Student Perspectives on Procedural Justice and the University Judicial Process

Home , Procedural justice

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Christopher M. Campbell

March 2009

This thesis titled

Student Perspectives on Procedural Justice and the University Judicial Process

CHRISTOPHER M. CAMPBELL

has been approved for

the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Michelle Brown

Assistant Professor of Sociology

Benjamin M. Ogles

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

ABSTRACT

CAMPBELL, CHRISTOPHER M., M.A., March 2009, Sociology

Student Perspectives on Procedural Justice and the University Judicial Process (92 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Michelle Brown

This paper reports the application of procedural justice theories to the setting of

higher education. In particular, the setting included Ohio University processes and its students ranging from freshmen to graduate students. This project used an email based survey to study the perceptions of college students toward a university judiciaries system.

The study was influenced by the Tyler, Callahan, and Frost 2007 work on rule adherence among police officers and military personnel. My findings indicate that instrumental perspectives, such as in the deterrence literature, are not the primary reason as to why students obey university rules. Rather, normative perspectives, which are based on fairness and morality, are much closer in relation to voluntary deference of the law. It goes on to suggest that using a collective understanding of the influence of both instrumental and normative perspectives on the perceptions of people, instead of focusing on just one, is the best way to predict rule adherence.

Approved: ______

Michelle Brown

Assistant Professor of Sociology 4

DEDICATION

I dedicate this paper to my friends and family who were my influence and my source of motivation. Specifically to my mother Debbie, sister Brittany, brother Eric, and father

Scott who taught me that all boundaries and barriers to what you can accomplish exist

for the sole purpose of being exceeded and torn down.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was not possible without the dedication and guidance of my committee members, specifically, Dr. Michelle Brown and Dr. Joseph De Angelis. Their

experience, knowledge, and support were often the large driving force behind the

construction of the instrument and this paper as well as the development of my

professional skills. It was their belief in me and this thesis that pushed me to strive for the

best possible product that I could provide.

I also want to acknowledge the overall role of Dr. Christine Mattley. Aside from

being a member of my committee, she worked to make my graduate experience one that

minimized the anxiety and disorganization.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge the guidance and support of Dr. Debra Henderson, without whom this experience would have been undoubtedly and significantly more difficult.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3

Dedication ...... 4

Acknowledgments...... 5

List of Tables ...... 8

List of Figures ...... 9

Introduction ...... 10

The Continuum of Punishment ...... 11

Why University Judiciaries? ...... 12

Procedural Justice and Social Control ...... 13

Procedural Justice: A Review of Literature ...... 16

Early Research ...... 16

Procedural vs. Distributive Justice ...... 19

Normative and Instrumental Perspectives: The Value-Expressive Theory ...... 21

Compliance ...... 23

The Social Psychology of Legitimacy and Rule Adherence ...... 26

Punishment through Procedure: What is the Purpose & is it Effective? ...... 29

The University Application ...... 31

Methodology ...... 34

The Process ...... 34

Sample ...... 40 7

Data Collection ...... 44

Instrument ...... 45

Analytical Strategies ...... 53

Some Limitations of the Research ...... 55

Results ...... 57

Overall Satisfaction ...... 61

Compliance ...... 68

Discussion ...... 77

Procedural Justice and the University ...... 77

Limitations ...... 78

What Next?: The Future of Procedural Justice ...... 80

References ...... 82

Appendix: Judiciaries Opinion Survey ...... 87

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Frequencies of Respondent Demographics with University Demographics ....41

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for all Independent Variables used

in Multivariate Tests ...... 52

Table 3: Response Frequencies for Variable Questions between

Students with Judiciaries Experience and Students without ...... 58

Table 4.1: Crosstabulations and Correlations of Overall Satisfaction ...... 63

Table 4.2: Linear Regression Analysis of Overall Satisfaction ...... 67

Table 5.1: Crosstabulations and Correlations of Compliance ...... 71

Table 5.2: Linear Regression Analysis of Compliance ...... 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Diagram of Ohio University Judiciaries Process ...... 39

Introduction

One of the most researched and debated questions of justice academics today pertains to social control. How does social control work? Perhaps, one of the best ways to explore such a question, one must simplify it to a more specific question, ‘Why do people obey the law?’ It was not until recent decades that people began to put this question to serious social research. This paper utilizes the work of social psychologist Tom Tyler as it investigates this issue in the setting of a Midwestern university. Applying the procedural justice perspective, this project attempts to examine student perceptions of university forms of justice, namely the university judiciaries process.

Procedural justice, in its most basic sense, can be seen as any type of formalized process that is used by an organization to handle misconduct or complaint while yielding the most acceptable fair outcome (Tyler 1990; Röhl 1997). Forms of procedural justice exist in virtually every social organization, all of which mirror much of the same processes and controlling measures found in the criminal justice system. Examples of such institutions include military codes of conduct, large-scale regulation of corporations, and internal rules of higher education. The procedural justice perspective argues that there is a direct link between people’s judgments regarding fairness in a process and how they will perceive and respond to that process (Tyler & Huo 2002; Sunshine & Tyler

2003; Tyler & Blader 2003). It is from the procedural justice perspective that I will examine areas of justice outside that of the criminal justice system.

The Continuum of Punishment

Structured punishment of misconduct as we see it today is virtually always

associated with the criminal justice system. Therefore, the criminal justice system would

be and often is the epitome of legitimate, active punishment toward people’s misconduct.

The process of the arrest, investigation, court appearances, trials, and appeals coupled

with the varying modes of corrections are aspects of an engineered social structure. It is a

structure that has the sole purpose of properly dealing with behavioral misconduct while

providing a system of fairness and legitimacy (National Research Council 2004).

The problem with this association of punishment with the criminal justice system

is that it severely limits the scope of our knowledge regarding punishment and its many

facets (Garland 1990). Unfortunately, some believe that to study the criminal justice

system, is to study all forms of punishment. This would be the same fallacy as saying that

to study constitutional law is to study all law. Luckily many scholars have already

realized this in the past and pushed to increase research in neglected forms of punishment, hence the birth of organizational justice (Greenberg 1987, Lind & Tyler

1988; Tyler & Lind 1992; Folger & Cropanzano 1998; Tyler 2001).

To conceive of punishment as a continuum is a call for justice studies in criminology, sociology, and psychology to push social science outside the realm of criminal law and court. This is because the current views of punishment are often too narrowly focused. The continuum view expands on the notion that procedural punishment is not limited within criminal processes, rather it exists and is relied upon in virtually all 12

social institutions. According to Sarah Armstrong and Lesley McAra, the continuum of punishment would be the second of two analytical approaches when studying penality:

The first of these gives primacy to macro-level structural factors, with regimes of punishment being understood as shaped, more or less directly, by the evolving structural context within which they are situated. [e.g. the criminal justice system] The second approach, by contrast, gives primacy to cultural factors, with analysis centering on the mediating processes through which broader structural factors are translated/transformed or resisted in particular jurisdictions and particular contexts [e.g. university judiciaries]. (Armstrong & McAra 2006, p. 7)

This study utilizes the second approach for analyzing punishment through

university judiciaries procedure. In order to explore punishment outside of criminal justice, this thesis explores issues relating to punishment in university settings.

Why University Judiciaries?

Why choose a university and its students to help conduct this study? University judiciaries are the court-like body of a university that enforces rules and imposes sanctions onto students who have violated them. That being said, one can see that such a body has a unique position when it comes to the issue of social control and authority. As most systems of justice within an organization, university judiciaries are typically

abbreviated disciplinary processes that are tailored to the needs of its organization. While

local, state, and federal laws are acknowledged and applied to the university community,

so too are the rules and regulations that are specific to the university charter or code of

conduct. With such authority, judiciaries are able to offer a formal and legitimate way to

sanction student misconduct apart from or in conjunction with the law. This type of

structure allows for a situation in which judgmental power and discretion can be used to

punish individuals for their behavior within the university. 13

The university disciplinary process is an under-examined site of punishment. This

paper provides a new setting for testing the procedural justice perspective and represents

one of the few times research regarding the criminal justice system has ever been applied

to the area of higher education. Specifically, the literature is being used to analyze the

factors surrounding student perceptions of legitimacy and fairness with consideration to

university procedural justice and how those perceptions influence rule adherence. By

focusing on judiciaries we gain an interesting look at the perceptions of very particular

population. In exploring this issue, we increase the potential to deepen our understanding

of organizational punishment and procedural justice and thus open the door to the

possibility of making our methods of punishment more efficient, fair, and effective.

Procedural Justice and Social Control

Even though the social institution that procedural justice is most associated with is

the criminal justice system, this is not the only process that procedural justice is applied

to. Justice through procedure exists in virtually every structured institution (Armstrong &

McAra 2006). No matter the type of organization or the size, there generally always

emerges a method by which a group handles member misconduct (Greenberg 1987;

Armstrong & McAra 2006). Thus, at least in this respect, the university is no different

from a corporation. Each must have an established process to deal with rule violators or misbehavior. What sets the university apart has a lot to do with its use of partially democratized voting systems and recognition of student rights apart from those granted

by the local, state, and federal government. 14

The procedural justice model suggests that the judgment of the public toward the justice procedures have a major impact on the effectiveness of such procedures

(Greenberg 1987; Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Folger & Cropanzano 1998; Folger &

Skarlicki 2001; Tyler & Huo 2002; Sunshine & Tyler 2003; Tyler & Blader 2003; Tyler,

Callahan & Frost 2007). This is to say, the way that people feel about how justice is defined and pursued within a process greatly influences how they behave.

For instance, according to the procedural justice perspective if the public perceives the procedures of justice, and even the agents of those procedures such as police or judges, to be illegitimate, unfair, or morally wrong then chances are those people will be significantly less willing to follow the rules and decisions made by that procedure and its agents (Greenberg 1987; Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Folger &

Cropanzano 1998; Tyler & Huo 2002; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). However, the same relationship can be said for the perceived presence of the same qualities. If perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, and morality increase then the probability of rule adherence by the people will increase too (Greenberg 1987; Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Folger &

Cropanzano 1998; Tyler & Huo 2002; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). Therefore, the effectiveness of a social control process lays more with understanding public perceptions of procedural characteristics, rather than just the structure of the process itself.

In following sections I will concentrate on the use of procedural justice as a perspective in criminology and its application towards the university setting. This thesis builds upon the work of social psychologist Tom R. Tyler, among others, by reporting the development of early research in the area of procedural justice and addressing the general 15

research question, “why people obey the law?” From there I will then address a range of

literature which explains the use of social psychology and organizational behavior to

study people’s perceptions and reactions to particular forms of punishment and social

control. I next discuss the methodology of this project. This will include the construction of the survey instrument, explaining the judiciaries process, the relevance of the

population, and the testing of the hypotheses. After laying out the path used to analyze the data, the results will be discussed with respect to the data and the hypotheses. The thesis will conclude with a brief discussion of the project’s significance and where further research is needed.

Procedural Justice: A Review of Literature

This project pulls from several bodies of academic literature. The majority of its

research comes from the procedural justice, symbolic interactionism, and punishment

literatures with procedural justice being the main emphasis. In this section I will highlight

significant works in each field with relevance to this project. Beginning with early

research this chapter’s discussion will explore procedures and the meaning of outcome

correspondence. Then I will investigate some specific criticisms of the early and

contemporary research as I also introduce the distributive justice concept. Next, I will

showcase the work of Tom Tyler and his value-expressive theory while emphasizing further criticisms of Tyler’s work. The importance of legitimacy and social psychology models will then be highlighted, integrating classic sociology and contemporary issues of

compliance. From there the discussion will turn to how perceptions of fairness and

overall satisfaction affect procedural practice. Last, I will present my hypotheses and

show how the discussed research guides my application to the university setting.

Early Research

In order to realize the importance of procedural justice in the workings of social

organizations, early research in the area must be addressed. The concept of procedural

justice was not regarded as very significant for the majority of the twentieth century. It

was not until the latter portion of the 1960’s and `70’s that the first major research project

and publication of procedural justice was explored by social psychologists John Thibaut

and Laurens Walker. In the thick of social and political movements that debated the issue of equality and fairness for people within government control, Thibaut and Walker 17

(1975) attempted to investigate the impact of dispute resolution on public attitudes

through procedural methods. As they discovered in their research, when people come into

conflict with one another, there is an inevitable desire for resolution through three

possible options: 1) aggressive action to achieve the desired outcome; 2) avoid the conflict entirely in hopes it will pass or resolve itself; or 3) the seeking of non-violent

resolution in some shape of formal, decision-making procedure typically litigated by an

unbiased third party (p.6).

By choosing the decision-making procedure the individuals involved look to

minimize “external costs”1 and “decision costs,”2 while relying on the presence of a

“judging standard”3 to supply appropriate outcomes (Thibaut & Walker 1975). Thus

through their extensive work on process satisfaction and outcome correspondence

Thibaut and Walker established that for the average citizen an unbiased procedural model

should be used to ensure the “best” or “correct” decisions when settling a dispute (1975).

The discussion of outcome and participant satisfaction only begins there however, as it is

essential to understanding the social psychology behind procedural justice.

Outcome correspondence is the term that refers to how the type of relationship

between conflicting people affects the outcome of the dispute.

In correspondent relationships the ultimate outcomes of the participants are in harmony; the parties share in any gains or losses that attend their interaction; they experience a common fate. In noncorrespondent relationships the ultimate outcomes of the participants are in conflict; the

1 External costs are “costs to be imposed on them in the form of an unfavorable settlement” – what the risks are (Thibaut and Walker 1975, p. 7). 2 Decision costs are “costs as a function, among other things, of the time and effort required by the procedure” – how long the process will take (Thibaut & Walker 1975, p. 7). 3 Judging standards are “any test of a claim that demonstrates its validity or invalidity in a way that commands the assent of the participants” – the finding of fact (Thibaut & Walker 1975, p.7). 18

gains of each party entail losses for the other; their interests are opposed. (Thibaut & Walker 1975, p. 8)

Correspondent relationships refer to relationships between people that are “friendly” or

“noncompetitive” in nature, whereas noncorrespondent relationships refer to those that

are “competitive” or “self-centered” (Thibaut & Walker 1975, p.8). Thus, it can often be

expected that those involved with a correspondent relationship where an acceptable

judgment standard is given, will choose the procedural solution with expectations of the

outcome being fair, morally congruent,4 and more efficient for both parties (Rappoport

1965).

This type of dispute outcome is best exemplified in forms of mediation where retribution is not the sole purpose of prosecution. An example may be the use of a mediation process between two disputing people rather than a court proceeding. While correspondent situations may result in the parties wanting complete control over the process and thus not utilizing a third party for the sake of fairness in outcome, the unbiased procedural model is still used more to ensure the “best” or “correct” decisions

(Thibaut & Walker 1975).

Noncorrespondent relationships inherently incur a much higher level of decision costs than that of the correspondent relationships. These costs can be so high in fact that they may deter the individuals from wanting to continue on with the procedures. On the other hand, failure to participate in any procedural resolution will more than likely lead to

a more unfavorable outcome and therefore increasing the external costs. Thus the parties

4 Moral Congruence refers to the similarities between moral values of the people and the rules that are enforced upon them (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). 19

would often look to act on the consideration of external values over that of decision costs

to maximize their perceived satisfaction with the process outcome (Thibaut & Walker

1975).5 In other words, in order for people to optimize their chances of a more favorable

outcome, they will consider how much the procedure and outcome will negatively impact

their daily needs for living, e.g. financial or academic impact (Feeley 1979). Because of

the way the system and the sanctions are designed, procedural justice methods, such as in

the university judiciaries and the criminal justice system, will always exhibit the same

external costs, e.g. time, money, relations, etc. (Jones 2006; Lessig 1999).

Procedural vs. Distributive Justice

The differences between procedural and distributive justice perspectives are also important to this project. While they both tend to focus on the fairness and effectiveness of a judicial process, respectively one looks at procedures, agents and instrumental values as the other focuses on fairness in outcome and interchangeability (or its ability to be applied equally across similar cases). In their studies on procedural justice Thibaut and

Walker (1975) distinguished that there was another form of important justice apart from procedure: distributive justice. Distributive justice “is concerned with identifying the principles by which anything of value (money, goods, services, privileges, and so forth) can be fairly or equitably allocated among persons or groups” (Thibaut & Walker 1975, p.3). This concept of distributive justice is most commonly found in small claims courts,

5 Some sociologists such as Klaus F. Röhl no longer accept Thibaut and Walker’s claim that procedures of justice are only necessary when settling disputes and for dealing with misconduct within an organization. Instead scholars are showing much support for procedures that are “oriented toward shaping the future; procedures, in other words, which are not reactive but proactive” (Röhl 1997, p.9). 20

civil suits, or mediation processes in or an extension of today’s criminal justice system.

However, while distributive justice is an important part of understanding many facets of

justice within organizations and is even used in Tyler’s study that influenced this project,

it is not separately measured in this study exactly as it is explained by Thibaut and

Walker. Rather, distributive justice in this study will take a partnership with Tyler’s

normative perspective of procedural justice – which will be discussed in further detail in the following section.

The reason for this partnership is due to the way the judiciaries system is structured as well as the overall scope of the process. Ohio University judiciaries offers little room for mediation and reparations that meet Thibaut and Walker’s distributive justice criteria which is based on equity theory6 and social exchange theory.7 While there

are indeed some mediation and reparation possibilities at this level of procedural justice,

the structure of Ohio University judiciaries leaves such decisions to the hearing officials

to decide. In this sense possibilities of mediation and reparation are then subjective and

solely dependent on the person(s) acting as the hearing official. Also, the structure and

scope of the instrument designed for this project does not necessarily explore the

experiential perceptions of those who are the complainant in a case. Therefore, the impact

of distributive justice could not be fully realized in this particular study. This is not to say

that social exchange theory apart from equity theory does not have a place in this study.

6 “Equity theory assumes that people continually strive to maximize the difference between the rewards they receive and the costs they incur” (Adams 1963, Röhl 1997, p.4).

7 “Social exchange theory assumes that we can accurately anticipate the payoffs of a variety of interactions[…] The internal cost of conflict cuts into the worth of an outcome; its resolution is value added” (Griffin 1994, p.198). 21

Despite the fact that it is not directly explored by the instrument, many connections can

be made to other variables as well as many inferences can be presented in the analysis of this project by way of social exchange principles developed by Thibaut and Kelley

(1959).

Normative and Instrumental Perspectives: The Value-Expressive Theory

In order to best explore and understand the university version of procedural justice, I elected to utilize the most comprehensive and well focused lens of the field.

Rather than focusing on just one facet of justice processes, Tom Tyler’s work in

procedural justice perspective presents some of the most robust yet applicable

understandings of why people obey rules and regulations. With this study focusing on

Tyler’s work, certain aspects must be explained and considered. Most notably is his

development of two separate social psychological processes that come into play when

people are determining whether or not to comply with a rule or law: normative and instrumental perspectives. Instrumental perspectives tend to focus on citizens, as in the

deterrence literature, where “people are viewed as shaping their behavior to respond to changes in the tangible, immediate incentives and penalties associated with following the law – to judgments about the personal gains and losses resulting from different kinds of behavior” (Tyler 1990, p.3).

This type of perspective is often used by policymakers and legislatures when the

question arises of how to obtain compliance from the public. Because compliance is often

believed to be centered on external factors, i.e. factors that exist outside the literal control of the public, the instrumental perspective suggests emphasizing people’s perceptions of 22

“having indirect control of decisions by having the chance to state one’s case. People are

viewed as wanting to achieve desired outcomes and as judging the value of their

opportunities to speak by the degree to which those opportunities facilitate achieving

those outcomes” (Tyler 1990, p.116). Therefore, an assessment of the public’s

perceptions on their control of their case process then allows for direct assessment of

their control over the outcome. This is to say, the more people believe that they have

control over the process and outcome of their own case, the more likely they will be satisfied with the system and more willing to obey the law.

Normative perspectives on the other hand parallel connections between moral

congruency and fairness of outcome. According to this perspective, if people “regard

legal authorities as more legitimate, they are less likely to break any laws, for they will

believe that they ought to follow all of them, regardless of the potential for punishment”

(p.4). It focuses on the way people internalize “norms of justice and obligation” (Tyler

1990, p.4). In this viewpoint moral stances toward particular laws are often relied on as

well as probability when determining the likelihood of getting caught if engaged in the

action. It also relies on other internal processes and perceptions such as the understanding

of legitimacy when it comes to processes, rules, and officials.

The basic premise of the normative view is that compliance with rules has a

strong connection to the attitudes of the people who are expected to obey them.

According to the normative perspective, psychological theories of justice are often

associated with the people’s perceptions of the process, these theories “hold that people

care about the justice of outcomes (distributive justice) and of the procedures by which 23

they are arrived at (procedural justice)” (Tyler 1990, p.5). Tyler goes on to argue that the

normative perspective assumes people

[…] as being concerned with aspects of their experience not linked only to outcomes. Normative aspects of experience include neutrality, lack of bias, honesty, efforts to be fair, politeness, and respect for citizens’ rights. All these potential features of a procedure are conceptually distinct from its outcome and therefore represent values that may be used to define procedural fairness in terms not related to the outcome. The extent to which people define the fairness of a procedure by using aspects of the procedure that are related and unrelated to its outcome reflects the influence of instrumental and normative aspects of experience on their judgments of whether they have received a fair procedure (1990, p.7).

This essentially gives us the groundwork of Lind and Tyler’s (1988) notion of value-expressive theory. In other words, value-expressive theory is the idea that people value the specific normative freedoms that are given to them throughout the duration of

the procedure. These freedoms include but are not limited to: lack of bias, honesty,

politeness, respect for citizens’ rights, and most importantly voice (the ability to state

one’s side of the story). Such freedoms are purely expressive in their very nature and

require a certain level of subjective interpretation. Lind and Tyler argue that these

expressions directly affect the way an individual perceives their experience. When there

is a lack of these characteristics there is then a feeling that the process was unfair despite the outcome. If the procedure is full of these characteristics then the perception of the procedure is that it was a fair one.

Compliance

In order to understand how this project investigates the issues surrounding case outcome and procedural policy, arguments and models used in the fields of organization management, psychology, and procedural justice are employed. Psychological models of 24 distributive justice and some management models use an instrumentally dominant approach when dealing with the issue of compliance. Such models “suggest that people within organizations are instrumentally motivated and focus on outcomes but that they focus on issues of distributive fairness” (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007, p.468). The fairness distribution is usually regarding issues of opportunity and resources as they are ends to less meaningful procedures (Thibaut & Walker 1975; Greenberg 1993; Folger &

Cropanzano 1998;). For these types of theories, it is the end result and related perceptions of fairness that fuel investigations of non-compliance.

Other organization management theories often argue the side of normative concerns when dealing with the issue of employee perceptions of procedural justice and how it affects overall compliance with organization rules. Such theories typically base their argumentative premise on the notion that people will comply more often with company rules when they find the procedures and their associated agents to be fair in structure and conduct (Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler & Lind 1992; Greenberg 1993; Tyler,

Callahan & Frost 2007). This emphasizes the fact that employers will assume problems exist in the way violations are handled rather than the outcome distribution. Thus, these theories and practices leave room for unaddressed instrumental issues, which might then lead to further non-compliance of employees.

Take for example separate organizational issues regarding compliance, satisfaction and procedural justice. If an organization attempts to pass or enforce a new policy onto its members that is unfavorable in its very nature (i.e. pay cuts and downsizing problems) then the members’ perceptions of fairness in procedure become 25

the forefront of administrative problems. As it was in the case of the Greenberg study, the

way the organization went about disclosing the similar bad news to the workers lead to

either a significant increase in company theft or none at all (1991).

Greenberg utilized quasi-experimental methods to single out attributes of his

“Taxonomy of Justice Classes,” a classification of procedural and distributive justice

characteristics needed to ensure member satisfaction (1993). According to his taxonomy,

Greenberg identified the notion of “Informational Justice” to be the social balancer of

procedural justice. Informational justice is merely the use and presentation of information

that justifies decisions made through procedural justice (Greenberg 1993). If justifiable

information is provided to the members in a fashion that is socially acceptable then it is

very likely that the members will better understand the decision and will maintain a sense

of legitimacy and fairness about the organization and its management (Greenberg 1991;

1993; NRC 2004). Much of this same issue was further corroborated by Konovsky and

Cropanzano (1993) as they suggest solutions to and discuss considerations of justice in

employee drug testing.

As in much of Tyler’s work on case outcomes and perceptions of fairness, if

respondents state that their outcome fairness is opposite of their perception of the

procedural fairness then it follows that the participants consider the two concepts separately rather than as dependent on one another.

The procedural justice argument is based upon the belief that people’s procedural justice judgments are distinct from their instrumental concerns. That is, their reactions to judgments about the fairness of the organization’s procedures are not related to judgments about the outcomes that they receive from their organization. Instead, they react to procedures because they make inferences about their relational connections and social 26

identities based on the fairness of those procedures. (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007, p.468-469)

This is one of the key elements when trying to interpret perceptions of outcomes versus

the perceptions of procedures and agents. Therefore it is also one of the main assumptions involved in this project. By utilizing the template provided by Tyler,

Callahan, and Frost (2007) in their study involving rule compliance among agents of

social control (i.e. police officers, military personnel, etc.), this project will investigate

the procedural justice claim of the instrumental and normative affects on public

perceptions of procedural justice to better and fully understand compliance behavior.

The Social Psychology of Legitimacy and Rule Adherence

Through justice procedures such as those found in a university setting, people

often expect to find a sense of security and stability in the structured process (Smith

2007). They rely on the authority of the police to be able to handle an immediate display

of misconduct or investigate an alleged one. People respect the idea that judicial

mechanisms will ‘find the facts’ of a case and rightfully punish or dismiss individuals

accordingly. Such respect, reliance, and expectations are centered on a perceived level of legitimacy (Johnson 2007; Smith 2007).

