Procedural Justice Literature Research Articles

Do a non-core worker's procedural justice concerns influence their engagement in helping behavior? A multi-method study

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to examine how a change in team dynamics impacts an individual's motivation to engage in helping behavior and operational performance.Design/methodology/approachAn online vignette experiment and a hybrid discrete event and agent-based simulation model are used.FindingsStudy findings demonstrate how a non-core worker's perception of team dynamics influence engagement in helping behavior and system performance.Originality/valueThis study provides a further understanding on how team members react to changes in team processes. This study theorizes on how an individual team member responds to fairness concerns. This study also advances our understanding of the critical importance of helping behavior in a retail logistics setting. This research illustrates how the theory of strategic core and procedural justice literature can be adopted to explain team dynamics in supply chain management.

‘Channel shift’: Technologically mediated policing and procedural justice

In recent years, police forces in the United Kingdom have introduced various technologies that alter the methods by which they interact with the public. In a parallel development, many forces have also begun to embrace the concept of procedural justice as a method through which to secure legitimacy and (in turn) public compliance and cooperation. What has not received sufficient attention, within policing or academia, is the extent to which these two trends are compatible, with the procedural justice literature still predicated on an assumption that police–public ‘contacts’ or ‘encounters’ are in-person. The effect of technologically mediating police–public contacts on ‘policing by consent’, is therefore unknown. In this article, we focus specifically on the possible implications of the Single Online Home (SOH) (a portal through which the public can report crime, get updates on cases, give feedback and pay fines, among other things, which is currently being rolled out across forces), considering ‘interactions’ between police and public where there is no physical co-presence. Noting the unique context that is policing, we draw on the limited existing research on procedural justice encounters in technologically mediated contexts to explore whether procedural justice theory is ‘future-proof’ for a policing context increasingly reliant on such encounters. We conclude that, through empirical research, we must update our conceptual understanding of what ‘contact’ can mean, and accept that current developments may in fact be transforming relationships rather than simply facilitating existing ones.

Detainees' Perceptions of Procedural Justice: An Examination Throughout the Criminal Justice System.

Procedural justice literature proposes that when individuals perceive their treatment by criminal justice authorities as more procedurally just, they will be more likely to view those authorities as legitimate and, in turn, show more compliant behavior. Knowledge on potential determinants of procedural justice is, therefore, crucial. Research suggests that prior perceptions of procedural justice may influence later judgements of procedural justice. The current study used data from the Prison Project, including information on detainees' perceptions of their treatment by the police, the judge, the prison staff, the probation officer, and the lawyer. The findings show that detainees perceive the treatment by the lawyer as most procedurally just, while they evaluate the treatment by the police as least procedurally just. Further, how detainees experience the procedurally just treatment by the police is associated with how they feel treated by other authorities at a later stage in the criminal justice system.

The generalizability of public judgments of procedural justice across police interaction and demographic variables

PurposeThis study used a series of multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MG-CFAs) to test a fundamental assumption in the procedural justice literature that the public judgments of procedural justice are invariant across groups including the split between those who have had recent interactions with the police and those lacking that experience. MethodsA public survey from three Ukrainian cities (N = 4005) provided the data for separate MG-CFAs to test configural, metric, scalar, and residual invariance in a procedural justice scale across the paired groups that differed by age, gender, education, and whether they had recent contact with the police. ResultsThe MG-CFAs found that procedural justice was strongly invariant across the demographic variables while also not finding a significant difference in procedural justice between those with and without recent police interactions. ConclusionsPolice scholars cannot know whether findings of differences in procedural justice across groups or relationships between procedural justice and other variables reflect measurement bias in the sample or real differences unless they have first established measurement invariance. This study's finding of strong invariance across the tested groups serves as a critical step in promoting a valid, standardized measure of police procedural justice.

The Fair Process Counter-Effect: Procedural Justice and Protests in China’s School Admissions Reform

How does procedural justice influence protest emergence? This question has been neglected as the procedural justice and social movement literatures have taken disparate approaches to explain people’s response to substantive injustices. This paper fills this gap by developing a theory of fair process counter-effect, namely that procedural justice facilitates collective action. Based on longitudinal fieldwork conducted from 2010-2019 on school admissions in China, I find that a bureaucratization reform had the unintended consequences of inducing previously nonexistent collective protests. Characterized by transparency and equal treatment, the post-reform procedures improved procedural justice perception among parents while also inducing protests, as the procedures enabled parents to more directly perceive substantive injustices, use public information to form protest narratives, and mobilize through shared experiences and grievances. By identifying the fair process counter-effect, this study reveals that collective action is facilitated by fair procedures and suppressed by unfair procedures. In doing so, this study bridges the justice-based and mobilization-based perspectives in explaining responses to inequalities.

