Content uploaded by E. Allan Lind
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by E. Allan Lind on Jan 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
... Indeed, repeat negative encounters with police may, in part, attract the DOJ's attention and activate the consent decree process. Although one can improve the perceived legitimacy of police through procedural justice principles during police-civilian interactions (Lind and Tyler 1988;Tyler 2003;Mazerolle et al. 2013;Worden and McLean 2017;Wood et al. 2020;Chan et al. 2023;Bolaji and Metcalfe 2024), these efforts require repeated positive interactions with law enforcement. Without multiple positive doses, it may prove unfeasible to reshape a community's feelings toward a department in a short period of time. ...
... In particular, the pattern or practice method may erode interactional justice (Bies and Moag 1986). Or, due to changes to many processes within the agency, procedural justice may suffer as the new changes seem arbitrary, inconsistent, or biased toward officer duties (Lind and Tyler 1988). However, given that the DOJ focuses on civilian-related outcomes, the organizational climate of police agencies receives little empirical attention (despite the DOJ's commitment to organizational transformation). ...
Over the last 30 years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has used the pattern-or-practice initiative to implement police reform in maligned law enforcement agencies. Despite the longevity of the program, there is limited empirical evidence that assesses the effectiveness of the initiative, and what evidence exists shows mixed results. This paper advances prior scholarship in this area by considering what is known about the program, outlining the implied theory of the DOJ’s efforts, lamenting the lack of evaluation evidence, and prescribing a modern research agenda for this topic area.
... This finding aligns with the principles of the group-value model. As a result, the quality of treatment shapes individuals' self-concept by providing social information concerning their position in a valued group [37]. Conversely, interactional justice engenders a sense of value and involvement among individuals in the group, while formal procedures are characterized by their static and objective nature. ...
... For example, An individual who is treated respectfully and considered within the group represents a high status; on the other hand, a person who is disrespected is regarded as a low-status [38]. Given the collaborative nature of nursing teamwork, it appears that nurses prioritize interactional justice to ascertain their elevated position within their group and workplace [37]. ...
Background
Although psychological contract breach is linked to various significant organizational consequences, few studies have explored the antecedents of this important concept within the nursing field. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between perceived organizational justice and psychological contract breach among clinical nurses.
Methods
This descriptive cross-sectional study included 328 inpatient ward nurses from six teaching hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Clinical nurses were selected through multistage random sampling. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, the Niehoff and Moorman (1993) Organizational Justice Questionnaire, and the Robinson and Morrison (2000) Psychological Contract Breach Questionnaire.Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 21 using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and multiple linear regression analysis.
Results
The findings revealed that procedural justice (P < 0.001; β=-0.20) and interactional justice (P < 0.001; β=-0.47) explained 41% of the variance in psychological contract breach among nursing staff.
Conclusions
The results identified interactional and procedural justice as the most significant dimensions of organizational justice in explaining nurses’ perceived psychological contract breach. Therefore, healthcare managers should prioritize fair decision-making processes and interactions with nurses to mitigate ' perceived the psychological contract breach.
... The primary purpose of this research is to investigate the moderator effects of allocentrism and idiocentrism on the relationship between procedural and distributive justice perceptions and turnover intentions of employees working in academia. The conceptual framework of the study can be explained by Planned Behavior Theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969) and the Group Value Model (Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler & Blader, 2003;Tyler & Lind, 1992). Individuals' allocentrism-idiocentrism levels are assumed to be effective in this regard in the relationship between procedural and distributive justice-turnover intention. ...
... The effect of idiocentrism-allocentrism on perceived distributive justice-turnover intention can also be explained according to the group value model. In the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), it has been stated that individuals have two types of perceptions about whether they feel valued and respected in the group they are a member of, and whether they are proud to be a member of the group (Tyler et al., 1996). According to the model, individuals care about long-term relationships; because this means meeting their need for belonging and dignity (Bies, 2005;Tyler et al., 1996). ...