To give a solid base of understanding to legitimacy, I will reference the definition used by Tyler and Suchman:

Legitimacy refers to the view that “the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (Suchman 1995), and thus feelings of legitimacy are expected to be related to adherence to rules and policies. (Tyler 2007, p.464)

Therefore to find an institution and its governing body to be a legitimate entity, its actions

must be openly acceptable to the participating members of that establishment (Tyler

1997; Tyler & Braga et. al. 2007).

Though it may seem straight forward in its definition, it is important to recognize that legitimacy’s main element directly involves the individuals acknowledging it. It is

the perception of the members which gives birth to the concept of legitimacy. A member,

student in this case, must define institutional agents and processes as legitimate and

trustworthy in order for such a status to exist. Resulting from a successful application of

legitimacy is the self monitoring function of members as they see the authority to be

moral agents. Therefore, if people define authority as legitimate then they are more likely

to obey it (Tyler 1997; Tyler & Braga 2007; Johnson 2007).

With that being said, legitimacy cannot solely motivate both forms of rule

adherence as it is discussed by Tyler and thus leaves the institution vulnerable and

unstable. Rather it requires the individual to identify the procedure and its agents as fair,

satisfactory, and/or moral to include the two forms, which are compliance and deference.8

Compliance or conformity can be viewed as any behavior that has been altered to accord

with the expectations and behaviors of the group (Myers 2005, Tyler, Callahan & Frost

2007). This concept asserts that the behavior is an action that falls in the guidelines of the

mandated expectations of the group; therefore it exists to maintain fluidity and efficiency

for the all members of the group. It is seen as an ‘altered’ behavior because it is

8 Tyler, Callahan, and Frost describe three types of rule adherence in their article exploring this issue with the third type being “following job requirements.” Due to the type of population that I am targeting this third type is similar enough to compliance for me to disregard it in this case study. 28

something that the individual wouldn’t normally do if not for the purpose or in the

presence of the group (Myers 2005). “This aspect of rule-following involves conformity

to organizational rules, since it involves [member] actions that bring their behavior into

line with organizational rules” (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007, p.466).

The second aspect of rule adherence is the notion of voluntary deference or

acceptance. In this sense of adherence the individual abides by the group’s expectations

and behaviors (rules) because he/she actually believes it to be inherently good or

appropriate (Myers 2005, Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). This can be recognized through

understanding the willingness of an individual to abide by the rules even when there is no

oversight of their behavior (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). If the individual did not agree

with the rule but still adhered to its dictation then the individual would merely be

complying with it and may or may not accept it as a viable form of control. Compliance without acceptance of rules increases the potential for rejection of regulation, non- compliance, and delegitimation.9

Legitimacy is a crucial component of rule adherence and must be present in order

for an institution to potentially realize compliance and voluntary deference. However, in

order to fully achieve compliance while inciting voluntary deference in the group

members, there must be a sense of fairness or moral congruence in the establishment and

enforcement of the rules. Lind and Tyler develop this point in the discussion of their

highly influential study conducted in the mid-1980’s.

9 While there is always the possibility of using force to make people comply, I associate the use of force to be applied in the noncompliance of a command rather than an institutional rule. 29

When people generalize about legal authority based on their personal experiences, they focus most strongly on questions of procedural justice. [similarly] If people have an experience not characterized by fair procedures, their later compliance with the law will be based less strongly on the legitimacy of legal authorities. Therefore, not experiencing fair procedures undermines legitimacy. (Lind and Tyler 1988, p.172) 10

To this claim and connection Lind and Tyler also offer an explanation to such behavior which supports the previous discussion of morality, social contract, and the law.

The obligation to obey is based on the trust of authorities […emphasizing that] the social contract is based on expectations about how authorities will act. If authorities violate these expectations, the social contract is disrupted [… and] people appear to connect the obligations of authorities to issues of fair procedure, not to outcomes. It is being unfairly treated that disrupts the relationship of legitimacy to compliance, not receiving poor outcomes. (Lind and Tyler 1988, p.172)

From studying procedural justice within the criminal justice system, researchers can observe several factors that influence public conformity and compliance with the law.

Such components consist of public perceptions toward the system’s efficiency, fairness in treatment, fairness in outcome, overall legitimacy, legitimacy of its agents, and moral stability to name a few. Each of these factors reveals new possibilities for understanding why people obey the law. They also evaluate the performance of specific areas and agents within the procedural organizations themselves in order to measure a level of legitimacy among such organizations and agents.

Punishment through Procedure: What is the Purpose & is it Effective?

When looking at issues or problems surrounding an institution’s methods of punishing, a fundamental question must be answered by that institution: what is the

10 My italic emphasis. 30

purpose of punishment? Particularly, what is purpose of punishment via procedure?

Whether the purpose is retributive (vengeful), restorative (socially healing), educational,

or to act as a deterrent (prevention), the punishment as well as the process must be driven by a plan based on controlling human behavior. It can be argued that punishment often serves one if not many of these philosophies in and of itself. Procedure on the other hand is part and parcel to the assurance of fairness and respecting the rights of an institution’s members depending on how it is applied in the institution. The problem with

‘rationalized’ forms of penality, such as all forms of organizational justice (Greenberg

1987), is that their development “does not abolish the place of (non-rational [traditional / emotional]) values or morality – it merely disguises their operation and limits their scope” (Garland 1990, p.177). Without procedure, however, there is little protection for the individual member and their values over the type, severity, or fairness of the outcome.

Despite Thibaut and Walker’s conclusion on the importance of outcome satisfaction in the people’s perception of procedure, Lind, Tyler, Callahan, and Frost refute such claims. Known as the “fair process effect,”11 other procedural justice

researchers have also realized that people’s perception of procedure is the element which

is influential in how people receive their outcome satisfaction (Van den Bos, Lind, Wilke

2001; Van den Bos, Lind, et.al. 1997; Lind & Tyler 1988; Messick & Sentis 1983). In

both Tyler’s Chicago study as well as in the study of armed forces personnel, Lind,

11 The fair process effect is based on the fairness heuristic’s line of reasoning which asks why, when, and how people form fairness judgments toward procedure/distribution and how the people use them. The fair process effect is a product of answering how people use their judgments. (Van den Bos, Lind, Wilke 2001) 31

Tyler, Callahan, and Frost found that the outcome as well as third party participation is not as important of a factor as previously thought as Lind and Tyler explain:

People care about the decision-making process. They consider evidence about representation, neutrality, bias, honesty, quality of decision, and consistency. Their concerns are not simply instrumental. People also place great weight on inferences about the motives of the decision maker. They seem interested in the nature of the third party they are dealing with, not just in the decision the authority makes. The interpersonal contact a person may have with legal authorities also matters a great deal. People value being treated politely and having respect shown for their rights. These aspects of the experience are unrelated to the decision made by the third party. Finally, the aspect of experience most strongly related to its outcome – consistency of outcomes and procedures with various standards of reference – has little effect. Just as control over decisions has little direct effect on judgments of procedural justice, aspects of procedure. […] People feel that their membership and status in the group are confirmed when their views are heard and considered, irrespective of the decisions made by the third party. (Lind & Tyler 1988, p.175)

Rather than the driving force of a person’s feelings toward the system being the favorability of the outcome or if there was a third party involved, it is the individual’s perceptions of how they are treated by the agents, governed by the rules and regulations, as well as how the process is conducted that ultimately leads to their judgments about the system. From these judgments the person develops a level of responsiveness to the process, the agents, and the rules.

The University Application

Refining the scope of the discussion, I will now address the specifics of this thesis as it pertains to the literature cited in this chapter. As stated before, this project aims at understanding the many factors that makes up the operation of the Ohio University judiciaries system. First and foremost there is the issue of the overall structure of the process. Within such a justice operation as judiciaries, the process, in one way or another, 32 is bound to be a form of the procedures studied by Thibaut, Walker, and Kelley. While it is plausible that universities in general will tailor their processes to suit the needs of their population, Ohio University relies on an adversarial system. According to Thibaut and

Walker, such adversarial models for both correspondent and noncorrespondent cases yield high possibility of participant satisfaction and perceived levels of fairness (1975).

For this project, the distributive characteristics that I focus on are the perceptions outcome fairness and the favorability of the outcome (i.e. whether or not it was decided for or against the accused) in participant cases. The same goes for the application of the instrumental perspective as they pertain to individuals understanding the process; while I do not directly measure it as an independent variable it is indirectly examined via deterrence and outcome favorability.

Legitimacy is also measured throughout this study as it is a staple of any form of justice mechanism. Best seen in the perceptions of the students toward the agents and decisions of the judiciaries, legitimacy is a cornerstone for rule adherence in the university setting. As mentioned, all of these factors also feed into the students’ perceptions of satisfaction and fairness which are both measured directly in this study and important to a successful process.

Using the procedural justice perspective, this study focuses on two main areas.

First, there is the evaluation of student opinions toward university judiciary procedures.

More specifically, this study examines what factors influence student attitudes toward the university processes of justice and the positive or negative nature of the attitudes. In similar studies, when measuring the perceptions of the public toward city police and 33

courts, perceived fairness in treatment and procedure, morality, and satisfaction have proven to be the most influential factors (Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Folger &

Skarlicki 2001; Tyler & Huo 2002; Tyler & Blader 2003; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007).

To explore the issues brought up in the literature, my research hypothesis in this

first area reflect those used in the previously cited studies. The hypothesis ‘Students

feelings of satisfaction about university judiciaries are influenced by their perceptions of

the fairness of the process,’ is an attempt to measure the patterns among perceptions of

fairness and satisfaction in student attitudes toward the university’s process of justice.

The second area of focus is whether student attitudes toward the process influence adherence to university rules. This is centered on the argument that student perceptions of

legitimacy, fairness, moral congruence, and overall satisfaction will predict the student’s

level of rule adherence (Sunshine & Tyler 2003; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). From

this investigation conclusions can be drawn as to which factors and how such factors may

influence student conduct. The research hypothesis for this part of the project states that

‘legitimacy, fairness in treatment, and moral congruence are the strongest predictors in

determining rule adherence.’ This is used to measure the relationship significance of

student perceptions on behavioral rule compliance. 34

Methodology

This chapter is devoted to the methodology of the project. Here I will present the

judiciaries procedure as it is practiced at Ohio University. This includes a detailed outline

of the major levels of the process and also encompasses a flow chart to better explain

how the system works. Following the description of the procedure I will discuss the

layout of the sample as well as the response rate and pertinent demographics. Then the

manner in which the data was collected will be detailed along with the discussion

regarding how the survey instrument was constructed and the analytical framework of the

thesis.

The Process

For this discussion I will focus on the accused process as it is the main process

that this thesis is exploring instead of looking at both sides of the procedure, which would

otherwise include the complainant.

Stage One – The Accusation

As a person accused of a conduct violation goes through the process, a ‘filtering’

system of informal processes must take place. This procedure takes the form of various

interactions with low and medium level agents who investigate the allegations against the

individual following the initial judicial referral or the witnessing of misconduct. First and

foremost is the communication with the enforcement official who may take the form of a

Resident Life Security Aide (SA), a Residence Assistant,12 or an Ohio University Police

12 A Resident Life Security Aide (SA) and Resident Assistant (RA) are students employed by the Department of Resident Life at Ohio University who are in charge of enforcing Residence Hall and 35

Officer.13 This interaction is brief in nature and designed specifically to issue the accusations against the individual and inform them of what will happen next. (Ohio

University Judiciaries (OUJ) 2008)

Stage Two – Procedural Interview

The Director of Judiciaries reviews all referrals made to conclude whether or not there is enough support to go forward with the case. Assuming that the Director decides to continue with the process, the accused student then meets “face-to-face with a hearing officer to review” and discuss the case in a procedural interview (OUJ 2008). The hearing officer may take the form of an Assistant Green Coordinator, Director of

Residence Life, or a Resident Director (RD), if the violation occurred in the residence halls or on a Green.14 Here the third party, or deciding figure in the case of an accused individual,15 maintains complete control of the case up to this point. Furthermore, the

University rules. The difference between the two is the fact that SA’s have jurisdiction all over the university campus whereas the RA’s only have jurisdiction in the resident halls. 13 It should be noted that while the police department does enforce local law they spend much of their time dealing with the students and referring them to judiciaries on account of their conduct. I also want to note that virtually anyone associated with the university (students, faculty, and staff) can file a referral with the university judiciaries against a student or student organization of the university. The filing individual would become known as the complainant and the receiving person or persons would be known as the accused. (OUJ 2008) 14 At Ohio University the dormitories are set up in clusters that are grouped on what are called ‘Greens.’ Each Green has at least three Resident Directors who watch over the residence halls and act as hearing officials for that Green. 15 A concern that might be raised at this point would be that the perception of the process by the accused is not the same as someone in a conflicting relationship with another individual because of the labeling dynamics of the two cases. It can be argued that the perception of the individual going through a case against a peer as complainant versus accused might be much more confident and less intimidated than if the accused student were going against an entire institution such as the University in the case that the student was referred by the OUPD. Therefore it could be refuted that Thibaut and Walker’s findings don’t apply to this discussion due to the difference in population. 36

accused person(s) must act as their own counsel for the moment during the procedural

interview.