The Milwaukee youth engagement pilot: Evidence of reciprocal legal socialization in Juvenile Court

AbstractThis paper describes a pilot project implemented in Milwaukee's Juvenile Court, which was designed as a preliminary feasibility study to assess whether a change in court procedures could alter young offenders’ engagement in the court process and enhance their relationship with the juvenile court judge. Participants in the pilot engaged in regular monthly conversations with the juvenile judge and other legal actors in an informal context focused on collaborative planning and problem solving. The procedural justice and legal socialization literature suggests that these changes in interactions and relationships might facilitate the development of a “consensus” orientation to legal authority associated with a shared trust in the law and a voluntary acceptance of its legitimacy. This paper offers an evaluation of the pilot project using a quasi‐ethnographic approach based on observational data and interviews with participants. Although the original focus of the pilot was on the relationship between the young offenders and the judge and on the impact of that relationship on the youths’ attitudes, it became evident, over the course of the study, that the impact of the engagement was felt on both sides of the relationship, and that it was not limited to the judge and the youth. The paper explores the potential value of “reciprocal socialization”—socialization of legal authorities by the subjects with whom they interact—to the successful achievement of the juvenile justice system's aims.

External Procedural Justice: Do Just Supervisors Shape Officer Trust and Willingness to Take the Initiative With the Public?

Decades of empirical research have shaped our understanding of organizational justice in the workplace and public assessments of police procedures on the street, but only recently has a nascent wave of research sought to better understand the role that officer perceptions of supervisory procedural justice play in shaping their (un)fair interactions with the public. The nascent research testing this relationship has focused on the evidence that officer perceptions of trust in the public is a pathway between internal procedural justice and external procedural justice. This article tests the role of trust and a parallel pathway that incorporates the concepts of work engagement and personal initiative in the procedural justice literature. Relying on a survey of 638 Croatian police officers, this study finds that the effect of supervisory procedural justice on officers’ external procedural justice is positive but indirect through a measure of trust in the public and the proposed engagement/initiative mechanism. The implications of these findings for research and police practice are discussed.

How social dominance orientation shapes perceptions of police

PurposeThere remain several underaddressed issues in the procedural justice literature. The authors draw from a rich body of psychological research on how the sociopolitical orientation to group inequality influences individual views on government and apply this to perceptions of procedural justice.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a laboratory-style experimental design to examine the extent to which social dominance orientation (SDO) shapes how people view the language of law enforcement. Four treatments are tested: procedural justice, rapport, deference, and direct.FindingsThe authors find that, overall, exclusively emphasizing rapport – as opposed to procedural justice, deference, or directness – is not beneficial to fostering positive perceptions of police. Additionally, a higher SDO score is associated with lower perceptions of officer respect in the video and regardless of condition. Finally, while higher SDO score is correlated with greater trust in police (both a specific officer and the police in general), it is also associated with a lower sense of obligation to obey both the officer in the video and the police as an institution. Further, procedural justice or direct communication styles can attenuate the negative impact of SDO on views of police better than rapport or deference communication styles. Thus, the picture that emerges from this research is more nuanced than a straightforward relationship between SDO and support for police.Originality/valueThis study used an experimental design to examine for the first time the role that a sociopolitical orientation may play in procedural justice theory. While research finds strong links between procedural justice and increased cooperation with police, obligation to obey, and trust in police, few studies have delved into the individual-level factors that research has yet to delve into whether sociopolitical orientation may play a role in informing police actions and communication training.

The Strain From Procedural Injustice on Parolees: Bridging Procedural Justice Theory and General Strain Theory

The procedural justice literature explains why people obey the law. However, prior research has largely neglected the implication of procedural justice in the correctional context in general and in parole efficacy in particular. In an attempt to bridge the propositions of procedural justice and general strain theory, this study assesses the effect of parolees’ perceived procedural injustice on their success in reentry. Using data from a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry, we investigate the nexus of procedural injustice, negative emotions, family bonds, and postrelease criminal propensity. Findings indicate that procedural injustice increases criminal propensity, and the negative emotion of depression partially mediates this relationship. We also find parolees’ family bonds totally mediate the effect of procedural injustice on criminal propensity.

“You Get the Great Feeling That You’re Being Heard But in the End You Realize That Things Will Be Done Differently and in Others’ Favor”: An Experimental Investigation of Negative Effects of Participation in Evaluation

Practical-participatory evaluation is often considered an effective approach to enhancing evaluation use. Despite this generally positive connotation, potential negative effects of participatory evaluation have also been discussed in the literature but never empirically investigated before. Drawing upon the social–psychological procedural justice literature, we assumed that stakeholders’ perceptions about the justice of an evaluation might explain possible negative effects of participatory evaluation on evaluation use. Negative effects of participatory evaluation on instrumental and conceptual use were explored in two experiments (Study 1: N = 85; Study 2: N = 78). The results show that negative effects of participation on evaluation use are mediated by stakeholders’ justice perceptions. Implications of the present research include considering stakeholders’ socioemotional needs, negotiation, and transparency when conducting participatory evaluation.

Procedural Justice and Risk-Assessment Algorithms

Statistical algorithms are increasingly used in the criminal justice system. Much of the recent scholarship on the use of these algorithms have focused on their typically defined as accuracy across groups like race or gender. This project draws on the procedural justice literature to raise a separate concern: does the use of algorithms damage the perceived fairness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system? Through three original survey experiments on a nationally-representative sample, it shows that the public strongly disfavors algorithms as a matter of fairness, policy, and legitimacy. While respondents generally believe algorithms to be less accurate than either psychologists or statutory guidelines, accuracy alone does not explain their preferences. Creating transparent algorithms helps but is not enough to make algorithms desirable in their own right. Both surprising and troubling, members of the public seem more willing to tolerate disparate outcomes when they stem from an algorithm than a psychologist.

Linking supervisory procedural accountability to officer procedural accountability in Chinese policing

ABSTRACTAn important yet severely understudied issue in the procedural justice literature involves the linkage between supervisory procedural accountability within a police agency and officer procedural accountability on the street. Relying on the survey data collected from more than 700 police officers in a large Chinese city, this study finds that the effect of supervisory procedural accountability on officer procedural accountability is principally indirect through the mediating factors of officer satisfaction with job and morale, net of several control variables. Noticeably, surveyed officers report only moderate levels of procedural accountability delivered by their supervisors, and even lower levels of accountability that they themselves are willing to render to the public. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Surveillance as Communicating Relational Messages: Advancing Understandings of the Surveilled Subject

Theoretical understandings of how and why surveilled subjects perceive and react to surveillance have rarely been engaged in the field of surveillance studies. This research introduces relational models of procedural justice as a framework through which the attitudes and behaviours of surveilled subjects can be more consistently understood in particular (but not singular) surveillance contexts. Qualitative analysis of encounters with surveillance at Pearson International Airport (Toronto, Canada) demonstrates that participants were attentive to relational concerns during these encounters. The findings are positioned in relation to the procedural justice literature to demonstrate the importance of the process of surveillance alongside, or even apart from, its outcomes in terms of understanding and explaining surveilled subjects’ experiences and formation of subjectivities at airports and perhaps more generally.

Police UAV use: institutional realities and public perceptions

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore institutional realities and public perceptions of police use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Canada in relation to each other, drawing attention to areas of public misunderstanding and concern. Design/methodology/approach Public perceptions data are drawn from a national survey (n=3,045) of UAV use. Institutional realities data are drawn from content analyses of all Special Flight Operation Certificates issued by Transport Canada from 2007 to 2012 and flight logs of a regional service kept from 2011 to 2013. Officer interviews (n=2) also provide qualitative insights on institutional realities from this same regional service. Findings The data reveal disparities between institutional realities and public perceptions. Although federal, provincial and regional services currently use UAVs, awareness of police use of UAVs relative to traditionally piloted aircraft was low. Further, support for police use of UAVs was significantly lower than traditionally piloted craft; but, support also varied considerably across UAV applications, with the greatest opposition tied to tasks for which police do not report using UAVs and the greatest support tied to tasks for which police report using UAVs. Originality/value This research provides previously unknown descriptive data on the institutional realities of police use of UAVs in Canada, positioning that knowledge in relation to public perceptions of police use of the technology. The findings raise concerns over how UAVs may negatively shape police/civilian relations based on procedural justice literature which demonstrates that a lack of public support for the technology may affect the police more broadly.

Waste management: how reducing partiality can promote efficient resource allocation.

Two central principles that guide resource-allocation decisions are equity (providing equal pay for equal work) and efficiency (not wasting resources). When these two principles conflict with one another, people will often waste resources to avoid inequity. We suggest that people wish to avoid inequity not because they find it inherently unfair, but because they want to avoid the appearance of partiality associated with it. We explore one way to reduce waste by reducing the perceived partiality of inequitable allocations. Specifically, we hypothesize that people will be more likely to favor an efficient (albeit inequitable) allocation if it puts them in a disadvantaged position than if it puts others in a disadvantaged position. To test this hypothesis, we asked participants to choose between giving some extra resource to one person (thereby creating inequity between this person and equally deserving others) and not giving the resource to anyone (thereby wasting the resource). Six studies, using realistic scenarios and behavioral paradigms, provide robust evidence for a self-disadvantaging effect: Allocators were consistently more likely to create inequity to avoid wasting resources when the resulting inequity would put them at a relative disadvantage than when it would put others at a relative disadvantage. We further find that this self-disadvantaging effect is a direct result of people's concern about appearing partial. Our findings suggest the importance of impartiality even in distributive justice, thereby bridging a gap between the distributive and procedural justice literatures.

Neutrality as an Element of Perceived Justice in Prison:<br>Consistency versus Individualization

In the procedural justice literature, usually four elements are distinguished that are assumed to contribute to the experienced feelings of justice of those who are confronted with the power of the authorities: voice, neutrality, respect & dignity, and trust in the authorities. According to Tyler (2010), the same elements are decisive for the experienced feelings of legitimacy of prisoners and other persons subjected to penal correction. From the general prison literature, however, it becomes clear that besides neutrality and consistency, also individual treatment is an important element of how prisoners perceive legitimacy in prison. Based on the results of a qualitative study of the experiences of Belgian prisoners detained in a Dutch penitentiary the tension between consistency and individuality is defined and further developed. The results of this study can have a broader significance than for the prison field as such, since the tension between individualized treatment and consistency is a topic that has so far been neglected in the procedural justice literature.

Procedural Justice, Anger, and Prisoners’ Misconduct

Procedural justice literature suggests that when criminal justice authorities treat people with fairness and respect, people will be more likely to comply with authority’s decisions and rules. Up until now, prior research has largely neglected the correctional context and often used cross-sectional designs. The aims of this study were to examine (a) the longitudinal relationship between prisoners’ procedural justice perceptions and their misconduct, and (b) the mediating role of anger in this relationship. Using two waves of survey data (T1 and T2) and disciplinary reports from a sample of 806 Dutch prisoners, structural equation models were employed to investigate associations. The results show that prisoners who felt treated in a procedurally just manner in the correctional facility at T1 were less likely to report engaging in misconduct at T2. They were also less likely to have received a disciplinary report at T2. Anger fully mediated the effect of procedural justice on prisoners’ misconduct.

Voice, representation and trust in parliament

The procedural justice literature argues that providing individuals voice in institutional processes facilitates trust in that institution. For democratic institutions, voice is provided to the citizenry via political representation. In this article, I apply the procedural justice argument to trust in parliament, equating representation with voice: if individuals believe they are represented in parliament, they will trust parliament more than if they believe otherwise. Analyses of data from three of four countries find support for this argument: those individuals who believe that a party with at least one seat in parliament represents their views trust parliament more than those who do not. This relationship holds even when accounting for political self-interest. For those who wish to promote trust in parliament, a suggested normative good with a host of politically important consequences, one potential pathway is to facilitate individuals’ belief that there is a party in parliament that represents them.

The Importance of Conversation in Transitional Justice: A Study of Land Restitution in South Africa

One of the most replicated findings of the procedural justice literature is that people who receive unfavorable outcomes are more likely to believe that the process was nonetheless legitimate if they thought that it was fair. Using interviews of 150 people compensated through the South African land restitution program, this article examines whether these findings apply in the transitional justice context where it is often unclear who the winners and losers are. The question explored is: When all outcomes are unfavorable or incomplete, how do people make fairness assessments? The central observation was that the ability of respondents and land restitution commission officials to sustain a conversation with each other had the greatest effect on whether respondents believed that the land restitution process was fair. The study also contributes to the existing literature by exploring the institutional arrangements and resources necessary to facilitate communication and to overcome any communication breakdowns encountered.

Process, people, and conflict management in organizations

PurposeIn this viewpoint, the authors argue that the predominant method of analyzing conflict management focuses too heavily on the managerial interests in administrative efficiency and productivity rather than on the needs of individuals and organizations. The aim of this paper is to employ Weber's analysis of conflict systems, specifically the distinction between formal and substantive rationality, to support the authors’ view.Design/methodology/approachThis is a viewpoint, where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation.FindingsConflict management based on Weber's theories of formal and substantive rationality will benefit organizations and society by promoting a more positive perception of corporate behavior.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research could examine the relationship between organizational justice and the more global concepts of formality and rationality. Similarly, future research on justice may be expanded by through the notion and perception of legitimacy by members of the organization. How employees accept a system as fair and just has potential import for future justice research.Practical implicationsThe combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a practical, and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as well as an organizational one. It orients conflict resolution toward people rather than productivity concerns. It further safeguards organizational interests by minimizing litigation, negative publicity, and other adverse effects of conflict.Originality/valueWeber theorized that formal rationality requires organizations to develop clear, objective, and universal procedures in order to carry out administrative routines. Substantive rationality, in contrast, acknowledges that specific cases may demand particularized decision‐making focusing on individual cases. The paper draws on the procedural justice literature to show how these procedures can be implemented in a fair manner.