Procedural justice: Inclusive process for inclusive growth, E. Allan Lind

download Procedural justice: Inclusive process for inclusive growth, E. Allan Lind

of 14

Embed Size (px)

description

Presentation by E. Allan Lind, James L. Vincent Distinguished Professor of Leadership, Duke University, at the 6th Expert Meeting on Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy, Academic Speaker, The Hague, 16-18 June 2014. Further information is available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/

Transcript of Procedural justice: Inclusive process for inclusive growth, E. Allan Lind

  • Procedural Justice: Inclusive Process for Inclusive Growth E. Allan Lind 1
  • The Passport and the iPad 2
  • The Science of Inclusion and Exclusion Forty years of research in psychology and cognitive neuroscience shows: People have an economic, problem-solving brainand a social, relationship- oriented brain; The social brain plays the major role in how people react to inclusion and exclusion; Perceptions of fair and unfair treatment are key indicators of inclusion and exclusion. 3
  • The Brains Reaction to Exclusion Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, Science, 2003. 4
  • What Are Procedural Justice Judgments? Judgments of how fairly one has been treated What procedural justice judgments are not: Not judgments about abstract fairness Not ratings of immediate satisfaction Not judgments about fairness of the outcome Perceived fairness judgments in reaction to experiences with government are largely determined by the process encounteredhence, procedural justice. 5
  • Procedural Justice: Why? Reason 1: Build trust in government; legitimacy and obedience to law. Reason 2: Increase voluntary acceptance of and compliance with regulations and decisions. Reason 3: Beneficence. 6
  • Reason 1: Build Trust and Legitimacy 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 Perceived Fairness of Process Legitimacy of Law Fairness and LegitimacyCanberra RISE Experiment Procedural Justice Intervention Conventional Procedure Tyler, Sherman, Stang, Barnes, & Woods, Law & Soc Rev, 2007. 7
  • Reason 2: Compliance and Acceptance 8 1 2 3 4 5 Hearing Process Fair Hearing Process Unfair Willingness to Accept New Environmental Regulations See, JPSP, 2009. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hearing Process Fair Hearing Process Unfair % Accepting Hearing Officer's Decision Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & Park, ASQ, 1993.
  • Reason 3: Beneficence Just as we react to exclusion in same way we react to physical pain, perceived fairness activates the same brain centers as does material reward: 9 Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, Psy Science, 2008
  • Procedural Justice: How? Three major factors produce higher perceived fairness if present and lower perceived fairness if absent: Voice Respectful and dignified treatment Explanations and information 10
  • How to Improve Perceived Fairness Voice: Opportunity to present ones views and evidence Not direct control over decision or outcome But there must be evidence of consideration Respect and dignity Explanations Example: Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET); Random Breath Testing 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 Experimental RBT Conventional RBT Perceived Procedural Fairness Perceived Procedural Fairness 11 Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, & Eggins, J Exp Criminol, 2012.
  • Procedural Fairness and Training Sometimes procedural justice involves formal elements of process, but all three elements of perceived procedural fairness depend on how processes are executed. Thus, training is a key factor in enhancing the perceived fairness of regulatory design and administration experiences. Note the attention given to training in the Dutch Fair Tracks program, and the very positive procedural fairness reactions produced. 12
  • Evaluating Perceived Fairness Surveys and interviews. Randomized experiments are of course the most useful designs. The training component offers the opportunity to use randomized roll- out and/or randomized dosage designs. Constant monitoring is very useful to maintain quality of treatment. Use process, perception, and outcome metrics to guide evaluations. 13
  • Closing Remarks Strong scientific literature on the psychology of inclusion and perceived fairness. Positive reactions to inclusion and negative reactions to exclusion are not just about material outcomesinclusion and fairness concerns are built into the human brain. Perceived procedural fairness promotes trust in government; compliance with decisions. Procedural fairness can be enhanced by improving voice, respectful and dignified treatment, and explanations. Careful and rigorous evaluation is critical, because so much depends on training and execution. 14