Non-Contingent Success Reduces People’s Desire for Processes that Adhere to Principles of Fairness

A central tenet of justice theory and research is that people prefer decisions to be made with processes that adhere to principles of fairness. The present research identified a boundary condition for this general tendency. Across three studies, we found that people who experienced non-contingent success had less of a desire for fair processes relative to their counterparts who experienced contingent success. Furthermore, results attributable to other independent variables, namely regulatory focus in Study 2 and self-affirmation in Study 3, shed light on the underlying mechanism: people experience non-contingent success as self-threatening and lower their desire for processes that adhere to fairness in the service of protecting themselves against the threat. Theoretical implications are discussed as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research.     

Support forMiranda among police chiefs: A qualitative examination

The U.S. Supreme Court recently grappled with the question of whether it should overturn the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona. Abolitionists argued the warnings handcuffed the police and allowed many criminals to go free. Proponents maintained Miranda protected offenders and engendered a certain level of professionalism among police officers. Before the Court decided to uphold Miranda, 95 police chiefs from the Commonwealth of Virginia were surveyed about their perceptions concerning Miranda. While one could categorize many chiefs as conformists who wished to keep the warnings, a significant proportion were innovators who advocated various changes. Reasons for these beliefs and their implications are discussed.