View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholar Commons - Institutional Repository of the University of South Carolina University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2018 The mpI ortance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice Kyle McLean University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation McLean, K.(2018). The Importance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4579 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Importance of Outcome Fairness: Revisiting the Role of Distributive Justice by Kyle McLean Bachelor of Science Appalachian State University, 2012 Master of Arts University of South Carolina, 2014 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Criminology and Criminal Justice College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2018 Accepted by: Scott E. Wolfe, Major Professor Geoffrey P. Alpert, Committee Member Deena Isom, Committee Member Barry Markovsky, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Kyle McLean, 2018 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION For Jessica and Molly. You are my strength and my inspiration. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without a great many people. I am a firm believer that we are a product of our relationships. Fortunately, I have had a great deal of positive influences on my life. First and foremost, my wife has been an enormous support throughout all of the trials and tribulations of graduate school and life. My parents have whole-heartedly supported my educational aspirations, even if they did not always understand them, and I would not be here without that support. There are also a great number of teachers and educators from my early educational career that I do not have space to mention. As for my time in graduate school, all of the faculty of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice have been wonderfully supportive and encouraging. In particular, though, I must give special mention to Deena Isom, who served as a committee member and assisted in various presentation preparations for me this past year. Though not in our department, Barry Markovsky also has my thanks for serving on my committee and helping to formulate many of the foundational concepts for this dissertation in his class. I cannot thank Jeff Rojek enough for his long-distance support. I was his graduate assistant for just one semester yet formed a mentorship that would last the next four years (and hopefully beyond). From 1,630 miles away he has continued to be supportive, provide critical advice, and serve as a role model. iv Geoff Alpert was featured in an article in The Atlantic magazine for a series entitled “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.” I cannot think of a more apt description for how I feel about getting to work with him every day. His mentorship has shaped me as a scholar and as a person and I know that I am incredibly lucky to have been around such an amazing person. Finally, Scott Wolfe deserves more thanks than words on a paper could ever convey. Since starting my graduate career, Scott has served as a teacher, boss, mentor, co-author, colleague, and friend. He has pushed me to be a better scholar each and every day, while also reminding me to take time for the important things in life. I can only hope that in the future, I am half the mentor that he has been to me. v ABSTRACT Distributive justice, or the perceived fairness of outcomes, has played a minimal role in research into procedural justice and legitimacy in policing. However, allegations of racial bias that have contributed to the present legitimacy crisis in policing are more consistent with the concept of distributive justice than procedural justice. As such, the present study attempts to re-orient distributive justice within policing research. This study proposes that individuals infer the fairness of outcomes from the treatment that they receive from police officers. These judgments about outcome and treatment then combine to influence individuals’ perceptions of the legitimacy of police. In addition to testing this theoretical framework, the present study proposes a new concept, justice-restoring responses, from the field of social psychology. Justice-restoring responses are actions individuals take after experiencing injustice to rectify the injustice they experienced. In the case of policing, these actions may take the form of complaints filed against police officers regarding the interaction. Procedural justice, distributive justice, and outcome favorability are proposed as potential predictors of justice- restoring responses. To test these proposals randomized vignettes with varying conditions of procedural justice and outcome favorability were assigned to a national convenience sample. Structural equation modeling was then used to assess the relationships between the concepts of interest. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: History and Development of Justice Frameworks .............................................3 Chapter 3: Justice Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice ....................................38 Chapter 4: Revisiting the Theoretical Model .....................................................................50 Chapter 5: Methods ............................................................................................................60 Chapter 6: Results ..............................................................................................................77 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................93 References ........................................................................................................................103 Appendix A: Vignettes ....................................................................................................115 Appendix B: Pilot Study ..................................................................................................118 Appendix C: Measures .....................................................................................................146 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1 MIMIC Models Testing Pre-Test Balance.........................................................77 Table 6.2 MIMIC Model Testing Vignette Manipulations ................................................78 Table 6.3 Global SEM .......................................................................................................83 Table 6.4 Legitimacy SEM ................................................................................................84 Table 6.5 Legitimacy Total Effects ...................................................................................85 Table 6.6 Justice-Restoring Responses SEM.....................................................................85 Table 6.7 Justice-Restoring Responses Total Effects ........................................................86 Table 6.8 Obligation to Obey Interaction Effects ..............................................................88 Table 6.9 Trust in the Police Interaction Effects ...............................................................89 Table 6.10 Procedural Justice-Restoring Responses Interaction Effects ...........................90 Table 6.11 Distributive Justice-Restoring Responses Interaction Effects .........................91 Table B.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Global Procedural Justice .............................122 Table B.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Global Distributive Justice (1-factor) ...........124 Table B.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Global Distributive Justice (2-factors) .........125 Table B.4 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Specific Procedural Justice ...........................127 Table B.5 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Specific Distributive Justice .........................131 Table B.6 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Justice-Restoring Responses ........................137 Table B.7 Comparison of Ratings of Realism of Scenario ..............................................141 Table B.8 Comparison of Ratings of Putting Self in Scenario ........................................142 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Justice Evaluation Function ..............................................................................17