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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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;

6. 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;

7. 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;

8. 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;

9. 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

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

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

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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Crime and Security Decisions by Authorities
Thank you! 17