Procedural and Distributive Fairness

In this post, I return to the topic of Fairness Heuristic Theory, and make a key distinction between two ways fairness can be experienced: in an outcome or in a process.

What's a Heuristic and Why Should I Care?

As it's used here, think of a heuristic as a rule of thumb, one that allows you make a decision without having to think through every angle. You know it's imperfect, but you use it to help you make sense of what's going on and make judgements fairly quickly. I once met a woman who would only date a man who had an iPhone. To her, Androids represented slovenliness, lack of ambition, and a willingness to inconvenience others. By focusing on iPhone users, she was able to give her attention to just a few men, one of whom she fell head over heels for and married.

In the case of Fairness Heuristic Theory (FHT), an individual's perceptions of fairness are used as a rule of thumb to guide their decisions about whether to collaborate with others. Unlike the case of the iPhone-phile above, the rule of thumb operates in the background, not usually something that is explicitly thought about. To understand why it matters for networks, we need to understand the difference between procedural and distributive fairness (also called procedural or distributive justice). 

Procedural and Distributive Fairness

When we think about whether things are fair, many of us think right away about outcomes. But research by E. Allan Lind, Kees Van den Bos and others indicates it's not usually that type of fairness that influences our decisions about whether to join with others. Rather, we look for clues about whether we can trust the process, how we can expect to be treated, and what our standing in the group will be.

This classic union cartoon from the second half of the last century demonstrates the concept of distributive (un)fairness.

Distributive fairness is about who gets what (funding, credit, blame, promotions, exposure, etc.). Procedural fairness is about how the getting gets done.

Whereas this one has to do with procedural (un)fairness

Research by D. Hicks and C. Larson indicate that a process is generally perceived as fair when it is seen as authentic, revisable, inclusive, and transparent. (Want to share how your network measures up? Take my research survey.)

Which Is More Important?

Neither type of fairness is intrinsically more important. But there is reason that our perceptions of procedural fairness generally influence willingness to join collaborations more than distributive fairness: namely, we are usually exposed to process before outcome. 

Research by Lind and colleagues has shown that we tend to form opinions about fairness very quickly, and that, once formed, those opinions are pretty stable. In other words, if our first exposure to a network is fair, then things that happen later in that network will tend to be interpreted through the understanding that the network is basically fair. Things that might otherwise be seen as unfair will either be explained away or be seen as an aberration. Conversely, if our first experience is perceived as unfair, then later experiences will be interpreted with the understanding the network is a basically unfair place. 

As a general rule, potential network members are presented first with options for participation (i.e. processes for collaborating to share knowledge, co-create strategy, experiment together, etc.). Rarely (but not never) a member is invited to a network by being presented with an outcome, such as a portion of funding or some other resource.

Because the first exposure to a network is usually a process, procedural fairness is usually a stronger force in a member's overall opinion about it. At least, if FHT holds true.

Does It Actually Matter?

I've been interviewing thought leaders in the world of social-impact networks. Some of them feel the issue of fairness is an important one that affects their networks, others feel members typically are not affected by a desire for fair treatment either in terms of process or outcome, but rather join networks for altruistic reasons.  

What do you think? Leave me a comment or take my research survey.