When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness

被引:74
作者
Doherty, David [2 ,3 ]
Wolak, Jennifer [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Dept Polit Sci, Boulder, CO 80309 USA
[2] Loyola Univ, Chicago, IL 60660 USA
[3] Yale Univ, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
Fairness; Procedural justice; Motivated reasoning; INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY; PERCEPTIONS; CUES; ELECTION; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1007/s11109-011-9166-9
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
How do people decide whether a political process is fair or unfair? Concerned about principles of justice, people might carefully evaluate procedural fairness based on the facts of the case. Alternately, people could be guided by their prior preferences, endorsing the procedures that produce favored policy outcomes as fair and rating those that generate disliked outcomes as unfair. Using an experimental design, we consider the conditions under which people use accuracy goals versus directional goals in evaluating political processes. We find that when procedures are clearly fair or unfair, people make unbiased assessments of procedural justice. When the fairness of a process is ambiguous, people are more likely to use their prior attitudes as a guide.
引用
收藏
页码:301 / 323
页数:23
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Anderson CJ., 2005, LOSERS CONSENT ELECT
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, What is It about Government That American Dislike?
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1980, JUSTICE SOCIAL INTER
[4]  
[Anonymous], ELEMENTS REASON COGN
[5]  
[Anonymous], WHAT IS IT GOVT AM D
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1980, SOCIAL EXCHANGE
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1957, Selective Exposure Theory
[8]   Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? [J].
Arceneaux, Kevin .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2008, 30 (02) :139-160
[9]   Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media's framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness [J].
Baird, Vanessa A. ;
Gangl, Amy .
POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 27 (04) :597-614
[10]   Perceptions of fairness and support for proportional representation [J].
Banducci, SA ;
Karp, JA .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 1999, 21 (03) :217-238