What Are We Talking about When We Talk about No-Voice Procedures? On the Psychology of the Fair Outcome Effect

Abstract

The most generally accepted and best documented manipulation in procedural justice experiments is varying whether participants are allowed an opportunity to voice their opinion about a decision. In the present article, a distinction is made between two types of no-voice procedures—those in which a person is not informed about possible voice opportunities and hence implicitly is not allowed a voice (implicit no-voice procedure) and those in which a person is explicitly told that he or she does not have voice opportunities (explicit no-voice procedure). I focus on the effect perceived outcome fairness may have on judgments of procedural fairness (fair outcome effect). On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, I argue that when information about procedure is not available (as in the case of implicit no-voice procedures), people may find it difficult to decide how they should judge the procedure, and they therefore use the fairness of their outcome to assess how to respond to the procedure. As a result, the procedural judgments of these people show strong fair outcome effects. However, persons who are explicitly denied voice do have explicit information about procedure and hence have to rely less on outcome information, yielding weaker fair outcome effects on procedural judgments. Findings of two experiments provide supportive evidence for this line of reasoning. Implications for our understanding of the psychology of social justice in general and the fair outcome effect in particular are discussed.