Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 301–323 | Cite as

When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness

  • David Doherty
  • Jennifer WolakEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Fairness Procedural justice Motivated reasoning 


  1. Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, V. A., & Gangl, A. (2006). Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology, 27(4), 597–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banducci, S. A., & Karp, J. A. (1999). Perceptions of fairness and support for proportional representation. Political Behavior, 21(3), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, S. (2010). Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 1601–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 912–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craig, S. C., Martinez, M., Gainous, J., & Kane, J. G. (2006). Winners, losers, and election context: Voter responses to the 2000 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durr, R. H., Gilmour, J. B., & Wolbrecht, C. (1997). Explaining congressional approval. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Funk, C. L. (2001). Process performance: Public reaction to legislative policy debate. In J. R. Hibbing & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What is it about government that Americans dislike?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25, 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. L. (1989). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law and Society Review, 23(3), 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson, J. L. (1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court decisions. Law and Society Review, 25, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. L. (2007). The legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a polarized polity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 507–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A., & Spence, L. K. (2005). Why do people accept public policies they oppose? Testing legitimacy theory with a survey-based experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 187–201.Google Scholar
  17. Hetherington, M. J. (2004). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hibbing, John. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how Government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the U.S criminal justice system. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 762–783.Google Scholar
  21. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keele, L. J. (2005). The authorities really do matter: Party control and trust in government. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 873–886.Google Scholar
  23. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reason. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
  26. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2002). Three steps toward a theory of motivated reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, R., & Mishler, W. (2009). How do electors respond to an ‘unfair’ election? The experience of Russians. Post-Soviet Affairs, 25, 118–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Taber, C. S., Cann, D., & Kucsova, S. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taber, C., Lodge, C., & Glathar, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgments. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decision-making procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law & Society Review, 28(4), 809–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyler, T. R. (2001). The psychology of public dissatisfaction with government. In J. R. Hibbing & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What is it about government that Americans dislike?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wilking, J. (2011). The portability of electoral procedural fairness: Evidence from experimental studies in China and the United States. Political Behavior, 33(1), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations