The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure
Abstract
A review of recent research demonstrates that people are more willing to accept decisions when they feel that those decisions are made through decision‐making procedures they view as fair. Studies of procedural justice judgements further suggest that people evaluate fairness primarily through criteria that can be provided to all the parties to a conflict: whether there are opportunities to participate; whether the authorities are neutral; the degree to which people trust the motives of the authorities; and whether people are treated with dignity and respect during the process. These findings are optimistic and suggest that authorities have considerable ability to bridge differences and interests and values through the use of fair decision‐making procedures. The limits to the effectiveness of such procedural approaches are also outlined.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Self-citationTyler, T. R. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400828609 · Cited by 5,156
Self-citationMoorman, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.845 · Cited by 3,422
A Relational Model of Authority in Groups
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60283-x · Cited by 2,977
Self-citationThe four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.
Fiske, A. P. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.689 · Cited by 2,510
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256489 · Cited by 1,704
The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792779343000004 · Cited by 1,559
What is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures
Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3053563 · Cited by 912
Self-citationDo Fair Procedures Matter? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Spouse Assault
Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.2307/3054098 · Cited by 588
Cited by
Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038 · Cited by 2,381
Self-citationThe Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07 · Cited by 2,208
Self-citationTyler, T. R. (2004) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716203262627 · Cited by 1,282
Self-citationBlader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013935 · Cited by 834
Self-citationMoffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003 · Cited by 718
Metadata
- Authors
- Tyler, T. R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 117-125
- ISSN
- 0020-7594 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-066X
- OpenAlex
- W2083425011
- Cited by
- 774
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 29.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/002075900399411
- The paper
- Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399411
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
