ABSTRACT
Welfare states have increasingly added conditions to existing benefits to ensure that only those entitled receive support. However, this has caused greater system complexity. Since such complexity can lead to non-take-up—preventing intended recipients from accessing benefits—we refer to this as a paradox of procedural justice. This paper explores how individuals form attitudes towards conditionality and complexity in welfare policy. Do they experience a procedural paradox, demanding strict conditions while rejecting complexity, or do they hold coherent views, accepting complexity as a necessary trade-off? Using stepwise SEM, we examine whether procedural justice attitudes are horizontally constrained and identify mechanisms that influence the coherence or ambivalence in people’s views on conditionality and complexity, including institutional trust, education, fear of benefit abuse, and support for reciprocity. Our results show that people tend to hold consistent views, as preferred conditionality is negatively correlated with perceived complexity. While most factors have a modest impact, fear of benefit abuse emerges as the strongest driver of ambivalence in procedural justice attitudes. The more people fear misuse, the less consistent their attitudes become. Fear of abuse also fully mediates the relationship between institutional trust and support for conditionality; lower trust, via increased fear, contributes to greater inconsistency in procedural justice attitudes. These findings highlight the potential of universal policy design to resolve the procedural justice paradox, by aligning moral concerns about fairness with the practical need for a welfare state that is both trustworthy and accessible.