Legitimacy Beliefs Research Articles

Unpacking Legitimacy Perceptions of Investment Dispute Settlement: Effects of Outcome and Procedure

Abstract How do citizens perceive different avenues for resolving investor–state disputes in case of an unfavorable decision? In this article, I argue that the interplay between procedure- and outcome-related considerations influences citizens’ legitimacy beliefs toward investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems. First, an unfavorable ISDS ruling should decrease public legitimacy beliefs in the country that got sued. Second, the type of dispute settlement mechanism should influence legitimacy beliefs, leading to different assessments of the legal proceedings. I fielded a survey experiment in France, Germany, and the United States to test these theoretical expectations. The findings confirm that an unfavorable ISDS ruling has a strong negative effect on public perceptions of the legal proceeding, but further show that appropriate design choices can boost public legitimacy beliefs. These results have important implications for the debate about ISDS reform and the scholarship on legitimacy in global governance. The impact of unfavorable decisions on public legitimacy beliefs has been widely overlooked.

Procedural justice and probation officer legitimacy: Testing the process-based model in community supervision

PurposeThis study provides an empirical test of Tyler's (2006) process-based model by investigating the relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy, and felt obligation to obey among people sanctioned to county-level probation. MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, self-reported data were collected from a sample of individuals on probation in a western state (n = 185). Confirmatory factor analyses and full structural equation modeling were used to test a measurement and structural component on the relationship between procedural justice and clients' legitimacy and obligation to obey. ResultsResults demonstrate construct and discriminant validity across measures of client's procedural justice and legitimacy attitudes. In addition, SEM results revealed a positive and statistically significant association between procedural justice with probationers' legitimacy beliefs. In addition, perceived legitimacy was associated with clients' felt obligation to obey their probation officer, though indirect effects were non-significant but potentially suggested partial mediation. ConclusionsThis study provides empirical evidence supporting the positive relationship between perceptions of procedural justice with clients' legitimacy and perceived PO legitimacy with their felt obligation. Study results highlight key theoretical and policy considerations regarding the measurement and application of the process-based model in community corrections.

The Public Legitimacy of Multistakeholder Partnerships in Global Environmental Governance: Evidence from Survey Experiments in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Abstract Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) in global environmental governance are either praised for their problem-solving capacities and inclusion of various societal actors or criticized for their limited accountability and corporate dominance. Despite the lively scholarly debate and the continued promotion of MSPs by international organizations and governments, knowledge about how environmental MSPs are perceived by the public is very limited. Understanding the sources of public support for MSPs is important, given its crucial role in MSPs’ abilities to secure resources and achieve their goals. In this article, we evaluate whether and how institutional features of MSPs influence citizens’ legitimacy beliefs. Building on previous studies, we theorize which institutional dimensions of MSPs matter for citizens’ level of support. We conduct population-based survey experiments in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United States, encompassing more than 6,000 respondents. The results from the survey experiments have substantive implications for our understanding of the role of MSPs.

Mother-child dynamics: Examining reciprocal relations between parental knowledge, child disclosure, parental legitimacy beliefs, and adolescent alcohol use.

Early adolescent alcohol use is associated with adverse developmental and health outcomes. Parental knowledge can prevent or delay substance use, while youth behaviors may concurrently influence parenting. More research is needed to examine the role of youth's perceptions of legitimacy of parental authority. This multi-informant study examined prospective bidirectional effects between parental knowledge and child disclosure alongside youth-reported alcohol use and perceived legitimacy of parental authority. Data were analyzed across three waves in a community sample of 304 mother-child dyads. A cross-lagged panel model was estimated using repeated measures of adolescent alcohol use, perceived legitimacy of parental authority, parental knowledge, and child disclosure. Positive reciprocal associations were found in early adolescence between child disclosure and both parental knowledge and perceived legitimacy of parental authority. Legitimacy of parental authority negatively predicted alcohol use across adolescence. Child alcohol use also negatively predicted parental knowledge among mothers in later adolescence. Effects were not reciprocated nor sustained. Novel findings demonstrate that the parental legitimacy beliefs predict reduced alcohol use and have a reciprocal association with child disclosure. Clinical implications to mitigate youth alcohol use initiation, by enhancing parental self-efficacy and positive parenting, are discussed.

Does Election Fraud Erode Support for Autocrats?

