Skip to main content
Log in

Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Americans believe that Congress' most important duties are passing laws and dealing with the nation's problems. A majority, however, disapprove of the way that these functions are carried out. Drawing on procedural justice literature, this article examines the role that process perceptions play relative to preferred outcome in people's legitimacy assessments. In particular, a controlled experiment tests the argument that the weight assigned to procedural justice considerations relative to policy considerations is in part a function of the information environment and the types of issues under deliberation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Barrett-Howard E., and Tyler, Tom (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A. (1989). Issue Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, Samprit, and Price, Bertram (1991). Regression Analysis by Example. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domke, David, Shah, Dhavan V., and Wackman, Daniel B. (1998). Moral referendums: values, news media, and the process of candidate choice. Political Communication 15: 301–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durr, Robert H, Gilmour, John B., and Wolbrecht, Christina (1997). Explaining congressional approval. American Journal of Political Science 41: 175–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, Morris (1996). Divided Government, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, Robert, and Konovsky, Mary A. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits level on victim's layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21: 630–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, Russel (1998). Trust in government. In Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi (eds.), Trust and Governance, pp. 9–27. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth (1995). Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth (1998). The media's role in public negativity toward Congress: distinguishing emotional reactions and cognitive evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 42: 475–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth (2001). Process preferences and American politics: what people want government to be. American Political Science Review 95: 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. Allan, Tyler, Tom, and Huo, Yuen (1997). Procedural context and culture: variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 767–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. Scott (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrander, Barbara, and Wilcox, Clyde (2002).Of mood and morals: the dynamics of opinion on abortion and gay rights. In Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox (eds.), Understanding Public Opinion, pp. 121–148. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahn, Wendy, and Brehm, John (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science 41: 993–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, David, and Lau, Richard (1983). Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences, American Political Science Review 27: 223–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, John, and Walker, Laurens (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant's evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review 18: 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom (1990). Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom (1994). Governing and diversity: the effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law and Society Review 28: pp. 809–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R., Boeckmann, Robert J., Smith, Heather J., and Huo, Yuen J. (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom, and Degoey, Peter (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 482–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, Tom R., Rasinski, Kenneth K., and McGraw, K Kathleen (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on support for political authorities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15: 700–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts Mark DeWitt (1997). Framing congress: media coverage of the U.S. Congress and its impact on public opinion. Dissertation Thesis. University of Minnesota.

  • Weatherford, M. Stephen (1992). Measuring political legitimacy. American Political Science Review 86:146–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gangl, A. Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior 25, 119–149 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023847829172

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023847829172

Navigation