This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San

Francisco]
On: 18 December 2014, At: 23:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural

Resources: An International
Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Measuring Fairness in
Citizen Participation:
A Case Study of Moose
Management
T BRUCE LAUBER
Published online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: T BRUCE LAUBER (1999) Measuring Fairness in Citizen

Participation: A Case Study of Moose Management, Society & Natural Resources:
An International Journal, 12:1, 19-37, DOI: 10.1080/089419299279867

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419299279867

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
 reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014
 Measuring Fairness in Citizen Participation: A Case
Study of Moose Management

T. BRUCE LAUBER
BARBARA A. KNUTH
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

W e conducted a case study of the citizen participation processes used by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) when deciding
whether to reintroduce moose to New York. W e studied how citizens perceived the
fairness and quality of the process and identiŽed the criteria on which they based
their perceptions. Our work was grounded in research on the social psychology of
procedural fairness. Research was conducted in three phases : a document analysis,
a series of interviews, and a mail survey of citizens who commented on the issue.
Citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of the process were related to four criteria :
DEC’s receptivity to citizen input ; the inuence citizens had over the decision; the
quality of DEC’s knowledge and reasoning ; and the degree to which relationships
improved during the process. Perceptions of the fairness of the process were related
to satisfaction with the process, perceptions of fairness of the decision, and satisfac-
tion with DEC.

Keywords citizen participation, decision making, moose, procedural fairness,

social psychology, wildlife management

Since the early 1970s, citizen participation has been emphasized in natural resource
management decision making. Some theorists advocate participation because of
concerns about fairness, arguing that involving citizens in making decisions about
issues that a€ ect them is fundamental to democratic governance (Checkoway and
Van Til 1978 ; Langton 1978 ; Rosenbaum 1978 ; Kweit and Kweit 1981). Many
authors contend that incorporating citizens into decision-making processes will
make those processes more acceptable to citizens, leading to a variety of bene® ts,
including : helping to ensure the implementation of management plans (Flanigan
1987 ; Landre and Knuth 1993), improving the relationship between management
agencies and the public (Carey 1984 ; Landre and Knuth 1993), and reducing con¯ ict
over resource management (Nelkin 1984 ; Blahna and Yonts-Shepherd 1989).
Despite the contention that citizen participation opportunities can improve the
fairness and acceptability of decision making to citizens, few studies have explored

Received 9 February 1998 ; accepted 12 February 1998.

The authors acknowledge with appreciation the role played by Jim Farquhar, Al Hicks, Art
Johnsen, Dave Nelson, and Dave Riehlman of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, who oversaw this research project. We also appreciate the
cooperation and assistance of interviewees and mail survey respondents ; sta€ of the Human Dimensions
Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University ; and reviewers of various drafts of
this article. This research was funded by the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion and is a contribution of New York Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant WE-173-G, Job
146-02-02 ; and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station through Hatch project 1476420 .
Address correspondence to T. Bruce Lauber, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of
Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.

Society & Natural Resources, 11 : 19­ 37, 1999

Copyright Ó 1999 Taylor & Francis
0894-1920/99 $12.00 1 .00 19
 20 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

how citizens evaluate the fairness and acceptability of natural resource decision-
making procedures that incorporate substantial opportunities for participation.
Social psychologists, however, have explored similar questions for other types of
decision-making procedures, such as legal procedures and workplace decision
making, and have found that fairness is often a major consideration in how people
form their subjective impressions of these procedures (e.g., Lind et al. 1978 ; Lind
and Tyler 1988 ; Kitzmann and Emery 1993). We used these studies as a theoretical
framework for (1) exploring how citizens perceived the quality and fairness of a
particular decision-making process, the process used by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to decide whether or not to
reintroduce moose to northern New York and (2) to identify the criteria that served
as the basis of these perceptions. Other components of this study focused on how
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

citizens’ perceptions of the process were a€ ected by the ways in which they partici-
pated in it (e.g., attending a meeting, responding to a survey) (Lauber and Knuth
1997) and how DEC’s conceptualization of the process in¯ uenced the quality of
citizen participation activities (Lauber and Knuth, 1998).

The Social Psychology of Procedural Fairness

Although social psychologists have made major contributions to our understanding
of how people judge the fairness of procedures, few have o€ ered clear de® nitions of
fairness. Many of these researchers are interested in subjective perceptions of fair-
ness and may not, therefore, state explicitly what fairness is. Nevertheless, some type
of de® nition is necessary to distinguish the types of perceptions that are related to
fairness from those that are not.
Fairness judgments are judgments about the appropriateness of allocation deci-
sions or decision-making processes (Leventhal et al., 1980 ; Blanchard, 1986 ; Lind
and Tyler, 1988 ; Albin, 1993). An allocation decision is a decision that distributes
resources or obligations within society. Thus, allocation decision making occurs in
courtrooms (in which judges provide compensation for some and impose penalties
on others), workplaces (in which decisions about salaries or budgets bene® t some
and impose costs on others), and public policymaking processes (in which societal
resources and obligations are distributed among citizens). A fairness judgement can
be made according to a variety of standards, not all of which are compatible.
Fairness can be characterized as distributive or procedural (Lind and Tyler
1988). Distributive fairness refers to the fairness of decisions. Procedural fairness
refers to the fairness of the processes used to produce these decisions. For the pur-
poses of this study, we de® ned a procedural fairness judgment as a judgement about
the adequacy of a procedure for producing an appropriate allocation of resources
and obligations. Little research has been devoted to the procedural fairness of public
policy decision-making processes, the focus of this study (but see Leung and Li
1990 ; Tyler and Degoey 1995).
Procedural fairness perceptions are important for several reasons. Fairness has
been found consistently to in¯ uence how people evaluate procedures. Fairness
judgments are typically correlated closely with participants’ satisfaction with a
procedure (LaTour 1978), and are often more important than non-fairness con-
siderations (Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986). If participants perceive decision-
making procedures as fair, they are more likely to perceive decisions as fair
(Folger 1977 ; Lind et al. 1980 ; Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler and Rasinski
1991). Perceptions of procedural fairness are often correlated with satisfaction with
 Measuring Fairness 21