Does election fraud erode support for dictators? An original survey experiment from Russia following the 2020 vote on constitutional amendments reveals three key findings. First, regime supporters and opponents differ significantly in their baseline beliefs about election fairness. While regime opponents are already aware of fraud, supporters expect relatively fair elections. Consequently, only regime supporters revise their election beliefs when exposed to fraud information. Second, fraud revelations reduce regime legitimacy beliefs, but only among the regime’s political base. In contrast, regime opponents already perceive the regime as illegitimate at the baseline. Third, the experiment shows minimal, if any, effects on attitudes toward Putin. While fraud revelations cause regime supporters to adjust their views on the regime, their opinions about Putin remain largely unaffected. The findings imply that dictators can maintain popular support among their political base while manipulating elections, posing questions about the potential of fraud to undermine regime stability.

Institutional sources of legitimacy in multistakeholder global governance at ICANN

AbstractThis article provides a novel systematic exploration of ways and extents that institutional characteristics shape legitimacy beliefs toward multistakeholder global governance. Multistakeholderism is often argued to offer institutional advantages over intergovernmental multilateralism in handling global problems. This study examines whether, in practice, perceptions of institutional purpose, procedure, and performance affect legitimacy assessments regarding this form of global governance. The analysis focuses on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), one of the largest and most institutionally developed global multistakeholder arrangements. Evidence comes from a mixed‐methods survey of 467 participants in ICANN. We find that this representative sample accords high importance in principle to many institutional features, and also rates the actual institutional operations of ICANN quite highly on various counts. Moreover, many institutional characteristics associate significantly with participants' legitimacy beliefs toward ICANN. However, not all institutional qualities have this significance, and the relevance of individual‐ and societal‐level circumstances indicates that institutional sources do not provide a full explanation of legitimacy. The article contributes refinements to theory of legitimacy in global governance; demonstrates the value of mixed‐methods survey work in this field; supplies unique original data and analysis; and identifies implications for the politics of (de)legitimation around multistakeholderism.

Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities

AbstractIn order to generate legitimacy for policies and political institutions, governments regularly involve citizens in the decision‐making process, increasingly so via the Internet. This research investigates if online participation does indeed impact positively on legitimacy beliefs of those citizens engaging with the process, and which particular aspects of the participation process, the individual participants, and the local context contribute to these changes. Our surveys of participants in almost identical online consultations in three German municipalities show that the participation process and its expected results have a sizeable effect on satisfaction with local political authorities and local regime performance. While most participants report at least slightly more positive perceptions that are mainly output‐oriented, for some engagement with the process leads not to more, but in fact to less legitimacy. We find this to be the case both for those participants who remain silent and for those who participate intensively. Our results also confirm the important role of existing individual resources and context‐related attitudes such as trust in and satisfaction with local (not national) politics. Finally, our analysis shows that online participation is able to enable constructive discussion, deliver useful results, and attract people who would not have participated offline to engage.

Agents, audiences and peers: why international organizations diversify their legitimation discourse

Abstract In the face of public contestation, international organizations (IOs) invoke norms in their public communication to enhance relevant audiences' legitimacy beliefs. This article offers the first comprehensive analysis of what we term normative diversity in IOs' discursive legitimation by drawing on a novel dataset on norm-based justifications in more than 32,000 paragraphs of text published by 28 regional IOs between 1980 and 2019. We show that IOs vary strikingly in this respect: whereas some IOs invoke a narrow set of norms, often focused on economic welfare and functional capability, others engage a wide variety that includes security, national sovereignty, democracy or human rights. To explain this variance, we specify and test an explanatory framework that emphasizes IO audiences, agents and peer organizations as distinct origins. Our statistical analysis reveals that IOs diversify their discursive legitimation to 1) address heterogeneous audiences, 2) reconcile competing beliefs amongst agents themselves, and 3) integrate the legitimation of peer IOs. These findings indicate that IOs respond to the growing complexity of international cooperation in their discursive legitimation and may raise policy-makers' awareness of the difficulties in contemporary legitimation efforts.

Elites’ (De)legitimation Practices toward International Organizations

Abstract Research on legitimacy of international organizations (IOs) has often focused on discursive self-legitimation by IOs. This article explores the role of other (de)legitimizing actors. Distinguishing between elites of different political and societal sectors, we use unique data from a survey of 860 political and societal elites in Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, the United States, and a global elite group, to perform the first systematic analysis of elites’ (de)legitimation practices toward IOs. We analyze behavioral as well as discursive practices that may boost or challenge citizens’ legitimacy beliefs toward IOs, and describe how elites’ repertoires of (de)legitimation practices vary across IOs, elite sectors, and geographical locations. Explanatory analyses test whether the use of legitimation and delegitimation practices can be explained by characteristics of the interviewed elites. We find that most elites engage in (de)legitimation of IOs. Legitimation is more common than delegitimation. While discursive practices are more frequently used, behavioral practices are more widespread than acknowledged in previous research. Societal elites are more frequent (de)legitimizers of IOs than assumed in more state-centric accounts of global governance. Attitudes of elite individuals (confidence in the IO and ideological position) partly explain engagement in (de)legitimation. By providing the general pattern of elite (de)legitimation of IOs, the article sets the scene for more detailed case studies of diverse (de)legitimation practices toward specific IOs.

Differential Effects of Procedural Justice? Examining Heterogeneity in the Perceptions and Effects of Procedural Justice Across First-Time and Recurrent Detainees

Several scholars have suggested that perceptions of procedural justice matter less for legitimacy beliefs and compliant behavior among serious offenders, but it remains unknown to what extent this also holds true for male detainees interacting with multiple criminal justice authorities. Using longitudinal data from the Prison Project on adult detainees entering Dutch pre-trial detention centers, the current study examines whether effects of procedural justice—arising from encounters with police officers, prison staff, and judges—on felt obligation to obey and recidivism operate in a different manner for first-time detainees and recurrent detainees. Our findings support the idea that procedural justice exerts differential effects on beneficial outcomes depending on detainees’ prior detention experience.

The Facets of Social Hierarchy: How Judges’ Legitimacy Beliefs and Relative Status Shape Their Evaluation of Assertiveness and Ability

Contemporary approaches of impression formation and stereotypes celebrate the role of the Big Two in social evaluation: the horizontal and vertical dimensions (Abele et al., 2021). Recently, interest has grown in making further distinctions within each of these dimensions (Abele et al., 2008). Here, we focused on the vertical facets, namely, assertiveness and ability. Research found that assertiveness is more strongly related to a target’s status than ability. Arguably, this pattern emerges because assertiveness comes across as less negotiable, whereas ability leaves more room for appreciation. Building on this assumption, we reasoned that judgments of ability provide more opportunity to justify or to reclaim positive identity, depending on one’s position in the hierarchy. Specifically, we hypothesized that the legitimacy beliefs and status of the judges are key factors to consider in that they moderate the perceived overlap between the vertical facets. Using a novel paradigm based on Goodman et al.’s (2001) social ladder, Studies 1a and 1b relied on judges’ legitimacy beliefs as a proxy for status, whereas Studies 2 and 3 directly examined the judges’ relative status. As predicted, we consistently found more overlap between assertiveness and ability among high-legitimacy/status judges than among low-legitimacy/status judges. We discuss the importance of taking into account the more specific meaning of the facets.

The Role of Consensus in Legitimation through Deliberation: An Experimental Approach

Previous research has advanced scholarly understandings of legitimacy formation at the individual level, yet has not taken into account that individuals develop their legitimacy beliefs in communication activities with others. Our study seeks to address this shortcoming by advancing a dialogical approach which construes legitimacy formation as an outcome of social interaction. We study the legitimacy formation process in the context of a deliberation experiment where we asked participants to discuss in small groups a controversial topic (i.e., the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative). Before and after the deliberation we measured participants’ legitimacy beliefs, as well as their behavioral intentions to assess the degree to which these variables changed during the deliberation. Additionally, we manipulated the level of agreement within the deliberation groups to understand how group consensus affects the impact of deliberation on legitimacy formation. Overall, we find that deliberation results in a stronger change of legitimacy beliefs and behavioral intentions if participants deliberate in a low compared to a high consensus group. Our study contributes to legitimacy theory by conceptualizing and empirically testing legitimacy formation as a dialogical process. Moreover, we present and apply the deliberation experiment as a promising novel method for testing cause-and-effect relationships in the process of legitimacy formation.

Inequality and legitimacy in global governance: an empirical study

This article undertakes an empirical investigation of the relationship between structural inequalities and legitimacy beliefs in global governance. Normative theory often emphasises inequality as a major source of injustice in global politics, but we lack empirical research that examines the implications of inequality for legitimacy in concrete situations of global governance. This paper draws on large mixed-method survey evidence regarding inequality perceptions and legitimacy beliefs at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a key site of global Internet governance that has given particular priority to issues of diversity and inclusion. Our analysis arrives at four main findings. First, participants in ICANN do perceive substantial structural power asymmetries and often find them to be problematic. Second, persons on the perceived subordinate side of these power stratifications tend to observe larger inequalities and to find them more problematic than persons on the perceived dominant side. However, third, these perceptions and concerns about inequality almost never associate with legitimacy beliefs towards ICANN, even among people in structurally subordinated positions and among people who express the greatest worries regarding power inequalities. Fourth, in forming legitimacy perceptions, participants at ICANN generally prioritise other aspects of institutional purpose, procedure and performance, unconnected with inequality. This lack of a relationship between perceptions of inequality and legitimacy beliefs suggests that, however sympathetic policy elites at ICANN might be towards greater equality in principle, they are unlikely to give it precedence in practice.

Procedural justice and legitimacy of the law in the criminal justice system: a longitudinal study among Dutch detainees

ABSTRACT Procedural justice theory suggests that when authorities in the criminal justice system treat people fairly and respectfully, people will be more likely to view the law and its representing authorities as legitimate. Previous research has largely focused on the association between the procedurally just treatment by a single authority and citizens’ legitimacy beliefs. Up until now, it is unknown whether and how multiple criminal justice authorities can encourage individuals’ legitimacy beliefs by treating them in a procedurally just manner. Using longitudinal data from the Prison Project, this study examines how procedural justice perceptions experienced during interactions with the police, prison staff, and the judge influence Dutch detainees’ legitimacy beliefs about the law. The findings reveal that distinct authorities can strengthen the legitimacy of the law by treating detainees fairly and respectfully. Additionally, our findings shed some light on the process associated with procedural justice and legitimacy throughout the entire criminal justice system.

The role of comprehensive education in anti-doping policy legitimacy and support among clean athletes

ObjectivesAnti-doping policies represent a group of regulations and procedures that are applied by anti-doping organizations in order to safeguard sports against doping. Evidence implies that, for anti-doping policies to be effective, they need to be endorsed by athletes. Still, there is scarce evidence on the process through which athletes decide to endorse and support anti-doping policies and the role of anti-doping education. The main objective of the study was to empirically examine a behavioural model of active anti-doping policy support. MethodsA self-reported survey with measures of perceived anti-doping legitimacy, social support via expected obedience, perceived trustworthiness and social cognitive variables associated with anti-doping policy support (attitudes, social norms, descriptive norms, perceived behavioural control, regret, and intention) was completed by 1328 competitive athletes in 6 countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, Russia, Serbia, UK). ResultsAthletes who live in countries with comprehensive (emphasis on individual development and competency with a focus on sport and personal integrity) anti-doping education (ADE) and had received ADE are more supportive of anti-doping policies than athletes from countries with basic education provision anti-doping education (information type education). Furthermore, athletes who received ADE reported significantly higher levels of perceived legitimacy, trustworthiness, and obedience. The results of the SEM revealed that perceptions of legitimacy had both direct and indirect effects on intentions to support anti-doping policies. The effect of perceptions of legitimacy was mediated by social cognitive variables, which demonstrated strong direct effects on intentions. Importantly, the model was invariant across the countries, although mean differences in several constructs emerged. ConclusionsAnti-doping milieu and education impact athletes’ willingness to support anti-doping policies. Interventions targeting legitimacy beliefs and social cognitive variables can be effective in promoting anti-doping policy support in competitive athletes. These interventions should expand beyond anti-doping policy legitimacy and target the specific beliefs (e.g., norms) that are pertinent to policy support in different countries.

Crisis affectedness, elite cues and IO public legitimacy

What effects do international crises have on the public legitimacy of International Organizations (IOs)? Deviating from previous research, we argue that such crises make those international organizations more salient that are mandated to solve the respective crisis. This results in two main effects. First, the public legitimacy of those IOs becomes more dependent on citizens’ crisis-induced worries, leading to a more positive view of those IOs. Second, as the higher salience also leads to higher levels of elite communication regarding IOs, elite blaming of the IOs during crises results in direct negative effects on public legitimacy beliefs on IOs. Finally, both the valence and content of the elite discourse additionally moderate the positive effects of crisis-induced worries. Implementing survey experiments on public legitimacy beliefs on the WHO during the COVID-19 crisis with about 4400 respondents in Austria, Germany and Turkey, we find preliminary evidence for the expectations derived from our salience argument. In the conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for future research on IO legitimacy and IO legitimation.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-021-09452-y.

