Many scholars assume that policy performance determines popular support for political systems. Yet in the wake of recent economic crises, patterns of performance and regime support have diverged in many countries, and popular perceptions of performance often fail to reflect the actual quality of governance. To resolve these paradoxes, I draw on recent scholarship on regime support and procedural fairness. I show that strong voice (the ability of citizens to influence political outcomes and a key element of procedural justice in democracies) influences regime support in a way not accounted for in this literature: by moderating the relationship between policy performance and perceptions of performance. These findings show that people will evaluate equivalent outcomes more favorably if they are produced using fair procedures. As performance has long been shown to positively influence support, procedural justice has an additional, indirect influence on people’s attitudes toward political systems.
AndersonCJ (2007) The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability. Annual Review of Political Science10: 271–296.
2.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems. American Political Science Review91: 66–81.
3.
AndersonCJSingerMM (2008) The Sensitive Left and the Impervious Right: Multilevel Models and the Politics of Inequality, Ideology, and Legitimacy in Europe. Comparative Political Studies41: 564–599.
4.
AndersonCJTverdovaYV (2003) Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes toward Government in Contemporary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science47: 91–109.
5.
AndersonE (2017) Private Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
AngyalA (1941) Foundations for a Science of Personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
7.
BarberBR (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8.
BartelsLM (2002) Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior24: 117–150.
9.
BélangerÉ (2004) Antipartyism and Third-Party Vote Choice: A Comparison of Canada, Britain, and Australia. Comparative Political Studies37: 1054–1078.
10.
BoothJASeligsonM (2009) The Legitimacy Puzzle in Latin America: Political Support and Democracy in Eight Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BrocknerJWiesenfeldBM (1996) An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures. Psychological Bulletin120: 189–208.
12.
BrocknerJKonovskyMCooper-SchneiderR, et al. (1994) Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity on Victims and Survivors of Job Loss. The Academy of Management Journal37: 397–409.
13.
CampbellAGurinGMillerWE (1954) The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
14.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political Efficacy and Trust: A Report on the NES Pilot Study Items. Political Behavior12: 289–314.
15.
CropanzanoRAmbroseML (2002) Procedural and Distributive Justice Are More Similar Than You Think: A Monistic Perspective and a Research Agenda. In: GreenbergJCropanzanoR (eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.119–151.
16.
CrozierMHuntingtonSWatanukiJ (1975) The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.
17.
DahlbergSHolmbergS (2014) Democracy and Bureaucracy: How Their Quality Matters for Popular Satisfaction. West European Politics37: 515–537.
18.
DahlbergSLindeJ (2016) Losing Happily? The Mitigating Effect of Democracy and Quality of Govern-ment on the Winner–Loser Gap in Political Support. International Journal of Public Administration39: 652–664.
19.
DahlbergSLindeJHolmbergS (2015) Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the Importance of Democratic Input and Governmental Output. Political Studies63: 18–37.
20.
DalyJPTrippTM (1996) Is Outcome Fairness Used to Make Procedural Fairness Judgments When Procedural Information Is Inaccessible?Social Justice Research9: 327–349.
21.
DeCharmsR (1968) Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
22.
DeciEL (1971) Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology18: 105–115.
23.
DeciEL (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
24.
DeciELRyanRM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
25.
DeciELRyanRM (2000) The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry11: 227–268.
26.
DeciELRyanRMKoestnerR (1999) A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin125: 627–668.
27.
DettreyBJ (2013) Relative Losses and Economic Voting: Sociotropic Considerations or “Keeping Up with the Joneses”?Politics & Policy41: 788–806.
28.
DuncanGLukesS (1963) The New Democracy. Political Studies11: 156–177.
29.
EastonD (1975) A Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support. British Journal of Political Science5: 435–457.
30.
ErlingssonGÓLindeJÖhrvallR (2014) Not So Fair after All? Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Satisfaction with Democracy in the Nordic Welfare States. International Journal of Public Administration37: 106–119.
31.
EsaiassonPÖhbergP (2019) The Moment You Decide, You Divide: How Politicians Assess Procedural Fairness. European Journal of Political Research. Epub ahead of print 23 October. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12370.
32.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2017) Responsiveness beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?Comparative Political Studies50: 739–765.
33.
EsaiassonPPerssonMGilljamM, et al. (2019) Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49: 291–314.
34.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control. Public Choice50: 5–25.
35.
FinkelSE (1987) The Effects of Participation on Political Efficacy and Political Support: Evidence from a West German Panel. Journal of Politics49: 441–464.
36.
FinkelSEMullerENSeligsonM (1989) Economic Crisis, Incumbent Performance and Regime Support: A Comparison of Longitudinal Data from West Germany and Costa Rica. British Journal of Political Science19: 329–351.
37.
FolgerRCropanzanoR (2001) Fairness Theory: Justice as Accountability. In: GreenbergJCropanzanoR (eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.1–55.
38.
HealyALenzGS (2017) Presidential Voting and the Local Economy: Evidence from Two Population-Based Data Sets. The Journal of Politics79: 1419–1432.
39.
HealyAMalhotraN (2013) Retrospective Voting Reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science16: 285–306.
40.
HeldD (2007) Models of Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
HoughMJacksonJBradfordB (2013) Legitimacy, Trust and Compliance: An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice Theory Using the European Social Survey In: TankebeJLieblingA (eds) Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.246–265.
43.
HoughMJacksonJBradfordB, et al. (2010) Procedural Justice, Trust, and Institutional Legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice4: 203–210.