The procedural interview gives the powers to those presiding over the case, use their discretion to advise the student about the process, and apply sanctions if the student

admits guilt. The limitations exist in the options given to the student – 1) to admit guilt

and receive a sanction by the hearing officer immediately or 2) not to admit to guilt and

move to have the case brought before a more formal hearing with other officers and counsel (OUJ 2008).

Stage Three – The Hearing

If the student decides to plead ‘not guilty’ in the procedural interview, then the case is scheduled for another, more investigative hearing which may include either the same hearing officer who conducted the procedural interview or a hearing board consisting of up to three students, a faculty member, and an administrator, all depending on the case severity.16 At this time the accused and complainant (if applicable) have the

option to choose a representative to advise them and speak on their behalf. However, this

person must be a member of the university community. The only exception to this would

be in the case that the act of the accused was also one that can and will be prosecuted by

the local criminal justice system. In such an event, the accused may have an attorney

present.

16 The two types of hearings are based on the severity of the alleged misconduct. If the case is severe enough to yield the possibility of being suspended or expelled (Code A violation) from the university then the individual may have the opportunity to choose between an administrative hearing and a hearing board. If the case is not severe enough to warrant possible separation of the student from the university (Code B violation) then the only option available to the student is to have a more in‐depth administrative hearing where the hearing officer who conducted the procedural interview would preside. (OUJ 2008) 37

This type of ‘fact-finding’ hearing is one that parallels the adversary model in that the way it is structured places the two sides, complainant and accused, against one another in order to find the truth. The only major differences with the judiciaries and a basic understanding of the adversarial model are the use of more than one officer in the case of a hearing board, and the utilization of the preponderance of the evidence as the standard of proof.17 While this standard of proof does not necessarily mirror that of the

criminal justice system’s standard, it is presumed to level the field between the

complainant and the accused (OUJ 2008).

Stage Four – The Outcome

Once both sides have presented their arguments and completed their cross-

examination of witnesses as well as each other18 the hearing officer(s) then make a

decision based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. Depending on whether or

not the accused allowed the hearing to be ‘open’ to the public at the start of the hearing

will be the determining factor in if the complainant is allowed to stay for the sanctioning if a guilty verdict is returned. If there is a guilty verdict, the complainant then has the opportunity to make an impact statement for the hearing officer(s). This statement will be

17 Preponderance of the evidence as it is used in the Ohio University Judiciaries procedure is known as “the greater weight of the evidence; that is evidence that outweighs or overbalances the evidence opposed to it. Preponderance means evidence that is more probable or more persuasive. It is the quality of evidence that is weighed. Quality may or may not be identical with quantity. If the weight of the evidence is equally balanced, the complainant has not proven the charge. The burden for proving an alleged violation rests with the complainant” (OUJ 2008). 18 The Ohio University Judiciaries procedure allows for the accused to directly ask the complainant questions about the case and vice versa. Both the complainant and the accused may call event witnesses to question in the hearing to prove or disprove a point of the case. (OUJ 2008) 38 made by the complainant if the proceedings are open, but if they are closed then the statement is submitted to the board in writing.

Stage Five – Sanctioning

After the decision has been made to find the accused guilty, the next phase of the process is the sanction phase. At this point the accused is allowed to call character witnesses, speak on his or her behalf, and or present written references to be used in determining a proper sanction. The hearing authority will then go behind closed doors to decide on a sanction and will consider the following factors: “a) statements and evidence presented at the hearing; b) seriousness of the violation; c) the complainant’s oral or written statement of impact; d) the accused’s character information; e) prior disciplinary record of the accused; and f) disciplinary precedent” (OUJ 2008).

The range of sanctions that are possible at this stage depends heavily on the discretion of the hearing agent(s), although in general, the sanction given to a student may range anywhere from academic or behavioral probation, to the actual expulsion and/or banning of an individual from campus.

Stage Six - The Appellate Process

When the hearing authority finally decides on a sanction, the proceedings are then reconvened and the punishment is then handed down to the accused. Once the accused has been issued a sanction, and given the detailed manuscript of the decision he or she has the ability to file for an appeal on three possible grounds: 1) inappropriate sanction;

2) procedural defect in the original hearing; and/or 3) new evidence (OUJ 2008). Below is a flow chart of the judiciaries process as it was just explained. 39

Sample

One of the purposes of this thesis was to apply, for the first time, the procedural justice perspective to the area of higher education. To do this I decided that the target

population of this study was to be the general student body of Ohio University. Since the

yearly average number of students at Ohio University, approximately 20,000 students, I

decided to draw a random sample of students (Miller & Salkind 2002). The best way to

go about this was to randomly select a sample that would be both easy to manage and

allow for the most reliable and best response rate possible (Dillman 2007).

According to Don Dillman’s work on the use of mail and internet surveys, the

expected response rate of an internet survey can often range from 10 to 23 percentage

points better that of the traditional mailed questionnaires if done in the correct manner

and targeting the proper population (Dillman & Miller 1998, Dillman 2007). Dillman also

suggests that the use of a four and sometimes five contact method, in which the

respondents are contacted several times regarding the completion of the questionnaire,

substantially increases the response rate.

With this in mind, the sample size was kept to 2,000 randomly selected students.

This would leave a minimum mark to reach at 200 respondents which was both feasible

and manageable. The random sample was obtained through the use of the university’s

technology center where a randomized computer selection process (of e-mail addresses)

is available to faculty and graduate students with Institutional Review Board (IRB)

approval. From this sample came a response of 13% equaling 264 respondents. The

respondent demographics can be seen below in Table 1 in a comparison to the overall 41

Ohio University population demographics. In each of the valid n for this table there are less than the total 264. Those not figured in were coded as ‘item nonresponse,’ mostly due to respondents not answering those questions.

Among these demographic comparisons, some notable issues should be addressed. One of which is the fact that first generation students are underrepresented.

This means that people who are the first in their family to become a college student are not representative of the 31% first generation students reported by the university. The other particularly notable issue from this table is that regarding the slight skew toward older students.

Table 1

Average Respondent Demographics N = 264 Demographic Measure Respondents Ohio University* Total Enrollment (Athens Campus) = Have Ever Been Accused Valid n = 210 20,350 Yes 37.1% Total Accused = 1,892 Accused Percent of Total Enrolled = No 62.9% 9.2% International Student Valid n = 213 Approximate Total = 1,221 or 6.0% Yes 1.9% 4.9% No 98.1% 96.1% Gender Valid n = 212 Male 44.8% 49% Female 55.2% 51% Race/Ethnicity Valid n = 209 Asian 1.0% 1.1% Black 2.9% 4.5% Hispanic/Latino 2.4% 1.7% Caucasian 90.9% 86.3% Other 2.9% 6.4% 42

Demographic Measure Respondents Ohio University* Age Valid n = 263 N/A 18 – 20 33.1% 21 – 23 34.2% Average degree seeking 24 – 26 4.2% age is 20 years old. 27 + 28.5% Cumulative GPA Valid n = 201 N/A < 2.0 0.5% 2.1 - 2.5 7.7% 2.6 - 3.0 23.2% 3.1 - 3.5 33.5% 3.6 - 4.0 35.1% Academic Class Status Valid n = 209 Freshman 6.6% Sophomore 23.6% Undergraduate = 85.7% Junior 23.6% Senior 34.0% Graduate Student 12.3% Graduate = 14.3% Mother's Education Level Valid n = 210 N/A Less Than High School 1.0% High School 19.5% Some College 14.3% 31% of Freshmen in 2007-2008 Associates Degree 6.7% are first generation college students Bachelors Degree 31.0% Master's Degree 23.8% Professional Degree 3.8% Father's Education Level Valid n = 208 N/A Less Than High School 1.0% High School 18.8% 72% of all full-time undergraduates Some College 14.9% and 88% of freshmen applied for Associates Degree 4.8% need-based financial support. Bachelors Degree 27.4% Master's Degree 20.2% Professional Degree 13.0% Participate in Extra Valid n = 210 N/A Curricular Activities Yes 57.6% No 42.4% Note: 2007-2008 Ohio University demographics were obtained through the Ohio University Grant and Research Development websites: http://research.ohiou.edu/grants/index.php?section=201&page=332 43

Each of these issues might be explained by the idea that younger, first generation students

simply do not have interest in, nor might they understand the importance of survey

studies.

Table 1 shows that the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents

were similar to the overall university population in some areas, but very different in

others. Most notably is the number of accused in each population. Where the University

reports that only 9.2% of the student body had ever been accused, my sample reflects

37.1%. In other words, students who have experienced the process are over represented in my sample. One possible reason for this has to do with how students who have been through the system see this survey as an opportunity to convey their experience. On the other hand, those students who have not been through the system may feel that they do not have anything to add to this research because they know little about the process and therefore choose to not take the survey.

I should also mention the general depiction of the average respondent in this study as it is not shown in Table 1. The average respondent for this project was a white, female,

United States citizen, who probably comes from a middle to upper-middle class19 background, is a senior at the age of 22 with a 3.31 grade point average and participates in extracurricular activities. The tables in the following sections will provide the standard deviation, mean, variance, and range of all independent variables that were included in the project.

19 In accordance to the parent’s educational history as supported by the American Sociological Association. 44

Data Collection

With the population size and means of obtaining it established, the next step was to determine the method by which the study would be conducted. In order to replicate the study by Tyler, Callahan, and Frost (2007) as well as include much of the structure from

Tyler’s earlier work (Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Tyler & Lind 1992; Tyler & Huo

2002), it was decided that a survey would be used that included a mix of both qualitative and quantitative components. The purpose of the mixed question type is to better assess

the perceptions, experiences, and suggestions held by the respondents (Creswell 2003).

The e-mail survey was decided on as the instrument for this study despite the fact that Tyler historically uses interview methodology or mailed surveys. To conduct this survey, I utilized the online system ‘Survey Monkey.’20 This system allows for the quick

collection and easy sorting of the data provided by the respondents. Research subjects

received an email cover letter and a link that would take them to the survey monkey

website where the instrument would be set up. The survey used here did not record the

electronic IP addresses of the respondents.

The administering of this survey included three separate contacts of the sample in

keeping with Dillman’s “tailored design method” of writing surveys and developing

social research in order to increase the response rate (2007). An initial cover email was

sent out to the sample on the first day of administration and two follow-up emails were

20 www.surveymonkey.com 45

sent in seven day increments.21 Each contained content that informed the respondents of

what the study was, their role in the project, the selectivity of respondents (i.e. tell them

why they are important to the study to increase response rate) (Miller & Salkind 2002;

Dillman 2007), as well as a link to the survey. As further incentive for the students to

take the survey, a raffle was included for a $25 gift card to use redeemable at the local

chamber of commerce which aided in producing 13% response rate and a 77.7%

completion rate.

Instrument

Aside from the economic advantage that a survey brings to research, i.e. “yielding

the maximum number of ‘facts,’ or bits of data, per research dollar” (Chadwick et. al.

1984, p.173), there are other significant reasons why survey questionnaires are chosen in

social studies. One of these is the ‘free’ status of the respondent. When completing a

questionnaire the respondent has the freedom to discuss questions with other people, take

breaks, and skip questions without having to deal with the social interaction of an

interviewer (Chadwick et. al. 1984; Dillman 2007). Another advantage, and quite

possibly the most pertinent to this study, is the argument that respondents give more

honest answers and talk more freely about sensitive topics when there is not an

interviewer present (Schuman & Presser 1981; Chadwick et. al. 1984; Miller & Salkind

2002; Dillman 2007).

21 The increments were not determined by a set time, rather they were sent out in response to when the recorded number of people taking the survey dropped to about five responses in a day – this just happened to be approximately every seventh day. 46

The disadvantages of using a questionnaire are obvious and are no different for

this study. Without an interviewer in attendance to present the questions in the manner by which they were intended the respondents’ answers are at the mercy of their blind

interpretation of the written word. If an interviewer were present then the respondents would have less doubt about a particular strand of questions for the presenter can field any such questions they respondents may have. Often if the survey is too long in length the respondent will experience fatigue and give hap-hazard answers or skip the questions all together. Further still, in a survey questionnaire, the variables and questions are practically ‘set in stone’ in that there is no one present to “probe” interesting topics unforeseen by the researcher. (Schuman & Presser 1981; Chadwick et. al. 1984; Miller &

Salkind 2002; Dillman 2007)

The survey instrument for this study, which can be seen in the appendix, consisted of 40 questions with 30 closed questions and 10 open.22 All but a few closed-ended

questions utilized a five point Likert-type scale which ranged from strongly agree to

strongly disagree in rating statements. A Likert-type scale was used to produce a higher

level of reliability among the questions that ask for the respondent’s feelings or attitude

toward a particular topic (Miller & Salkind 2002). The questions were broken into

sections, for instance: how much the student knows about the process, what the student

feels about the process, what feelings they might have about the university rules and

22 In an attempt to narrow the focus of this paper for the purposes of a thesis project the open‐ended questions are not explicitly addressed with exception to outcome favorability. 47 regulations, etc. This ensured for a short yet precise instrument which hit on the particular variables that was important to the project (Miller & Salkind; Dillman 2007).

