Legitimacy and Justice Perceptions

Abstract

Consistent with the theoretical argument of Hegtvedt and Johnson, we empirically examine the relationship between collectivity-generated legitimacy of reward procedures and individual-level justice perceptions about reward distributions. Using data from a natural setting, we find that collectivity sources of validity (authorization and endorsement) exert positive effects on individual-level justice perceptions as predicted by Hegtvedt and Johnson, but that this influence is entirely indirect through the individual's perception of procedural justice. These effects are found net of self-interest and net of other job-related sources of support from the collectivity. 189* We wish to thank Lisa Troyer, Jean Wallace, and Wes Younts for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper. The editor and three anonymous reviewers also provided many valuable suggestions.

Citizen assessment of local criminal courts: Does fairness matter?

“…This finding has been reported in studies that examined both criminal justice contexts (Mastrofski, Snipes, & Supina, 1996;Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997;Piquero, Gomez-Smith, & Langton, 2004;Sherman, 2002;Sunshine & Tyler, 2003b;Tyler, 2004;Tyler & Wakslak, 2004) and noncriminal justice contexts (Kitzmann & Emery, 1993;Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & Deverapark, 1993;Mueller & Landsman, 2004;Pruitt, Peirce, McGillicuddy, Welton, & Castrianno, 1993). Restorative-based justice and justice conferencing programs have also been developed, which define the role of justice professionals more as intermediaries between the state and citizens than as authoritarian decision-makers in the criminal justice process (Olson & Dzur, 2004).…”

Is Inequality Becoming Just? Changes in Public Opinion about Economic Distribution in Chile

“…In this case, referred to by them as the utopian perspective, we would find consensus among individuals regarding a just distribution. On the other hand, there is the existential perspective, which states that, instead of appealing to general normative principles, what people consider as just is mostly based on the elements that characterise their day‐to‐day reality (Shepelak and Alwin, 1986; Kluegel et al, 1995; Mueller and Landsman, 2004). Berger takes this line of reasoning, pointing out that an individual ‘believes he should possess what he believes others like him do possess' (Berger et al, 1972: 139), and therefore justice depends on a comparative process against some referential standard of the context.…”

When will the unaffected seek justice for others? Perceptions of and responses to another's injustice

“…A one-time distribution of unfair outcomes by a legitimate authority for unknown reasons is likely to result in an external attribution (Kelley, 1973) and to fuel the idea that the decision is within the authority's purview, thereby reducing the perceived severity of injustice. Mueller and Landsman (2004) showed that authorisation and endorsement enhanced distributive justice perceptions, although procedural justice mediated their direct effects.…”