actual disputes in legal settings. While subsequent PJ
research focused heavily on the procedural criteria of
process control (or “voice”) and decision control,
research has also established that numerous other pro-
cedural criteria, including correctability, consistency,
decision accuracy, and ethicality, also enhance proce-
dural fairness.Challenges to
Procedural Justice Theory
The original PJ theory was developed out of research
conducted in high-conflict settings (legal disputes). It
assumed that disputants were motivated to obtain fair
outcomes, and therefore preferred procedures that
permitted them to express their views about appropri-
ate outcomes and be influential in shaping those out-
comes. Although the theory was well supported, some
findings did not fit well with its predictions. For
instance, the theory predicted that process control
was important because it increased the likelihood
of obtaining fair and beneficial outcomes. However,
research showed that voice (i.e., process control)
enhanced fairness even when disputants did not think
that their voice was influential. This noninstrumental
voice effect led two psychologists, Tom Tyler and
Allan Lind, to propose a group value theory of PJ.
This theory has profoundly influenced subsequent
research and theory on PJ.GGrroouupp VVaalluuee aanndd
IInntteerraaccttiioonnaall JJuussttiiccee TThheeoorriieess
Whereas PJ theory is an instrumental theory that
emphasizes disputants’ concern with control, the
group value theory emphasizes people’s concern with
their social relationships with groups and institutions
and the authorities representing those institutions; it
asserts that when people encounter authorities who
represent valued groups (such as legal institutions),
they look for information concerning their group
belonging and group standing. This theory also asserts
that three procedural criteria are particularly influen-
tial for beliefs about group standing and, hence, fair
treatment: neutrality; benevolent authorities; and
respectful treatment. In this view, voice—the opportu-
nity to express one’s views, even without any influ-
ence on one’s outcomes, enhances procedural fairness
for symbolic rather than instrumental reasons because
it communicates one’s favorable group standing.A related theory, interactional justice theory, likewise
asserted that interpersonal concerns such as polite
treatment shape judgments of procedural fairness.
An extensive body of research, including experi-
ments conducted with undergraduate participants in
psychology laboratories and surveys of citizens about
their actual legal encounters (e.g., encounters with
judges or the police), provides strong support for the
central claims of the group value and interactional jus-
tice theories. This research shows that fair treatment
enhances people’s satisfaction with legal authorities,
legal institutions, and outcomes. Furthermore, this fair
treatment effect remains after controlling for the
absolute outcomes and the distributive fairness of
these legal encounters; it occurs in civil and criminal
cases and among misdemeanors and felons and partic-
ipants and observers.
Whereas the earliest research was strongly sup-
portive of the claim that process control and decision
control increased procedural fairness, more recent
research has supported the group value theory’s claim
that neutrality, benevolent authorities, and respectful
treatment increase procedural fairness because of
what this treatment communicates about people’s
relationships with valued groups and authorities.MMooddeerraattoorrss ooff tthhee IInnfflluueennccee ooff
PPrroocceedduurreess aanndd PPrroocceedduurraall FFaaiirrnneessss
Researchers have also examined the conditions
under which procedural fairness exerts more or less
influence on legal attitudes and behavior. Two lines of
research concerning moderating influences have been
particularly influential. One has shown that the impact
of procedural fairness is diminished when outcome
favorability is high (and is enhanced when outcome
favorability is low). A second has investigated
the moderating influence of moral beliefs on the
importance of procedural fairness. While the research
described above shows that fair procedures lead to
increased acceptance of undesirable outcomes, or
increased perceptions of distributive fairness (a “fair
process” effect), additional research has demonstrated
that the fair process effect is diminished when people
view certain trial outcomes (such as convicting a
guilty defendant or acquitting an innocent one) as
morally mandated. This research suggests that among
those who perceive a particular outcome as morally
mandated, the fair process effect does not occur. For
these people, due process affects outcome satisfaction626 ———Procedural JusticeP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 626