This article expands our knowledge of how variation in public administrative processes affects citizen perceptions of procedural fairness (CPPF). Focusing on a specific administrative process—the selection and hiring process—we use a survey experimental design among 823 US citizens and examine the effect of a public hiring process involving the appearance of advocacy from an applicant's social contacts on CPPF. Moreover, we theoretically and empirically examine the moderating effects of two psychological constructs: ‘belief in a just world’ and ‘public service motivation’. We find that citizens rate the procedural fairness of a hiring situation much lower when the situation appears to be influenced by an applicant's social contacts. However, citizens who report stronger ‘belief in a just world’ have less concern with a hiring process marked by advocacy, whereas citizens with higher levels of ‘public service motivation’ have more concern.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pedersen et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: