The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

In procedural justice research it has frequently been found that allowing people an opportunity to voice their opinion enhances their judgements of the fairness of a decision-making procedure. The present study investigated how this voice effect is affected by the consistency over time rule, which dictates that, once people expect a certain procedure, deviation from the expected procedure will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. Two experiments were conducted. In both experiments the independent variables manipulated were whether subjects were explicitly told to expect a voice procedure, were explicitly told to expect a no-voice procedure, or were told nothing about a subsequent procedure, and whether or not subjects subsequently received an opportunity to voice their opinion. The manipulations were induced by means of scenarios in Experiment 1, and by means of the Lind, Kanfer and Early (1990) paradigm in Experiment 2. In both experiments it was found that subjects who expected a voice procedure or who expected nothing judged receiving the voice procedure as more fair than receiving the no-voice procedure, but that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure (inconsistency) as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure (consistency). Furthermore, effects of the manipulated variables on subjects' task performance were found in Experiment 2.     

The effects of control on perceived fairness of procedures and outcomes

On the basis of Thibaut and Walker's theory of procedural justice, it was predicted that subjects who experienced control through choosing a trial decision rule would be more satisfied with the outcome of a dispute and the conflict resolution procedure than would yoked subjects who were not given control. Two additional conditions were added to the design in order to investigate the extent to which control had an influence on trial evaluations independent of being allowed to discuss the rules and obtaining a preferred rule in the absence of actual choice. Regardless of role in the dispute (accuser, accused, or no knowledge) and the nature of the rule adopted, those subjects who exercised control through rule choice evaluated all aspects of the trial experience more positively than subjects who did not exercise control through rule choice. The results also revealed that discussion of the rules and obtaining the preferred rule without choice contributed positively to evaluations of the trial procedure and verdict.     

When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Many Faces of Trauma - Psychic trauma as an inner experience

Abstract

Two types of memory processes, declarative and non-declarative have been identified by cognitive scientists. Cognitive science is currently making a distinction between 1) declarative memory and non-declarative memory. This paper is concerned with one type of non-declarative memory, procedural memory. Declarative knowledge refers to the things we know such as names, places, dates. Procedural knowledge is information associated with a highly practiced schema or action which is usually not conscious when the sequence is activated. The implications of procedural knowledge for psychoanalytic treatment are now beginning to be explored. This paper is a further step in this exploration.

It has been hypothesized that because of the automaticity of learned procedures underlying character pathology, character change can best be accomplished by intervening at the procedural level. This paper suggests that such interventions are optimal when they are noninterpretive and occur within the context of an interactive, mutually regulated, dyadic system. Procedures, when they become accessible to the analyst through empathy and introspection, can be, and in the case discussed below, were addressed within the context of the dyad. The psychotherapy of an adult man with difficulties at the procedural level is utilized to illustrate the importance of noninterpretive interventions that address the procedure in order to engage it in the dyad where it can begin to undergo therapeutic transformation. This paper illustrates the importance of understanding procedural knowledge and how this can provide a valuable additional tool to shape the modes of therapeutic action utilized in psychoanalytic treatment.     

How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness

Although studies have linked procedural justice to a range of positive attitudes and behaviors, the focus on justice has neglected other aspects of decision-making procedures. We explore one of those neglected aspects: procedural timeliness—defined as the degree to which procedures are started and completed within an acceptable time frame. Do employees react to how long a procedure takes, not just how fair it seems to be? To explore that question, we examined the potential effects of procedural timeliness using six theories created to explain the benefits of procedural justice. This integrative theory-based approach allowed us to explore whether “how long” had unique effects apart from “how fair.” The results of a three-wave, two-source field study showed that procedural timeliness had a significant indirect effect on citizenship behavior through many of the theory-based mechanisms, even when controlling for procedural justice. A laboratory study then replicated those effects while distinguishing procedures that were too fast versus too slow. We discuss the implications of our results for research on fostering citizenship behavior and improving supervisors’ decision-making procedures.     

Effects of two levels of procedural fidelity with constant time delay on children's learning

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of constant time delay delivered with high procedural fidelity to constant time delay with high procedural fidelity on all variables except delivery of the controlling prompt (i.e., on a mean of 44% of the trials, the controlling prompt was not delivered when it should have been provided). Six preschool children with disabilities were taught to identify photographs in two alternating conditions (e.g., high procedural fidelity and low procedural fidelity). An adapted alternating treatments design was used to evaluate the instructional conditions on the effectiveness and efficiency of instruction. In addition, daily measures were taken of the teacher's implementation of each step of the constant time delay procedures which indicated that the two conditions were implemented as planned. The results indicate that both conditions were effective for four children; for three of these, the high procedural fidelity condition resulted in more efficient learning. For the fifth child, the high-fidelity condition resulted in criterion level responding, but the low fidelity condition did not. However, when the high fidelity procedure and trial-by-trial reinforcement were used for the low-fidelity stimuli, these also were acquired. For the sixth child, neither procedure was effective; thus, the high fidelity condition was used alone and resulted in learning. The results are discussed in terms of using the constant time delay procedure and studying the procedural fidelity of other strategies.     

Assimilation and contrast in organizational justice: The role of primed mindsets in the psychology of the fair process effect

This paper focuses on the psychology of the fair process effect (the frequently replicated finding that perceived procedural fairness positively affects people's reactions). It is argued that when people have received an outcome they usually assimilate their ratings of outcome fairness and affect toward their experiences of procedural fairness. As a result, ratings show fair process effects. It is also possible, however, that when people have received their outcome they compare this outcome to the procedure they experienced: Is the outcome better or worse than the procedure? A result of this comparison process may be that contrast effects are found such that higher levels of procedural fairness lead to more negative ratings of outcome fairness and affect. Research findings suggest that when comparison goals have been primed, contrast effects indeed can be found. The implications for the psychology of the fair process effect and organizational behavior are discussed.     

For better or for worse: the congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination

This paper reports two studies examining how (in‐) congruence between personal and group outcomes affects emotional well‐being, outcome attributions and procedural justice perceptions of individuals who are exposed to subtle discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 82) participants are either accepted or rejected in a (bogus) job application procedure, and either do or do not receive additional information indicating group‐level disadvantage. In Study 2 (N = 79), participants were either accepted or rejected, and received information indicating either advantage or disadvantage for members of their group. Results of both studies reveal that not only emotional well‐being and outcome attributions, but also procedural justice perceptions are primarily guided by personal outcomes. That is, being informed of group‐level disadvantage does not intensify but can instead alleviate negative affect resulting from personal rejection. Furthermore, group disadvantage is only seen as an indicator of an unjust procedure by individual group members who have personally suffered rejection. Results are discussed in relation to current insights on discrimination, tokenism and social justice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The assessment of cognitive procedural learning in amnesia: why the tower of Hanoi has fallen down

The Tower of Hanoi has been widely accepted as an evaluation of cognitive procedural learning in amnesia but inconsistent findings have raised questions about the nature of the learning process involved in this task. This article presents the performance of a hippocampal amnesic, MS, who, showing poor learning across daily sessions of a formal evaluation, subsequently solved the puzzle through spontaneous use of a declarative-level strategy (the odd-even rule), suggesting that his primary approach to the task was the deployment of declarative solution-searching strategies. The presented data suggest normal learning within daily sessions, but subnormal learning across daily sessions due to the forgetting of acquired declarative information. It is suggested that tasks that are potentially solvable by an algorithm or rule, as is the Tower of Hanoi, be regarded as inappropriate for use in cognitive procedural assessments.     

Procedural justice,identity and deference to the law: What shapes rule‐following in a period of transition?

The group engagement model has two core arguments. The first is that procedural justice shapes rule‐following in groups, organisations and societies. The second is that the influence of procedural justice upon rule‐following is mediated by changes in people's identification with groups. This study uses a sample of South Africans to test both arguments. While the procedural justice argument has already been widely tested and supported, this study extends that test to a society in rapid transition and upheaval. Further, it tests the identity mediation argument in the same context. The results support both arguments. Procedural justice shapes rule‐following and that influence is mediated by identification with superordinate authority.     

Modulation of the leniency bias in the discursive dilemma

We experimentally approach the discursive dilemma to gain insight into people's procedural appropriateness judgments. We relied on a vignette in which three people had formed opinions about two skills (premises) of a candidate to decide whether to hire her/him (conclusion). The dilemma arises when different outcomes (hire vs. not hire) are achieved depending on whether the majority opinion is independently considered for each premise or for the global conclusion of each judge. Participants were asked to choose the procedure they thought to be more appropriate to reach a decision. In Experiment 1, we found a leniency effect (a bias to prefer the aggregation procedure that led to hiring the candidate), which was reduced by introducing the participant as a juror with an exogenously provided negative opinion about the candidate's skills. In Experiment 2, we replicated the opinion effect, even when subjects did not participate as jury members. In Experiment 3, we found that the leniency bias was only reduced when participants' negative opinion was aligned with a majority of negative premises, but not with a majority of negative conclusions. We discuss present findings in terms of the identification of empirical regularities that may affect people's procedural legitimacy judgments.     

Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

This paper examines public support toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Although previous scholars have rightly focused on policy outcomes in explaining public attitudes toward the Court, outcome‐based theories are unable to explain why support for the Court remains high despite public disagreement with Court decisions. Some scholars argue the low visibility of the Court shields it from public scrutiny. The exposure explanation, however, is inconsistent with the empirical finding that to know the Court is to love it. This paper reconciles these differences by showing how media coverage of the Court can influence procedural perceptions and subsequent support for the Court. Expanding on recent studies examining media coverage of the Court and perceptions of fairness, this study examines how procedural perceptions mediate support for the Court. An experimental design shows that the media's portrayal of procedural information as either fair or unfair influences public evaluations of procedural fairness and subsequently support for the Court as an institution and the individual justices serving on the Court's bench.     

Violations of transitivity: Implications for a theory of contextual choice

Violations of strong stochastic transitivity in concurrent-chains choice were first reported by Navarick and Fantino. In a series of articles, Navarick and Fantino concluded that neither a unidimensional model capable of predicting exact choice probabilities nor a fixed-variable equivalence rule was possible for the concurrent-chains procedure. I show that when choice is modeled contextually (i.e., when preference for a schedule is affected by factors other than the schedule itself, e.g., aspects of the alternative schedule), a unidimensional, exact-choice probability model is possible that both predicts the intransitivities reported by Navarick and Fantino and provides a fixed-variable equivalence rule for the concurrent-chains procedure. The contextual model is an extension of the generalized matching law and violates a key assumption underlying traditional choice models—simple scalability—because of (a) schedule interdependence and (b) bias from procedural contingencies. Therefore, strong stochastic transitivity cannot be expected to hold. Contextual scalability is analyzed to reveal a hierarchy of context effects in choice. Navarick and Fantino's intransitivities can be satisfactorily explained by bias. If attribute sensitivity is context dependent, however, and if there are similarity structures among choice alternatives, the contextual model is shown to be able to predict violations of ordinal preference. Therefore, it may be possible to formulate a deterministic, general psychophysical model of choice as a behavioral alternative to probabilistic, multidimensional choice theories.     

Democratic Legitimacy and the Paradox of Persisting Opposition

The paradox of persisting opposition raises a puzzle for normative accounts of democratic legitimacy. It involves an outvoted democrat who opposes a given policy (because she takes it to be unjust) while supporting it (because it is the upshot of majority rule). The article makes a threefold contribution to the existing literature. First, it considers pure proceduralist and pure instrumentalist alternatives to solve the paradox and finds them wanting — on normative, conceptual, and empirical grounds. Second, it presents a solution based on a two‐level distinction between substantive and procedural legitimacy that shows that citizens are consistent in endorsing the upshot of democratic procedures while opposing it. Third, it unpacks three reasons to non‐instrumentally endorse such procedures — namely, the presence of reasonable disagreement, non‐paternalism, and the right to democratically do wrong. In so doing, the article shows that those accounts of democratic legitimacy that rely on reasonable disagreement as a necessary condition for democratic procedures being called for are flawed, or at least incomplete, and offers a more complete alternative.     

