Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Abstract

Procedural fairness theory posits that the way in which authoritative decisions are made strongly impacts people’s willingness to accept them. This article challenges this claim by contending that democratic governments can achieve little in terms of acceptance of policy decisions by the procedural means at their disposal. Instead, outcome favorability is the dominant determinant of decision acceptance. The article explicates that while central parts of procedural fairness theory are true, outcome favorability is still overwhelmingly the strongest determinant of individuals’ willingness to accept authoritative decisions. It improves on previous research by locating all key variables into one causal model and testing this model using appropriate data. Findings from a large number of experiments (both vignette and field) reproduce the expected relationships from previous research and support the additional predictions.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden (email: peter.esaiasson@pol.gu.se); Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg (email: mikael.persson@pol.gu.se); Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg (email: mikael.gilljam@pol.gu.se); Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden (email: torun.lindholm@psychology.su.se). Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000508.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
AmbroseMaureen. 2002. Contemporary Justice Research: A New Look at Familiar Questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89:803812.
BianchiEmily, BrocknerJoel, Van den BosKees, SeifertMatthias, MoonHenry, van DiljkeMarius, and De CremerDavid. 2015. Trust in Decision-Making Authorities Dictates the Form of the Interactive Relationship Between Outcome Fairness and Procedural Fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41:1934.
BiesRobert. 2005. Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct?. In Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason Colquitt, 85112. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BiesRobert, and MoagJoseph. 1986. Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria of Fairness. In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, edited by R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard and M. Bazerman, 4355. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
BrennanGeoffrey, and PettitPhilip. 1990. Unveiling the Vote. British Journal of Political Science 20:311333.
BrocknerJoel. 2002. Making Sense of Procedural Fairness: How High Procedural Fairness Can Reduce or Heighten the Influence of Outcome Favorability. Academy of Management Review 27:5876.
ColquittJason, and ChertkoffJerome. 2002. Explaining Injustice: The Interactive Effect of Explanation and Outcome on Fairness Perceptions and Task Motivation. Journal of Management 28:591610.
CrosbyFaye, and FrancoJamie L.. 2003. Connections Between the Ivory Tower and the Multicolored World: Linking Abstract Theories of Social Justice to the Rough and Tumble of Affirmative Action. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7:362373.
DaltonRussell, and WelzienChristopher, eds. 2014. The Civic Culture Transformed. From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De CremerDavid, and TylerTom. 2007. The Effects of Trust and Procedural Justice on Cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology 92:639649.
DohertyDavid, and WolakJennifer. 2012. When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness. Political Behavior 34:301323.
EarleTimothy, and SiegristMichael. 2008. On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management. Risk Analysis 28:13951413.
EllenbroekMoniek, VerkuytenMaykel, ThusJochem, and PoppeEdwin. 2014. The Fairness of National Decision-Making Procedures: The Views of Adolescents in 18 European Countries. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 24:503517.
EsaiassonPeter, GilljamMikael, and PerssonMikael. 2012. Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research 51:785808.
EulauHeinz, WahlkeJohn, BuchananWilliam, and FergusonLeroy. 1959. The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review 53:742775.
FolgerRobert. 1977. Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of ‘Voice’ and Improvement on Experienced Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:108119.
FolgerRobert. 1984. Emerging Issues in the Social Psychology of Justice. In The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives, edited by Roger Folger, 324. New York: Plenum.
FolgerRobert, CropanzanoRussell, and GoldmanBarry. 2005. What is the Relationship Between Justice and Morality?. In Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason Colquitt, 215245. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
FreyBruno, BenzMatthias, and StutzerAlois. 2004. Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, But Also How Matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160:377401.
GanglAmy. 2003. Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior 25:119149.
GerbnerAlan, and GreenDonald. 2012. Field Experiments. Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: Norton.
GibsonJames, CaldeiraGregory, and Kenyatta SpenceLester. 2005. Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment. Political Research Quarterly 58:187201.
GilljamMikael, EsaiassonPeter, and LindholmTorun. 2009. The Voice of the Pupils: An Experimental Comparison of Decisions Made by Elected Pupil Councils, Pupils in Referenda, and Teaching Staff. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22:7388.
GrimesMarcia. 2006. Organizing Consent: The Role of Procedural Fairness in Political Trust and Compliance. European Journal of Political Research 45:285315.
HechterMichael. 2013. Alien Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HelwigCharles, ArnoldMary Louise, TanDingliang, and BoydDwight. 2007. Mainland Chinese and Canadian Adolescents’ Judgments and Reasoning About the Fairness of Democratic and Other Forms of Government. Cognitive Development 22:96109.
HibbingJohn, and AlfordJohn. 2004. Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48:6276.
KloskoGeorge. 2000. Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KundaZiva. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108:480498.
LeungKwok, TongKwok-Kit, and LindAllan. 2007. Realpolitik Versus Fair Process: Moderating Effects of Group Identification on Acceptance of Political Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:476489.
LeviMargaret, and StokerLaura. 2000. Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3:475513.
LijphartArend. 2000. Turnout. In International Encyclopedia of Elections, edited by Richard Rose, 314322. Oxford: Macmillan.
