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 counteract 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
We do not mean to imply that extant (or future) research on procedural fairness conducted in legal, managerial, or educational settings is not important. Rather, we view these contexts as also political in the sense that the decision-making processes manage clashes of interests between opposing parties.
- 2.
However, see Tooby and Cosmides’s (1992) notion of evoked culture that is not culturally universal but still the product of biological evolution.
- 3.
It should be noted that allies are often also used for dominance. In particular, one group of allies will often seek to dominate other groups of allies (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Still, within each of these groups, one individual will often emerge as more prestigious than others.
- 4.
In the literature on principal–agent problems, the concept of information asymmetry is used to describe the problems that emerge when followers are implementing the decision of the leader. In such situations, followers sometimes have more information available and, hence, can use the resulting degrees of freedom to implement a decision in a way beneficial for the self. Here, we argue that there is also an information asymmetry when decisions are made (and not just when they are implemented), and this information asymmetry is often to the advantage of the leader.
- 5.
The literature distinguishes between intrinsic WTRs guiding behavior when no one else oversees the action (determined by kin or friendship relationships) and monitored WTRs guiding behavior when actions are subjected to supervision by others (determined by these others’ abilities and willingness to confer benefits and costs on the self upon detection of the self’s action) (see Petersen et al., 2010). In the main text of this chapter, we use the term WTR exclusively to refer to monitored WTRs. In footnote 7, we return to the difference between monitored and intrinsic WTRs.
- 6.
In terms of selection pressures, the argument that we propose works at the level of individuals and not groups. Moral intuitions are, in other words, strategic in the sense that they serve the interest of the individual and not the group at large (see Petersen, 2013).
- 7.
As described in footnote 5, it is possible to distinguish between intrinsic and monitored WTRs. In principle, it is adaptive for a follower to seek to increase both WTRs of a leader. However, because intrinsic WTRs are set by factors related to kinship and deep friendship, it is difficult to recalibrate these to a significant extent. Hence, the bargaining strategies we describe here refer to attempts to upregulate monitored WTRs. In relation to intrinsic WTRs, the task of a follower is instead to actively disengage the intrinsic WTRs of a leader from the leaders’ decision-making process, that is, to ensure that the private affiliations of leaders do not shape their decisions. This will be the case for decision-making processes that conform to procedural fairness criteria. In fact, within the conceptual framework of WTRs, one can define a leader’s decision as impartial to the extent it is uncorrelated with the leader’s WTRs. It should also be noted that impartiality is often not in itself an adaptive target for the individual follower. Each follower holds an interest in increasing the WTRs of the leader toward the self to the largest extent possible. However, since upregulating a leader’s WTR requires coalitional coordination, the only arrangement equally powerful followers can coordinate on is to opt for equal treatment of individuals (i.e., disengage intrinsic WTRs all together and upregulate monitored WTRs to the same average for all followers).
References
Aalberg, T., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 1464884911427799. doi:10.1177/1464884911427799.
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2014). Procedural justice and prisoners’ mental health problems: A longitudinal study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 24(2), 100–112. doi:10.1002/cbm.1881.
Beugré, C. D. (2009). Exploring the neural basis of fairness: A model of neuro-organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 129–139.
Binmore, K. (2011). Natural justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a ‘Fair’ process. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006007.
Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology, 34(3), 227. doi:10.1086/204166.
Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bøggild, T. (2014). Do the means justify the ends? Procedural fairness, politicians’ reelection motives, and support for public policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest political science association, Chicago, 2014.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 53–62. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.53.
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(1), 71–84. doi:10.1177/0002716296546001007.
Charness, G., & Levine, D. (2007). Intention and stochastic outcomes: An experimental study. Economic Journal, 117(522), 1051–1072. doi:10.2139/ssrn.437870.
Cloutier, J., & Vilhuber, L. (2008). Procedural justice criteria in salary determination. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 713–740. doi:10.1108/02683940810894765.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997). Dissecting the computational architecture of social inference mechanisms. In Characterizing human psychological adaptations (Ciba Foundation Symposium #208) (pp. 132–156). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Cremer, D. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00539-3.
Daileyl, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305–317. doi:10.1177/001872679204500306.
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders, D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 3–12. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3.
Delton, A. W., Cosmides, L., Guemo, M., Robertson, T. E., & Tooby, J. (2012). The psychosemantics of free riding: Dissecting the architecture of a moral concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1252–1270. doi:10.1037/a0027026.
DeScioli, P., & Bokemper, S. (2014). Voting as a counter-strategy in the blame game. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 206–214. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.901130.
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 477–496. doi:10.1037/a0029065.
De Waal, F. B. (1997). Good natured the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
De Waal, F. B. (2007). Chimpanzee politics: Power and sex among apes. Baltimore: JHU Press.
Diamond, J. M. (1999). Guns, germs and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: Norton.
Dubreuil, B. (2011). Human evolution and the origins of hierarchies: The state of nature. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dulebohn, J. H., Conlon, D., Sarinopoulos, I., Davison, R., McNamara G. (2009). The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 140–151
Easton, D. (1953). An inquiry into the state of political sciences. New York: Knopf.
Erdal, D., & Whiten, A. (1996). Egalitarian and Machiavellian intelligence in human evolution. In P. Mellars & K. Gibson (Eds.), Modelling the human mind. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute Monographs.
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness—Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 287–303. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.001.
Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, R. S. (2010). The nightly news nightmare: Media coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988–2008 (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333–353. doi:10.1177/1368430204046142.
Feldman, S. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 446–466. doi:10.2307/2110937.
Foley, R. (1995). The adaptive legacy of human evolution: A search for the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 4(6), 194–203. doi:10.1002/evan.1360040603.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.
Fry, P. S., & Corfield, V. K. (1983). Children’s judgments of authority figures with respect to outcome and procedural fairness. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143(2), 241–250. doi:10.1080/00221325.1983.10533557.
Gavrilets, S. (2012). On the evolutionary origins of the egalitarian syndrome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August, 201201718. doi:10.1073/pnas.1201718109.
Gavrilets, S., Duenez-Guzman, E. A., & Vose, M. D. (2008). Dynamics of alliance formation and the egalitarian revolution. PLoS One, 3(10), e3293. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003293.
Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., & Victorov, V. I. (1998). A comparison of Russian and U.S. pay allocation decisions, distributive justice judgments, and productivity under different payment conditions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 137–163. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00719.x.
Gold, L. J., Darley, J. M., Hilton, J. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1984). Children’s perceptions of procedural justice. Child Development, 55(5), 1752–1759. doi:10.2307/1129922.
Gonzalez, C. M., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of membership monitoring. In Distributive and procedural justice (2007th edn., pp. 91–111). Abingdon, UK: Ashgate.
Grimes, M. (2005). Democracy’s infrastructure: The role of procedural fairness in fostering consent (Doctoral thesis). http://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/31280-democracys-infrastructure-the-role-of-procedural-fairness-in-fostering-consent.
Grimes, M. (2006). Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 285–315. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x.
Hagen, E. H., & Hammerstein, P. (2006). Game theory and human evolution: A critique of some recent interpretations of experimental games. Theoretical Population Biology, 69(3), 339–348. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2005.09.005.
Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage Books.
Ham, J., & van den Bos, K. (2008). Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 699–705.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4.
Herek, G. M. (1986). The instrumentality of attitudes: Toward a neofunctional theory. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 99–114. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00227.x.
Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62–76. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00056.x.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). What is it about government that Americans dislike? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2008). Voice, validation, and legitimacy. In Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction (pp. 123–142). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hicks, A. J., & Lawrence, J. A. (1993). Children’s criteria for procedural justice: Developing a young people’s procedural justice scale. Social Justice Research, 6(2), 163–182. doi:10.1007/BF01048475.
Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers. New York: Psychology Press.
Inglehart, R. F. (2008). Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31(1–2), 130–146. doi:10.1080/01402380701834747.
Jensen, N., & Petersen, M. (2011). To defer or to stand up? How offender formidability affects third party moral outrage. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 118–136.
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110(1), 3–28.
Khatri, N., Fern, C. T., & Budhwar, P. (2001). Explaining employee turnover in an Asian context. Human Resource Management Journal, 11(1), 54–74. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2001.tb00032.x.
Koper, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1993). Procedural fairness and self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(3), 313–325. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230307.
Krebs, D. L. (2008). The evolution of a sense of justice. In J. Duntley & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary forensic. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krislov, S. (1991). Why do people obey the law? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 235–239.
Kumlin, S. (2004). The Personal and the Political: How Personal Welfare State Experiences Affect Political Trust and Ideology. : New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Lane, R. E. (1988). Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets. Social Justice Research, 2(3), 177–192. doi:10.1007/BF01054555.
Lasswell, H. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith.
Lau, R., & Rovner, I. (2009). Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 285–306.
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2015). Does a competent leader make a good friend? Conflict, ideology and the psychologies of friendship and followership. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(4), 286–293 doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.001.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., et al. (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337–357. doi:10.1002/job.518.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York: Plenum.
Leung, K., Tong, K.-K., & Allan, E. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 476–489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.476.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Christopher, P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.952.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Springer.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
MacCoun, R. J. (2005). Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1(1), 171–201. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115958.
Meggitt, M. (1977). Blood is their argument. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Ohman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522.
Ong, Q., Riyanto, Y. E., & Sheffrin, S. M. (2012). How does voice matter? Evidence from the ultimatum game. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 604–621.
