Interpersonal justice is fostered when authorities adhere to which two particular rules?


In recent years, scholars of criminal justice and criminology have brought legitimacy to the forefront of academic and policy discussion. The focus has been primarily – though not exclusively – on legitimacy within policing, with the most common approach framing legitimacy as a self-regulatory scheme that can enhance widespread voluntary compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities. In the most influential definition, institutional trust is assumed to be an integral element of legitimacy (Tyler, 2006a, 2006b). For an individual to find the police to be legitimate, for instance, she must feel that it is her positive duty to obey the instructions of police officers (she grants the police the rightful authority to dictate appropriate behavior), but she must also believe that police officers exercise their power appropriately. In this chapter we argue that the nature, measurement and motivating force of trust and legitimacy is in need of further explication. Considering these two concepts in a context of a type of authority that is both coercive and consent-based in nature, we make the case that legitimacy is (a) the belief that an institution exhibits properties that justify its power and (b) a duty to obey that emerges out of this sense of appropriateness; that trust is about positive expectations about valued behavior from institutional officials; and that legitimacy and institutional trust overlap if one assumes that people judge the appropriateness of the police as an institution on the basis of the appropriateness of officers' use of power. Our discussion will, we hope, be of broad theoretical and policy interest.

This chapter calls attention to a paradigmatic shift in the organizational justice literature, in which fairness serves as the dependent rather than independent variable. Drawing on two taxonomic dimensions, we structure approaches to studying fairness as a consequence rather than as a cause. One dimension refers to the focal party whose reactions are being examined (the actor, the recipient, and the observer) whereas the other consists of the nature of the reaction itself (behavior, desire, and perception). We sample selectively from the nine cells emanating from the 3 3 classification scheme, emphasizing conceptual and empirical works that advance our understanding of fairness or connect fairness with other literatures in organizational and social psychology, such as ethics, social hierarchy, trust, self-handicapping, and construal level theory. Thus, we illustrate how the study of fairness as a dependent variable enriches not only theory and research in organizational justice, bu...

We review the concepts of legitimacy, trust, and legal cynicism in the context of the debate about police legitimacy, discuss the extent to which these concepts relate to each other, and offer some early, speculative thoughts on how a relational model of legitimacy can extend beyond procedural justice concerns. Relying upon procedural justice theory, we emphasise the distinction between police legitimacy and legitimation: popular legitimacy is defined as public beliefs that legal authority has the right to rule (people acknowledge the moral appropriateness of legal authority) and the authority to govern (people recognise legal authority as the rightful authority), whereas legitimation is related to the criteria people use to judge the normative appropriateness of legal agents’ exercise of power (e.g., the extent to which police officers are trustworthy to behave in accordance with people’s normative expectations). Building on studies on legal cynicism and legal socialisation, we consider how other aspects of police conduct can send negative relational messages about people’s value within society and undermine their judgements about the legitimacy of legal authority – messages of oppression, marginalisation, and neglect over the life course. We conclude suggesting avenues for future research on public-police relations.

Positive public perceptions are a critical pillar of the criminal justice system but the literature addressing them often fails to offer clear advice regarding the important constructs or the relationships among them. The research reported here sought to take an important step toward this clarity by recruiting a national convenience sample to complete an online survey about the police in the respondent’s community which included measures of the process-based model of legitimacy and the classic model of trust. Our results suggest that although both are predictive, the models can be integrated in a way that allows the strengths of each model to address the weaknesses of the other. We therefore present this model as a first step toward an Integrated Framework of Police Legitimacy that can meaningfully incorporate much of the existing scholarship and provide clearer guidance for those who seek to address these constructs in research and practice.

This chapter introduces a notion of social/ethical norm that integrates its description as a self- sustaining regularity of behavior with the normative meanings of the statements by which a norm is formulated in the moral language. This definition is applied to organizational ethics where the main problem Ð abuse of authority - is identified with the help of a critical reading of the new-institutional economic theory of the firm. Given a game theoretical definition of an institution, it is then shown that only by integrating it with the social contract as shared mode of reasoning the process of convergence to the beliefs system that backs an equilibrium institution may be started. Thus the chapter illustrates the egalitarian social contract as both an impartial justification for organizational constitutions and as an equilibrium selection device. It is shown that equilibrium selection through the social contract solves the problem of legitimization of authority in the organizational...

Abstract: Over the years, research has shown that, although there are various factors which contribute to failed change, one of the key reasons people resist change is due to the inability of leaders to convince employees to support change and to commit the energy and effort necessary to implement it. Senior management can ensure an organization is change-ready by developing and maintaining a supportive culture and climate that positively influence the emotional health and welfare of employees.

Which of the following are rules of procedural justice?

Procedural justice speaks to four principles, often referred to as the four pillars: 1) being fair in processes, 2) being transparent in actions, 3) providing opportunity for voice, and 4) being impartial in decision making.

Which of the following defines procedural justice?

Answer and Explanation: The correct option is C) Fairness of the process used to make a decision. Procedural justice is a primary content of organizational justice and it implies fairness in the decision-making process.

What type of justice reflects the interpreted fairness of decision

Procedural justice: Fairness of decision-making processes Whereas distributive justice focuses on outcomes, procedural justice focuses on the fairness of the decision-making or process that leads to these outcomes. Employees perceive procedural justice when they feel they can voice their opinion regarding the process.

What is the employee's perception that the authority adheres to a set of values and principles that the trustor finds acceptable?

Character: Defined as the perception that the authority adheres to a set of values and principles that the trustor finds acceptable.