or support for decision makers or leaders responsible for a decision (Tyler and
Caine 1981 ; Tyler, Rasinski, and McGraw 1985 ; Tyler, Rasinski, and Spodick 1985 ;
Tyler 1988 ; Tyler and Rasinski 1991 ; Tyler and Degoey 1995).
Although research has consistently supported the importance of procedural fair-
ness judgments, researchers have drawn a variety of conclusions about what criteria
participants use in deciding a procedure is fair. Early work concluded that percep-
tions of fairness were related to decision control, or the amount of in¯ uence partici-
pants have over the outcome of a procedure (Thibaut and Walker 1978). More
recent work has found that perceptions of fairness are related to process control, the
opportunity to present evidence or voice an opinion during the course of a pro-
cedure (Folger 1977 ; LaTour 1978 ; Lind et al. 1978, 1983 ; Tyler Rasinski, and
Spodick 1985 ; Tyler 1987 ; Bies and Shapiro 1988 ; Leung and Li 1990).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Other criteria may improve perceptions of procedural fairness. These include:

(1) the consistency with which a procedure is applied across time and individuals
(Leventhal 1980 ; Barret-Howard and Tyler 1986); (2) the neutrality of the decision
maker (Leventhal 1980 ; Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler 1988, 1989 ; Tyler
and Griffin 1991); (3) the accuracy of information used in a process (Leventhal 1980 ;
Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler, 1988 ; Tyler and Griffin 1991); (4) the exis-
tence of opportunities to correct or modify a decision after it is made (Leventhal
1980 ; Tyler 1988); (5) the representation in the decision-making process of impor-
tant perspectives (Leventhal 1980 ; Tyler 1988); (6) the maintenance of ethical stan-
dards during the course of a decision-making process (Leventhal 1980 ;
Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler 1988); (7) the trustworthiness of the decision
maker (Tyler 1988, 1989); (8) the politeness and respect with which participants are
treated by the decision maker (Tyler 1989 ; Kitzmann and Emery, 1993); and (10) the
degree of control over the decision achieved by a€ ected parties (Tyler and Griffin
1991 ; Kitzmann and Emery 1993).
Criteria used to judge procedural fairness vary under di€ erent circumstances.
Participation in decision making (process control) does not always improve fairness
perceptions. For example, a ‘‘frustration e€ ect’’ has been observed in studies of
employer­ employee relations, in which employees’ frustration with a decision-
making process sometimes increase after their participation in it, actually lowering
their perceptions of the fairness of the process (Cohen 1985). In such cases,
employees may distrust their employers and view e€ orts to encourage their partici-
pation in decision making as insincere. Similarly, citizens participating in the same
decision-making process judge procedural fairness di€ erently depending on their
opinion of the outcome of the decision-making process (Leung and Li 1990) or on
the perceived integrity of the decision maker (Lind and Lissak 1985).
The importance of procedural fairness in the subjective evaluation of procedures
and decisions varies relative to other considerations (such as obtaining a satisfactory
outcome). Gender, the favorability of the decision, the quality of the outcome, and
the level of con¯ ict all may be related to the relative importance of procedural
fairness (Kitzmann and Emery 1993). The importance of procedural fairness and the
criteria used to judge it thus may di€ er substantially in di€ erent contexts. Neverthe-
less, insights into the standards citizens use to judge the fairness of natural-resource
policymaking processes could aid in the design of these processes in the future.
Therefore, we (1) explored how citizens perceived the fairness of a natural resource
policy decision-making process in which there was substantial opportunity for
citizen participation and (2) identi® ed the criteria on which their fairness judgments
were based.
 22 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

Issue Background
Moose are native to New York State, but were extirpated by the early twentieth
century because of overhunting and habitat destruction. Since that time an
occasional stray moose has entered New York from Canada or Vermont. It was not
until about 1980, however, that a small permanent moose population lived again in
the Adirondack region of northern New York. The best estimate of the size of the
population today is about 50 animals. Biologists expect this population to continue
to increase naturally and to reach a level of about 1300 within 40 years (Hicks and
McGowan 1992).
Because a small moose population already existed in New York, DEC’s reintro-
duction proposal was really a proposal to accelerate a naturally occurring process.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

The agency proposed transporting approximately 100 additional animals into the
state over a period of several years. With these additional animals present, DEC
expected the population to increase to 1300 animals within 20 years, or about 20
years sooner than would occur naturally. The total cost of the reintroduction e€ ort
was estimated at about $1.3 million (Hicks and McGowan 1992).
DEC structured numerous opportunities for citizen participation in the process
of making a decision about whether to proceed with the proposal. Early in the
process, four scoping meetings were held to understand the concerns citizens might
have if moose were reintroduced. Based partly on the input received at these
sessions, DEC developed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describing the
reintroduction proposal, alternative moose management options, and the anticipated
consequences of each option. The EIS was released to the public in June 1992.
A public comment period followed the release of the EIS. As part of this
comment period, DEC held 15 public meetings throughout New York State to
explain the reintroduction proposal and accept citizen comments. About half of
these meetings were held in northern New York, the region where moose were to be
reintroduced. DEC also solicited letters from interested citizens. Finally, in Decem-
ber 1992, DEC conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected residents of
northern New York to determine what a representative sample of northern New
Yorkers thought about the issue.
Based on the input received during the public comment period, DEC decided to
abandon the reintroduction proposal and let moose continue to return naturally to
New York. They announced this decision in March 1993. We studied how citizens
who commented on the reintroduction issue perceived the fairness of the decision-
making process.

Methods
We used past procedural fairness research to provide a theoretical framework for
this study. We recognized, however, that the criteria citizens used to judge the
quality and fairness of a natural-resource policymaking process could be di€ erent
from those criteria used to judge the quality and fairness of the types of decision-
making processes on which much of the past research focused (e.g., legal decision
making, workplace decision making). Therefore, we did not restrict ourselves to
evaluating how citizens perceived the process from the perspective of criteria that
were identi® ed in other work. Rather, we adopted a research approach that allowed
us both to (1) identify the criteria that were used by citizens in their evaluation of
 Measuring Fairness 23

this decision-making process and (2) determine how a representative sample of citi-
zens who commented on the reintroduction issue perceived the process according to
these criteria.
We conducted our research retrospectively ; the ® nal moose management deci-
sion was announced in March 1993, and our research was conducted in 1994. This
timing had some disadvantages and some advantages. We expected citizens’ memor-
ies of the decision-making process to be less vivid because of the passage of time.
The delay in our research, however, allowed public discussion about the issue to
subside in the community before we assessed citizens’ perceptions. Given that we
expected that citizens’ perceptions of the process may have been in¯ uenced by the
process itself, the decision it produced, and by public discussion in the aftermath of
the decision, the timing of our research allowed all of these factors to exert their
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

in¯ uence before we assessed these perceptions. Consequently, we expected the per-
ceptions we measured to be more stable than they would have been earlier in the
process.
Our research took place in three phases : an analysis of public and agency docu-
ments related to the decision-making process ; a series of interviews of citizens and
DEC sta€ members who had been involved in the process; and a mail survey of
citizens. The analysis of documents and interviews was the ® rst step in identifying
those criteria that citizens used to evaluate the process. We categorized citizens’
statements about the quality of the process according to the implicit or explicit
criteria on which these statements were based (e.g., quality of information available
during the process, adequacy of opportunities for citizen participation, etc.). In order
to make sure that our category system re¯ ected citizens’ perspectives, we generated
these categories during the process of analysis rather than applying a predetermined
list of categories to the data (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The ® nal category system
developed in this step provided us with a preliminary list of criteria on which citi-
zens’ judgements about the decision-making process were based. These procedures
are described in more detail in Lauber and Knuth (1998).
The mail survey targeted citizens who had commented to DEC on the moose
reintroduction proposal. It was used to re® ne the list of evaluation criteria identi® ed
in the prior phase of the research to a set that could reliably describe citizens’ per-
ceptions of the process and predict their judgments about the quality of the process.
After pretesting an earlier version of the mail survey on a sample of 23 citizens
yielding 15 completed questionnaires, a list of 12 of the criteria generated during the
interview and document analysis was identi® ed for inclusion in the ® nal mail survey.
After we identi® ed this list of 12 criteria, we reviewed the literature on decision-
making procedures and determined that Susskind and Cruikshank’s theory (1987)
provided a convenient vehicle for organizing our criteria into conceptually similar
groups. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987) identi® ed four important components of a
good decision-making process : (1) fairness, which we de® ned as the adequacy of the
process as a mechanism for allocating costs and bene® ts in an appropriate way
among citizens ; (2) wisdom, or the quality of reasoning and knowledge evident
during the process ; (3) efficiency, or the appropriateness of the cost and time
required to complete the process; and (4) stability, or criteria related to the stability
of the outcomes of the process.
We assigned the six criteria to the fairness categories that we believed were most
closely related to our de® nition of fairness. This group included those measuring
perceptions of (1) whether DEC was impartial during the process (Impartiality); (2)
whether DEC was honest during the process (Honesty); (3) whether all citizens had
 24 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

an equal opportunity to participate in the process (Equal Opportunity); (4) whether

all important viewpoints were adequately represented during the process
(Representation); (5) whether all citizens had the opportunity to voice their opinions
during the process (Voice); and (6) whether citizens in¯ uenced the ® nal moose man-
agement decision (In¯ uence).
The remaining criteria were related to judgments about the quality of the
process, but they were only indirectly related to fairness according to the de® nition
of fairness that we had adopted. We recognized, however, that these criteria might
also in¯ uence procedural fairness judgments. We assigned two of these criteria to
the wisdom category, which measured perceptions of (1) whether DEC was well-
informed about moose management and had good reasons for its management rec-
ommendations (DEC’s Knowledge/Reasoning) and (2) whether citizens who
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

commented on the issue were well-informed about it (Citizens’ Knowledge). The

efficiency category included two criteria measuring perceptions of (1) whether the
process was completed for a reasonable cost (Cost) and (2) whether the process was
completed in a reasonable amount of time (Time). The stability category included
two criteria measuring perceptions of (1) whether the ® nal management decision was
a lasting one (Stable Decision) and (2) whether relationships between stakeholders
improved during the process (Relationships).
Citizens’ perceptions of the process according to each of these 12 criteria were
measured using scales containing two to three items each. Responses to each item
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale on which a response of 5 meant a
respondent strongly agreed with a statement, a response of 3 meant he or she was
neutral, and a response of 1 meant a respondent strongly disagreed with a state-
ment.
Based on our interviews and document analysis, we believed that citizens’ per-
ceptions of the process were related to their evaluative judgments about the process,
the decision it produced, and DEC as the responsible agency. Therefore, we
included additional questions and scales to measure perceptions of the fairness of
the (1) process and (2) decision, and citizens’ satisfaction with (3) the process and (4)
DEC. We also included a scale to assess whether citizens believed their personal
interests had been satis® ed (Interest Satisfaction) because our preliminary analyses
suggested that this also could in¯ uence these evaluative judgments.
A single scale was included to test the appropriateness of the de® nition of fair-
ness we adopted for this study. We realized that our de® nition of fairness, although
based on the work of social psychologists, might not be the de® nition of fairness
implicitly used by citizens when asked about the fairness of the moose management
decision-making process. Therefore, we designed a scale composed of three items
based on our de® nition of fairness. Citizens were asked to rate their level of agree-
ment with the following statements : (1) ‘‘The needs of those citizens that would have
to bear most of the costs of moose reintroduction were considered during the
decision-making process’’; (2) ‘‘the moose management decision-making process did
not protect the legitimate interests of all citizens’’; and (3) ‘‘the degree to which the
bene® ts of moose management would be shared in society was considered during
the decision-making process.’’ The suitability of our de® nition of fairness was tested
by calculating the correlations of responses to the items in this scale with the single
question assessing citizens’ overall perceptions of the fairness of the process. An
additional test was provided by including these items in a factor analysis (Kim and
Mueller 1978), along with a variety of other items and examining the pattern of item
loadings on each factor.
 Measuring Fairness 25

Our implementation of the survey followed Dillman’s (1978) Total Design

Method. Some 1137 questionnaires were mailed to citizens selected randomly from
three di€ erent groups: those who had attended a public meeting, those who had
written a letter to DEC, and those who had responded to DEC’s telephone survey.
If citizens did not return the questionnaire, the initial mailing was followed by a
series of three reminder letters. A second copy of the questionnaire was included
with the second reminder. Some 758 people returned the questionnaires for a
response rate of 66.7% (67.8% among those who had attended public meetings,
66.1% among those who had written letters to DEC, and 66.5% among those who
had responded to DEC’s telephone survey).
The means of all items in each scale were calculated to produce a value for that
scale. If only one item for a scale containing three or more questions was not
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

answered, we calculated the mean value of the remaining items. If more than one
item was unanswered, the case was deleted from the analysis.
To test the validity of the scales, we relied primarily on interitem correlations (in
which we expected stronger correlations between items within a scale than between
items in di€ erent scales) and common-factor analysis (Kim and Mueller 1978) (in
which we expected items within a scale to load strongly on the same factor). As a
check on the reliability of the scales, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha and examined
interitem correlations within scales. We used a path analysis to test whether citizens’
perceptions of the process were related to their evaluative judgments as we had
hypothesized. All statistical calculations were made using SYSTAT 5.03 for
Windows.

Results and Discussion

Fairness DeŽnition
Responses to the three items used to operationalize our de® nition of fairness were
all strongly correlated with each other (r 5 .469­ .551, p , .001) and with responses
to the single item assessing general perceptions of the fairness of the process
(r 5 .508­ .586, p , .001). These three items, together with the general item about the
fairness of the process, loaded strongly on the third factor in a factor analysis (Table
1), which also included a series of other items related to citizens’ perceptions of the
process and the decision it produced. These results demonstrate that citizens
responded to the items in the fairness scale in a manner similar to how they
responded to the single general question about fairness. Our de® nition of fairness
appears consistent with the implicit de® nition of fairness used by citizens who were
involved in the moose reintroduction decision-making process.

Validity
We performed a series of factor analyses and examined correlations between
responses to various survey items to assess the validity of the scales we had pro-
posed. We expected (1) items in the same scales to load heavily on the same factors
in the factor analyses and (2) stronger interitem correlations between items in the
same scales than between items in di€ erent scales.
We found the results we expected for the six scales categorized under Wisdom,
Efficiency, and Stability, con® rming the validity of these scales (Tables 2 and 3). We
did, however, delete the third item from the Relationships scale. This item did not
load onto the same factor as the other items from the same scale, indicating that the
 26 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

TABLE 1 Factor Analysis of Survey Scales and Items Assessing

Respondents’ Overall Evaluation of the Decision-Making Process and the
Decision It Produced
Rotated factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Fair decision ? 0.552 0.197 0.348

Good decision ? 0.751 0.162 0.102
Satis® ed with decision ? 0.874 2 0.013 0.108
Fair decision-making process ? 0.316 0.333 0.528
Good decision-making process ? 0.338 0.274 0.322
Satis® ed with decision-making process ? 2 0.480 2 0.149 2 0.309
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Satisfaction of Interests Scale

Decision did not meet personal interests ? – 0.793 0.033 2 0.103
Decision was one I preferred ? 0.899 2 0.074 0.017
Satisfaction with DEC Scale
Trust DEC to manage wildlife? 2 0.024 0.886 0.249
Satis® ed with DEC as management agency ? 0.015 0.854 0.200
Not satis® ed with how DEC manages wildlife? 0.006 – 0.731 2 0.245
Fair Decision-Making Process Scale
Process considered those bearing costs of
reintroduction ? 0.017 0.221 0.742
Process did not protect legitimate interests of all ? 2 0.193 2 0.320 – 0.511
Process considered how bene® ts of moose.
management would be shared ? 0.156 0.281 0.666

Note. Boldface values indicate items loading most heavily on each factor.

responses to this item were inconsistent with the responses to other items in this
scale.
Our results also indicated, however, that respondents did not readily distinguish
several of the six scales we developed to measure perceptions of the fairness of the
process. We found that items in closely related scales did not load onto separate
factors in the factor analyses for (1) the Honesty and Impartiality scales (Table 4)
and (2) the Equal Opportunity, Representation, and Voice scales (Table 5). Further-
more, the strength of the interitem correlations within either of these two groups of
scales was similar to the strength of the interitem correlations with any individual
scale (Tables 6 and 7).
These results indicate that respondents answered items within these two groups
of scales in similar ways. Items within each group of scales were also related concep-
tually. The Honesty and Impartiality scales both measured characteristics of DEC.
These scales were combined, therefore, into a single scale assessing what we called
DEC’s Receptivity to citizen input. The Equal Opportunity, Representation, and
Voice scales were all related to the adequacy of opportunities for citizens to partici-
pate in the decision-making process. We combined these scales into a single scale
labeled Adequate Participation, although we left out the second item from the
Voice scale, which did not load heavily on any factor in the factor analysis.
Consequently, the 12 scales we had originally proposed as adequate to describe
the characteristics of the decision-making process that were important to citizens
were combined into 9 scales grouped under the categories of Fairness, Wisdom,
Efficiency, and Stability.
 Measuring Fairness 27

TABLE 2 Factor Analysis of Survey Scales Related to the Wisdom of the

Decision-Making Process and Citizens’ Opportunities for Participation and
In¯ uence During the Process
Rotated factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

