Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:13:46.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

James L. Gibson
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This research examines the linkages among institutional legitimacy, perceptions of procedural justice, and voluntary compliance with unpopular institutional decisions within the context of political intolerance and repression. Several questions are addressed, including: To what degree do judicial decisions contribute to the acceptance of unpopular political decisions? Do court decisions have a greater power to legitimize than the decisions of other political institutions? Are courts perceived as more procedurally fair than other political institutions? Do perceptions of procedural fairness—be it in a court or legislative institution—contribute to the efficacy of institutional decisions? The basic hypothesis of this research is that to the extent that an institution employs fair decisionmaking procedures, it is viewed as legitimate and citizens are more likely to comply with its decisions, even when they are unpopular. Based on an analysis of national survey data, I conclude that, although perceptions of institutional procedure have little impact on compliance, institutional legitimacy does seem to have some effect. The United States Supreme Court in particular seems to have some ability to elicit acceptance of public policies that are unpopular with the mass public. This effect is greatest among opinion leaders. I conclude with some observations about how these findings fit with the growing literature on procedural justice and with some thoughts about the implications of the findings for the protection of democratic liberty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , 1989 , pp. 469 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

This article is a revised version of a paper delivered at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association. It is based on research funded by the National Science Foundation (SES Grant No. 86-06642). I am deeply indebted to Felice Levine at the Foundation for support for the project. A number of colleagues have contributed significantly to the development of the research, including Jonathan Casper, James Davis, Jennifer Hochschild, Stanley Presser, Lee Sigelman, Paul M. Sniderman, John L. Sullivan, and Tom Tyler. James P. Wenzel and Peter J. Van Koppen have made useful comments on draft versions of this paper. I am also indebted to the National Opinion Research Center — and especially to Dick Rubin — for their excellent execution of the survey. James P. Wenzel, Bernadette McKinney, Steven Shamberger, and Marilyn Yale provided quite helpful research assistance. This paper also makes use of General Social Survey data, made available to me through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Kathleen McGraw, Walter Murphy, and Tom Tyler provided most helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. I am also thankful for the extremely thorough and thoughtful reviews provided by the referees.