On the nature of implicit categorization

Current categorization models disagree about whether people make a priori assumptions about the structure of unfamiliar categories. Data from two experiments provided strong evidence that people do not make such assumptions. These results rule out prototype models and many decision bound models of categorization. We review previously published neuropsychological results that favor the assumption that category learning relies on a procedural-memory-based system, rather than on an instance- based system (as is assumed by exemplar models). On the basis of these results, a new categorylearning model is proposed that makes no a priori assumptions about category structure and that relies on procedural learning and memory.     

Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation

The present research examined the effectiveness of leadership in influencing cooperation in social dilemmas by focusing on the procedural fairness and favorability of leaders’ outcome decisions. We predicted that leader’s influence on cooperation would be determined by the fairness of the procedures used, but only so when received outcomes were unfavorable. Across two experimental studies, support for this hypothesis was found. Both in Study 1 (using accuracy as a manipulation of procedural fairness) and Study 2 (using voice as a manipulation of procedural fairness), it was found that procedural fairness influenced contributions in a public good dilemma only if outcomes were unfavorable (i.e., participants received less than an equal share), whereas procedural fairness did not influence level of contributions when outcomes were favorable (i.e., participants received more than an equal share).     

Votes Without Power:Procedural Justice as Mutual Control in Majority-Minority Relations1

In an application of procedural justice theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989) to the domain of intergroup relations, we investigated justice preferences among members of numerical majority and minority groups as a function of two parameters: the number of representatives allotted to each group, and the decision rule used to determine the outcome (ranging from simple majority vote to unanimity). In the first study, minority group members perceived the combination of proportional representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than all other combinations, and their choices of procedure stressed “mutual control” (when the decision rule exceeds the number of representatives possessed by either group). In a second study, majority group members perceived the combination of equal representation and majority vote to be significantly less fair than other procedures, but their choices of procedure did involve a considerable degree of mutual control. These findings suggest that there may be some basis for agreement between majority and minority group members' justice preferences and that both groups may perceive situations of mutual control to be acceptable. A third study involving both majority and minority group members ruled out an interpretation of the previous results in terms of motivation to maintain vs. change the status quo.     

The control response in assessing resurgence: Useful or compromised tool?

Resurgence experiments sometimes include an operandum on which a history of reinforcement has not been experimentally established. The purpose of this control operandum is to rule out a generalized increase in responding when the alternative response is extinguished as being the cause of the resurgent target response. A review of the results of experiments conducted with both nonhumans and humans in which a control operandum was included shows that control- operandum responding is more common in the latter and almost nonexistent in the former. Both the presence and absence of responding on the control operandum, however, are subject to multiple interpretations thereby rendering it a compromised tool. Alternatives to using a control operandum to rule out extinction induction as the basis for resurgence include a preresurgence test control procedure and a differential resurgence procedure.     

The role of standing in the psychology of procedural justice: Towards theoretical integration

In the current chapter, the authors explore the relation between social standing and procedural justice. Standing is an important construct in procedural justice theories and tends to be broadly defined as the position that people have in social groups. It is argued that the standing construct suffers from conceptual ambiguity: In procedural justice literature two distinct interpretations of standing can be distinguished, one defining standing as intragroup status and one defining standing as the extent to which people are included in social groups. Furthermore, it is argued that research findings on the relation between standing and procedural justice are not conclusive. The authors review recent empirical findings that address these concerns, and conceptually integrate these findings. In closing, the authors outline avenues for future research that the procedural justice field may want to take, and discuss implications of the work reviewed here.     

Procedural interference in perceptual classification: Implicit learning or cognitive complexity?

Researchers have argued that an implicit procedural-learning system underlies performance for information integration category structures, whereas a separate explicit system underlies performance for rule-based categories. One source of evidence is a dissociation in which procedural interference harms performance in information integration structures, but not in rule-based ones. The present research provides evidence that some form of overall difficulty or category complexity lies at the root of the dissociation. The authors report studies in which procedural interference is observed for even simple rule-based structures under more sensitive testing conditions. Furthermore, the magnitude of the interference is large when the nature of the rule is made more complex. By contrast, the magnitude of interference is greatly reduced for an information integration structure that is cognitively simple. These results challenge the view that a procedural-learning system mediates performance on information integration categories, but not on rule-based ones.