Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Maintaining the legitimacy of decision making processes in the eyes of participants is a key objective of creditable public involvement efforts; however, satisfying participants can be difficult, especially when competing interests are at stake. Research suggests that attention to procedural justice may offer one way to increase satisfaction and outcome acceptance. Procedural justice argues that people care about the fairness of the procedures, and research has shown that when procedures are viewed as fair, people are more satisfied with the process and accepting of the outcomes – at times, even when they do not get the outcomes they desire. Using survey data from attendees at 11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory committee meetings, we tested whether procedural justice judgments predicted satisfaction with the FDA and its advisory committees and acceptance of advisory committee meeting outcomes. We also examined how contextual factors – namely, procedural knowledge, tolerance for potential conflicts of interest among advisory committee members, and participants’ stakes in the outcomes, influenced the results. The findings supported a strong role for procedural justice perceptions in predicting satisfaction and outcome acceptance among meeting attendees.