DEC’s Knowledge/Reasoning Scale

Moose proposal poorly researched by
DEC? 0.266 0.025 0.511 0.283
DEC had no good reasons for decision ? 0.216 2 0.000 0.798 0.182
DEC’s decision not well-reasoned ? 0.245 0.129 0.761 0.174
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Citizens’ Knowledge Scale

Citizens who commented on issue well-
informed ? 0.005 – 0.576 0.044 2 0.020
Public did not understand all issues
involved ? 0.056 0.676 0.121 0.001
Many citizens based comments on
incorrect information ? 2 0.011 0.798 0.001 2 0.033
Voice Scalea
No chance for citizens to say what
they’d like? 0.226 0.032 0.189 0.663
DEC didn’t pay attention to citizens’
reasons ?b 0.420 2 0.044 0.300 0.511
Citizens given opportunity to express
preferences ? 2 0.269 0.046 2 0.161 – 0.633
In¯ uence Scale
Citizens had real e€ ect on decision ? – 0.601 0.001 2 0.208 2 0.287
In¯ uence citizens had over decision
was limited ? 0.696 0.014 0.324 0.327
Citizens had no e€ ect on moose
management policy ? 0.829 0.063 0.237 0.258

Note. Boldface values indicate items loading most heavily on each factor.
a Scale combined with Equal Opportunity and Representation of Viewpoints scales (Table 5) following valid-
ity analysis to form one scale titled Adequate Participation.
b Item deleted following validity analysis.

Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the scales representing each of the 9 criteria
that were identi® ed following the validity analyses (Table 8). Cronbach’s alpha
ranged between .622 and .964 for all 9 scales and between .841 and .964 for the
scales grouped under the category of fairness. We judged the reliability of these
scales to be adequate for the purposes of this study.

Path Analysis
We constructed a path diagram to depict the relationships that we hypothesized
existed between citizens’ perceptions of the process and their evaluative judgments
about the process, the decision it produced, and DEC (Figure 1). We tested the
signi® cance of these relationships by regressing each variable upon the set of vari-
ables that precede it in the diagram. Independent variables that were not signi® -
cantly related to the dependent variable were eliminated from the regressions. Four
 28 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

TABLE 3 Factor Analysis of Survey Scales Related to the Efficiency of the Process
and the Stability of Its Outcomes
Rotated factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Cost Scale
Too much money spent on process ? 0.399 0.172 0.022 0.708
Bene® ts of process worth the costs ? 2 0.123 2 0.131 2 0.281 – 0.781
Time Scale
Too much time required to make
decision ? 0.725 0.076 0.009 0.135
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

DEC should have made decision in

less time? 0.613 0.144 0.042 0.335
Stable Decision Scale
Doubt that decision will last long ? 0.155 0.775 0.153 0.195
Decision will probably change ? 0.083 0.835 0.123 0.132
Reintroduction of moose will
probably be reconsidered ? 0.049 0.701 2 0.002 0.032
Relationships Scale
Relationship between DEC and citizens
improved ? 2 0.183 2 0.150 – 0.715 2 0.231
Citizens will be more respectful of
each other ? 0.074 2 0.039 – 0.664 2 0.034
Interest groups will
have a harder time cooperating ?a 0.282 0.142 0.135 0.166
Note. Boldface values indicate items loading most heavily on each factor.
a Item deleted from scale following validity analysis.

variables, DEC’s Receptivity, In¯ uence, DEC’s Knowledge and Reasoning, and
Relationships, were signi® cantly related to citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of the
decision-making process (p , .001, r 5 .758). We had expected procedural fairness
judgments to be related primarily to the three fairness variables (Adequate Partici-
pation, DEC’s Receptivity, and In¯ uence) because these were the variables that were
most closely related to our de® nition of fairness. However, other variables proved to
be important, too. All four signi® cant criteria are similar to criteria that other
researchers have identi® ed as being related to procedural fairness judgments.
We de® ned DEC’s Receptivity as integrating perceptions of DEC’s honesty and
impartiality. This criterion overlaps with that of the neutrality of the decision
maker, which has been identi® ed as an important basis for judgments about fairness
in a number of studies (Leventhal 1980 ; Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler
1988, 1989 ; Tyler and Griffin 1991). It is also closely related to citizens’ trust of the
decision maker, which also has been shown to be important to fairness judgments
(Tyler 1988, 1989).
The criterion of In¯ uence measured citizens’ perceptions of their in¯ uence over
the ® nal moose management decision. This criterion is equivalent to decision
control, which was found to be an important in¯ uence on fairness judgments in
early studies of procedural fairness (Thibaut and Walker 1978). Since that time it
has received less research attention than many other criteria, but Tyler and Griffin
 Measuring Fairness 29

TABLE 4 Factor Analysis of Survey Scales Related to Citizens’ Opportunities for

In¯ uence During the Process and DEC’s Receptivity to Citizen Input
Rotated factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

In¯ uence Scale

Citizens had real e€ ect on decision? 0.504 0.191 0.254 0.370
In¯ uence citizens had over decision
was limited ? – 0.660 2 0.273 2 0.425 2 0.208
Citizens had no e€ ect on moose
management policy ? – 0.818 2 0.237 2 0.233 2 0.225
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Honesty Scalea
DEC didn’t answer all questions
honestly? 2 0.266 2 0.391 – 0.539 2 0.206
DEC willingly provided information ? 0.242 0.734 0.096 0.350
DEC answered questions as well as
it could ? 0.189 0.601 0.278 0.239
Impartiality Scalea
DEC not willing to consider all
citizens’ views ? 2 0.268 2 0.130 – 0.725 2 0.204
DEC treated all citizens equally,
even those with whom it disagreed ? 0.256 0.309 0.210 0.620
DEC treated all citizens in the
same way ? 0.219 0.399 0.247 0.713
Note. Boldface values indicate items loading most heavily on each factor.
a Honesty and Impartiality scales combined following validity analysis to form one scale titled DEC’s
Receptivity.