All of the variables used in this instrument were inspired or replicated from the study on rule adherence and law enforcement officials by Tyler, Callahan, and Frost

(2007). Each variable has at least one question devoted to it as an independent variable (a few important questions had two). This was mostly due to the overall length of the survey. In an attempt to diminish any possible respondent fatigue the survey was shortened as much as possible while still trying to touch on the relevant independent variables (Dillman 2007). Every dependent variable on the other hand had at least two questions assigned to its measurement. This was to allow some room for reliability purposes – the more like questions placed at different areas of the survey will indicate with the variance how reliable the questions are targeting the subject in question

(Schuman & Presser 1981; Chadwick et. al. 1984; Miller & Salkind 2002; Dillman 2007).

The dependent variables for the project were again inspired by Tyler, Callahan, and Frost (2007). Legitimacy, fairness, outcome and overall satisfaction, as well as compliance were of the utmost importance when determining the factors that influence people’s perceptions and behaviors regarding the rules and procedural justice (Rappoport

1965; Thibaut & Walker 1975; Greenberg 1993; Suchman 1995; Lind & Tyler 1988;

Tyler 1990; Tyler & Lind 1992; Konovsky & Cropanzano 1993; Tyler & Huo 2002;

Tyler & Blader 2003; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). I used certain demographics to account for representation as well as take into account the any type of possible discriminatory factors which might arise among the students in the judiciaries process. In 48

this case it included elements such as: international status, gender, race/ethnicity, class by

parental education, age, grade point average, and involvement in extracurricular activities.

To ensure a user friendly survey, the instrument was tested on a convenience sample of approximately 120 undergraduate and 25 graduate students. Most of the items use a Likert type response categories ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Listed below are the scales of the dependent and independent variables as they were

presented and measured in the instrument. The listed labels are the general tags by which

I will use in reference to the variables. The instrument questions that were used to

measure the listed variables follow. All variables used in this project came from Tyler,

Callahan, and Frost’s study of rule adherence among law enforcement and military

personnel (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). Items used to measure the variables were

constructed from the Tyler, Callahan, and Frost model but are not direct replications.

Dependent Variables

Legitimacy:

As for most variables, two items were used to measure legitimacy. “Students should follow school rules and regulations even if they think they are wrong” and “It is important that students always accept decisions made by judiciaries.” These were not combined due to a low reliability scores.

Compliance:

Two items measured the variable of compliance or rule adherence. “I always

follow university rules and policies,” and “I carefully comply with university 49 regulations.” I combined both questions that measure compliance components to make the variable ‘compliance’ because the reliability test yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .806.

To do this, I computed the means from each of these items together into a new, more encompassing variable that measured compliance.

Fairness:

Three items were selected to measure perceptions of fairness. “Judiciaries officials make unbiased decisions,” “Judiciaries officials always consider the students’ side of the story when making decisions,” and “Overall, the judiciaries process treats all students fair.” These three items were used to compute composite scale with its

Cronboch’s Alpha score of reliability being .814.

Overall process satisfaction:

Measuring overall process satisfactions are five items. “Judiciaries carefully consider all case facts” (for perceptions of thoroughness of the process); “The judiciaries process prevents student misconduct” (measuring effectiveness); “Judiciaries always processes cases quickly” (looking at efficiency and competence); “Overall, I am satisfied with the judiciaries process;” “Overall, I am satisfied with my experience with judiciaries.” These items remained uncombined due to the subtle yet distinct facets of satisfaction which they were measuring. 50

Independent Variables

Outcome Satisfaction:

As the outcome of the individual’s case was not one of the main dependent variables in the making of the instrument, it only has one item of measurement. “Overall,

the outcome of my case was fair.”

Fairness of interpersonal treatment with the organization:

Only one question looked at the perceptions of fairness among interpersonal

treatment with the organization. “The rights of the student are well protected in the

judiciary process.” This is separate from the other items measuring fairness due to the

low reliability scores and a failure to load with other fairness items in the principal

component factor analysis.

Voluntary deference to policies:

There was one item selected to measure voluntary deference. “I follow university

policies even when I do not need to.” This was mostly due to the limited space on the

instrument coupled with my concern that those individuals who were very willing to

adhere to the rules would be doing so based out of one of the other independent variables:

deterrence, moral congruence, reward sanction contingency, etc.

Moral Congruence:23

Similarly, one item was chosen to measure moral congruence. “Ohio University

values regarding misconduct are similar to mine.”

Behavior reward and sanction contingency:

One item was used to measure perceptions of reward and sanction contingencies.

“If I got caught breaking a university rule, it would hurt me academically.”

Deterrence:

One item was used to measure perceptions of deterrence as well. “Experiencing

judiciaries causes students to obey school rules more often.”

Below in Table 2, I have illustrated the mean, standard deviation, and range of all

dependent and independent variables used in the multivariate analyses. These will be

supplemented later in the Results section. The numerical assignment range was from 1

equaling ‘Strongly Agree’ to 5 meaning ‘Strongly Disagree.’

23 Originally moral congruence was not a dependent variable but held potential to be a major factor in statistical tests with compliance and voluntary deference. 52

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for all Independent Variables used in Multivariate Tests Std. Mean Range Valid Missing Deviation Officials Consider the 3.25 0.969 5 228 36 Student's Side of the Story Judiciaries Always Process 3.09 0.93 5 228 36 Cases Quickly Judiciaries Carefully 3.19 0.96 5 227 37 Consider all Case Facts Judiciaries Officials make 3.27 0.943 5 226 38 Unbiased Decisions Judiciaries Prevents 3.39 1.109 5 227 37 Student Misconduct Overall Satisfaction 3.28 0.986 5 227 37 I Always Follow University 2.76 1.172 5 218 46 Rules and Policies If I got Caught Breaking a University Rule, It would 2.41 1.152 5 217 47 Hurt Me Ohio University Values Regarding Misconduct Are 3.09 1.129 5 216 48 Similar to Mine Experiencing Judiciaries Causes Students to Obey 3.18 1.079 5 217 47 School Rules More Often I Carefully Comply with 2.69 0.987 5 217 47 University Regulations Students Should Follow School Rules and 3 1.041 5 218 46 Regulations Even If They Think They are Wrong. Overall Case Outcome Was 3.09 1.221 5 75 3 Fair* Judiciaries Process Treats 3.49 1.077 5 76 3 All Students Fair* Experience Satisfaction* 3.54 1.259 5 76 3 *Only applicable to students who have been through the process. 53

Analytical Strategies

For this project I followed a simple pattern of mostly deductive logic with some

inductive reasoning. This was mostly due to the fact this was a sequentially exploratory

study (Creswell 2003; Norušis 2006). Therefore, the analysis began following a

univariate course of simple descriptions of the variables which gave an idea as to how the

dependent variables might fit together in later bivariate and multivariate tests.

From these simple statistics I compared the dependent variables with each other

as well as any other notable independent variables, meaning those which I thought might

have a significant connection to other variables like outcome favorability, which might have relevance in the developed hypotheses. At both the univariate and bivariate levels of analysis, I opted to collapse the scales of all variables for reporting purposes. This means

that I collapsed the five point scales of measurement into a three point scale of

measurement without computing new variables.

The bivariate level of analysis is important to show whether or not it is worth moving on with a hypothesis and test for multivariate predictors (Norušis 2006, Dillman

2007). The bivariate stage included mostly cross-tabulations which measured the chi- square statistic for significant relationships that might exist, Spearman’s coefficient and

Cramer’s V (lambda for interval variables) to measure the strength of that relationship

(Norušis 2006).

As the strongest relationships were singled out between independent and dependent variables, a reduction of variables was needed to prepare for stronger multivariate testing. To do this reliability tests and factor analyses were used to try and 54 combine multiple questions used to measure a single dependent variable, i.e. legitimacy or compliance. Such tests included the evaluation of the Cronbach’s Alpha, factor analyses and correlation tests to establish relationship strength between variables. As it was, only two variables had questions with a high enough reliability to allow for a combination of the data; compliance and fairness. My reasoning for computing new variables where possible had to do with the development of the instrument coupled with

Tyler’s work. To increase the reliability of my measurements I installed more than one question for most variables in hopes that they would later yield a high enough Cronbach

Alpha to combine them into one scale.

As it was mentioned earlier, at least two questions were designed into the instrument to measure each of the most important variables. Unfortunately, the reliability tests indicated that the majority of the multi-question variables were not measuring the same thing and thus could not be combined during the analysis. Therefore, one question for each variable was used to measure that variable, excluding compliance and fairness.

The question used was usually the question that was the more straight-forward in targeting the desired topic. A common correlation and principal component factor analysis was conducted to test the multi-colinearity of the independent variables also to see if any could be combined into a single variable. Fairness again was the only one found that could be combined among the independent variables.

The multivariate levels of analysis were then prepared and used to determine predictors of the dependent variables as well as test each stated hypotheses. It was through the use of both linear regression and ordinal logistic regression analysis (PLUM 55

test) that this took place. First the linear regression was used to identify any particular

areas of interest that would at least confirm the cross-tabulations used earlier. Because the

overwhelming majority of the variables used in this project are ordinal scales, the linear

regression models do not work as well and can often have errors in determining relationships and Beta calculations (Creswell 2003; Norušis 2006). Therefore, to check

and confirm or correct the calculations made by the linear regression models an ordinal

regression analysis was used to receive a more in depth and more accurate understanding

of predictability and significance (Norušis 2006). Only the ordinal least squares (OLS)

models were reported.

Some Limitations of the Research

This study has a number of limitations and while others will be expounded upon

later in the discussion, I want to lay out two key shortcomings of the study before I

continue into the results. First and foremost the issue of external validity, or generalization, should be addressed. Due to the response rate being as low as it was, the results cannot accurately reflect the constructs of the literature, cannot conform to the full scope of Tyler’s research, lower the chances of these exact findings to be repeated in identical conditions, and therefore cannot be generalized to larger populations including the student body of Ohio University (Lucas 2003).

Another concern is with the reliability of the study. This is to say that because there was only enough room on the survey to use one to two questions for each variable, the reliability both between questions and within topics left much to be desired. Because 56

of this, the reliability of the variables and the items designed to study them is low and

thus adds to the lack of generalizability of the findings.

Although despite the problems with external validity and some areas regarding reliability, the results are still comparable to the work of Tyler and his colleagues at their more basic statements of theory. The reason it is still relatable to Tyler’s work is because the questions being asked in this study get at the same issues of public perceptions toward rules, regulations, and authority. The study still examines some of the core issues surrounding procedural justice and why people adhere to rules.

Results

The initial interpretations of the descriptive statistics of the data include notable

frequencies in the respondents’ demographics as well as their statements regarding the dependent variable questions. For appropriate understanding of this section it is worth reviewing the dependent variables used in this project: overall process satisfaction, outcome satisfaction, perceptions of compliance, and legitimacy.

Based on the sample there are certain patterns which seem to arise in the early stages of analysis. Beginning with the frequencies of the respondents’ overall satisfaction, we can see in Table 3 that while the majority of those who answered the question stated that they were neutral in their satisfaction level toward the Ohio

University judiciaries process, among those who did have an opinion seemed to be

dissatisfied. In fact over 28% of all respondents indicated that they were either

dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the process as a whole while only 16% indicated that

they were satisfied. This is despite the fact that 63% of the respondents reported that they

had never been formally accused of a violation of the Student Code of Conduct.

To explore how people’s perception of procedure depends on their experience, a

brief comparison between the two main groups of this study would be appropriate. Table

3 depicts the frequencies of variables used in the multivariate tests and are reported in a

collapsed, three point scale for purposes of presentation. Table 3 also shows both students

with experience of going through the process and students who without. With no first

hand understanding of the process to draw on, it is not surprising that these respondents

are neutral in their response to this statement. What about the ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ 58 responses? These could be attributed to indirect experiences, second hand experiences through friends and family, or assumptions of a governing system. The responses based on indirect experiences may be fed by hearsay or anecdotal evidence (Myers 2005). Such cases leave those respondents’ potentially neutral perceptions to be influenced by those who have experienced the system and formulated opinions on first hand evidence.

Table 3

Students without Experience Students with Experience in the Judiciaries Process in the Judiciaries Process Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Satisfied with Overall N/A Experience (Experience

Satisfaction) Agree 19 25% Neutral 13 13% Disagree 46 61% Case Outcome was Fair N/A (Outcome Fairness) Agree 28 37% Neutral 15 16% Disagree 35 47% Overall, Satisfied with Judiciaries Process

(Overall Sat.) 41 16% Agree 15 19% 150 57% Neutral 22 28% 73 28% Disagree 41 53% Judiciaries decisions should be

accepted (Legitimacy) 51 19% Agree 15 19% 110 42% Neutral 15 19% 103 39% Disagree 48 62%

Students without Experience Students with Experience in the Judiciaries Process in the Judiciaries Process Comply with university rules

(Compliance) 86 33% Agree 15 26% 112 42% Neutral 17 21% 66 25% Disagree 27 54% Judiciaries process is fair

(Fairness) 22 8% Agree 7 20% 147 56% Neutral 18 29% 95 36% Disagree 28 51% Rule violations hurt academically (Reward/Sanction

Contingency) 140 53% Agree 42 54% 82 31% Neutral 12 15% 42 16% Disagree 24 31% I follow rules voluntarily

(Voluntary Deference) 96 36% Agree 22 28% 114 43% Neutral 23 30% 54 21% Disagree 33 42% Rules are morally congruent with my values (Moral

Congruence) 74 28% Agree 16 21% 105 40% Neutral 17 22% 85 32% Disagree 45 58% Judiciaries deters misconduct

(Deterrence) 52 20% Agree 20 26% 108 41% Neutral 11 14% 104 39% Disagree 46 59% Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

On the flip side of this would of course be the responses of those students who have experienced the process first hand. As shown, 59% of the respondents who have experienced the process report being dissatisfied with the overall process. Not only does 60

this suggest that these individuals had a displeasing experience, they also have the

potential of spreading a negative perception of the process to those who have not experienced it, as previously mentioned. Through each of these possibilities there comes the issue of compliance or rule adherence.

Table 3 also depicts the attitude held by all respondents in regards to agreeing, disagreeing, or feeling neutral towards the question: It is important that students always accept decisions made by judiciaries. Nearly 40% of all respondents indicated that it is not important that students always accept decisions made by judiciaries, with 42% of the respondents feeling neutral towards the issue, and leaving a mere 19% agreeing with the statement. From this it can be deduced that further investigation into the perceptions of legitimacy in judiciaries will likely uncover a lack of trust and loyalty in the students which may lead to less rule adherence.

Focusing our attention more to only the respondents who have been through the system first hand, Table 3 describes the respondents’ satisfaction in regards to their overall experience. Almost 60% of respondents were unsatisfied with their overall experience of judiciaries. This was fairly interesting considering the fact that there were only 45% who indicated that they were dissatisfied with their outcome fairness leaving

36% satisfied. With that in mind, further investigation of this pattern would likely indicate that despite the fact that someone may feel their outcome was satisfactory it does not immediately follow that they found the same in their overall satisfaction of the experience. This mirrors the results found in much of the literature (Lind & Tyler 1988;

Tyler 1990; Tyler & Blader 2003; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). 61

From here I will discuss the multivariate testing of the two hypotheses of this project. As drawn from the literature, the first hypothesis that is being tested here involves the idea that student feelings of satisfaction about university judiciaries are influenced by perceptions of the procedural fairness of the process (Tyler & Huo 2002;

Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). Specifically, I propose that the general satisfaction level of the students can be predicted by their perceptions of procedural effectiveness, legitimacy, fairness, and moral congruence of the overall judiciaries process and their practicing agents (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007).

Following this I will then discuss the testing of the second hypothesis which states that perceptions of legitimacy, fairness, and moral congruence are the strongest predictors in determining rule adherence (Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Tyler & Blader 2003;

Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). This means that when students make judgments of a process, they base their satisfaction on the fairness and legitimacy of the process as well as their perceptions of whether or not the rules and procedure are morally congruent with their own values.

Overall Satisfaction

Moving away from the select sample of those students who have experienced the system first hand, the next hypothesis focuses on the predictors of overall satisfaction of judiciaries for all respondents. Here the general satisfaction level of the students are said to be predicted by their perceptions of procedural effectiveness, system legitimacy, fairness, and moral congruence (Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). For a more detailed 62 analysis, I also included with these factors the independent variables in perceptions of thoroughness and competence/efficiency of judiciaries.

What is meant by procedural effectiveness is the perceived ability of the process to deal with and diminish student misconduct. Thoroughness and efficiency are aspects that have to do with how the judiciaries agents conduct their duties, i.e. considering all the facts and processing cases quickly (respectively). While the concepts of legitimacy and moral congruence remain the same as discussed in the previous section, the issue of fairness was slightly tailored to adhere to this sample. Because only those who had been through the system were used to interpret experience satisfaction, all of the questions / variables from the instrument could now be used to measure fairness. This is due to the fact that one of the fairness items was not available to those who had not been through the system before. Therefore in testing the full sample, fairness must represent perceived treatment of other students and decision making of the agents.

Table 4.1

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Legitimate 19 (38%) 24 (48%) 7 (14%) 50 Legitimacy*** Neutral 12 (19%) 39 (63%) 39 (63%) 62 (% within) Illegitimate 9 (9%) 45 (44%) 45 (44%) 103 Total 40 (19%) 108 (50%) 108 (50%) 215 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.381 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Moral Congruent 26 (36%) 37 (51%) 9 (13%) 72 Congruence*** Neutral 10 (18%) 32 (56%) 15 (26%) 57 (% within) Incongruent 4 (5%) 38 (45%) 43 (51%) 85 Total 40 (19%) 107 (50%) 67 (31%) 214 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.426 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Fair 17 (77%) 5 (23%) 0 22 Fairness*** Neutral 11 (13%) 63 (72%) 13 (15%) 87 (% within) Unfair 2 (4%) 14 (25%) 41 (72%) 57 Total 30 (18%) 82 (49%) 54 (33%) 166 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.666 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Effective 29 (56%) 17 (33%) 6 (12%) 52 Deterrence*** Neutral 5 (7%) 51 (72%) 15 (21%) 71 (% within) Ineffective 7 (7%) 45 (44%) 51 (50%) 103 Total 41 (18%) 113 (50%) 72 (32%) 236 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.462 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Thorough 31 (57%) 18 (33%) 5 (9%) 54 Thoroughness*** Neutral 7 (7%) 72 (77%) 15 (16%) 94 (% within) Incomplete 3 (4%) 23 (30%) 52 (67%) 78 Total 41 (18%) 113 (50%) 72 (32%) 226 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.601

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Efficient 16 (28%) 22 (39%) 19 (33%) 57 Efficiency*** Neutral 19 (18%) 68 (65%) 18 (17%) 105 (% within) Inefficient 6 (9%) 23 (35%) 36 (55%) 65 Total 41 (18%) 113 (50%) 73 (32%) 227 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.226 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total 18 – 20 21 (24%) 37 (43%) 28 (33%) 86 Age 21 – 23 15 (17%) 48 (53%) 27 (30%) 90 (% within) 24 – 26 1 (9%) 8 (73%) 2 (18%) 11 27+ 4 (10%) 20 (51%) 15 (39%) 39 Total 41 (18%) 113 (50%) 72 (32%) 226 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient 0.078 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total < 2.0 - 2.5 3 (20%) 6 (40%) 7 (47%) 15 GPA 2.6 - 3.0 9 (20%) 20 (44%) 16 (36%) 45 (% within) 3.1 - 3.5 10 (16%) 35 (56%) 18 (29%) 63 3.6 - 4.0 17 (25%) 36 (53%) 15 (22%) 68 Total 39 (20%) 97 (51%) 56 (29%) 192 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient -0.132 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Freshman 1 (7%) 7 (50%) 6 (43%) 14 Academic Sophomore 12 (25%) 17 (35%) 20 (41%) 49 Class Satus Junior 11 (22%) 22 (44%) 17 (34%) 50 (% within) Senior 12 (17%) 44 (62%) 15 (21%) 71 Graduate 5 (19%) 16 (62%) 5 (19%) 26 Total 41 (20%) 106 (51%) 63 (30%) 210 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient -0.125 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Parents' < High School 5 (25%) 9 (45%) 6 (30%) 20 Highest Associates 4 (11%) 19 (53%) 13 (36%) 36 Completed Bachelors 9 (24%) 15 (41%) 13 (35%) 37 Education Professional 10 (33%) 13 (43%) 7 (23%) 30 (% within) Total 28 (23%) 56 (46%) 39 (32%) 123 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient -0.111 65

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Overall Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Gender Male 15 (16%) 46 (48%) 34 (36%) 85 (% within) Female 26 (23%) 60 (52%) 29 (25%) 115 Total 41 (20%) 106 (51%) 63 (30%) 210 Spearman Correlation Coefficient -0.125 Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Total Race/Ethnicity White 34 (18%) 98 (52%) 56 (30%) 188 (% within) Nonwhite 7 (37%) 7 (37%) 5 (26%) 19 Total 41 (20%) 105 (51%) 61 (30%) 207 Spearman Correlation Coefficient 0.110 *Significance at the 0.05 level **Significance at the 0.01 level ***Significance at the 0.001 level Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Correlations are between the five-point versions of the Likert scales used in this study.

As it can be seen in Table 4.2, a regression analyses revealed that the only

predictive element of the hypothesis that did not yield a notable significance level of at

least .05 is that of competence/efficiency; therefore how quickly the cases are processed

is not a major concern held by the students. This indicates that as students make

inferences about the judiciaries process as a whole, it is likely that they are taking

characteristics such as fairness, effectiveness in purpose and practice, as well as

thoroughness into consideration. In other words, if an individual believes a system to be

fair in its decision making and agents, all the while being effective and thorough in its

dealings with student misconduct, then chances are very high the individual will also find

the system to be satisfactory. These results support the findings of Tyler, Callahan, and

Frost (2007) only with regard to legitimacy and fairness however.

In Table 4.1 the chi-square tests and Spearman correlation coefficients show

moderate to strong correlations between overall satisfaction and the independent 66

variables of legitimacy, deterrence, fairness, moral congruence, thoroughness, and

efficiency. On the other hand, the regression shown in Table 4.2 indicates that while these variables may be linked through patterns and trends, they are not necessarily

predictive of overall process satisfaction.

The regression analysis illustrates that student perceptions of legitimacy, fairness,

deterrence, thoroughness, and efficiency of the system are all predictors of student

satisfaction of judiciaries. Of these predictors, this model indicated that perceptions of

thoroughness, deterrence, and fairness were the strongest. This suggests that overall

satisfaction is not predicted by moral congruence, GPA, age, class status, socioeconomic

class, gender or race/ethnicity. 67

Table 4.2

Linear Regression Analysis of Overall Satisfaction Model Summary Overall Satisfaction Adjusted R Std. Error of R R Square Square the Estimate .813a 0.660 0.638 0.593 ANOVA Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig. Squares Regression 121.889 12 10.157 28.855 .000 Residual 62.659 178 0.352 Total 184.548 190 Regression Coefficientsa Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t (Constant) -0.260 0.505 -0.052 Legitimacy* 0.111 0.051 0.118 2.196 Moral Congruence 0.058 0.049 0.067 1.177 Fairness** 0.263 0.066 0.170 2.441 Deterrence*** 0.178 0.046 0.200 3.824 Thoroughness*** 0.400 0.066 0.390 6.046 Efficiency* 0.123 0.049 0.116 2.515 Age 0.138 0.049 0.168 2.839 GPA 0.009 0.051 0.009 0.179 Academic Class Status -0.168 0.052 -0.193 -3.221 Parents' Education -0.005 0.030 -0.007 -0.157 Gender 0.017 0.091 0.191 0.849 Race / Ethnicity -0.128 0.089 -0.065 -1.434 a A parallel multinomial analysis (PLUM) found no substantial difference between the two models. *Significance at the 0.05 level **Significance at the 0.01 level ***Significance at the 0.001 level Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Member satisfaction with university judiciaries, may be something that

administrators typically overlook when assessing a process’s strengths and weaknesses.

More often than not satisfaction is seen to be a very subjective interpretation that depends heavily on an individual’s sense of what a procedure is supposed to do and what it is actually doing. Such a sense can be easily underestimated by administrators, especially in a setting of preoccupied members as in university students. Inherently within this subjective reasoning however, lay the components which construct the notion of satisfaction for the members. Perceived legitimacy, fairness, thoroughness, and effectiveness in deterrence are staples in this satisfaction; without even one of these aspects, satisfaction in a procedure, a system, or a governing body may diminish greatly

(Tyler & Caine 1981; Greenberg 1991).

Compliance

One particularly interesting issue regarding overall satisfaction is that it can have a substantial impact on is the level of compliance or rule adherence. Compliance is the centerpiece of social control for any institution. That is to say, without it there is little to no possibility of control over its members (Lind & Tyler 1988; Tyler 1990; Tyler &

Blader 2003; Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007). The way this often works hand-in-hand with overall satisfaction is through sharing many of the same components, characteristics, and requisites yet reference two entirely different concepts. Where overall satisfaction emphasizes the underlying feelings and attitudes of an institution’s members, compliance is an act of obedience whether it be for or against the members’ own sentiments. With that being said, one can understand that while overall satisfaction is of great significance 69 in procedural justice, rule adherence is typically priority number one as far as institutions are concerned.

Following Tyler’s (2007) instrumental and normative perspectives, the idea of rule adherence has two specific dimensions to it. One of which is the idea of actual compliance or conformity. To clarify the definition of compliance, I turn to Herbert

Kelman’s definition as it is also referenced by Tyler, Callahan, and Frost (2007):

Compliance can be said to occur when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from another person or group. He adopts the induced behavior not because he believes in its content but because he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and avoid specific punishments or disapproval by conforming. Thus the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the social effect of accepting influence. (Kelman 1958, p.53)

In other words, the action of compliance or conformity is based on the perception of the individual member toward control, and the ability to see the control as behaviorally coercive. Such an assumption includes the factors of deterrence, legitimacy, rewards and sanctions (Singer 1970).

