procedural justice Vol. II

Content:
Introduction. Procedural Justice and National Level Institutions: Gibson (2002), Trust, justice and reconciliation;
Tyler, Rasinski and McGraw (1985), The influence of perceived injustice on political leaders; Kershaw and Alexander (2003), Presidential leadership;
Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (1995), Congress as public enemy; Tyler (2004), Affirmative action in an institutional context;
Gibson (1996), Democratic commitments in the USSR. The Meaning of Procedural Justice: Thibaut and Walker (1975), The control model;
Tyler (1987), Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice;
Lind, Kanfer, and Earley (1990), Voice, control, and procedural justice;
Tyler (1988), What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures;
Schiller (1996), What do disputants want?;
Sheppard and Lewicki (1987), Toward general principles of managerial fairness;
Tyler and Blader (2003), The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Situational Influences on Procedural Justice: Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986) Procedural justice as a criterion in allocations;
Tyler (1994), Governing amid diversity;
Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, and Huo (1996), Social justice in a diverse society;
Wemmers, van der Leeden and Steensma (1995), Dutch crime victims and the fairness of criminal justice procedures;
Haller and Machura (1995), Procedural justice in German courts; Machura (2003), Fairness, justice, and legitimacy: Experiences of peoples judges in South Russia;
Sugawara and Huo (1994), Disputes in Japan;
Cohn, White and Sanders (2000), Distributive and procedural justice in seven nations. Critical Perspective on Procedural Justice: Tyler and McGraw (1986), Ideology and the Interpretation of personal experience: Procedural justice and political quiescence; Haney (1991), The 14th amendment and symbolic legality: let them eat due process;
Fox (1999), Psycholegal scholarships contribution to false consciousness about injustice;
Hickman and Simpson (2003), Fair treatment or preferred outcome?; Skitka, Houston (2002), When procedural justice is of no consequence; Peterson (1999), Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice for improving satisfaction with leaders;
Index.