Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T12:13:02.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Tom R. Tyler  and
Kenneth Rasinski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gibson (1989) questions whether the Supreme Court's ability to legitimate unpopular policies is based on public views that the Court is a fair decisionmaker. His claim is based on his analysis of a survey examining the ability of the Supreme Court to gain acceptance of the right of an unpopular political group to demonstrate. A reanalysis of Gibson's data using a model allowing for both direct and indirect effects of public views about the fairness of court decisionmaking procedures on acceptance does not support Gibson's conclusion that procedure has no influence on acceptance. Our results indicate that public views about the fairness of Supreme Court decisionmaking procedures have an indirect effect on acceptance through their influence on public views about the Court's legitimacy and support the suggestion of a number of studies that the legitimacy of both local and national legal institutions, and the willingness to accept their decisions, are influenced by views about the fairness of their decisionmaking procedures.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , 1991 , pp. 621 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The data used in this article were collected by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. They include the main 1987 General Social Survey data and the results of an additional interview funded by a National Science Foundation grant to James Gibson. The authors would like to thank Norman M. Bradburn and Tom W. Smith, for help in obtaining the 1987 GSS main study data, and James Gibson, for providing the data from the additional interview. This reanalysis is based almost entirely on material from the additional interview.

References

Adler, J. W., D. R., HENSLER, and C. E., NELSON (1983) Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.Google Scholar
ALEXANDER, S., and A., RUDERMAN (1987) “The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Organizational Behavior,” 1 Social Justice Research 177.Google Scholar
BARRETT-HOWARD, Edith, and Tom R., TYLER (1986) “Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation Decisions,” 50 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 296.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D., TYLER, Tom R., and Bonnie, FISHER (1988) “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases,” 22 Law & Society Review 483.Google Scholar
DOLBEARE, K. M., and P. E., HAMMOND (1970) “Inertia in Midway: Supreme Court Decisions and Local Responses.” 23 Journal of Legal Education 106.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1958) “The Perception of Authority and Political Change,” in Friedrich, C. J. (ed.), Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1968) “Political Science,” in Sills, D. L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1975) “A Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support,” 5 British Journal of Political Science 435.Google Scholar
ENGSTROM, Richard L., and Michael W., GILES (1972) “Expectations and Images: A Note on Diffuse Support for Legal Institutions,” 6 Law & Society Review 631.Google Scholar
FOLGER, Robert, and J., GREENBERG (1985) “Procedural Justice: An Interpretive Analysis of Personnel Systems,” in Rowland, K. and Ferris, G. (eds.), 3 Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
FOLGER, Robert, and Mary, KONOVSKY (1989) “Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions,” 32 Academy of Management Journal 115.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1975) The Legal System. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
GAMSON, William A. (1968) Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
GERSTEIN, Robert S. (1970) “The Practice of Fidelity to Law,” 4 Law & Society Review 479.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1989) “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance,” 23 Law & Society Review 469.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L., and Gregory A., CALDEIRA (1990) “Black Support for the American Supreme Court.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, J., and Robert, FOLGER (1983) “Procedural Justice, Participation, and the Fair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations,” in Paulus, P. (ed.), Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
HOULDEN, Pauline (1980) “The Impact of Procedural Modifications on Evaluations of Plea Bargaining,” 15 Law & Society Review 267.Google Scholar
JORESKOG, K. G., and D., SORBOM (1988) LISREL: VII. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
KELMAN, H. C. (1969) “Patterns of Personal Involvement in the National System,” in Rosenau, J. (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy. Rev. ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, KURTZ, Susan, MUSANTE, Linda, WALKER, Laurens, and John, THIBAUT (1980) “Procedure and Outcome Effects on Reactions to Adjudicated Resolutions of Conflicts of Interest,” 39 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 643.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, MacCOUN, Robert J., EBENER, Patricia A., FELSTINER, William L. F., HENSLER, Deborah R., RESNIK, Judith, and Tom R., TYLER (1990) “In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of Their Experiences in the Civil Justice System,” 24 Law & Society Review 953.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, and Tom R., TYLER (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCOUN, Robert J., LIND, E. Allan, HENSLER, Deborah R., BYRANT, D. L., and P. A., EBENER (1988) Alternative Adjudication: An Evaluation of the New Jersey Automobile Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: Institute for Civil Justice, RAND Corp.Google Scholar
MURPHY, W. F., and J., TANENHAUS (1969) “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: A Preliminary Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes,” in Grossman, J. B. and Tanenhaus, J. (eds.), Frontiers in Judicial Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
PARSONS, Talcott (1963) “On the Concept of Influence,” 27 Public Opinion Quarterly 37.Google Scholar
PARSONS, Talcott (1967) “Some Reflections on the Place of Force in Social Process,” in Parsons, T. (ed.), Sociological Theory and Modern Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
RASINSKI, Kenneth (1988) “Economic Justice, Political Behavior, and American Political Values,” 2 Social Justice Research 61.Google Scholar
RASINSKI, Kenneth, and Tom R., TYLER (1987) “Fairness and Vote Choice in the 1984 Presidential Election,” 16 American Politics Quarterly 5.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin (1977) “Studying American Legal Culture: An Assessment of Survey Evidence,” 11 Law & Society Review 427.Google Scholar
SCHEINGOLD, Stuart (1974) The Politics of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John, and Laurens, WALKER (1975) Procedural Justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1984) “The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendant's Evaluations of Their Courtroom Experience,” 18 Law & Society Review 51.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1988) “What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures,” 22 Law & Society Review 301.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., and Andrew, CAINE (1981) “The Role of Distributional and Procedural Fairness in the Endorsement of Formal Leaders,” 41 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 642.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., CASPER, Jonathan D., and Bonnie, FISHER (1989) “Maintaining Allegiance toward Political Authorities: The Role of Prior Attitudes and the Use of Fair Procedures,” 33 American Journal of Political Science 629.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., and Robert, FOLGER (1980) “Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction with Citizen-Police Encounters,” 1 Basic and Applied Social Psychology 281.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., and E. Allan, LIND (in press) “A Relational Model of Authority in Groups,” in Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., Kenneth, RASINSKI, and McGRAW, Kathleen (1985) “The Influence of Perceived Injustice on Support for Political Authorities,” 15 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 700.Google Scholar