Public meetings about suspected cancer clusters: The impact of voice, interactional justice, and risk perception on attendees' attitudes in six communities

Journal of Health Communication

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 527-549

  McComas, Katherine A ^a   Trumbo, Craig W ^b   Besley, John C ^c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; CANCER; COMMUNITY; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; JUSTICE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SATISFACTION; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES; VOICE;

AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMMUNICATION; COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548331326     PISSN: 10810730     EISSN: 10870415     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10810730701508245     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Ambrose, M. L. & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., Bablitch, M. B., & Mahoney, R. (1997). Public involvement in administration: The structural determinants of effective citizen participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 13, 7-23.
3. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2005, February 1). About cancer clusters. Retrieved November 30, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/about_clusters.htm
6. Checkoway, B. (1981). The politics of public hearings. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 566-582.
7. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
8. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
9. Colquitt, J. A. & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113-152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
11. Fuller, J. B. & Hester, K. (2001). A closer look at the relationship between justice perceptions and union participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1096-1105.
12. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25(2), 119-149.
13. Greenberg, M. & Wartenberg, D. (1991). Communicating to an alarmed community about cancer clusters: A fifty state survey. Journal of Community Health, 16(2), 71-82.
14. Gundry, K. G. & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). Do public meetings represent the public? Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring, 175-182.
15. Heberlein, T. A. (1976). Some observations on alternative mechanisms for public involvement: The hearing, the public opinion poll, the workshop and the quasi-experiment. Natural Resources Journal, 16, 197-212.
16. Hibbing, J. R. & Alford, J. R. (2004). Accepting authoritative decisions: Humans as wary cooperators. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 62-76.
17. Hibbing, J. R. & Theiss-Morse, E. (2001). Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 145-153.
18. Johnson, K. N., Johnson, R. L., Edwards, D. K., & Wheaton, C. A. (1993). Public participation in wildlife management: Opinions from public meetings and random surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 218-225.
19. Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N. F., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of theory and research. In N. F. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 13-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3), 275-281.
21. Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
22. Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
23. Linnerooth-Bayer, J. & Fitzgerald, K. B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair siting processes: Evidence from Austria and the U.S. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7, 119-134.
24. Lofstedt, R. E. (1996). Fairness across borders: The Barsebäck nuclear power plant. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7, 135-144.
25. McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11(1), 36-55.
26. McComas, K. A. (2003a). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(2), 164-184.
27. McComas, K. A. (2003b). Public meetings and risk amplification: A longitudinal study. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1257-1270.
28. McFarlin, D. B. & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637.
29. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
30. Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Economic justice, political behavior and American political values. Social Justice Research, 2, 61-79.
31. Rasinski, K. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). Fairness and vote choice in the 1984 presidential election. American Politics Quarterly, 16(1), 5-24.
32. Renn, O. (1992). The social arena concept of risk debates. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 179-196). Westport, CT: Praeger.
33. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Kastenholz, H. (1996). Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: A Swiss case study. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7, 145-168.
34. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation : Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic.
35. Richardson, M., Sherman, J., & Gismondi, M. (1993). Winning back the words: Confronting experts in an environmental public hearing. Toronto, Ontario: Garamond Press.
36. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
37. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 512-557.
38. Slovic, P. (1987, April 17). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
39. Thibaut, J. W. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Public requests for cancer cluster investigations: A survey of state health departments. American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1300-1302.
41. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838.
42. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
43. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117-125.
44. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 913-930.
45. Tyler, T. R. & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 281-292.
46. Tyler, T. R. & Griffin, E. (1991). The influence of decision makers' goals on their concerns about procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(20), 1629-1658.
47. Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
48. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Griffin, E. (1986). Alternative images of the citizen: Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 41(9), 970-978.
49. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(8), 700-725.
50. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 72-81.
51. Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In M. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273-300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Vidmar, N. & Rokeach, M. (1974). Archie Bunker's bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication, 24(1), 36-47.
53. Webler, T. & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32, 566-595.
54. Weiner, B. J., Alexander, J. A., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Management and governance processes in community health coalitions: A procedural justice perspective. Health Education & Behavior, 29, 737-754.