Frontiers in Psychological and Behavioral Science          
Frontiers in Psychological and Behavioral Science(FPBS)
ISSN:2309-012X(Print)       ISSN:2309-0138(Online)
Website: www.academicpub.org/fpbs/
On the Psychology of Perceived Procedural Justice: Experimental Evidence that Behavioral Inhibition Strengthens Reactions to Voice and No-Voice Procedures
Full Paper(PDF, 219KB)
Abstract:
This paper argues that when people try to sort out whether they are treated in just or unjust manners, they will tend to inhibit ongoing action to pause and check what is going on. In this way, behavioral inhibition can facilitate the procedural justice judgment process of interpreting whether you were treated in just or unjust ways. We further note that receiving opportunities to voice opinions is a key antecedent of perceived procedural justice. Following this line of reasoning, we argued that an experimental manipulation that strengthens behavioral inhibition should lead people to respond more strongly to receiving voice versus being withheld voice in decision-making procedures. In two studies, we found that reminding people of times they acted with public inhibitions (versus not reminding them) indeed led to more negative procedural judgments following no-voice procedures (Study 1) and to more positive procedural justice judgments following voice procedures (Study 2). These findings suggest that higher levels of behavioral inhibition may lead people to become more sensitive to what happens in their environments and, hence, affect the justice judgment process.
Keywords:Procedural Justice; Voice; Behavioral Inhibition; Experiments
Author: Liesbeth Hulst1, Kees van den Bos2, Arno J. Akkermans1, E. Allan Lind3
1.Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2.Utrecht University, Department of Psychology and School of Law, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands
3.Duke University, Fuqua School of Business, 100 Fuqua Drive, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America
References:
  1. T. R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2006.
  2. T. R. Tyler and Y. J. Huo, Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts, New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.
  3. K. van den Bos, “Humans making sense of alarming conditions: Psychological insight into the fair process effect,” M. L. Ambrose and R. S. Cropanzano, Eds., Oxford Handbook of Justice in Work Organizations (pp. 403-417), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015.
  4. J. Brockner, The Process Matters: Engaging and Equipping People for Success, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2016.
  5. R. Folger, “Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 35, pp. 108-119, 1977.
  6. R. Folger, D. Rosenfield, J. Grove, and L. Corkran, “Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 37, pp. 2253-2261, 1979.
  7. E. A. Lind, R. Kanfer, and P. C. Earley, “Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 59, pp. 952-959, 1990.
  8. E. A. Lind and T. R. Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York, NY, USA: Plenum, 1988.
  9. J. Thibaut and L. Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 1975.
  10. J. Thibaut and L. Walker, “A theory of procedure,” California Law Review, vol. 66, pp. 541-566, 1978.
  11. T. R. Tyler, “Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 333-344, 1987.
  12. T. R. Tyler and E. A. Lind, “A relational model of authority in groups,” M. P. Zanna, Ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 25, pp. 115-191), San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press, 1992.
  13. T. R. Tyler, K. A. Rasinski, and N. Spodick, “Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 72-81, 1985.
  14. K. van den Bos, “What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 35, pp. 560-577, 1999.
  15. K. van den Bos, R. Vermunt, and H. A. M. Wilke, “The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 26, pp. 411-428, 1996.
  16. L. Hulst, K. van den Bos, A. J. Akkermans, and E. A. Lind, “On why procedural justice matters in court hearings: Experimental evidence that behavioral disinhibition weakens the association between procedural justice and evaluations of judges,” unpublished, 2016.
  17. K. van den Bos and E. A. Lind, “On sense-making reactions and public inhibition of benign social motives: An appraisal model of prosocial behavior,” J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna, Eds., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 48, pp. 1-58), Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press, 2013.
  18. K. van den Bos, P. A. Müller, and A. A. L. van Bussel, “Helping to overcome intervention inertia in bystander’s dilemmas: Behavioral disinhibition can improve the greater good,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 873-878, 2009.
  19. K. van den Bos, E. A. Lind, R. Vermunt, and H. A. M. Wilke, “How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 1034-1046, 1997.
  20. C. S. Carver and T. L. White, “Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, pp. 319-333, 1994.
  21. J. A. Gray and N. McNaughton, The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-hippocampal System, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  22. S. L. Gable, H. T. Reis, and A. J. Elliot, “Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 78, pp. 1135-1149, 2000.
  23. E. N. Aron and A. Aron, “Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 73, pp. 345-368, 1997.
  24. E. N. Aron, A. Aron, and J. Jagiellowicz, “Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsitivity,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 16, pp. 262-282, 2012.
  25. K. van den Bos, P. A. M. van Lange, E. A. Lind, L. A. Venhoeven, D. A. Beudeker, F. M. Cramwinckel, L. Smulders, and J. van der Laan, “On the benign qualities of behavioral disinhibition: Because of the prosocial nature of people, behavioral disinhibition can weaken pleasure with getting more than you deserve,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 101, pp. 791-811, 2011.
  26. K. van den Bos, R. Vermunt, and H. A. M. Wilke, “The consistency rule and the voice effect: The influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 26, pp. 411-428, 1996.
  27. K. van den Bos, H. A. M. Wilke, and E. A. Lind, “When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 75, pp. 1449-1458, 1998.
  28. J. M. Govern and L. A. Marsch, “Development and validation of the Situational Self-Awareness Scale,” Consciousness and Cognition, vol. 10, pp. 366-378, 2001.
  29. M. Leary, “A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 9, pp. 371-375, 1983.
  30. R. N. Carleton, D. R. McCreary, P. J. Norton, and G. J. G. Asmundson, “Brief fear of negative evaluation scale: Revised,” Depression and Anxiety, vol. 23, pp. 297-303, 2006.
  31. T. L. Rodebaugh, C. M. Woods, D. M. Thissen, R. G. Heimberg, D. L. Chambless, and R. M. Rapee, “More information from fewer questions: the factor structure and item properties of the original and brief fear of negative evaluation scale,” Psychological Assessment, vol. 16, pp. 169-181, 2004.
  32. J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
  33. R. D. Lennox and R. N. Wolfe, “Revision of the self-monitoring scale,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 46, pp. 1349-1364, 1984.
  34. F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. G. Lang, and A. Buchner, “G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 39, pp. 175-191, 2007.
  35. K. van den Bos, “What is responsible for the fair process effect?,” J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt, Eds., Handbook of Organizational Justice: Fundamental Questions about Fairness in the Workplace (pp. 273-300), Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 2005.
  36. J. Cohen, “A power primer,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, pp. 155-159, 1992.
  37. D. Watson, L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen, “Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 1063-1070, 1988.
  38. J. Kagan, “The concept of behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar,” J. S. Reznick, Ed., Perspectives on Behavioral Inhibition (pp. 1-24), Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
  39. K. van den Bos, E. A. Lind, J. Bommelé, and S. D. J VandeVondele, “Reminders of behavioral disinhibition increase public conformity in the Asch paradigm and behavioral affiliation with ingroup members,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, article number 837, 2015.
  40. K. van den Bos, P. A. Müller, and T. Damen, “A behavioral disinhibition hypothesis of interventions in moral dilemmas,” Emotion Review, vol. 3, pp. 281-283, 2011.
  41. S. J. Spencer, M. P. Zanna, and G. T. Fong, “Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 89, pp. 845-851, 2005.