Skip to main content
×
Home

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
Ambrose Maureen. 2002. Contemporary Justice Research: A New Look at Familiar Questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89:803812.
Bianchi Emily, Brockner Joel, Van den Bos Kees, Seifert Matthias, Moon Henry, van Diljke Marius, and De Cremer David. 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.
Bies Robert. 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.
Bies Robert, and Moag Joseph. 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.
Brennan Geoffrey, and Pettit Philip. 1990. Unveiling the Vote. British Journal of Political Science 20:311333.
Brockner Joel. 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.
Colquitt Jason, and Chertkoff Jerome. 2002. Explaining Injustice: The Interactive Effect of Explanation and Outcome on Fairness Perceptions and Task Motivation. Journal of Management 28:591610.
Crosby Faye, and Franco Jamie 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.
Dalton Russell, and Welzien Christopher, eds. 2014. The Civic Culture Transformed. From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Cremer David, and Tyler Tom. 2007. The Effects of Trust and Procedural Justice on Cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology 92:639649.
Doherty David, and Wolak Jennifer. 2012. When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness. Political Behavior 34:301323.
Earle Timothy, and Siegrist Michael. 2008. On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management. Risk Analysis 28:13951413.
Ellenbroek Moniek, Verkuyten Maykel, Thus Jochem, and Poppe Edwin. 2014. The Fairness of National Decision-Making Procedures: The Views of Adolescents in 18 European Countries. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 24:503517.
Esaiasson Peter, Gilljam Mikael, and Persson Mikael. 2012. Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research 51:785808.
Eulau Heinz, Wahlke John, Buchanan William, and Ferguson Leroy. 1959. The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review 53:742775.
Folger Robert. 1977. Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of ‘Voice’ and Improvement on Experienced Inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:108119.
Folger Robert. 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.
Folger Robert, Cropanzano Russell, and Goldman Barry. 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.
Frey Bruno, Benz Matthias, and Stutzer Alois. 2004. Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, But Also How Matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160:377401.
Gangl Amy. 2003. Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior 25:119149.
Gerbner Alan, and Green Donald. 2012. Field Experiments. Design, Analysis and Interpretation. New York: Norton.
Gibson James, Caldeira Gregory, and Kenyatta Spence Lester. 2005. Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment. Political Research Quarterly 58:187201.
Gilljam Mikael, Esaiasson Peter, and Lindholm Torun. 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.
Grimes Marcia. 2006. Organizing Consent: The Role of Procedural Fairness in Political Trust and Compliance. European Journal of Political Research 45:285315.
Hechter Michael. 2013. Alien Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helwig Charles, Arnold Mary Louise, Tan Dingliang, and Boyd Dwight. 2007. Mainland Chinese and Canadian Adolescents’ Judgments and Reasoning About the Fairness of Democratic and Other Forms of Government. Cognitive Development 22:96109.
Hibbing John, and Alford John. 2004. Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48:6276.
Klosko George. 2000. Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kunda Ziva. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108:480498.
Leung Kwok, Tong Kwok-Kit, and Lind Allan. 2007. Realpolitik Versus Fair Process: Moderating Effects of Group Identification on Acceptance of Political Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:476489.
Levi Margaret, and Stoker Laura. 2000. Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3:475513.
Lijphart Arend. 2000. Turnout. In International Encyclopedia of Elections, edited by Richard Rose, 314322. Oxford: Macmillan.
Lind Allan, and Tyler Tom R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. London: Plenum Press.
Lodge Milton, and Taber Charles. 2014. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowi Theodore. 1972. Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice. Public Administration Review 33:298310.
Lupfer Michael, Weeks Kelly, Doan Kelly, and Houston David. 2000. Folk Conceptions of Fairness and Unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology 30:405428.
Lupia Arthur, and Matsusaka John. 2004. Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7:463482.
MacCoun Robert. 2005. Voice, Control and Belonging: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1:171201.
Manin Bernhard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer David, Greenbaum Rebecca, Kuenzi Maribeth, and Shteynberg Garriy. 2009. When Do Fair Procedures Not Matter? A Test of the Identity Violation Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 94:142161.
Miller Dale. 2001. Disrespect and the Experience of Injustice. Annual Review of Psychology 52:527553.
Morton Rebecca, and Williams Kenneth. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mullen Elizabeth, and Skitka Linda. 2006. Exploring the Psychological Underpinnings of the Moral Mandate Effect: Motivated Reasoning, Identification, or Affect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90:629643.
Muthen Linda, and Bengt Muthen. 1998–2010. Mplus Users’ Guide, 6th Edition, Los Angeles, CA: Muthen and Muthen.
Napier Jamie, and Tyler Tom. 2008. Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? Social Justice Research 22:509528.
Pateman Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Persson Mikael, Esaiasson Peter and Gilljam Mikael. 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.
Phillips Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shea Daniel, and Fiorina Morris. 2013. Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics. New York: Pearson.
Shrout Patrick, and Bolger Niall. 2002. Mediation in Experimental and Non-Experimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods 7:422445.
Skitka Linda. 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.
Skitka Linda, and Houston David. 2001. When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence. Social Justice Research 14:305326.
Skitka Linda, and Mullen Elizabeth. 2008. Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness. A Reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research 22:529546.
Skitka Linda, Winquist Jennifer, and Hutchinson Susan. 2003. Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Justice Research 16:309341.
Skitka Linda, and Wisneski Daniel. 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.
Smith Daniel, and Tolbert Caroline. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Taber Charles, and Lodge Milton. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 503:755769.
Terwel Bart, Harinck Fieke, Ellemers Naomi, and Daamen Dancker. 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.
Thibaut John, and Walker Laurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler Tom. 1990. Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler Tom. 1994. Governing and Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decision-Making Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government. Law and Society Review 28:809831.
Tyler Tom. 2000. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35:117125.
Tyler Tom. 2006. Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology 57:375400.
Tyler Tom. 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.
Tyler Tom, Boeckmann Robert, Smith Heather, and Huo Yuen. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tyler Tom, and Lind Allan. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In Mark Zanna, (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:115191.
Ulbig Stacy. 2008. Voice is Not Enough – The Importance of Influence in Political Trust and Policy Assessments. Public Opinion Quarterly 72:523539.
Van den Bos Kees. 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 Bos Kees. 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 Bos Kees, and Lind Allan. 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 Bos Kees, Maas Marjolein, Waldring Ismintha, and Semin Gün. 2003. Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity. Social Justice Research 16:151168.
Van den Bos Kees, Vermunt Riël, and Wilke Henk. 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 Bos Kees, Wilke Henk, Lind Allan, and Vermunt Riël. 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 Houwelingen Gijs, van Dijke Marius, and De Cremer David. 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 Prooijen Jan-Willem, Van den Bos Kees, and Wilke Henk. 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.
Wu Xuan-Na, and Wang Er-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: 65
Total number of PDF views: 428 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1177 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th December 2016 - 11th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.