... Procedural justice can be thought of as the fairness of policies/processes contributing to outcomes embodying certain types of accepted principles (Lind & Tyler, 1988) (for a comprehensive review of procedural justice, see Leventhal, 1980). Continuing with the bank example, suppose you only got two quarters back for the four you gave to the bank teller because of a policy the bank has in which it charges for currency changes. ...
... Other examples could include promotions to higher positions in organizations, hiring for new positions, admission to educational facilities, etc. Procedural fairness intersects with distributive fairness (when distributing resources), and retributive fairness (when punishing mistakes). Two important aspect to procedural fairness are (i) the opportunities of users affecting the process outcome, and (ii) the transparency of the processes and underlying decision-making (Lind and Tyler, 2013). Similarly to distributive fairness, exante and ex-post perspectives on procedural fairness apply. ...
Advancements in computer science, artificial intelligence, and control systems of the recent have catalyzed the emergence of cybernetic societies, where algorithms play a significant role in decision-making processes affecting the daily life of humans in almost every aspect. Algorithmic decision-making expands into almost every industry, government processes critical infrastructure, and shapes the life-reality of people and the very fabric of social interactions and communication. Besides the great potentials to improve efficiency and reduce corruption, missspecified cybernetic systems harbor the threat to create societal inequities, systematic discrimination, and dystopic, totalitarian societies. Fairness is a crucial component in the design of cybernetic systems, to promote cooperation between selfish individuals, to achieve better outcomes at the system level, to confront public resistance, to gain trust and acceptance for rules and institutions, to perforate self-reinforcing cycles of poverty through social mobility, to incentivize motivation, contribution and satisfaction of people through inclusion, to increase social-cohesion in groups, and ultimately to improve life quality. Quantitative descriptions of fairness are crucial to reflect equity into algorithms, but only few works in the fairness literature offer such measures; the existing quantitative measures in the literature are either too application-specific, suffer from undesirable characteristics, or are not ideology-agnostic. Therefore, this work proposes a quantitative, transactional, distributive fairness framework, which enables systematic design of socially feasible decision-making systems. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of fairness and transparency when designing algorithms for equitable, cybernetic societies.
... To place these propositions on a solid theoretical foundation, recourse to insights from procedural justice theory (Lind and Tyler, 1988;Thibaut and Walker, 1975;Tyler, 2006) seems expedient. The central premise underlying this strand of research is that how "collective decisions are made strongly informs citizens' willingness to defer to authoritative rules and rulings" (Grimes, 2017: 256). ...
What if citizens feel that election outcomes are the result of electoral manipulation and fraud rather than the outcome of a genuinely democratic process? Do they still obey the laws and regulations of newly elected governments, or do they refuse to give governments their allegiance? Analyzing individual-level survey data from Germany, this study sheds light on the nexus between electoral integrity perceptions and compliance. It shows that citizens who perceive the integrity of elections as compromised are more likely to view election-related non-compliance justified. Moreover, citizens' views concerning the fairness of elections and the justifiability of election-related non-compliance matter for their law-abiding behavior in other domains: Those who consider the electoral process fraudulent and election-related non-compliance justifiable adhere less often to governmental regulations pertaining to the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings entail important implications for effective democratic governance and questions of electoral backsliding and democratic erosion more generally.
... It is how they were treated and thus what the procedure looks like, that helps determine people's perception of the legitimacy of the procedure. In particular, these empirical studies have found that people care about what is called "voice": the opportunity to be heard during the procedure or after outcomes have been finalized (Burke and Leben 2007;Folger 1977;Lind, Kanfer and Earley 1990) as well as "benevolence", i.e. the willingness of decision makers to consider one's needs and the clear communication of this willingness (Tyler and Blader 2003;Lind and Tyler 1988). ...
