FIND DATA: By Journal | Sites   ANALYZE DATA: Help with R | SPSS | Stata | Excel   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | IR | Law & Courts🎵
   FIND DATA: By Journal | Sites   WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | IR | Law & Courts🎵
WHAT'S NEW? US Politics | IR | Law & Courts🎵
If this link is broken, please report as broken. You can also submit updates (will be reviewed).

Procedural Fairness Overrated? Outcomes Trump Acceptance in Policy Decisions

Outcome FairnessDecision AcceptanceProcedural TheoryPolicy DecisionsPolitical BehaviorBJPS53 Stata filesDataverse
Political Behavior subfield banner

This article questions the central role of procedures in decision acceptance.

While acknowledging procedural fairness' importance, we argue outcome favorability is paramount.

➡️ Our Core Argument:

  • Procedural means have limited impact on accepting government policy decisions
  • Outcome fairness overwhelmingly determines willingness to accept authoritative decisions

➡️ New Insights from Data & Methods:

We unified key variables into one causal model and tested it using experimental data.

➡️ Key Findings:

Our results confirm previous research but show procedures' lesser importance.

Both vignette studies and field experiments support our outcome-focused predictions.

Article card for article: Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision-Acceptance
Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision-Acceptance was authored by Peter Esaiasson, Mikael Persson, Mikael Gilljam and Torun Lindholm. It was published by Cambridge in BJPS in 2019.
Find on Google Scholar
Find on JSTOR
Find on CUP
British Journal of Political Science
Edit article record marker