(1991) and Kitzmann and Emery (1993) also noted the importance of in¯ uence over
a decision in participants’ perceptions of the fairness of a process.
DEC’s Knowledge/Reasoning assessed whether citizens perceived DEC as well
informed about moose management and having good reasons for its management
recommendations. Although we believed that this criterion was only indirectly
related to fairness concerns, a clear correlation existed between it and procedural
fairness judgments. This criterion is very similar to a concern about the accuracy of
information used in decision-making processes, which has been cited by numerous
other researchers as having an in¯ uence over procedural fairness judgments
(Levanthal 1980 ; Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986 ; Tyler 1988 ; Tyler and Griffin
1991).
The Relationships scale assessed whether respondents believed that relation-
ships between stakeholders had improved during the decision-making process.
Again, we did not anticipate that this criterion would be related closely to pro-
cedural fairness judgments but found a correlation nonetheless. Some ® ndings in the
literature support this relationship. Lind and Tyler (1988) proposed a group-value
model to explain in¯ uences on procedural fairness perceptions. Their model argues
that procedural fairness is important to people because being treated fairly commu-
nicates that one is a valued member of one’s social group. Thus, the primary moti-
vation behind the pursuit of fairness is the desire to belong to groups and to
maintain relationships. Based on this model, the correlation between procedural
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

30
TABLE 5 Factor Analysis of Survey Scales Related to Citizens’ Opportunities for Participation in the Process and
In¯ uence over the Decision

Rotated factor loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Equal Opportunity Scale

Equal opportunity for all citizens to participate? 2 0.349 2 0.242 – 0.465 2 0.412 2 0.089
No citizens denied opportunity to participate? 2 0.161 2 0.200 – 0.658 2 0.237 2 0.015
Some citizens had better chance to comment ? 0.215 0.176 0.217 0.681 0.299
Representation Scalea
Some important viewpoints not heard ? 0.674 0.222 0.288 0.219 0.283
Citizens commenting did not adequately represent
all relevant ideas ? 0.256 0.171 0.101 0.273 0.657
All important viewpoints heard ? 2 0.394 2 0.228 – 0.564 2 0.051 2 0.403
Voice Scalea
No chance for citizens to say what they’d like? 0.669 0.245 0.237 0.179 0.177
DEC didn’t pay attention to citizens’ reasons ?b 0.342 0.452 0.276 0.144 0.211
Citizens given opportunity to express preferences ? 2 0.292 2 0.284 – 0.551 2 0.076 2 0.204
In¯ uence Scale
Citizens had real e€ ect on decision ? 2 0.126 – 0.622 2 0.346 2 0.122 2 0.115
In¯ uence citizens had over decision was limited ? 0.231 0.750 0.184 0.214 0.129
Citizens had no e€ ect on moose management
policy ? 0.177 0.853 0.146 0.070 0.123
Note. Boldface values indicate items loading most heavily on each factor.
a Equal Opportunity, Representation of Viewpoints, and Voice scales combined following validity analysis to form one scale titled
Adequate Participation.
b Item deleted from scale following validity analysis.
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

TABLE 6 Interitem Correlations for Scales Related to DEC’s Receptivity to Citizen Input

Impartiality Scale Honesty Scale

Impartiality Scale
DEC not willing to consider all citizens’ views ? 1.000
DEC treated all citizens equally, even those with
whom it disagreed ? – 0.390 1.000
DEC treated all citizens in the same way ? – 0.445 0.658 1.000
Honesty Scale
DEC didn’t answer all questions honestly ? 0.543 2 0.431 2 0.504 1.000
DEC willingly provided information ? 2 0.303 0.517 0.643 – 0.496 1.000
DEC answered all questions as well as it could ? 2 0.387 0.451 0.513 – 0.469 0.586 1.000
Note. Scales combined following validity analysis into one scale titled DEC’s Receptivity. Boldface values indicate correlations
between items in the same scales.

31
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

32
TABLE 7 Interitem Correlations for Scales Related to the Adequacy of Opportunities for Citizens to Participate in the Process
Representation of
Equal Opportunity Scale Viewpoints Scale Voice Scale

Equal Opportunity Scale

Equal opportunity for all citizens to participate? 1.000
No citizens denied the opportunity to participate? 0.511 1.000
Some citizens had better chance to comment ? – 0.531 – 0.383 1.000
Representation Scale
Some important viewpoints not heard ? 2 0.521 2 0.414 0.484 1.000
Citizens commenting did not adequately represent
all relevant ideas? 2 0.359 2 0.222 0.493 0.489 1.000
All important viewpoints heard ? 0.518 0.480 2 0.397 – 0.591 – 0.466 1.000
Voice Scale
No chance for citizens to say what they’d like? 2 0.533 2 0.356 0.417 0.652 0.409 2 0.531 1.000
DEC didn’t pay attention to citizens’ reasons?a 2 0.452 2 0.401 0.389 0.538 0.398 2 0.430 0.485 1.000
Citizens given opportunity to express preferences ? 0.502 0.478 2 0.350 2 0.480 2 0.345 0.567 – 0.473 – 0.474 1.000

Note. Scales combined following validity analysis into one scale titled Adequate Participation. Boldface values indicate correlations between items in the same scales.
a Item deleted from scale following validity analysis.
 Measuring Fairness 33

TABLE 8 Cronbach’s Alpha Values for Scales Used in

This Study

Scale Cronbach’s alpha

Fairness
Adequate Participation .964
DEC’s Receptivity .933
In¯ uence .841
Wisdom
DEC’s Knowledge/Reasoning .783
Citizens’ Knowledge .709
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Ef® ciency
Cost .761
Time .672
Stability
Stable Decision .824
Relationships .622

FIGURE 1 Path diagram depicting hypothesized relationships between perceptions

of the process and evaluations of the process, the decision, and DEC. All relation-
ships were hypothesized to be positive. Solid arrows indicate statistically signi® cant
relationships (p , .05). Dotted arrows indicated nonsigni® cant relationships.
Numbers are linear regression coefficients.
 34 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

fairness judgments and perceptions of the quality of interpersonal relationships is

logical. Although there are other competing explanations of why procedural fairness
is important to people, the group-value model has received both direct and indirect
support in the literature (Lind and Tyler 1988 ; Tyler 1989 ; Leung and Li 1990).
We expected to ® nd a relationship between Adequate Participation and percep-
tions of fairness, but we did not. Adequate Participation, or the sufficiency of
opportunities for citizens to participate in the decision-making process, re¯ ects the
importance to citizens of process control, which has been conceptualized in past
work as the opportunity to present evidence or voice an opinion during a decision-
making procedure. Numerous studies have demonstrated that process control is
important to fairness judgments (Folger 1977 ; LaTour 1978 ; Lind et al 1978, 1983 ;
Tyler, Rasinki, and Spodick 1985 ; Tyler 1987 ; Bies and Shapiro 1988 ; Leung and Li
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

1990). Furthermore, a concern about the adequacy of opportunities for citizens to

participate in the decision-making process was discussed extensively during inter-
views. This criterion may not have been signi® cant in our model because it was
moderately correlated with some of the other explanatory variables. Indeed, if
DEC’s Receptivity is removed from the model, Adequate Participation becomes
highly signi® cant (p 5 .001).
Citizens’ judgments about the fairness of the process were important because
they were closely related with both their satisfaction with the process and their
perceptions of the decision (Figure 1). Perceptions of the fairness of the process were
signi® cantly related to perceptions of the fairness of the ® nal decision. Procedural
fairness judgments were signi® cantly related to satisfaction with the process,
although satisfaction with the process was also related to the degree to which citi-
zens believed their personal interests had been satis® ed during the process and with
the perceived fairness of the decision. These ® ndings illustrate that perceptions of
decision-making procedures may in¯ uence perceptions of ® nal policies and deci-
sions. Various researchers have also found that perceptions of decisions are a€ ected
by perceptions of the procedures that produce them (LaTour 1978 ; Lind et al. 1980 ;
Barrett-Howard and Tyler 1986).
Citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of the process and the fairness of the deci-
sion also were related to their satisfaction with DEC (Figure 1). Other researchers
have found that procedural evaluations are often closely related to the evaluation of
leaders and decision makers (Tyler and Caine 1981 ; Tyler 1987 ; Rasinski 1988 ;
Tyler and Rasinski 1991 ; Lind and Earley 1992). The relationship between satisfac-
tion with DEC and evaluation of the process is probably not a simple cause-and-
e€ ect one, however. Past researchers have debated whether judgments about pro-
cedural fairness improve perceptions of decision makers or perceptions of decision
makers a€ ect judgments about procedural fairness (Tyler and Rasinski 1991 ;
Mondak 1993). In this study, evidence from the interviews suggests that both were
true. Positive perceptions of the process, in particular, the perception that DEC had
listened to citizens’ concerns, improved perceptions of DEC for some citizens. Alter-
natively, other citizens’ preexisting negative perceptions of DEC clearly in¯ uenced
their perceptions of the fairness of the process.
This caveat applies to other relationships depicted in the diagram as well. For
example, although we hypothesized that perceptions of the fairness of the process
would in¯ uence perceptions of the decision, the reverse could also occur. Citizens
may have decided that the process must have been fair because it produced a deci-
sion that they believed to be fair.
We have reported additional results from this study in other manuscripts. In
 Measuring Fairness 35

Lauber and Knuth (1997), we reported that citizens who participated in public
meetings during this decision-making process had more favorable perceptions of the
process than those who wrote letters to DEC or responded to DEC’s telephone
survey. We speculated that the opportunities for interaction and communication
provided by the public meetings may have contributed to these more favorable
perceptions. In Lauber and Knuth (1998), we relied on in-depth interviews of DEC
sta€ members to study how their conceptualization of good public policy decision
making in¯ uenced the citizen participation strategies they used and the overall
quality of the decision-making process. We argued that DEC’s emphasis on dis-
covering the preferences of a representative cross section of the public resulted in
citizen input that was based on poor quality information about the moose reintro-
duction issue.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Conclusions
Fairness is often an important goal in natural-resource policymaking procedures,
particularly in those procedures that include substantial opportunity for citizen par-
ticipation. Nevertheless, fairness is a vague concept, and we have relatively little
evidence about what causes citizens to perceive procedures as fair. This study has
begun to ® ll that information gap. We were able to identify nine criteria that were
related to citizens’ perceptions of the quality of a speci® c natural-resource decision-
making process and four that were closely related to fairness judgments : the man-
agement agency’s receptivity to citizens’ input ; the degree of in¯ uence that citizens
had over the ® nal decision ; the quality of knowledge and reasoning of the agency
leading the process ; and the degree to which relationships improved during the
process. These criteria were consistent with what other researchers have found in
very di€ erent settings. An awareness of the criteria citizens use to judge procedures
can help decision makers operationalize the concept of fairness. A more concrete
conception of fairness can contribute to the way that managers design and commu-
nicate about decision-making processes so that citizens will be encouraged to per-
ceive them more favorably. These perceptions, we have shown, can have
considerable practical bene® ts in that they are also related to citizens’ acceptance of
management decisions.

