ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Trapped in the process: procedural justice and emotional escalation in digital citizen-state interactions.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital complaint systems generate large-scale traces of citizens' emotional expression, offering new opportunities for computational social psychology to examine how institutional settings shape collective appraisal patterns. Emotional intensity in these systems varies dramatically across governance domains, yet the psychological processes associated with this variation remain underexplored. Drawing on appraisal theory and procedural justice literature, we examine emotional intensity as a text-based proxy for aggregate appraisal tendencies related to procedural fairness, such as citizens' sense of control and perceived institutional responsiveness. Analyzing 76,447 submissions from a provincial digital governance platform in China, we combine BERTopic modeling with multi-dimensional sentiment analysis to map emotion-topic coupling patterns. Results show a clear gradient: domains tied to long-term welfare, such as labor rights and education, show the mildest emotional profiles, while housing disputes and consumer complaints show markedly stronger intensity. We highlight two structural patterns associated with this asymmetry. First, spatial-functional misalignment reveals a mismatch between citizens' holistic representations of localized problems and fragmented administrative processing. Second, linguistic markers in extreme-intensity submissions heavily emphasize procedural language (e.g., "rectification," "transfer") over crisis vocabulary, suggesting frustration with stalled pathways. We conceptualize this pattern as procedural entrapment: a form of emotional escalation associated with institutional fragmentation, diminished perceived control, and diffuse accountability. Beyond administrative efficiency, these findings suggest that emotional data can serve as diagnostic signals of institutional bottlenecks. The study also speaks to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by examining how institutional design relates to perceived procedural justice and institutional legitimacy in digitally mediated citizen-state interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.