Patterson, T. E. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage Books.
Petersen, M. (2015). Evolutionary political psychology. In D. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Petersen, M. B. (2013). Moralization as protection against exploitation: Do individuals without allies moralize more? Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 78–85. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.09.006.
Petersen, M. B., & Aarøe, L. (2012). Is the political animal politically ignorant? Applying evolutionary psychology to the study of political attitudes. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 10(5), 802–817.
Petersen, M. B., & Aarøe, L. (2013). Politics in the mind’s eye: Imagination as a link between social and political cognition. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 275–293. doi:10.1017/S0003055413000026.
Petersen, M., Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Evolutionary psychology and criminal justice: A recalibrational theory of punishment and reconciliation. In H. Høegh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality & sociality: Evolutionary & comparative perspectives (pp. 72–131). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2012). To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 682–695. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6), 897–933. doi:10.1177/014920639902500606.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. S., & Tan, J. J. (2001). Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An investigation of the U.S., India, Germany, and Hong Kong (China). International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 312–332. doi:10.1108/eb022861.
Platow, M. J., Eggins, R. A., Chattopadhyay, R., Brewer, G., Hardwick, L., Milsom, L., et al. (2013). Two experimental tests of relational models of procedural justice: Non-instrumental voice and authority group membership. The British Journal of Social Psychology/The British Psychological Society, 52(2), 361–376. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02083.x.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). The evolution of leader-follower reciprocity: The theory of service-for-prestige. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 363. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00363.
Ramirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00660.x.
Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 443–453. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199906)29:4<443::AID-EJSP935>3.0.CO;2-C.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Routledge.
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate–proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47. doi:10.1177/1745691610393528.
Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 1–91). New York: Academic.
Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(35), 15073–15078. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904312106.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Allan, E. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1360.
Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., Littvay, L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Evolutionary theory and political leadership: Why certain people do not trust decision makers. The Journal of Politics, 69(02), 285–299. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00532.x.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the ‘Ends’ and the ‘Means’: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23–40. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1022.
Takenishi, A., & Takenishi, M. (1992). Does commitment affect the meaning of fairness? Commonality and stability of fairness criteria in a political setting. Social Justice Research, 5(4), 415–429. doi:10.1007/BF01050757.
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. E. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for N-Person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27(2-3), 103–129.
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (2008). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. In A. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 251–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (2007). Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Trussler, M., & Soroka, S. (2014). Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(3), 360–379. doi:10.1177/1940161214524832.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law & Society Review, 28(4), 809. doi:10.2307/3053998.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 1(4), 323–345. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4.
Tyler, T., Allan Lind, E., Ohbuchi, K.-I., Sugawara, I., & Huo, Y. J. (1998). Conflict with outsiders: Disputing within and across cultural boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(2), 137–146. doi:10.1177/0146167298242003.
Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 642–655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.642.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 482–497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.482.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (1996th edn., Vol. 1996, pp. 331–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental social psychology, 25, 115–192.
Ulbig, S. G. (2002). Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government? Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 789–809. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00115.
Ulbig, S. G. (2008). Voice is not enough the importance of influence in political trust and policy assessments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 523–539. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn030.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. (1997). 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, 72(5), 1034–1046.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1449–1458. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1493–1503. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1493.
Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). The role of authority power in explaining procedural fairness effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 488–502. doi:10.1037/a0018921.
Van Dijke, M., & Verboon, P. (2010). Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(1), 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.005.
van Prooijen, J. -W. (2008). Egocentrism in procedural justice effects. Advances in Group Processes, 25(December), 29–54. doi:10.1016/S0882-6145(08)25002-2.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–71. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5.
Van Vugt, M., Ahuja, A., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Naturally selected: The evolutionary science of leadership. New York: Harper Business.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. The American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–96. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182.
VanYperen, N. W., Hagedoorn, M., Zweers, M., & Postma, S. (2000). Injustice and employees’ destructive responses: The mediating role of state negative affect. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 291–312. doi:10.1023/A:1026411523466.
Von Furer-Haimendorf, C. (1967). Morals and merit. A study in values and social controls in South Asian societies (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H., & Stieglitz, J. (2014). Leadership in an egalitarian society. Human Nature, 25(4), 538–566. doi:10.1007/s12110-014-9213-4.
Wade, N. (2007). Before the dawn: Recovering the lost history of our ancestors. New York: Penguin.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 786–794. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.786.
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (Eds.). (1997). Machiavellian intelligence II: Extensions and evaluations (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilking, J. R. (2011). The portability of electoral procedural fairness: Evidence from experimental studies in China and the United States. Political Behavior, 33(1), 139–159. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9119-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bøggild, T., Petersen, M.B. (2016). The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics. In: Shackelford, T., Hansen, R. (eds) The Evolution of Morality. Evolutionary Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19670-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19671-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)