dispute resolution settings, is often much less accessible in organizations.     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

Preferential selection and outcome justice: Effects of justification and merit discrepancy

In applying the relative deprivation theory to preferential selection research, Singer (1991) used a within-subjects design and showed that ethnicity-based selection induced feelings of injustice among the disadvantaged target group, the Europeans; and that the level of felt injustice could be predicted by the discrepancy in merits between the successful minority candidate and the rejected European candidate. This study aimed to cross-validate the findings with a between-subjects design, and to ascertain whether the provision of either an ideological or a causal justification would reduce feelings of injustice. The results replicated previous findings and further showed that either type of justification exacerbated perceptions of injustice among European respondents, but it had no effect on fairness perceptions of Asian subjects. The theoretical implications of the results were discussed.     

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.     

"实体正义"和"程序正义"的一种后现代主义视角

如何坚持法律的正义准则、确定司法过程中的法律价值准则是司法改革的中心问题.法律的实体正义正被解构和反思,人们开始思考行动中的法律正义,关注程序正义.后现代主义的思想家试图从现象学或者语言学等不同的角度找到一条立足于程序正义的出路,但是由于程序本身的微观性、个体化,寻找程序正义本身的道路必然是漫长的.     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way,maybe

To highlight the advances and limitations in the study of organizational justice as reflected by the articles in this issue, the field is characterized as being in its intellectual adolescence. Following this analogy, some signs of scientific maturity are noted. Among these are (a) increased attention to the connections between organizational justice and various organizational processes, (b) expanded efforts toward conceptual refinement, and (c) greater reliance on research conducted in natural settings. At the same time, the adolescent state of the field is also marked by its intellectual awkwardness and immaturity. Indications of this include (a) the absence of guiding theory, (b) an underdeveloped research agenda, and (c) an overreliance on the use of ad hoc measurements. Based on these limitations, suggestions are made for ways of nurturing the field's development. The article concludes with an optimistic vision of tomorrow's field of organizational justice.     

程序正义概念与标准的再认识

程序正义是一种法律理念 ,即任何法律决定必须经过正当的程序 ,而这种程序的正当性体现为特定的主体根据法律规定和法律授权所作出的与程序有关的行为。程序正义的标准最值得注意的是程序规范的严格遵守和主体评价两个方面。既不能以实体的正义作为参照去评判程序的正义 ,也不能以程序的正义作为基准去决定实体的正义 ,实质正义才是唯一的选择。     

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.     

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.     

论司法程序公正要素

司法程序公正要素的结构体系应以人的主体性为理论基础。只有能够体现当事人的尊严和人格,保护当事人的程序主体地位的要求和内容,才可以纳入结构体系的架构。     

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.     

程序正义之维度——基于中国刑事司法语境的分析

一个国家的发展阶段决定了该国的“也许正在发生的问题”。我国正处在社会转型期,面临着现代化进程中传统社会控制模式的失效、犯罪率高和社会公众安全感下降的严峻现实。在我国刑事司法语境下,程序正义的维度包括以下几个方面：程序的内在价值是程序正义的应然维度;秩序的安定性是程序正义的现实维度;尊重人的尊严是程序正义的实质维度;诉讼效率是程序正义的效益维度。     

程序正义视阈中的我国侦查程序

正当法律程序所包含的程序公正性与合理性的标准,实际上构成了人们所公认的程序正义理念的最基本内容。具有现代性的中国侦查程序理念并非都是本土资源自然生长的结果,但如果对西方现代侦查程序理念进行＂照搬式＂的移植,会使我国侦查程序成为诉讼诸多＂病灶＂的集中地之一。因此,应从侦查程序正义理念的基本价值为起点,在剖析我国侦查程序现状与缺陷的基础上,对未来侦查程序的构建提出一些有益的思考和建议。     

Procedural Justice for Victims and Offenders?: Exploring Restorative Justice Processes in Australia and the US

Sociolegal research indicates that when citizens perceive that legal processes and procedures are fair, both positive and negative legal outcomes will be viewed as acceptable. However, little is known about perceptions of fairness in informal contexts such as in restorative justice (RJ) practices and with victims (and offenders) who participate in these programs. Drawing on interviews with key actors engaged in post-conviction RJ programs for serious crimes in Australia and the USA, this paper asks, do post-conviction therapeutic RJ programs for violent crimes enhance procedural justice for victims and offenders? The data reveal that RJ is compatible with procedural justice for both victims and offenders. Specifically, RJ aids in correcting the harms created by the formal criminal justice system and, thus, satisfies and even greatly enhances procedural justice goals for both victims and offenders.     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

检察机关公诉案件程序分流机制探析

随着刑事诉讼效率价值的凸显,越来越多的国家已经否定了罪行不分轻重一概起诉的做法。公诉环节程序分流机制的建立是以起诉便宜主义为前提,赋予检察官不起诉裁量权。该机制的建立不仅是各国刑事诉讼制度改革的必然趋势,而且也是联合国刑事司法准则的基本要求。     

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.     

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.