LindAllan, and TylerTom R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. London: Plenum Press.
LodgeMilton, and TaberCharles. 2014. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LowiTheodore. 1972. Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice. Public Administration Review 33:298310.
LupferMichael, WeeksKelly, DoanKelly, and HoustonDavid. 2000. Folk Conceptions of Fairness and Unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology 30:405428.
LupiaArthur, and MatsusakaJohn. 2004. Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7:463482.
MacCounRobert. 2005. Voice, Control and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1:171201.
ManinBernhard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MayerDavid, GreenbaumRebecca, KuenziMaribeth, and ShteynbergGarriy. 2009. When Do Fair Procedures Not Matter? A Test of the Identity Violation Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 94:142161.
MillerDale. 2001. Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice. Annual Review of Psychology 52:527553.
MortonRebecca, and WilliamsKenneth. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MullenElizabeth, and SkitkaLinda. 2006. Exploring the Psychological Underpinnings of the Moral Mandate Effect: Motivated Reasoning, Identification, or Affect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90:629643.
MuthenLinda, and BengtMuthen. 1998–2010. Mplus Users’ Guide, 6th Edition, Los Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.
NapierJamie, and TylerTom. 2008. Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? Social Justice Research 22:509528.
PatemanCarole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PerssonMikael, EsaiassonPeter and GilljamMikael. 2013. The Effects of Direct Voting and Deliberation on Legitimacy Beliefs: An Experimental Study of Decision-Making in Small Groups. European Political Science Review 5:381399.
PhillipsAnne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SheaDaniel, and FiorinaMorris. 2013. Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics. New York: Pearson.
ShroutPatrick, and BolgerNiall. 2002. Mediation in Experimental and Non-Experimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods 7:422445.
SkitkaLinda. 2002. Do the Means Always Justify the Ends or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28:588597.
SkitkaLinda, and HoustonDavid. 2001. When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence. Social Justice Research 14:305326.
SkitkaLinda, and MullenElizabeth. 2008. Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness. A Reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research 22:529546.
SkitkaLinda, WinquistJennifer, and HutchinsonSusan. 2003. Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Justice Research 16:309341.
SkitkaLinda, and WisneskiDaniel. 2012. Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective. In Handbook of Psychology. Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology, edited by Irving Weiner, Howard Tennen and Jerry Suls, 407428. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
SmithDaniel, and TolbertCaroline. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
TaberCharles, and LodgeMilton. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 503:755769.
TerwelBart, HarinckFieke, EllemersNaomi, and DaamenDancker. 2010. Voice in Political Decision Making: The Effect of Group Voice on Perceived Trustworthiness of Decision Makers and Subsequent Acceptance of Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 16:173186.
ThibautJohn, and WalkerLaurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
TylerTom. 1990. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
TylerTom. 1994. Governing and Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decision-Making Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government. Law and Society Review 28:809831.
TylerTom. 2000. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35:117125.
TylerTom. 2006. Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57:375400.
TylerTom. 2011. Why People Cooperate. The Role of Social Motivations. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press: Tyler. Tom, and Steven Blader. 2003. The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7:349–61.
TylerTom, BoeckmannRobert, SmithHeather, and HuoYuen. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
TylerTom, and LindAllan. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In Mark Zanna, (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:115191.
UlbigStacy. 2008. Voice is Not Enough – The Importance of Influence in Political Trust and Policy Assessments. Public Opinion Quarterly 72:523539.
Van den BosKees. 2001. Fairness Heuristic Theory: Assessing the Information to Which People Are Reacting Has a Pivotal Role in Understanding Organizational Justice. In Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice, edited by Stephen Gilliland, Dirk Steiner and Daniel Skarlicki. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Van den BosKees. 2005. What is Responsible for the Fair Process Effect? In Handbook of Organizational Justice, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Jason Colquitt, 273300. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Van den BosKees, and LindAllan. 2002. Uncertainty Management by Means of Fairness Judgments. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by Mark P. Zanna, 160. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Van den BosKees, MaasMarjolein, WaldringIsmintha, and SeminGün. 2003. Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity. Social Justice Research 16:151168.
Van den BosKees, VermuntRiël, and WilkeHenk. 1997. Procedural and Distributive Justice: What Is Fair Depends More on What Comes First Than on What Comes Next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:95104.
Van den BosKees, WilkeHenk, LindAllan, and VermuntRiël. 1998. Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:14931503.
Van HouwelingenGijs, van DijkeMarius, and De CremerDavid. 2014. Fairness Enactment as Response to Higher Level Unfairness: The Roles of Self-Construal and Spatial Distance. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206314530166.
Van ProoijenJan-Willem, Van den BosKees, and WilkeHenk. 2004. Group Belongingness and Procedural Justice: Social Inclusion and Exclusion by Peers Affects the Psychology of Voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:6679.
WuXuan-Na, and WangEr-Ping. 2013. Outcome Favorability as a Boundary Condition to Voice Effect on People’s Reaction to Public Policymaking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43:329337.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Esaiasson supplementary material
Appendix

 Word (181 KB)
181 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 61
Total number of PDF views: 392 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1085 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th December 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.