References

References

ADAMANY, David (1973) “Legitimacy, Realigning Elections, and the Supreme Court,” 1973 Wisconsin Law Review 790.Google Scholar
ADAMANY, David, and Joel B., GROSSMAN (1983) “Support for the Supreme Court as a National Policymaker,” 5 Law and Policy Quarterly 405.Google Scholar
ADLER, Jane W., Deborah R., HENSLER, and Charles E., NELSON (1983) Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
BAAS, Larry R., and Dan, THOMAS (1984) “The Supreme Court and Policy Legitimation: Experimental Tests,” 12 American Politics Quarterly 335.Google Scholar
BARNUM, David G. (1982) “Decision Making in a Constitutional Democracy: Policy Formation in the Skokie Free Speech Controversy,” 44 Journal of Politics 480.Google Scholar
BICKEL, Alexander (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
BLACK, Charles Jr. (1960) The People and the Court. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
CALDEIRA, Gregory A. (1986) “Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court,” 80 American Political Science Review 1209.Google Scholar
CALDEIRA, Gregory A., and James L., GIBSON (1989) “The Etiology of Support for the Supreme Court,” Paper presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 13-15, 1989.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D. (1976) “The Supreme Court and National Policy-Making,” 70 American Political Science Review 50.Google Scholar
COOPER, Joel (1976) “Deception and Role-Playing: On Telling the Good Guys from the Bad Guys,” 31 American Psychologist 605.Google Scholar
COOPER, Phillip J. (1988) Hard Judicial Choices: Federal District Court Judges and State and Local Officials. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
CROWNE, Douglas P., and David, MARLOWE (1960) “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” 24 Journal of Consulting Psychology 349.Google Scholar
DAHL, Robert A. (1971) Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
DAHL, Robert A. (1957) “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court seems a National Policy-Maker,” 6 Journal of Public Law 279.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1975) “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support,” 5 British Journal of Political Science 435.Google Scholar
EASTON, David (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
ENGSTROM, Richard L., and Micheal W., GILES (1972) “Expectations and Images: A Note on Diffuse Support for Legal Institutions,” 6 Law & Society Review 631.Google Scholar
FORWARD, John, Rachelle, CANTER, and Ned, KIRSCH (1976) “Role-Enactment and Deception Methodologies: Alternative Paradigms?” 31 American Psychologist 595.Google Scholar
FUNSTON, Richard (1975) “The Supreme Court and Critical Elections,” 69 American Political Science Review 795.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (in press) “The Structure of Attitudinal Tolerance in the United States,” British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1986) “Pluralistic Intolerance in America: A Reconsideration,” 14 American Politics Quarterly 267.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L. (1987) “Homosexuals and the Ku Klux Klan: A Contextual Analysis of Political Intolerance,” 40 Western Political Quarterly 427.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L., and Richard D., BINGHAM (1985) Civil Liberties and Nazis: The Skokie Free-Speech Controversy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
GIBSON, James L., and Kent L., TEDIN (1988) “The Etiology of Intolerance of Homosexual Politics,” 69 Social Science Quarterly 587.Google Scholar
HAMLIN, David (1980) The Nazi/Skokie Conflict: A Civil Liberties Battle. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
HYDE, Alan (1983) “The Concept of Legitimation in the Sociology of Law,” 1983 Wisconsin Law Review 379.Google Scholar
JAROS, Dean, and Robert I., MENDELSOHN (1967) “The Judicial Role and Sentencing Behavior,” 11 Midwest Journal of Political Science 471.Google Scholar
JAROS, Dean and Robert, ROPER (1980) “The U.S. Supreme Court: Myth, Diffuse Support, Specific Support, and Legitimacy,” 8 American Politics Quarterly. 85.Google Scholar
LEHNE, Richard, and John, REYNOLDS (1978) “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public Opinion,” 22 American Journal of Political Science 896.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, and Tom R., TYLER (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCLOSKY, Herbert, and Alida, BRILL (1983) Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe About Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A., and Richard J., MAIMAN (1986) “In Search of Legitimacy: Toward an Empirical Analysis,” 8 Law and Policy 257.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A. (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance Through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Review II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A. (1981) “Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment,” 33 Maine Law Review 237.Google Scholar
MUELLER, John (1988) “Trends in Political Tolerance,” 52 Public Opinion Quarterly 1.Google Scholar
MULLER, Edward N. (1979) Aggressive Political Participation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
MURPHY, Walter F., and Joseph, TANENHAUS (1969) “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: A Preliminary Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes,” in Grossman, J. B. and Tanenhaus, J. (eds.), Frontiers of Judicial Research. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
MURPHY, Walter F. (1968) “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes,” 2 Law & Society Review 357.Google Scholar
RASINSKI, Kenneth, Tom R., TYLER, and Kim, FRIDKIN (1985) “Exploring the Function of Legitimacy: Mediating Effects of Personal and Institutional Legitimacy on Leadership Endorsement and System Support,” 49 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 386.Google Scholar
STOUFFER, Samuel C. (1955) Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
SULLIVAN, John L., and George E., MARCUS (1988) “A Note on Trends in Political Tolerance,'” 52 Public Opinion Quarterly 26.Google Scholar
SULLIVAN, John L., James E., PIERESON, and George E., MARCUS (1982) Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
SULLIVAN, John L., Michal, SHAMIR, Patrick, WALSH, and Nigel S., ROBERTS (1985) Political Tolerance in Context: Support for Unpopular Minorities in Israel, New Zealand, and the United States. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (forthcoming) Why People Follow the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1988) “What Is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures,” 22 Law & Society Review 103.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1984) “The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants' Evaluations of Their Courtroom Experience,” 18 Law & Society Review 51.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., Kenneth A., RASINSKI, and Eugene, GRIFFIN (1986) “Alternative Images of the Citizen: Implications for Public Policy,” 41 American Psychologist 970.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., Kenneth A., RASINSKI, and McGRAW, Kathleen M. (1985) “The Influence of Perceived Injustice on the Endorsement of Political Leaders,” 15 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 700.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Collin v. Smith, 447 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Ill. 1978).Google Scholar
Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar