1 / 17

Diane Sivasubramaniam

Diane Sivasubramaniam. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities The Psychology of Procedural Justice. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities. P rocedural Justice R easoning. Motivation driving procedural fairness judgments Value to social group

sevita
Download Presentation

Diane Sivasubramaniam

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diane Sivasubramaniam • Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • The Psychology of Procedural Justice

  2. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Procedural Justice Reasoning • Motivation driving procedural fairness judgments • Value to social group Lind & Tyler (1988); Tyler & Lind (1992) Procedural fairness judgments & Procedural satisfaction judgments Respectful treatment

  3. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Authorities vs. Subordinates • But for authorities: • Procedural fairness and satisfaction primarily influenced by outcomes Heuer, Penrod & Kattan (2007) • Why the difference? • Subordinates  relational concerns • Authorities  protect social group Sivasubramaniam, Heuer, Becker, Hobgood & Newkirk (2008); Sivasubramaniam & Heuer (in press) • Investigate authorities’ justice reasoning in interrogations

  4. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Method • Participants • 87 males, 173 females (3 did not report) • Mean age:35.51 • Procedure • Read a story about a crime and police interrogation of suspect

  5. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Manipulations

  6. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Manipulations

  7. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Manipulations

  8. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Manipulations

  9. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Dependent measures • Procedural fairness (5 items) • e.g., The procedure used by the police officer during the interrogation was fair • Procedural satisfaction (2 items) • e.g., I was pleased with the procedure the police officer used to interrogate the suspect • Outcome fairness (3 items) • e.g., This interrogation will produce a fair result • Outcome satisfaction (2 items) • e.g., I would be satisfied with the outcome that an interrogation procedure like this one would produce

  10. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Procedural Fairness d = 1.17 d = 1.58 d = 1.42

  11. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Procedural Satisfaction d = 1.26 d = 1.24

  12. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Outcome Fairness d = 0.75 d = 0.97

  13. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Outcome Satisfaction d = 0.65 d = 0.78

  14. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Summary and conclusions • Treatment of suspect more important for: • Subordinates • than Authorities • Authorities’ perspectives: • Participants randomly assigned to be authorities • Affects views on fairness of interrogation

  15. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Summary and conclusions • Treatment of suspect more important for: • Subordinates and Neutral observers • than Authorities • Authorities’ perspectives: • Participants randomly assigned to be authorities • Affects views on fairness of interrogation

  16. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Ongoing Research • Intelligence interviewers’ beliefs about interrogation practices Funded project: Goodman-Delahunty, Sivasubramaniam & Greene US Federal Bureau of Investigation October 2011 – October 2013

  17. C • Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities • Thank you! • dsivasubramaniam@swin.edu.au

More Related