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.     

Applying NIBRS Data to the Study of Intimate Partner Violence: Massachusetts as a Case Study

Using data from Massachusetts, we illustrate three ways in which National Incident-BasedReporting System (NIBRS) data can improve the collection of importantinformation on intimate partner violence. First, because NIBRS usesincident-based reporting, data are collected on all crimes associated witheach incident. In our sample of women victimized by an intimate partner, 10%had experienced more than one crime during the incident. Second, NIBRSinvolves expanded data collection on the offender–victim relationship, aswell as reporting about additional offenses. For female victims, partnerswere more likely than nonpartners to commit the crimes of simple assault,intimidation, and aggravated assault. For crimes involving male victims, anaquaintance was most likely to be the offender. Third, NIBRS data allow usto connect information about the incident, the offender(s), and thevictim(s). Our data indicted that several victim- offender-, and incident-relatedvariables were risk factors for injury, including victims ethnicity,offenders relationship to the victim, offender's use of a weapon, whether or not thecase was cleared, type of crime committed, and whether or not drugs and/or alcoholwere involved in the incident. Although there are several limitations to NIBRSdata, its potential usefulness to the study of intimate partner violence deserves furtherattention.     

CHANGING PRACTICES AND CONCEPTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN URBAN GOVERNMENT: THE GREATER BRISBANE EXPERIENCE

Abstract: Since the commencement of the Greater Brisbane scheme in 1925, a number of different ways of organising the executive function have been provided for in the legislation. These have included a mayor elected at large as chief executive officer; an appointed city manager model, which was never activated; a quasi-cabinet model, with the mayor being elected by the council rather than at large; a "weak" collective executive committee, akin to the early 20th century "board of control" arrangements in Canada, the mayor being elected at large and standing committees of council possessing substantial policy formulation powers; a stronger collective executive in theory, alongside which something akin to the American "strong mayor with chief administrative officer" model operated in practice; a strong collective executive, with the mayor once again elected indirectly, and weak standing committees of aldermen retained; a return to something like the original mayor-as-CEO arrangement; and finally, a strengthened version of the initial "mayor-as-CEO with chief administrative officer" model. These changes are traced chronologically and a general assessment is offered in conclusion.