Diane Sivasubramaniam Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities The Psychology of Procedural Justice 1

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Procedural Justice Reasoning Motivation driving procedural fairness judgments Value to social group Lind & Tyler (1988); Tyler & Lind (1992) Procedural fairness judgments & Procedural satisfaction judgments Respectful treatment 2

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Authorities vs. Subordinates But for authorities: Procedural fairness and satisfaction primarily influenced by outcomes Heuer, Penrod & Kattan (2007) Why the difference? Subordinates  relational concerns Authorities  protect social group Sivasubramaniam, Heuer, Becker, Hobgood & Newkirk (2008); Sivasubramaniam & Heuer (in press) Investigate authorities’ justice reasoning in interrogations 3

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Method Participants 87 males, 173 females (3 did not report) Mean age: 35.51 Procedure Read a story about a crime and police interrogation of suspect 4

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Manipulations PROCEDURE MANIPULATION ROLE MANIPULATION Interrogating Officer Suspect Neutral observer Coercive Interrogating officer; Coercive procedure Suspect; Coercive procedure Neutral observer; Coercive procedure Non-coercive Non-coercive procedure Suspect; Neutral observer;

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Manipulations PROCEDURE MANIPULATION ROLE MANIPULATION Interrogating Officer Suspect Neutral observer Coercive Interrogating officer; Coercive procedure Suspect; Coercive procedure Neutral observer; Coercive procedure Non-coercive Non-coercive procedure Suspect; Neutral observer;

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Manipulations PROCEDURE MANIPULATION ROLE MANIPULATION Interrogating Officer Suspect Neutral observer Coercive Interrogating officer; Coercive procedure Suspect; Coercive procedure Neutral observer; Coercive procedure Non-coercive Non-coercive procedure Suspect; Neutral observer;

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Manipulations PROCEDURE MANIPULATION ROLE MANIPULATION Interrogating Officer Suspect Neutral observer Coercive Interrogating officer; Coercive procedure Suspect; Coercive procedure Neutral observer; Coercive procedure Non-coercive Non-coercive procedure Suspect; Neutral observer;

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Dependent measures Procedural fairness (5 items) e.g., The procedure used by the police officer during the interrogation was fair Procedural satisfaction (2 items) e.g., I was pleased with the procedure the police officer used to interrogate the suspect Outcome fairness (3 items) e.g., This interrogation will produce a fair result Outcome satisfaction (2 items) e.g., I would be satisfied with the outcome that an interrogation procedure like this one would produce 9

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Procedural Fairness d = 1.17 d = 1.58 d = 1.42

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Procedural Satisfaction d = 1.26 d = 1.24

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Outcome Fairness d = 0.75 d = 0.97

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Outcome Satisfaction d = 0.65 d = 0.78

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Summary and conclusions Treatment of suspect more important for: Subordinates than Authorities Authorities’ perspectives: Participants randomly assigned to be authorities Affects views on fairness of interrogation 14

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Summary and conclusions Treatment of suspect more important for: Subordinates and Neutral observers than Authorities Authorities’ perspectives: Participants randomly assigned to be authorities Affects views on fairness of interrogation 15

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Ongoing Research Intelligence interviewers’ beliefs about interrogation practices Funded project: Goodman-Delahunty, Sivasubramaniam & Greene US Federal Bureau of Investigation October 2011 – October 2013 16

Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities Thank you! dsivasubramaniam@swin.edu.au 17