Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why are Forest Owners Satisfied with Forest Policy Decisions? Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Perceived Uncertainty

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The perceptions of 460 Finnish forest owners regarding national forest policy were examined with a questionnaire measuring institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and satisfaction with decisions. Research hypotheses, which were derived from the group-value theory and the system justification theory, were tested. The results showed that high institutional legitimacy reduced the effect of procedural justice on the satisfaction with political decisions. Procedural justice predicted the acceptance of decisions only when institutional legitimacy was low. Moreover, perceived uncertainty increased the perception of legitimacy. The implications of these findings for a social psychological theory of legitimacy and policymaking are briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user’s guide. Spring House, PA: AMOS Development Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, V. A. (2001). Building institutional legitimacy: The role of procedural justice. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 333–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (1994). Appeals to justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez, G., & Shannon, M. (2011). A wish, a fear and a complaint: Understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner-Amnell, J. (2004). To be or not to be Nordic? How internationalization has affected the character of the forest industry and forest utilization in the Nordic countries? In A. Lehtinen, J. Donner-Amnell, & B. Saether (Eds.), Politics of forests. Northern forest-industrial regimes in the age of globalization (pp. 179–204). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bullettin, 36, 326–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feygina, I., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural justice and system-justifying motivations. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 351–370). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L. (1982). Understandings of justice: Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and political tolerance. Law and Society Review, 23, 469–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A. (2004). Legitimizing legitimacy: Shaping a new frontier of research. Social Justice Research, 17, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., Clay-Warner, J., & Johnson, C. (2003). The social context of responses to injustice: Considering the indirect and direct effects of group-level factors. Social Justice Research, 16, 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2000). Justice beyond the individual: A future with legitimation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 298–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of a system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and nonconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Curreny Directions in Psychological Sciences, 14, 260–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Tong, K. K., & Lind, E. A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 476–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J. (1993). Institutional legitimacy and procedural justice: Reexamining the question of causality. Law and Society Review, 27, 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloniemi, R., & Tikka, P. (2008). Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 336–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloniemi, R., & Vainio, A. (2011a). The interaction between legitimacy and empowerment—Combining the two conceptual approaches explains forest owners’ willingness to cooperate in nature conservation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Science, 8, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloniemi, R., & Vainio, A. (2011b). Why do young people participate in environmental action? Environmental Values, 20, 397–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloniemi, R., & Varho, V. (2009). Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: The case of nature values trade in south-western Finland. Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rantala, T., & Primmer, E. (2003). Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders’ rhetoric in Finland. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sairinen, R. (2001). Public support for environmental policy in Finland: Cultural interpretations of survey results. Scandinavian Political Studies, 24, 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favourability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16(4), 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of inter-group relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2002). A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 416–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2005). Introduction: Legitimating ideologies. Social Justice Research, 18, 211–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2008). Majority and minority perspectives on justice and trust: Is there a consensus on goals? In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Levens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Inter-group misunderstandings: impact of divergent social realities (pp. 233–249). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the Law. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2007). Psychology and the law: Reconciling normative and descriptive accounts of social justice and system legitimacy. In T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 807–825). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law and Society Review, 25, 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vainio, A., & Paloniemi, R. (2011). Does belief matter in climate change action? Public Understanding of Science, in press.

  • Valkeapää, A., Paloniemi, R., Vainio, A., Vehkalahti, K., Helkama, K., Karppinen, H., et al. (2009). Suomen metsät ja metsäpolitiikka—kansalaisten näkemyksiä. Helsinki: Department of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki. (Research reports No 55).

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., & Lind, A. E. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1493–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kooten, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1999). Framework for forest policy comparisons. In B. Wilson, C. Van Kooten, I. Vertinsky, & L. Arthur (Eds.), Forest policy: International case studies (pp. 1–22). Oxford: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylitalo, E. (Ed.). (2009). Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry. Helsinki, FI: Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Academy of Finland Grant 118274. The data were collected by Annukka Valkeapää (see the description of the whole data Valkeapää et al., 2009). The author would like to thank Klaus Helkama, Ann Ojala, Riikka Paloniemi, and Mika Rekola for their comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Annukka Vainio

Authors
  1. Annukka Vainio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annukka Vainio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vainio, A. Why are Forest Owners Satisfied with Forest Policy Decisions? Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Perceived Uncertainty. Soc Just Res 24, 239–254 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0136-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0136-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation