The influence of constrained voice on procedural fairness judgments

A reliable finding of the procedural justice literature suggests that participant input, or voice, significantly enhances the perceived fairness of decision-making procedures. Though research concerning the voice effect has reliably demonstrated the importance of voice, it has not realistically portrayed the voice opportunities found in many applied settings. Constrained voice refers to the formal or informal restrictions on voice that are often present in applied procedures. The present study focused on the relation of voice constraints to procedural perceptions, and investigated the influence of social accounts, or justifications, on reactions to constraints. It was hypothesized that level of voice constraint is inversely related to perceptions of procedural fairness. Moreover, it was proposed that appropriate justifications for the presence of constraints (i.e., justifications appealing to superordinate values of fairness) may legitimize moderate voice constraints, preventing decrements in fairness perceptions. In a 2 x 4 factorial design contrasting justification type (fairness-, nonfairness-oriented) with level of voice constraint (full voice, constrained voice-direct amount, constrained voice-rules of evidence, mute), 160 subjects participated in a computer-simulated trial as defendants in a courtroom proceeding. Subject/defendant testimony was either unrestricted, moderately restricted in quantity, moderated restricted through evidentiary rules, or severely restricted. Subjects also received one of two justifications for the design of the testimony opportunity. Fairness-oriented justifications suggested that the voice opportunity was designed to enhance the fairness of the procedure. Nonfairness-oriented justifications legitimized the voice opportunity on arbitrary grounds. Results were supportive of constrained voice effects: moderately constrained procedures resulted in lower perceptions of fairness than a full voice opportunity, yet evinced higher fairness judgments than a mute procedure. Justification hypotheses were supported across perceptions of interactional fairness but not procedural fairness or satisfaction. Results suggest the need for a more precise delineation of voice effects, and the need for greater caution in generalizing voice research to applied settings. Results also suggest that justifications of procedural elements may be effective in enhancing the acceptance of procedures