On the flip-side of this is the idea of voluntary deference (Tyler, Callahan & Frost

2007). In the same capacity as compliance, Kelman indicates a different way people accept influence:

Internalization can be said to occur when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced behavior – the ideas and actions of which it is composed – is intrinsically rewarding. He adopts the induced behavior because it is congruent with his value system. He may consider it useful for the solution of a problem or find it congenial to his needs. Behavior adopted in this fashion tends to be integrated with the individual’s existing values. Thus the satisfaction derived from 70

internalization is due to the content of the new behavior. (Kelman 1958, p.53)24

It is possible that as people internalize policies and rules they accept them at a different

level than when they merely comply. At such a level the rules become morally congruent

with the members’ values increasing the likelihood that they will adhere to the rules when

there are no authority figures present or when they are not ‘required’ to follow the rules

(Tyler, Callahan & Frost 2007).

In this study, while a general sense of rule adherence is taking the place of the

specific definition of compliance, each of the factors (i.e. voluntary deference,

compliance, and of course moral congruence) are accounted for and tested. With that

being said, this hypothesis states that student perceptions of legitimacy, fairness, and

moral congruence are the best predictors of general rule adherence. Also included in the

testing of this hypothesis are other possible predictors such as student perceptions of

deterrence, effectiveness, 25 overall satisfaction, and rewards/sanction contingency.

Through chi-square tests and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient, potential predictors of

compliance were singled out. Fairness, voluntary deference, moral congruence,

legitimacy, reward/sanction contingency, deterrence, effectiveness, and overall

satisfaction were all shown to have significant relationships with compliance in the chi-

24 Kelman also emphasizes a third process in the act of rule adherence being that of identification. Because this notion has more to do with the desire of positive relationships with other individuals or groups rather than an institution, it has better relevance at a more micro level and is subsequently left out of this study.

25 In this study, deterrence is focused toward the proactive prevention of misconduct without provoking the actual process. Effectiveness here is referencing the judiciaries ability to deter those who have been through the process from violating again. 71 square tests and Spearman Correlation Coefficients. As in the analysis of overall satisfaction, the multivariate testing revealed the predictive nature of the relationships emphasized in the chi-square and correlation tests.

Table 5.1

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Compliance Compliance Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Fair 17 (85%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 20 Fairness*** Neutral 35 (56%) 14 (22%) 14 (22%) 63 (% within) Unfair 10 (26%) 13 (34%) 15 (40%) 38 Total 62 (51%) 29 (24%) 30 (25%) 121 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.389 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Voluntary Agree 75 (86%) 11 (13%) 1 (1%) 87 Deference*** Neutral 9 (23%) 24 (60%) 7 (18%) 40 (% within) Disagree 2 (5%) 9 (21%) 31 (74%) 42 Total 86 (51%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 169 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.787 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Moral Congruent 52 (81%) 10 (16%) 2 (3%) 64 Congruence*** Neutral 18 (45%) 17 (43%) 5 (13%) 40 (% within) Incongruent 14 (22%) 17 (27%) 32 (51%) 63 Total 84 (50%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 167 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.567 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Legitimate 28 (67%) 10 (24%) 4 (10%) 42 Legitimacy*** Neutral 30 (65%) 11 (24%) 5 (11%) 46 (% within) Illegitimate 26 (33%) 23 (29%) 30 (38%) 79 Total 84 (50%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 167 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.348 72

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Compliance Compliance Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Reward/Sanction Aware 67 (63%) 23 (22%) 17 (16%) 107 Contingency*** Neutral 11 (41%) 10 (37%) 6 (22%) 27 (% within) Unaware 7 (21%) 11 (32%) 16 (47%) 34 Total 85 (51%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 168 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.348 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Deterred 33 (81%) 7 (17%) 1 (3%) 41 Deterrence*** Neutral 33 (60%) 10 (18%) 12 (22%) 55 (% within) Undeterred 19 (27%) 26 (37%) 26 (37%) 71 Total 85 (51%) 43 (26%) 39 (23%) 167 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.445 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Effective 37 (70%) 13 (25%) 3 (6%) 53 Effectiveness*** Neutral 32 (60%) 12 (23%) 9 (17%) 53 (% within) Ineffective 16 (26%) 19 (31%) 27 (44%) 62 Total 85 (51%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 168 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.417 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Overall Aware 24 (75%) 6 (19%) 2 (6%) 32 Satisfaction*** Neutral 48 (57%) 21 (25%) 16 (19%) 85 (% within) Unaware 12 (24%) 17 (34%) 21 (42%) 50 Total 84 (50%) 44 (26%) 39 (23%) 167 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** 0.387 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total 18 – 20 31 (49%) 18 (29%) 14 (22%) 63 21 – 23 31 (44%) 19 (27%) 20 (29%) 70 Age 24 – 26 10 (91%) 1 (9%) 0 11 27+ 14 (58%) 6 (25%) 4 (17%) 24 Total 86 (51%) 44 (26%) 38 (23%) 168 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient -0.9 73

Crosstabulations and Correlations of Compliance Compliance Comply Neutral Not Comply Total < 2.0 - 2.5 2 (15%) 5 (39%) 6 (46%) 13 GPA* 2.6 - 3.0 16 (46%) 11 (31%) 8 (23%) 35 (% within) 3.1 - 3.5 27 (54%) 12 (24%) 11 (22%) 52 3.6 - 4.0 34 (65%) 12 (23%) 6 (12%) 52 Total 79 (53%) 40 (27%) 31 (21%) 150 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient*** -0.259 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Freshman 3 (27%) 3 (27%) 5 (46%) 11 Academic Sophomore 18 (50%) 10 (28%) 8 (22%) 36 Class Satus Junior 16 (44%) 10 (28%) 10 (28%) 36 (% within) Senior 30 (54%) 15 (27%) 11 (20%) 56 Graduate 18 (75%) 5 (21%) 1 (4%) 24 Total 85 (52%) 43 (26%) 35 (22%) 163 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient** 0.01 Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Parents' < High School 11 (65%) 42 (12%) 4 (24%) 17 Highest Associates 15 (56%) 6 (22%) 6 (22%) 27 Completed Bachelors 16 (57%) 8 (29%) 4 (14%) 28 Education Professional 11 (58%) 2 (11%) 6 (32%) 19 (% within) Total 53 (58%) 18 (20%) 20 (22%) 91 Spearman’s Correlation 0.034 Coefficient Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Gender Male 36 (49%) 19 (26%) 19 (26%) 74 (% within) Female 48 (54%) 24 (27%) 17 (19%) 89 Total 84 (52%) 43 (26%) 36 (22%) 163 Spearman’s Correlation -0.069 Coefficient Comply Neutral Not Comply Total Race/Ethnicity White 73 (51%) 37 (26%) 34 (24%) 144 (% within) Nonwhite 11 (65%) 5 (29%) 1 (6%) 17 Total 84 (52%) 42 (26%) 35 (22%) 161 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient -0.114 *Significant at the 0.05 level **Significant at the 0.01 level *** Significant at the 0.001 level Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Correlations are between the five-point versions of the Likert scales used in this study. 74

Upon further analysis in the linear regression model it was found that among this

student sample effectiveness, overall satisfaction, and fairness were not predictors of

compliance, as can be seen in Table 5.2. In fact, contrary to the claim of the original

hypothesis, the best predictors of rule adherence are voluntary deference, moral

congruence, deterrence, legitimacy, and the students’ understanding of rewards and

sanctions. Thus, if an individual perceives the process along with its affiliated rules and

regulations as legitimate, morally similar to his or her own values, and identifies the

potential costs as possible threats, then it is likely (as in accordance with the literature and the tests) that the individual will also be voluntarily compliant.

These findings are in support of the self-regulatory approach to rule adherence over that of the command-and-control approach to obedience (Tyler, Callahan & Frost

2007). According to Tyler, Callahan, and Frost,

[t]he command-and-control model represents a traditional approach to encouraging rule-following, insofar as it operates via extrinsic forces and draws upon employees’ instrumental concerns and utility maximization goals. It is based on the view that people follow rules as a function of the costs and benefits they associate with doing so. […] The self-regulatory model represents an alternative approach to encouraging rule-following, because it focuses on intrinsic motivations. It identifies rule-following as originating within an individual’s intrinsic desire to follow organizational rules, and not external contingencies in the environment that are linked to rule-following. (2007, p.462)

Table 5.2

Linear Regression Analysis of Compliance Model Summary Compliance Adjusted R Std. Error of the R R Square Square Estimate

.845a 0.713 0.692 0.548 ANOVA Mean Sum of Squares df F Sig. Square Regression 132.397 13 10.184 31.891 0.000 Residual 53.190 177 0.301 Total 185.587 190 Regression Coefficientsa Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t (Constant) 0.390 0.495 0.788 Fairness 0.025 0.091 0.016 0.273 Voluntary Deference*** 0.629 0.051 0.630 12.376 Moral Congruence** 0.125 0.051 0.143 2.467 Legitimacy* 0.083 0.048 0.088 1.718 Reward/Sanction** 0.095 0.039 0.111 2.448 Deterrence* 0.100 0.049 0.112 2.046 Effectiveness -0.021 0.050 -0.023 -0.417 Overall Satisfaction -0.025 0.063 -0.025 -0.399 Age -0.016 0.047 -0.020 -0.345 GPA -0.047 0.047 -0.046 -0.998 Academic Class Status -0.017 0.050 -0.020 -0.349 Parents' Education 0.025 0.028 0.037 0.906 Race/Ethnicity -0.062 0.084 -0.031 -0.737 Gender 0.102 0.084 0.052 1.213 a A parallel multinomial analysis (PLUM) found no substantial difference between the two models. * Significant at the .001 level **Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .05 level

Unfortunately, there is not enough definitive evidence in these data to align

support with the literature in stating that normative perspectives, such as morality and legitimacy, are perhaps more reliable predictors of compliance than are the instrumental

perspectives, such as external deterrence assumptions. However, the results provide a

speculative explanation as to the how instrumental and normative predictors might

influence one another as hinted at above.

In light of these results coupled with the discoveries of the varying literature, it

would be more accurate to attribute rule adherence to the collective conditions of both the

normative and instrumental perspectives as they exist in the individual. This is not to

dismiss the notion that these two perspectives cannot influence independently however.

Rather, I am merely recognizing that there exist “latent normative characteristics” that

underpin and fuel instrumental outcomes (Bora 1995, p. 84). That is to say, there are

factors that are taken into strong consideration by an individual when trying to determine

whether or not to obey a rule but are factors that cannot be predicted by general samples.

Such underpinnings may supply reason to the distinguishing results depicted in this

study. 77

Discussion

Procedural Justice and the University

The primary focus of this study was to record and interpret student perceptions of

legitimacy and fairness toward university judiciaries. Furthermore on that point was to

apply the procedural justice literature to the university setting and its student population.

Through using the work of Tom Tyler as a guide and template, this survey based study was designed to capture a number of variables to aid in understanding the content of and

influential factors of student perceptions.

This study demonstrates how the procedural justice perspective can further our

knowledge about misconduct, organizational justice, and general social control. By

broadening the scope of the procedural justice perspective and examining the judicial

practices of higher education settings, we extend our understanding of human behavior

and perceptions as they relate to justice. The findings of this study emphasize the

importance of certain predictors when determining overall satisfaction with a judicial

process as well as the general rule adherence of a sample of students. Among these findings are the predictors of overall satisfaction: perceptions of legitimacy, fairness, deterrence, thoroughness, and efficiency of the system; as well as the predictors of rule

adherence: voluntary deference, perceptions of moral congruence, deterrence, legitimacy,

and the students’ understanding of rewards and sanctions.

This study emphasizes the potential for exploring procedural justice through the

use of yet another setting outside of the criminal justice system. 78

Limitations

Following along with the limits of this project, I want to reiterate the limitations of the study. The first is of course the issue regarding the sample. Despite sampling 2,000 students, I was only able to acquire 264 respondents. I believe this is attributable to the university student population. While this is complete speculation, college students seem to get a large number of surveys emailed to them throughout any given academic year.

Most of these emailed surveys do not offer compensation for time nor do they strike the interest of many college aged young adults. Therefore, the university students are much more apt to delete the email as soon as they realize that it is a survey. These are the reasons that attribute to the very low response rate.

Due to the low response rate, external validity was unfortunately precluded.

Therefore, I highly recommend a larger random sample to anyone attempting to duplicate this study. Again, this mostly has to do with the role of the college student. So much is expected of both undergraduate and graduate students during the quarter or semester that they are often unwilling to fill out a survey no matter how convenient or rewarding.

Future researchers should experiment with other methods for increasing response rates like paying immediate compensation to respondents.

As this is a self reporting questionnaire, all of the limitations regarding self- administered/reporting surveys will apply here and thus leaving the possibility of misinterpretation of questions, misleading wording, errors in observation, and nonresponse (Schutt 2006; Shipman 1997). Along with this come the problems surrounding reliability. The questions used, while very straight-forward in what they 79

were designed to study, were few in number to cut down on survey length and increase

response rate. By doing this however surfaced the issue of adequate parsimony, or trying

to “use as few variables as possible to explain as much as possible” (Ragin 1994, p.137).

While parsimonious applications are a strong efficiency point of survey research, there

can be a limit to which sufficient results can come about. In this case the problem lies

with the fact that many of the independent variables and some of the dependent variables

that had only one item measuring the topic, e.g., overall satisfaction and voluntary

deference. This begs the question, were the questions actually measuring what they were

designed to measure?

One particular pattern that I observed with the reported raw data has to do with,

what I believe to be, the issue of compensation perhaps coupled with possible repeated

exposure. The pattern included people who would answer the first question, select the

next button until they were at the demographic questions, answer a few more then input

their contact information. With the offering of a raffle chance in the cover letter I may

have increased the number of my overall responses however I also attracted those who

were interested in only the raffle. On the other hand, this may also be attributable to

repeated exposure. That is to say, those students who were among those in the initial test

classes on whom I tested the instrument to begin with would have been exposed to taking

the survey once before receiving it via email. Because of this, they would probably feel the need not to take it again because they filled it out once before.

Lastly is the rule of homogeneity was violated in that the population sampled included people who were my close friends and some family and thus could have played 80

a role in the study.26 However, this is somewhat countered by the fact that this was a

random sample and everyone in the university had an equal opportunity to be part of the

study. Therefore, this leaves the only problem of generalizability on the shoulders of

college student populations and the aspects mentioned already.

What Next?: The Future of Procedural Justice

The findings in this study represent the need for more convergence between the research of procedural and organizational justice. More social institutions exist today than

ever before and many are institutions that are not run like a corporate business as

proposed in the organizational justice research. An increasing number of these

establishments function much more like small cities; e.g. the university. Although, while

organizational justice then can only explain systematic justice traits of the institution as

they pertain to the employee / employer relationships, these explanations can also be

applied in a broad sense to student /administrator relationships.

On the other hand, the procedural justice perspective can attest to a university’s

similar structural characteristics as large cities (e.g. security, judicial procedures, etc.) as

well as a university’s unique population. Even though procedural justice research is still

bound by many of the same issues that limit organizational justice, social and political

ties, the procedural justice perspective can encompass the perceptions of the students in

determining the overall process’s effectiveness and legitimacy. The synthesis of these

26 In which case there is also the possibility that these friends and family may have tried to help my cause and fill out more than one survey or alter their responses because I would be the one reading them. 81

two areas would allow for a much more broadened lens through which we can better

assess procedural justice practices.

Applying the procedural justice perspective in future research to similar arenas as

universities still requires answers for a large range of questions. Such questions focus on

the prevalence of perceptions toward fairness and legitimacy. Do the findings of Tyler,

Callahan and Frost (2007) regarding the predictors of compliance hold true for other campuses or even larger samples? Will the predictability of fairness, legitimacy, and compliance remain the same when students are faced with a judiciaries system that has a structure different from the adversarial model? Do better experiences of fairness within a judiciaries system breed more accepting and rule adhering feelings among those without experience? More specifically, do the experiences of those who have gone through the system actually influence those students who have not been through it?

Ultimately though, the future of this field lies in the continuum of punishment. To better elaborate the depth and breadth of procedural and organizational justice, future researchers must eventually encompass all types of social institutions – or at least as many as possible. As all of those who study any kind of social science know, there are never any set maxims one can go by when attempting to understand or predict human behavior or perceptions. Even in sociology, generalizations of research can only be ridden so far before they no longer yield relevance to their applied populations. The further procedural justice is developed across settings of punishment, the better we will understand social control’s characteristics. 82

References

"Ohio University Division of Student Affairs - University Judiciaries Statistics."2008. Athens, OH: Ohio University, Retrieved 6/23, 2008 (http://www.ohio.edu/judiciaries/stats.cfm).

"University Judiciaries: Division of Student Affairs - Understanding the Judicial Process."2008. Athens, OH: Ohio University, Retrieved 3/5, 2008 (http://www.ohio.edu/judiciaries/judprocess.cfm#accused).

Adams, J. S. 1963. "Toward an understanding of inequity." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology(67):422-436.

Armstrong, Sarah and Lesley McAra. 2006. "Audiences, Borders, Architecture: the Contours of Control." Pp. 1-30 in Perspectives on Punishment, edited by S. Armstrong and L. McAra. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Blader, Steven L. and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. "A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a "Fair" Process." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(6):747-758.

Bora, Alfons 1995. “Procedural Justice As a Contested Concept: Sociological Remarks on the Group Value Model” Pp. 81-104 in Procedural Justice, edited by K.F. Röhl and S. Machura. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Chadwick, Bruce A., Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht. 1984. Social Science Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Second ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Dillman, Don A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dillman, Don A. and K. J. Miller. 1998. "Response Rates, Data Quality, and Cost Feasibility for Optically Scannable Mail Surveys by Small Research Centers." Pp. 475-497 in Computer-Assisted Survey Information Collection, edited by M.P. Couper, R.P. Baker, Bethlehem, Clark C. Z. F., J. Martin, W.L. Nicholls and J.M. O'Reilly. New York: Wiley Publications.

Feeley, Malcolm M. 1979. The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. 112 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10021: Russell Sage Foundation. 83

Folger, Robert and Russell Cropanzano. 1998. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Folger, Robert and Daniel P. Skarlicki. 2001. "Fairness asa a Dependent Variable: Why Tough Times Can Lead to Bad Management." Pp. 97-118 in Justice in the Workplace, edited by R. Cropanzano. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Garland, David. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society" Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg, Jerald. 1993. "The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice." Pp. 79-103 in Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, edited by R. Cropanzano. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

------. 1991. "Using explanations to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 4:51-60.

------. 1987. "A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories." Academy of Management Review 12:9-22.

Johnson, Jennifer. 2007. "When the Poor Police Themselves: Public Insecurity and Extralegal Criminal-Justice Administration in Mexico." Pp. 167-185 in Legitimacy and Criminal Justice, edited by T.R. Tyler. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jones, Richard. 2006. "'Architecture', Criminal Justice, and Control." Pp. 175-196 in Perspectives on Punishment: The Contours of Control, edited by S. Armstrong and L. McAra. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Kelman, Herbert C. 1958. "Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 2(1):51-60.

Konovsky, Mary A. and Russell Cropanzano. 1993. "Justice Considerations in Employee Drug Testing." Pp. 171-192 in Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, edited by R. Cropanzano. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code and other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

Lind, E. A. and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press. 84

Lucas, Jeffrey W. 2003. “Theory-Testing, Generalization, and the Problem of External Validity.” Sociological Theory 21:3:236-253

Messick, D. M. and K. Sentis. 1983. "Fairness, Preference, and Fairness Biases." Pp. 61- 94 in Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives, edited by D.M. Messick and K.S. Cook. New York: Praeger.

Miller, Delbert C. and Neil J. Salkind. 2002. Handbook of Research Design & Social Measurement. Sixth ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Myers, David. 2005. Social Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.

National Research Council: of the National Academies, 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, Edited by Wesley Skogan and Kathleen Frydl. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Norušis, Marija J. 2006. SPSS 14.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oakes, California: Pine Forge Press.

Rappoport, L. H. 1965. "Interpersonal Conflict in Cooperative and uncertain situations." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1:323-333.

Röhl, Klaus F. 1997. "Procedural Justice: Introduction and Overview." Pp. 1-35 in Procedural Justice, edited by K.F. Röhl and S. Machura. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Content. New York: Academic Press.

Schutt, Russell K. 2004. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Fourth Edition ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Shipman, Marten. 1997. The Limitations of Social Research. Fourth ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Singer, Barry F. 1970. "Psychological Studies of Punishment." California Law Review 58(2):405-443.

Smith, David J. 2007. "The Foundations of Legitimacy." Pp. 30-58 in Legitimacy and Criminal Justice, edited by T.R. Tyler. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 85

Suchman, Mark. 1995. "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches." Academy of Management Review 20:571-610.

Thibaut, John and H. H. Kelley. 1959. The social Psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Thibaut, John and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Tyler, Tom R. 2001. "Procedural Strategies for Gaining Deference: Increasing Social Harmony or Creating False Consciousness?" Pp. 69-87 in Social Influences on Ethical Behavior in Organizations, edited by J.M. Darley, D.M. Messick and T.R. Tyler. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

------. 1990. Why People Obey The Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

------, 1997. “Citizen Discontent with Legal Procedures: A Social Science Perspective on Civil Procedure Reform.” American Journal of Comparative Law 45:871-904.

Tyler, Tom R., Anthony Braga, Jeffrey Fagan, Tracey Meares, Robert Sampson and Chris Winship. 2007. "Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives." Pp. 9-29 in Legitimacy and Criminal Justice, edited by T.R. Tyler. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Tyler, Tom R. and A. Caine. 1981. "The Influence of Outcomes and Procedures on Satisfaction with Formal Leaders." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41:642-655.

Tyler, Tom R., Patrick E. Callahan and Jeffrey Frost. 2007. "Armed, and Dangerous (?): Motivating Rule Adherence Among Agents of Social Control." Law & Society Review 41(2):457-492.

Tyler, Tom R. and Yuen J. Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Tyler, Tom R. and E. A. Lind. 1992. "A Relational Model of Authority in groups." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25.

Van den Bos, Kees, E. A. Lind, R. Vermunt and Wilke, Henk A. M. 1997. "How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others?: The psychology of the fair process effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:1034-1046.

Van den Bos, Kees, E. A. Lind and Wilke, Henk A. M. 2001. "The Psychology of Procedural and Distributive Justice Viewed from the Perspective of Fairness Heuristic 86

Theory." Pp. 49-66 in Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, edited by R. Cropanzano. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Appendix: Judiciaries Opinion Survey

First I would like to ask you about your knowledge regarding Ohio University Judiciaries and the student code of conduct. Section A 1. How well do you understand the Ohio University judiciaries A Lot process? A Fair Amount Not Very Much Not at all

2. Where did you learn about the Ohio University judiciaries process?

Section B Now I would like to ask you about your feelings toward Ohio University Judiciaries. Please rate the following statements.

1. The rights of the student are well protected in the judiciaries Strongly Agree process. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. Judiciaries officials always consider the student’s side of the Strongly Agree story when making decisions. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. Judiciaries always processes cases quickly. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. Judiciaries carefully consider all case facts. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. Judiciaries officials make unbiased decisions. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. The judiciaries process prevents student misconduct. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. Overall, I am satisfied with the judiciaries process. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Section C Now I would like to know how you feel regarding university rules and regulation. Please rate the following statements.

1. I always follow university rules and policies. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. If I got caught breaking a university rule, it would hurt me Strongly Agree academically. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. It is important that students always accept decisions made by Strongly Agree judiciaries. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. I follow university policies even when I do not need to. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. Ohio University values regarding misconduct are similar to Strongly Agree mine. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. Experiencing judiciaries causes students to obey school rules Strongly Agree more often. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. I carefully comply with university regulations. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. Students should follow school rules and regulations even if Strongly Agree they think they are wrong. Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. Have you ever been formally accused of a Yes → Continue to Section D violation of the student code of conduct? No → Skip to Section F Don’t Know → Skip to Section F Section D Now I would like to ask you some specific questions about your experience with the judiciaries process.

1. What were you accused of? ______

2. Please briefly describe the outcome of your case.  Does Not Apply ______90

3. How far did your case go? Accused Interview with Official (Eg. RD or Green Coordinator) Hearing (Single judge or panel) Appeal Don’t Know Other 4. Overall, my case outcome was fair. ______

5. How long did it take for your case to reach a final outcome? Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. Overall, the judiciaries process treats all students fair. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. Overall, I am satisfied with my experience with judiciaries. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Section F At this point I would like to ask a few general questions about you.

1. Are you an international student? Yes No

2. What is your gender? Male Female Other

3. How old are you? ______91

4. *What is your racial / ethnic background? Asian Black Hispanic / Latino Caucasian Other ______Don’t Know

5. What is your cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA)? ______

6. What is your major? ______

7. What is your academic class status? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student 8. What is the highest level of education Less than High School completed by your mother? High School Some College Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Professional Degree (PhD, MD, etc.) Don’t Know N/A

9. What is the highest level of education Less than High School completed by your father? High School Some College Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Professional Degree (PhD, MD, etc.) Don’t Know N/A

10. Do you participate in extracurricular activities such as a club, Yes fraternity, sorority, or varsity sport? No Don’t Know 92

11. What extracurricular activity(ies) do you participate in? ______

Section G Lastly, I would like to ask you to give us your opinion regarding Ohio University Judiciaries.

1. What are the strengths you see surrounding Ohio University judiciaries system. ______

2. What are the weaknesses you see surrounding the Ohio University judiciaries system. ______

3. Do you have any recommendations for improving the judiciaries process? ______

4. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the judiciaries process? ______http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D6pj30DG1avNa_2f3OSnfp3w_3d_3d