Abstract
La justicia procedimental, es uno de los aspectos más estudiados desde la psicología social y ha demostrado un rol significativo en la conformación de actitudes, creencias y comportamientos respecto de las autoridades (Correia, 2010). En el presente estudio, se prueba un modelo relacional de justicia procedimental, que examina el rol de distintos aspectos de la interacción con autoridades en las percepciones sobre la justicia de los procedimientos empleados por las mismas. Para ello, se realizó un estudio por encuestas en una muestra no probabilística, intencional y controlada por cuotas de sexo, edad y nivel socio-económico, de ciudadanos de Córdoba/AR entre 18 y 65 años de edad que hubieran tenido una experiencia reciente con alguna autoridad del ámbito legal. Los resultados muestran que las personas conforman sus evaluaciones de justicia guidas principalmente por aspectos relacionales de la experiencia y que la influencia de los mismos no se ve afectada por resultados desfavorables.
References
Autor (2012)
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters
Barry, H & Tyler, T.R (2009). The Other Side of Injustice. When Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior. Psychological Science, 20(8), pp.1023-1032. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02404.x
Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a "Fair" Process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; 29 (6), pp.747-758. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006007
Blader, S. L. & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and Extending the Group Engagement Model: Linkages Between Social Identity, Procedural Justice, Economic Outcomes, and Extrarole Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), pp.445–464. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013935
Comisión de Enlace Institucional, AAM-SAIMO-CEIM (2006). Nivel Socio Económico 2006. Recuperado en diciembre de 2008 de http://www.saimo.org.ar/socios/Socios/NSE2006-23nov2006-Informe_final.pdf
Corporación Latinobarómetro (2009). Informe 2009. Recuperado el 20 de Enero de 2011, del sitio web de la Corporación Latinobarómetro: http://www.latinobarometro.org/latino/latinobarometro.jsp
Corporación Latinobarómetro (2011). Informe 2011. Recuperado el 20 de Junio de 2012, del sitio web de la Corporación Latinobarómetro: http://www.latinobarometro.org/latino/latinobarometro.jsp
Correia, I. (2010). Psicologia Social da Justiça: Fundamentos e desenvolvimentos teóricos e empíricos. Análise Psicológica, 28 (1), pp. 7-28
De Cremer, D. y Tyler, T. R. (2007). The Effects of Trust in Authority and Procedural Fairness on Cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology; 92 (3), pp.639-649. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639
Garzón, A. (2004): Creencias en la Justicia. Contexto Social y Político. Boletín de Psicología, 82, pp. 77-95
George, D. y Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hinds, L. & Murphy, K. (2007). Public Satisfaction With Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy. The australian and new zealand journal of criminology, 40 (1), pp. 27–42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/acri.40.1.27
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyley, R. H. (Ed.) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kazemi, A. y Törnblom, K. (2008). Social Psychology of justice: origins, central issues, recent developments, and future directions. Nordic Psychology, 60 (3), pp. 209-234. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.60.3.209
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
Lind, H; Tyler, T. R. & Huo, J. (1997). Procedural Context and Culture: Variation in the Antecedents of Procedural Justice Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(4), pp.767-780. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.4.767
Mondak, J. J. (1994). Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The sources and contexts of Legitimation. Political Research Quarterly, 47 (3), pp.675-692. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448848
Murphy, K. (2005). Regulating More Effectively: The Relationship between Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Tax Non-compliance. Journal of law and society, 32 (4), pp. 562-589. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.00338.x
Oviedo, H. C. & Campo-Arias, A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 34 (4), pp. 572-580.
Pérez, E.; Medrano, L. A. & Sánchez Rosas, J. (2013). El Path Analysis: conceptos básicos y ejemplos de aplicación. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5 (1), pp. 52-66
Pilatti, A.; Godoy, J. & Brussino, S. (2012). Análisis de factores que influyen sobre el uso de alcohol de niños: un path análisis prospectivo. Health and Addictions / Salud y Drogas, 12(2), pp. 155-192
Thibaut, J. y Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: a Psychological Analysis. Nueva York: Erlbaum Halstead
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law? Estados Unidos: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (5), pp. 850-863. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.5.850
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International journal of psychology, 35 (2), pp. 117-125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075900399411
Tyler, T. R. (2009). Procedural justice, identity and deference to the law: What shapes rule-following in a period of transition? Australian Journal of Psychology, 61 (1), pp. 32–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049530802607639
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press, 2000.
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4), pp. 349–361. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
Van Prooijen, J. W. (2009). Procedural Justice as Autonomy Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (6), pp. 1166–1180. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014153
Van Prooijen, J. W.; Van den Bos, K. & Wilke, H.A.M (2004). The role of standing in the psychology of procedural justice: towards theoretical integration. European review of social psychology, 15, pp. 33–58. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000108
Van Prooijen, J. W.; Van den Bos, K. & Wilke, H.A.M (2007). Procedural justice in authority relations: the strength of outcome dependence influences people's reactions to voice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), pp. 1286-1297. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.435
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work [SPECIFY PERIOD OF TIME] after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).