While much has been written about what democratized AI should look like, there has been surprisingly little attention for the normative grounds of AI democratization. Existing calls for AI democratization that do make explicit arguments broadly fall into two categories: outcome-based and legitimacy-based, corresponding to outcome-based and process-based views of procedural justice respectively. This paper argues that we should favor relational justifications of AI democratization to outcome-based ones, because the former additionally provide outcome-independent reasons for AI democratization. Moreover, existing legitimacy-based arguments often leave the why of AI democratization implicit and instead focus on the how. We present two relational arguments for AI democratization: one based on empirical findings regarding the perceived importance of relational features of decision-making procedures, and one based on Iris Marion Young’s conception of justice, according to which the main forms of injustice are domination and oppression. We show how these arguments lead to requirements for procedural fairness and thus also offer guidance on the how of AI democratization. Finally, we consider several objections to AI democratization, including worries concerning epistemic exploitation.
... However, there are reasons to predict that some citizens support the government decisions and policies from which they do not directly benefit. Whenever people are involved in interactions with others (e.g., situations that involve authorities and rules), they care about the decision-making and implementation process preceding the outcome (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and the procedures being used to make decisions (Tyler and Van Der Toorn, 2013). Procedural justice, which refers to the fairness of the procedures through which decisions about resource allocation, conflict resolution, and leadership or policy formation are made, is well established in the political psychology literature as a key determinant of fairness judgments. ...
Although distributive fairness significantly affects a wide range of political attitudes, such as legitimacy perceptions , our understanding of the determinants of individuals' fairness judgments in countries without competitive elections, which adopt deliberative practices in lieu of popular elections in decision-making, remains inadequate. Using original survey data about the Targeted Poverty Alleviation (TPA) program in rural China, we find that the awareness of public deliberation in poverty identification is a dominant determinant of individuals' fairness judgments about TPA. Moreover, this procedural awareness dampens, rather than promotes, the positive effect of material benefits on perceived fairness, meaning that the awareness boosts individuals' fairness judgments , especially among non-beneficiaries. The findings suggest that the poor segment of Chinese rural citizenry does care about the procedure through which the allocational decisions are made other than instrumental or substantive outcomes. Procedural justice functions as an equalizer that maintains the consent of non-beneficiaries or economic "losers". Our study enhances the understanding of distributive fairness beyond Western advanced economies.
This chapter discusses the introduction of empirical research methods and the findings of empirical research into legal scholarship and the practice of law. It presents several basic empirical methods that can be used by lawyers who are not necessarily familiar with social science research and its outcomes. These methods can be helpful to gain some knowledge of what the law ‘does’ in society and how its operation might be transformed. The chapter also discusses a number of examples from empirical legal research practice. Finally, the chapter offers some exercises that aim to help the reader to transfer the information presented in the previous sections into their own research. These exercises ask the reader to use basic (qualitative) empirical methods and test their understanding of the outcomes of empirical research in practice.
Decisões no âmbito da jurisdição constitucional muitas vezes requerem o estabelecimento de fatos que envolvem a expertise de áreas não jurídicas, mas nem sempre os tribunais reconhecem a necessidade desse diálogo interdisciplinar. Quando os tribunais tomam decisões fora de seus limites epistêmicos, fazendo declarações sobre expertise não jurídica, sua legitimidade e os resultados pretendidos de suas decisões acabam sendo prejudicados. Esta questão é particularmente urgente considerando a expansão das pretensões transformadoras da jurisdição constitucional sobre realidades cada vez mais complexas, como acontece no Brasil. Apesar da importância do tema, há pouca discussão jurídica sobre ele. Este artigo visa a demonstrar que a atual relação entre a jurisdição constitucional e a expertise não jurídica é problemática e demanda atenção da pesquisa jurídica. O artigo pretende ainda contribuir para o entendimento das múltiplas dimensões da questão e propor um diálogo com debates sobre humildade intelectual e humildade no direito. Ao promover a humildade intelectual dentro da comunidade jurídica, podemos melhor reconhecer os limites epistêmicos dos tribunais e acadêmicos jurídicos e aprimorar nossa compreensão das dinâmicas e limites do conhecimento científico.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.