44.
HuL-TBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6: 1–55.
45.
HuberGAHillSJLenzGS (2012) Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents. American Political Science Review106: 720–741.
46.
HuntingtonS (1965) Political Development and Political Decay. World Politics17: 386–430.
47.
JacksonJBradfordBHoughM, et al. (2012) Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions. The British Journal of Criminology52: 1051–1071.
48.
JonesB (1999) Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science2: 297–321.
49.
KahnRLWolfeDMQuinnRP, et al. (1980) Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50.
Kestilä-KekkonenESöderlundPJ (2017) Is It All about the Economy? Government Fractionalization, Economic Performance and Satisfaction with Democracy across Europe, 2002−13. Government and Opposition52: 100–130.
51.
KinderDKiewietDR (1981) Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science11: 129–161.
52.
KlingemannH-D (1999) Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.31–56.
53.
LevayKEFreeseJDruckmanJN (2016) The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples. SAGE Open6: 1–17.
Lewis-BeckMS (1985) Pocketbook Voting in U.S. National Election Studies: Fact or Artifact?American Journal of Political Science29: 348–356.
56.
LindEA (2001) Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in Organizational Relations. In: GreenbergJCropanzanoR (eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.56–88.
57.
LindEATylerTR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
58.
LindEAKrayLThompsonL (2001) Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes85: 189–210.
59.
LindeJErlingssonGÓ (2013) The Eroding Effect of Corruption on System Support in Sweden. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions26: 585–603.
60.
LindeJPetersY (2018) Responsiveness, Support, and Responsibility: How Democratic Responsiveness Facilitates Responsible Government. Party Politics. Epub ahead of print 29 March. DOI: 10.1177/1354068818763986.
61.
LipsetSM (1963) Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
62.
McFarlinDBSweeneyPD (1992) Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal35: 626–637.
63.
MacphersonCB (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
MadsenD (1987) Political Self-Efficacy Tested. American Political Science Review81: 571–582.
65.
MagalhãesPC (2016) Economic Evaluations, Procedural Fairness, and Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Research Quarterly69: 552–534.
66.
MagalhãesPCAguiar-ConrariaL (2019) Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities. Political Psychology40: 165–181.
67.
MillJS (2009) Considerations on Representative Government. Auckland, New Zealand: The Floating Press.
68.
MullerEN (1970) The Representation of Citizens by Political Authorities: Consequences for Regime Support. American Political Science Review64: 1149–1166.
69.
MullerENWilliamsCJ (1980) Dynamics of Political Support-Alienation. Comparative Political Studies13: 35–59.
70.
MullinixKJLeeperTJDruckmanJN, et al. (2015) The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science2: 109–138.
71.
NorrisP (1999a) Critical Citizens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
NorrisP (1999b) Institutional Explanations for Political Support. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.217–235.
73.
NorrisP (1999c) Introduction: The Growth of Critical Citizens. In: NorrisP (ed.) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–30.
74.
NorrisP (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75.
OrpenC (1994) The Effects of Self-Esteem and Personal Control on the Relationship Between Job Insecurity and Psychological Well-Being. Social Behavior and Personality22: 53–56.
76.
PatemanC (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77.
PharrSPutnamRD (2000) Disaffected Democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
78.
PlamenatzJ (1963) Man and Society: Political and Social Theory: Machiavelli through Rousseau. New York: McGraw-Hill.
79.
PutnamRD (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
80.
PutnamRD (1995) Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics24: 664–683.
81.
QinXRenRZhangZ-X, et al. (2015) Fairness Heuristics and Substitutability Effects: Inferring the Fairness of Outcomes, Procedures, and Interpersonal Treatment When Employees Lack Clear Information. Journal of Applied Psychology100: 749–766.
82.
Rhodes-PurdyM (2015) Participatory Populism: Theory and Evidence from Bolivarian Venezuela. Political Research Quarterly68: 415–427.
83.
Rhodes-PurdyM (2017a) Beyond the Balance Sheet: Performance, Participation, and Regime Support in Latin America. Comparative Politics49: 252–286.
84.
Rhodes-PurdyM (2017b) Regime Support beyond the Balance Sheet: Participation and Policy Performance in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85.
RogowskiR (1974) Rational Legitimacy: A Theory of Political Support. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
86.
RousseauJ-J (2002) The Social Contract. In: DunnS (ed.) The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.149–256.
87.
SchafferFA (2010) Thin Descriptions: The Limits of Survey Research on the Meaning of Democracy. Polity46: 303–330.
88.
ScharpfFW (1997) Economic Integration, Democracy and the Welfare State. Journal of European Public Policy4: 18–36.
89.
ThibautJWalkerL (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90.
TylerTR (2006a) Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology57: 375–400.
91.
TylerTR (2006b) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
92.
TylerTRJacksonJ (2014) Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law20: 78–95.
93.
Van Den BosKLindEAWilkeHAM (2001) The Psychology of Procedural and Distributive Justice Viewed from the Perspective of Fairness Heuristic Theory. In: CropanzanoR (ed.) Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.49–66.
94.
Van der MeerTHakhverdianA (2016) Political Trust as the Evaluation of Process and Performance: A Cross-National Study of 42 European Countries. Political Studies65: 81–102.
95.
WalkerJ (2001) Control and the Psychology of Health: Theory, Measurement, and Applications. Buckingham: Open University Press.
96.
WhiteRW (1959) Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence. Psychological Review66: 297–333.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