References
Albin, C. 1993. The role of fairness in negotiation. Negotiation J ournal 9(3):223­ 244.
Barrett-Howard, E., and T. R. Tyler. 1986. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation
decisions. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2):296­ 304.
Bies, R. J., and D. L. Shapiro. 1988. Voice and justi® cation : their in¯ uence on procedural
fairness judgments. Academy of Management J ournal 31(3):676­ 685.
Blahna, D. J., and S. Yonts-Shepherd. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning : toward
bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources
2 :209­ 227.
Blanchard, W. 1986. Evaluating social equity : What does fairness mean and can we measure
it ? Policy Studies J ournal 15 :29­ 54.
Carey, W. D. 1984. The conditions for negotiated decision making. In Natural resource
administration, eds. C. W. Churchman, A. H. Rosenthal, and S. H. Smith, 169­ 173.
Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
Checkoway, B., and J. Van Til. 1978. What do we know about citizen participation ? A selec-
tive review of the research. In Citizen participation in America, ed. S. Langton, 25­ 42.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
 36 T . B. Lauber and B. A. Knuth

Cohen, R. L. 1985. Procedural justice and participation. Human Relations 38(7):643­ 663.
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys : T he T otal Design Method. New York : John
Wiley and Sons.
Flanigan, F. H. 1987. Public involvement in the Chesapeake Bay USA program. In Contami-
nant problems and management of living Chesapeake Bay resources, eds. S. K. Majumdar,
L. W. Hall and H. M. Austin, 512­ 517. Easton, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
Folger, R. 1977. Distributive and procedural justice: combined impact of voice and improve-
ment on experienced inequity. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(2):108­
119.
Hicks, A., and E. McGowan. 1992. Restoration of Moose in Northern New York State Draft
EIS. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Kim, J., and C. W. Mueller. 1978. Factor analysis : Statistical methods and practical issues.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

Kitzmann, K. M., and R. E. Emery. 1993. Procedural justice and parents’ satisfaction in a
® eld study of child custody dispute resolution. Law & Human Behavior 17(5):553­ 567.
Kweit, M. G., and R. W. Kweit. 1981. Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic
society : A contingency approach. New York : Praeger.
Landre, B. K., and B. A. Knuth. 1993. The role of agency goals and local context in Great
Lakes water resources public involvement programs. Environmental Management
17 :153­ 165.
Langton, S. 1978. Citizen participation in America : Current re¯ ections on the state of the art.
In Citizen participation in America, ed. S. Langton, 1­ 12. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Lauber, T. B., and B. A. Knuth. 1997. Fairness and moose management decision making : The
citizens’ perspective. W ildlife Society Bulletin 25 :776­ 787.
Lauber, T. B., and B. A. Knuth. 1998. Re® ning our vision of citizen participation : Lessons
from a moose reintroduction proposal. Society and Natural Resources 11 :411­ 424.
LaTour, S. 1978. Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and
inquisitorial modes of adjudication. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology
36 :1531­ 1545.
Leung, K., and W. K. Li. 1990. Psychological mechanisms of process-control e€ ects. Journal
of Applied Psychology 75(6):613­ 620.
Leventhal, G. S. 1980. What should be done with equity theory ? New approaches to the
study of fairness in social relationships. In Social exchange: advances in theory and
research, eds. K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis, 27­ 55. New York : Plenum Press.
Leventhal, G. S., J. Karuza, and W. R. Fry. 1980. Beyond fairness : a theory of allocation
preferences. In Justice and social interaction, ed. G. Mikula, 167­ 218. New York :
Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. A., and R. I. Lissak. 1985. Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments.
J ournal of Experimental Social Psychology 21(1):19­ 29.
Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. T he social psychology of procedural justice. New York :
Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., and P. C. Earley. 1992. Procedural justice and culture. International J ournal of
Psychology 27(2):227­ 242.
Lind, E. A., B. E. Erickson, N. Friedland, and M. Dickenberger. 1978. Reactions to pro-
cedural models for adjudicative con¯ ict resolution : A cross-national study. J ournal of
Conict Resolution 22 :318­ 341.
Lind, E. A., R. I. Lissak, and D. E. Conlon. 1983. Decision control and process control e€ ects
on procedural fairness judgments. J ournal of Applied Social Psychology 13 :338­ 350.
Lind, E. A., S. Kurtz, L. Musante, L. Walker, and J. W. Thibaut. 1980. Procedure and
outcome e€ ects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of con¯ icts of interests. J ournal of
Personality and Social Psychology 39 :643­ 653.
Mondak, J. J. 1993. Institutional legitimacy and procedural justice: reexamining the question
of causality. Law & Society Review 27(3):599­ 608.
 Measuring Fairness 37

Nelkin, D. 1984. Approaches to participation in natural resource decisions. In Natural

resource administration, eds. C. W. Churchman, A. H. Rosenthal, and S. H. Smith, 175­
182. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
Rasinski, K. A. 1988. Economic justice, political behavior, and American political values.
Social J ustice Research 2(1):61­ 79.
Rosenbaum, N. M. 1978. Citizen participation and democratic theory. In Citizen participation
in America, ed. S. Langton, 43­ 54. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolv-
ing public disputes. New York : Basic Books.
Thibaut, J., and L. Walker. 1978. A theory of procedure. California Law Review 66 :541­ 566.
Tyler, T. R. 1987. Conditions leading to value expressive e€ ects in judgments of procedural
Downloaded by [University of California, San Francisco] at 23:01 18 December 2014

justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 :333­ 344.
Tyler, T. R. 1988. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of
legal procedures. Law & Society Review 22(1):103­ 135.
Tyler, T. R. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model.
J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(5):830­ 838.
Tyler, T. R., and A. Caine. 1981. The in¯ uence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction
with formal leaders. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(4):642­ 655.
Tyler, T. R., and P. Degoey. 1995. Collective restraint in social dilemmas : procedural justice
and social identi® cation e€ ects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 69(3):482­ 497.
Tyler, T. R., and E. Griffin. 1991. The in¯ uence of decision makers’ goals on their concerns
about procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21(20):1629­ 1658.
Tyler, T. R., and K. Rasinski. 1991. Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the accep-
tance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions : A reply to Gibson. Law & Society
Review 25(3):621­ 630.
Tyler, T. R., K. Rasinski, and K. McGraw. 1985. The in¯ uence of perceived injustice on
support for political authorities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 15 :700­ 725.
Tyler, T. R., K. Rasinski, and N. Spodick. 1985. The in¯ uence of voice on satisfaction with
leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 48 :72­ 81.