Procedural Justice as a Factor of Attitudes Toward the Political System: the Role of the Country's Economic Situation

Objective. The aim of the study is to analyze the relationship between perceived procedural justice in the political sphere, the perceived economic situation of the country, and attitudes toward the political system in Russia.
Background. Previous research has shown that the perceived procedural justice of politicians and political institutions improve attitudes toward them, satisfaction with their actions, and agreement with their decisions. Furthermore, adherence to procedural justice norms can offset the negative impact of economic problems. However, these studies have several limitations related to the sample and the method, which were taken into account in our study.
Participants. In the study, 8520 Russian citizens participated (N₁ = 3193, N₂ = 3237, N₃ = 2090).
Study design. Respondents participated in an online survey conducted on the YandexToloka platform. The study involved three measurements: the first measurement took place in September 2022, and the second and third measurements were conducted in November 2022.
Measurements. Respondents filled out questionnaires to measure perceived procedural justice in politics, perceived economic situation, and attitude toward the Russian political system (social system justification, trust in federal political institutions, and emotion toward the political system).
Results. The study showed that both perceived procedural justice and the perceived economic situation of the country were positively related to the attitude toward the Russian political system. However, assessments of economic situation and procedural justice interacted with each other: the lower respondents rated the country's economic situation, the stronger the relationship between perceived procedural justice and attitude toward the political system.
Conclusions. Russians' ability to influence political decisions, the observance of equal rights, and respectful treatment by government representatives support the political system within which these occur. This becomes especially important during times when the country faces economic difficulties.

1. Gulevich O., Guseva V.A. Metodika dlya izmereniya protsedurnoi spravedlivosti v politicheskoi sfere [Methodology to measure procedural justice in the political sphere]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological Studies, 2023. In print.
2. Agadullina E., Ivanov A., Sarieva I. How Do russians perceive and justify the status quo: Insights from adapting the system justification scales // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. Vol. 12. Article 717838. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717838
3. Agostini M., van Zomeren M. Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints // Psychological Bulletin. 2021. Vol. 147. № 7. P. 667–700. DOI:10.1037/bul0000256
4. Anderson C.J., Tverdova Y.V. Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies // American Journal of Political Science. 2003. Vol. 47. № 1. P. 91–109. DOI:10.1111/1540-5907.00007
5. Bolger P.C., Walters G.D. The relationship between police procedural justice, police legitimacy, and people's willingness to cooperate with law enforcement: A meta-analysis // Journal of Criminal Justice. 2013. Vol. 60. P. 93–99. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.01.001
6. Bolger M.A., Lytle D.J., Bolger P.C. What matters in citizen satisfaction with police: A meta-analysis // Journal of Criminal Justice. 2021. Vol. 72. P. 101760. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101760
7. Brockner J., Wiesenfeld B.M. An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures // Psychological Bulletin. 1996. Vol. 120. № 2. P. 189–208. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189
8. Cohen-Charash Y., Spector P.E. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2001. Vol. 86. № 2. P. 278–321. DOI:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
9. Colquitt J.A., Conlon D.E., Wesson M.J., Porter C.O., Ng K.Y. Justice at the Millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001. Vol. 86. № 3. P. 425–445. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
10. Colquitt J.A., Scott B.A., Rodell J.B., Long D.M., Zapata C.P., Conlon D.E., Wesson M.J. Justice at the Millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013. Vol. 98. № 2. P. 199–236. DOI:10.1037/a0031757
11. Dahlberg S., Holmberg S. Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction // West European Politics. 2014. Vol. 37. № 3. P. 515–537. DOI:10.1080/01402382.2013.830468
12. de Blok L., Kumlin S. Losers’ Consent in changing welfare states: Output dissatisfaction, experienced voice and political distrust // Political Studies. 2022. Vol. 70. № 4. P. 867–886. DOI:10.1177/0032321721993646
13. Freedom House. URL: https://freedomhouse.org/ (дата обращения: 13.11.2023).
14. Gilley B. The Determinants of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries // International Political Science Review. 2006. Vol. 27. № 1. P. 47–71. DOI:10.1177/0192512106058634
15. Gulevich O., Borovikova J., Rodionova M. The relationship between political procedural justice and attitudes toward the political system: A meta-analysis // Political Psychology. 2023. Online first. DOI:10.1111/pops.12936
16. Gulevich O., Chernov D. Political efficacy as a factor of attitude toward the political system: Comparison between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Unpublished manuscript.
17. Leventhal G.S., Karuza J., Fry W.R. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences // Justice and Social Interaction. 1980. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 167–218. DOI:10.4236/jss.2015.31009
18. Lind E.A., Tyler T.R. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.
19. Magalhães P.C. Economic evaluations, procedural fairness, and satisfaction with democracy // Political Research Quarterly. 2016. Vol. 69. № 3. P. 522–534. DOI:10.1177/1065912916652
20. Magalhães P.C., Aguiar-Conraria L. Procedural fairness, the economy, and support for political authorities // Political Psychology. 2019. Vol. 40. № 1. P. 165–181. DOI:10.1111/pops.12500
21. The Polity Project. URL: https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html (дата обращения: 13.11.2023).
22. Thibaut J.W., Walker L. Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1975.
23. Tyler T.R. Justice theory // Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume Two (SAGE Social Psychology Program) (1st ed.) / Ed. by P.V.A.M. Lange, A.W. Kruglanski, T.E. Higgins. SAGE Publications Ltd., 2011.
24. Tyler T.R., Blader S.L. The Group Engagement Model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2003. Vol. 7. № 4. P. 349–361. DOI:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
25. Tyler T.R., Lind E.A. A Relational Model of Authority in groups // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1992. Vol. 25. P. 115–191. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
26. Tyler T.R., van der Toorn J. Social justice // The Oxford handbook of political psychology: Second Edition (Oxford Handbooks) (2nd ed.) / Ed. by L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, J.S. Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
27. van der Meer T.W.G. Democratic input, macroeconomic output and political trust // Handbook on political trust / Ed. by S. Zmerli, T.W.G. van der Meer. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. P. 270–284.
28. van der Meer T.W.G. Economic performance and political trust // The Oxford handbook of social and political trust / Ed. by E.M. Uslaner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
29. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://v-dem.net/ (дата обращения: 13.11.2023).
30. Whitman D.S., Caleo S., Carpenter N.C., Horner M.T., Bernerth J.B. Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and boundary conditions of organizational justice climate // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012. Vol. 97. № 4. P. 776–791. DOI:10.1037/a0028021