Top

Social Justice Research

Published in:

01-12-2008

Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler

Authors: Linda J. Skitka, Elizabeth Mullen

Published in: Social Justice Research | Issue 4/2008

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Napier and Tyler (this issue) question whether moral convictions about outcomes really override the influence of procedural fairness (PF) on fairness judgments and decision acceptance. The empirical answer to this question is “yes.” When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, perceptions of outcome fairness and decision acceptance are primarily shaped by whether the morally “correct” outcomes are achieved. Pre-decision perceptions of PF have surprisingly little or no effect on these judgments. That said, pre-outcome perceptions of PF sometimes predict post-outcome perceptions of PF, even when people have morally vested outcome preferences. We provide further details supporting the validity and superiority of our data analytic approach and argue that our original conclusions were justified.

previous article Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? A Reexamination of the Value Protection Model

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Note that Napier and Tyler (this issue) also report they found no effects of pre-threat PF on outcome fairness (see Napier and Tyler, this issue, footnote 3).

It is important to note that our models did not include outcome and procedural fairness as predictors of decision acceptance (as Napier and Tyler’s did) for the reasons noted earlier, that is, that proposed causes must occur before effects.

Bauman, C. (2007). Procedural and moral influences on fairness judgments, decision acceptance, and organizational behavior (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 5463.

Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (in press). Moral conflict and procedural justice: Moral mandates as constraints to voice effects. Australian Journal of Psychology.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRef

Black, G. D. (1994). Hollywood censored: Morality codes, catholics, and the movies. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Bowers, W. J. (1984). Legal homocide: Death as punishment in America, 1864–1982. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 201–261). New York: Free Press.

Darwin, D. O. (1982). Public attitudes toward life and death. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 521–533.CrossRef

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.CrossRef

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.PubMedCrossRef

Heuer, L., Penrod, S., Hafer, C. L., & Cohn, I. (2002). The role of resource and relational concerns for procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1468–1482.CrossRef

Hunt, A. (1999). Governing morals: A social history of moral regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lester, D. (2000). Is there a consistent pro-life attitude? Advances in Psychology, 1, 1–9.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.PubMedCrossRef

Meier, K. J. (1994). The politics of sin. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Mooney, C. Z. (2001). The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy. In C. Z. Mooney (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press.

Mullen, E., & Nadler, J. (2008). Moral spillovers: The effects of moral violations on deviant behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.001.

Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2006). Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, identification, or affect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 629–643.PubMedCrossRef

Napier, J. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Does moral conviction really override concerns about procedural justice? A reexamination of the value protection model. Social Justice Research, doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0083-y

Nucci, L. P., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social concepts in pre-school children. Child Development, 49, 400–407.CrossRef

Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking. A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Woodrell, A. J., & Bembenek, A. F. (2003). Justice within social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 394–387.CrossRef

Skitka, L. J. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419–1429.CrossRef

Skitka, L. J. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity approach to why and how people think about justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 286–297.PubMedCrossRef

Skitka, L. J. (2006). Legislating morality: How deep is the U.S. Supreme Court’s reservoir of good will? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Justice Research, Berlin, Germany.

Skitka, L. J. (2007). Morality as a constraint on deference to authority. Paper presented at the 11th Ontario Symposium: Justice and Legitimacy, Waterloo.

Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (in press). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In R. Bobocel, A. Kay, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy, 11th Ontario Symposium.

Skitka, L. J., & Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29, 29–54.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2008). Morality and justice: An expanded theoretical perspective and review. In K. A. Hedgvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917.PubMedCrossRef

Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justice Research, 14, 305–326.CrossRef

Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419–1429.CrossRef

Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.PubMedCrossRef

Turiel, E. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493–1503.CrossRef

Title: Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler
Authors: Linda J. Skitka
Elizabeth Mullen
Publication date: 01-12-2008
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Social Justice Research / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0085-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

Implicit Outgroup Favoritism and Intergroup Judgment: The Moderating Role of Stereotypic Context

Profiles in Social Justice Research—Elaine Hatfield

Does Moral Conviction Really Override Concerns About Procedural Justice? A Reexamination of the Value Protection Model

Is a Refrigerator Good or Evil? The Moral Evaluation of Everyday Objects

A Cross-Cultural View of Adults’ Perceptions of Children’s Rights

E-Mail Communication and Group Cooperation in Mixed Motive Contexts