The consequences of repeatedly losing on legitimacy beliefs

AbstractModern democracies are dependent on regular elections and citizens’ legitimacy beliefs. Studies have shown that repeated electoral defeats are associated with lower levels of satisfaction with democracy and political trust. However, previous studies have only considered one type of legitimacy belief at a time, never in comparison. What is more, all previous work is based on observational studies and has not been able to identify any causal effects of losing repeatedly. Building on previous work and classic theories of political legitimacy beliefs, we argue that repeatedly losing in elections represents a form of long‐term exclusion from democratic power that has additional negative effects on people's legitimacy beliefs because they lose faith in the system and start questioning its evenhandedness. We support our predictions using six‐wave panel data and test our hypothesis a total of 16 times within the same context. The findings show that repeated losers are never less satisfied with democracy but that an additional electoral loss leads to lower levels of political trust. The findings have important implications for the meaning of different indicators of legitimacy beliefs but also for electoral research and the underpinnings of stable democracies.

Majority representation and legitimacy: Survey‐experimental evidence from the European Union

AbstractWhat can policy makers do in day‐to‐day decision making to strengthen citizens' belief that the political system is legitimate? Much literature has highlighted that the realization of citizens' personal preferences in policy making is an important driver of legitimacy beliefs. We argue that citizens, in addition, also care about whether a policy represents the preferences of the majority of citizens, even if their personal preference diverges from the majority's. Using the case of the European Union (EU) as a system that has recurringly experienced crises of public legitimacy, we conduct a vignette survey experiment in which respondents assess the legitimacy of fictitious EU decisions that vary in how they were taken and whose preferences they represent. Results from original surveys conducted in the five largest EU countries show that the congruence of EU decisions not only with personal opinion but also with different forms of majority opinion significantly strengthens legitimacy beliefs. We also show that the most likely mechanism behind this finding is the application of a ‘consensus heuristic’, by which respondents use majority opinion as a cue to identify legitimate decisions. In contrast, procedural features such as the consultation of interest groups or the inclusiveness of decision making in the institutions have little effect on legitimacy beliefs. These findings suggest that policy makers can address legitimacy deficits by strengthening majority representation, which will have both egotropic and sociotropic effects.

Parenting adolescents in times of a pandemic: Changes in relationship quality, autonomy support, and parental control?

This Dutch multi-informant study examined effects of the first COVID-19 lockdown (LD; e.g., school closure and social restrictions) on parent-adolescent relationships. Four biweekly measurements before and 4 biweekly measurements during the LD were collected among adolescents (N = 179, Mage = 14.26 years, 69% girls) and their parents (N = 144, Mage = 47.01 years, 81% female). Parents' educational level was relatively diverse: 12% low (high school or lower), 33% medium (vocational training), and 55% high (college or university). Adolescents and parents reported on parental support, parent-adolescent conflict, autonomy support, psychological control, behavioral control, and time spent on various activities. Adolescents spent more time with their parents during LD (before M = 8.6 hr, during M = 12.7 hr), but less time with friends (before M = 8.1 hr, during M = 2.1 hr), and reported on average 13 COVID-19-related rules. Preregistered piecewise growth models confirmed that autonomy support decreased immediately during the LD, but no mean level changes were observed in the other relationship dimensions. During the first 2 months of the LD, parents reported gradual increases in autonomy support and decreases in behavioral control. Moreover, significant differences between families were found in sudden and more gradual relationship changes, which correlated strongly with pre-LD characteristics of the relationship, and in some models with adolescent oppositional defiance and legitimacy beliefs. In sum, findings suggest resilience in most families, but also heterogeneity: Some families were negatively affected, and others were positively affected. A tailored approach is therefore needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on family functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The Elite–Citizen Gap in International Organization Legitimacy

Scholars and policy makers debate whether elites and citizens hold different views of the legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). Until now, sparse data has limited our ability to establish such gaps and to formulate theories for explaining them. This article offers the first systematic comparative analysis of elite and citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of IOs. It examines legitimacy beliefs toward six key IOs, drawing on uniquely coordinated survey evidence from Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, and the United States. We find a notable elite–citizen gap for all six IOs, four of the five countries, and all of six different elite types. Developing an individual-level approach to legitimacy beliefs, we argue that this gap is driven by systematic differences between elites and citizens in characteristics that matter for attitudes toward IOs. Our findings suggest that deep-seated differences between elites and general publics may present major challenges for democratic and effective international cooperation.