Accusation Is Not Proof: Procedural Justice in Psychology

Abstract

In this article, we explicate a relatively ignored construct in clinical science—procedural justice. Procedural justice is concerned with adjudicative processes in which norms are applied to particular cases in which there is an allegation of some transgression. Psychologists often value social justice, but there can be no social justice without procedural justice. Procedural-justice concerns arise in a wide variety of interpersonal contexts, including diagnoses, administrative adjudications such as ethics complaints or Title IX hearings, conflicts clients experience with others, and more informal contexts such as gossip. Exemplars of problematic procedural justice relevant to psychologists are described. We argue that there are five general dimensions of procedural justice (epistemic, ethical, subjective, legal, and pragmatic) and 20 specific principles of procedural fairness. Suggestions for improved practice and future research are provided. Procedural justice exemplifies values embodied in the late Scott Lilienfeld’s work and life.