Abstract
Recreational cannabis sits in a grey zone of institutional legitimacy—neither fully accepted nor outright rejected. While both the Netherlands and the UK formally prohibit cannabis, public tolerance and enforcement vary significantly. In this study, we examine how individuals make microlevel legitimacy judgments in such ambiguous contexts, where evaluators face multiple and often conflicting cues. Drawing on two large-scale conjoint experiments (N=760), we investigate how authorization (institutional approval) and endorsement (public support) shape legitimacy perceptions, and how these are filtered through personal beliefs and institutional context. Our preliminary findings reveal three key mechanisms of cue congruence: (1) inter-cue congruence (alignment between authority and public opinion) sharpens legitimacy judgments, while conflicting cues reduce clarity; (2) belief–cue congruence (alignment with personal views) amplifies the cue’s persuasive effect; and (3) cue–importance congruence (alignment with an individual's preferred legitimacy source) affects cue salience. Across both countries, authorization cues exerted greater influence than endorsement, though personal dispositions moderated these effects. Dutch respondents exhibited more moderate and consistent evaluations, while UK participants showed greater polarization—reflecting institutional norms and ambiguity. This research contributes a new Cue Congruence Framework for understanding how individuals actively construct legitimacy under uncertainty. We challenge assumptions of evaluator passivity and highlight legitimacy as a dynamic, contextually embedded process. Our approach extends legitimacy theory by integrating multi-cue environments, individual dispositions, and comparative institutional analysis—offering fresh insight into how controversial practices are normalized or resisted.