Understanding Judgments of Fairness in a Real-World Political Context: A Test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning

Current theories of justice emphasize social identity reasons for why people care about justice to the relative neglect of personal identity concerns, that is, people’s need to express, defend, and live up to personal moral standards. The authors present a value protection model that predicts that self-expressive moral positions or stands (“moral mandates”) are important determinants of how people reason about fairness. Hypotheses were tested and supported in the context of a natural experiment: reactions of a national random sample of adults to the Elián González case pre-raid, post-raid, and then post-resolution of the case. Models that included strength of moral mandates, but not pre-raid judgments of procedural fairness, best predicted reactions to the raid and post-resolution judgments of both procedural and outcome fairness and were associated with expressions of moral outrage and attempts to morally cleanse.

[1]  P. Tetlock,et al.  The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  J. Krosnick,et al.  The causes and consequences of attitude importance. , 1995 .

[3]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[4]  Jonathan D. Casper,et al.  Maintaining Allegiance toward Political Authorities: The Role of Prior Attitudes and the Use of Fair Procedures , 1989 .

[5]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[6]  N. Shainess,et al.  Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind , 1990 .

[7]  H. Wilke,et al.  Evaluating Outcomes by Means of the Fair Process Effect: Evidence for Different Processes in Fairness and Satisfaction Judgments , 1998 .

[8]  L. Skitka,et al.  When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence , 2001 .

[9]  T. Tyler,et al.  A Relational Model of Authority in Groups , 1992 .

[10]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Advances in Organizational Justice , 2001 .

[11]  J. Haidt.  The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[12]  C. Haney.  The Fourteenth Amendment and symbolic legality , 1991 .

[13]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength : antecedents and consequences , 1995 .

[14]  L. Skitka,et al.  The Dark Side of Moral Conviction , 2002 .

[15]  E. Lind.  Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. , 2001 .

[16]  L. Skitka.  Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning , 2002 .

[17]  R. Folger.  Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. , 1977 .

[18]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Justice, social identity, and group processes. , 1999 .

[19]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[20]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[21]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  The Psychology of the Social Self , 2001 .

[22]  J. Krosnick.  The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  P. Converse.  The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics , 2004 .

[24]  E. Lind,et al.  The Psychology of Own Versus Others’ Treatment: Self-Oriented and Other-Oriented Effects on Perceptions of Procedural Justice , 2001 .

[25]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Social cognition, 2nd ed. , 1991 .