VOICE, CONTROL, AND BELONGING: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness

MacCoun, Robert J.

doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115958

Cited by 270 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 184 publications

(157 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies cut finely and look at degrees of severity of offense (simple and single property offenses, simple to repeated assaults) and others look only at whether there is a subsequent conviction or, quite differently, simply another arrest. Because it is easiest to measure, with exit interviews or follow-up methods, the most common factor studied is a crude measure of satisfaction with the process (and/or outcome), tracking the now rich and robust findings of procedural justice attitudes (MacCoun 2005, Thibault & Walker 1975). These findings demonstrate that the processes generally favored are informal processes that give participants voice and that have some cathartic effect in response to the dispute or act of wrongdoing.…”

Section: 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?

Menkel‐Meadow

2007

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the now extensive literature on the varied arenas in which restorative justice is theorized and practiced-criminal violations, community ruptures and disputes, civil wars, regime change, human rights violations, and international law. It also reviews-by examining empirical studies of the processes in different settingshow restorative justice has been criticized, what its limitations and achievements might be, and how it might be understood. I explore the foundational concepts of reintegrative shaming, acknowledgment and responsibility, restitution, truth and reconciliation, and sentencing or healing circles for their transformative and theoretical potentials and for their actual practices in a variety of locationsfamily abuse, juvenile delinquency, criminal violations, problemsolving courts, indigenous-colonial-national disputes, ethnic and religious conflicts, civil wars, and liberation struggles. Restorative justice, which began as an alternative model of criminal justice, seeking healing and reconciliation for offenders, victims, and the communities in which they are embedded, has moved into larger national and international arenas of reintegration in political and ethnic conflicts. This review suggests that there are important and serious questions about whether restorative justice should be supplemental or substitutional of more conventional legal processes and about how its innovations suggest potentially transformative and challenging ideas and "moves" for dealing with both individual and group transgressive conduct, seeking peace as well as justice. 10.1

show abstract

Section: 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?

Menkel‐Meadow

2007

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, leaders might attempt to appear procedurally fair (e.g. by allowing group members voice) to avoid being held accountable for risky or poor decision-making (MacCoun 2005;DeScioli & Bokemper 2014). This implies that procedural fairness could also be applied in a manipulative sense to conceal incompetence or selfserving dispositions in a leadership role.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics

Bøggild

Petersen

2016

Evolutionary Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Politics is the process of determining resource allocations within and between groups. Group life has constituted a critical and enduring part of human evolutionary history and we should expect the human mind to contain psychological adaptations for dealing with political problems. Previous research has in particular focused on adaptations designed to produce moral evaluations of political outcomes: is the allocation of resources fair? People, however, are not only concerned about outcomes. They also readily produce moral evaluations of the political processes that shape these outcomes. People have a sense of procedural fairness. In this chapter, we identify the adaptive functions of the human psychology of procedural fairness. We argue that intuitions about procedural fairness evolved to deal with adaptive problems related to the delegation of leadership and, specifically, to identify and counter-act exploitative leaders. In the chapter, we first introduce the concept of procedural fairness, review extant social psychological theories and make the case for why an evolutionary approach is needed. Next, we dissect the evolved functions of procedural fairness and review extant research in favor of the evolutionary account. Finally, we discuss how environmental mismatches between ancestral and modern politics make procedural fairness considerations even more potent in modern politics, creating a powerful source of moral outrage.Keywords: procedural fairness, procedural justice, evolutionary psychology, politics, dominance, leadership, strategic moralization 3 Politics is the process of determining resource access (Petersen 2015). In a classical definition, the political scientist, David Easton (1953), thus defined politics as the process of determining the "authoritative allocation of values for a society." In more plain terms, another classical definition described politics as about "who gets what" (Lasswell 1950). These definitions highlight that politics is ultimately about outcomes: who gets a resource and who does not. Some researchers of politics have taken this to imply that outcomes are all people care about in politics. As Ulbig (2002, p. 793) notes, the traditional notion has been that "when people get what they want they do not care how they get it". Popkin (1991, p. 99), for example, holds that people "care about ends not means; they judge government by results and are . . . indifferent about the methods by which the results were obtained". is their strategy for achieving those interests? Research has documented that such a focus is, at least in part, demand driven: people crave information about the process leading to outcomes and the strategic aspects involved (Smith et al. 2007;Trussler & Soroka 2014).This appetite for information about what goes on behind the scenes of political outcomes extends even to the personal lives of politicians: who are they, whom are they personally affiliated with, and do they practice what they preach politically? This latter observation illustrates an importan...

show abstract

“…At the household level, perceptions around distribution of responsibility also change (Adger et al 2013) and our results demonstrate that judgments on local authority action are one of the mechanisms that drive such change. Fairness judgments are not just relational measures of how well one is treated compared to another; they are also a reflection of what an individual believes should and could happen (MacCoun 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing the Pain: Perceptions of Fairness Affect Private and Public Response to Hazards

Adger

Quinn

Lorenzoni

et al. 2016

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural causes of vulnerability to hazards are well established in geographical research. But what facilitates individual adaptive behavior? How does the performance of government intervention affect such behavior? Drawing on political economy, environmental psychology, and climate justice perspectives, we explore how perceived fairness of responses to weather-related extreme events affects the public and private distribution of responsibility and action. We focus on flood risk and examine how perceptions of fairness of response by residents in flood-affected areas, along with their prior experience of flooding and perceptions of scope of government responsibility and capacity, affect willingness to take individual adaptive action. We use data from surveys of 356 households affected by a flood event in November 2009 in Cumbria, UK, and Galway, Ireland, to compare perceptions of fairness of responses and private intentions across two political jurisdictions. We find that aspects of fairness are related to willingness to take adaptive action but vary with context, experience, and knowledge of flooding. In Cumbria, where there is greater experience of flooding, willingness to act correlates with procedural justice, risk knowledge, and capacity. Capacity for flood management in Galway is firmly associated with state agencies, whereas in Cumbria it is perceived to result from responsibilities of public and private action. These findings highlight the central role of government action and its perceived fairness in structuring private responses to environmental risks and point to the crucial role of climate justice perspectives in navigating adaptation.

show abstract

VOICE, CONTROL, AND BELONGING: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness

Cited by 270 publications

References 184 publications

Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?

Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?

The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics

Sharing the Pain: Perceptions of Fairness Affect Private and Public Response to Hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About