Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 305–326 | Cite as

When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence

  • Linda J. SkitkaEmail author
  • David A. Houston
Article

Abstract

Most current theories of justice are focused on how social identity, instrumental concerns, or both shape how people decide whether something is fair or unfair. A neglected consideration is that people may also be concerned with justice because they strive to be authentic moral beings by acting on the basis of values closely tied to their personal identity. We posited that self-expressive moral positions or stands (“moral mandates”) are important determinants of how people reason about fairness. Supporting this notion, we found that (a) people see some trial outcomes in morally mandated terms, e.g., that the guilty must be convicted and punished, and the innocent must not; (b) convicting a defendant believed to be innocent or acquitting a defendant believed to be guilty were seen as unfair, regardless of whether the verdict was achieved by a fair or unfair investigation and trial (Study 1); and (c) a guilty defendant's death was seen as equally fair, and an innocent defendant's death was equally unfair, if it was achieved by a trial that led to the death penalty or by vigilantism (Study 2). Procedural propriety only mattered when defendant guilt was ambiguous.

moral mandates fairness procedural justice due process attitudes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., and Fabrigar, L.R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In Petty, R. E., and Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 159-190.Google Scholar
  3. Cannon, L. (1999). Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Change Los Angeles and the LAPD, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (rev. edn.). Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, Free Press, New York, pp. 201-261.Google Scholar
  6. Cropanzano, R., Byre, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., and Rupp, D. E. (2001). Self-enhancement biases, laboratory experiments, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and the increasingly crowded world of organizational justice. J. Vocat. Behav. 58: 260-272.Google Scholar
  7. Cropanzano, R., and Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In Cooper, C. L., and Robertson, I. T. (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, pp. 317-372.Google Scholar
  8. Ditto, P. H., and Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63: 568-584.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, K., and Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71: 5-24.Google Scholar
  10. Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1996). Social Cognition, 2nd edn., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg, J., and Cropanzano, R. (eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 1-55.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, J., and Folger, R. (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Paulus, P. B. (ed.), Basic Group Processes, Springer, New York, pp. 235-256.Google Scholar
  13. Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., and Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. In Petty, R. E., and Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 215-246.Google Scholar
  14. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail:Asocial intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108: 814-834.Google Scholar
  15. Houston, D., and Fazio, R. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Soc. Cognit. 7: 51-66.Google Scholar
  16. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. Am. Psychol. 14: 8-17.Google Scholar
  17. Hyman, H. H., and Sheatsley, P. B. (1947). Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Publ. Opin. Q. 11: 412-423.Google Scholar
  18. James, W. (1948/1892). Psychology, World Publishing, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
  19. Judd, C. M., and Krosnick, J. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., and Greenwald, A. G. (eds.), Attitude Structure and Function, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 99-128.Google Scholar
  20. Klein, W., and Kunda, Z. (1992). Motivated person perception: Constructing justifications for desired beliefs. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28: 145-168.Google Scholar
  21. Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 556: 28-55.Google Scholar
  22. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55: 196-210.Google Scholar
  23. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated inference: Self serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53: 636-647.Google Scholar
  24. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108: 480-498.Google Scholar
  25. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., and de Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Adm. Sci. Q. 38: 224-251.Google Scholar
  26. Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivations sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50: 288-299.Google Scholar
  28. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37: 2098-2109.Google Scholar
  29. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. (1980). The perseverance of beliefs: Empirical and normative considerations. New Dir. Methodol. Soc. Behav. Sci. 4: 17-36.Google Scholar
  31. Rutte, C. G., and Messick, D. M. (1995). An integrated model of perceived unfairness in organizations. Soc. Justice Res. 8: 239-261.Google Scholar
  32. Skitka, L. J. (in press). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. Google Scholar
  33. Skitka, L. J., and Bauman, C. (unpublished). Moral conviction, attitude strength, and political choice.Google Scholar
  34. Skitka, L. J., and Mullen, E. (submitted). When procedural fairness fails to account for perceptions of justice done: Moral mandates and the Elián González case.Google Scholar
  35. Steele, C. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, Vol. 21, pp. 261-302.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., and Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74: 1493-1503.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations