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/

1. Procedural Justice:
Inclusive Process for Inclusive Growth
E. Allan Lind
1

2. The Passport and the iPad
2

3. The Science of Inclusion and Exclusion
• Forty years of research in
psychology and cognitive
neuroscience shows:
– People have an economic,
problem-solving brain…and
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

4. The Brain’s Reaction to Exclusion
Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, Science, 2003.
4

5. 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 encountered—hence,
“procedural justice.”
5

6. 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

7. 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 Legitimacy—Canberra RISE Experiment
Procedural Justice Intervention Conventional Procedure
Tyler, Sherman, Stang, Barnes, & Woods, Law & Soc Rev, 2007.
7

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. How to Improve Perceived Fairness
• Voice:
– Opportunity to present
one’s 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 outcomes—inclusion
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