BACKGROUND The procedural justice literature investigates how people determine: the fairness of legal and other decision making procedures (procedural fairness); the fairness of outcomes from those procedures (outcome fairness); satisfaction with legal and other decision making procedures (procedural satisfaction); and satisfaction with the outcomes of those procedures (outcome satisfaction). Initial findings in this area determined that procedural features (such as voice: the opportunity to express one’s opinions during a decision making process) were very important in shaping perceptions of fairness and satisfaction (e.g., Thibaut & Walker, 1975, 1978). These authors surmised that voice (and other procedural features) were important because of their instrumental value; when the target of a procedure was able to provide information to the decision maker, the target would perceive that the decision maker would make a decision that took that information into account and was thus more favourable to the target. However, later research did not fit with this instrumental explanation, demonstrating that voice was important for reasons independent of control over instrumental outcomes (Lind, Kanfer & Earley, 1990). These findings led procedural justice theorists to develop the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), which has become one of the most influential theories in modern social psychology. The group value model posits that voice shapes fairness judgments because of its relational, rather than instrumental value. In other words, voice provides a signal to the target of a procedure about his or her value to or standing within the social group. If the target of a decision making procedure is being asked for his or her opinion or input, this is a sign that the target is valued and respected by the social group (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Further research identified several key variables (termed the “relational variables”) that provide such relational information: voice, neutrality (whether the procedure itself allows all relevant facts to come to light), trustworthiness (belief that the authority conducting the procedure has one’s best interests at heart), and respect for rights (Tyler & Lind, 1992). When procedures embody these elements, they signal to the target that he or she is held in high regard by the social group. The key tenet of the group value model is that, when legal and other decision making procedures make us feel valued and highly regarded, we judge those procedures to be fairer. A large body of research supports these basic tenets of the group value model. (For a review, see MacCoun, 2005.) However, more recent research draws a finer distinction between fairness and satisfaction judgments, and argues that the group value model addresses satisfaction concerns but not necessarily fairness concerns. Feather (2003) articulates the difference between entitlement and deservingness, noting that entitlements (e.g., rights) involve an outcome that is guaranteed for an individual by virtue of some characteristic (e.g. membership of a particular group). On the other hand, deservingness requires an outcome to be contingent on a particular behaviour or past action (e.g. a reward is deserved as a result of previous positive behaviour). Researchers have applied this principle in the procedural justice literature, and have demonstrated that the perceived fairness of respectful treatment is contingent on deservingness. Heuer, Blumenthal, Douglass and Weinblatt (1999) showed that respectful treatment enhanced procedural fairness judgments, but only when the target of the treatment was seen to be deserving of respect (i.e. he had engaged in a positively valued behaviour). Heuer et al. (1999) demonstrated that the effect of respectful treatment on procedural fairness judgments was moderated by the prior actions of the target: When those actions were positive, respect was seen as deserved and the procedure was judged to be more fair, but when the target’s actions were negative, respect was seen as undeserved and the respectful procedure was seen as less fair. These researchers and others (e.g., Lerner, 1977, 1980) argued that the desire to be valued by one’s social group, posited by Lind and Tyler (1988) in the group value model, is still a hedonistic desire that is essentially motivated by self-interest. While self-interest informs favourability — one’s degree of satisfaction with a process — it fails to provide a basis for determining fairness. In order for respectful treatment to be considered fair, it must be deserved (i.e. it must be contingent on the respected target having engaged in positively valued behaviours). ESSAY TOPIC Some theoretical explanations suggest that procedural fairness judgments stem from perceptions of group value, while other theoretical explanations suggest that procedural fairness judgments stem from perceptions of deservingness. Review the psychological literature regarding both of these explanations, comparing and contrasting the group value and deservingness perspectives, and weighing the empirical support for each. Which perspective is more theoretically sound, and why do you consider this to be the case? Which perspective is more strongly supported by empirical evidence, and why do you consider this to be the case?

 

 

Need help with this Essay/Dissertation?
Get in touch Essay & Dissertation Writing services