Abstract
Mental health professionals were asked to imagine themselves in the role of defendant in a medical malpractice case. Each participant was told that their case could be tried according to standard adversary trial procedures or by an alternative procedure. The alternative procedures involved either varying the way that expert testimony would be developed or bifurcation of issues at trial. Participants rated the available alternative procedure relative to the ADVERS procedure in terms of preference, fairness, willingness to comply with trial outcomes, and other procedural justice dimensions. Results indicated a strong endorsement of potential alternatives to the standard adversarial trial process for resolving medical malpractice claims.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Dawson, N. V., Arkes, H. R., Siciliano, C., Blinkhorn, R., Lakshmanan, M., & Petrelli, M. (1988). Hindsight bias: An impediment to accurate probability estimation in clinicopathologic conferences. Medical Decision Making, 8, 259–264.
Harris, L., & Associates (1989). Judges' opinions on procedural issues: A survey of state and federal judges who spend at least half their time on general civil cases. Boston University Law Review, 69, 731–768.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Moenssens, A. (1974). The “impartial” medical expert: A new look at an old issue. Medical Trial Technique Quarterly, 25, 63–76.
Poythress, N. G. (1994). Procedural preferences, perceptions of fairness, and compliance with outcomes: A study of alternatives to the standard adversary trial procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 361–376.
Poythress, N., Schumacher, J., Wiener, R., & Murrin, M. R. (1993). Procedural justice judgments of alternative procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1639–1658.
Poythress, N. G., & Wiener, R. (1995). Reforming medical malpractice torts: Accuracy, procedural justice, and the law as moral educator. The Litigator, 1, 385–392.
Poythress, N., Wiener, R., & Schumacher, J. E. (1992). Reframing the medical malpractice tort reform debate: Social science research implications for non-economic reforms. Law and Psychology Review, 16, 65–112.
Saks, M. (1992). Normative and empirical issues about the role of expert witnesses. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 183–203). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Shell, R. (1980). Psychiatric testimony: Science or fortune telling? Barrister, 7, 6–11.
Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Justice is no simple matter: Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953–962.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 86, 541–566.
Wiener, R. L. (1990). A psycholegal and empirical approach to the medical standard of care. Nebraska Law Review, 69, 112–157.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Poythress, N.G., Murrin, M.R. Mock Defendants' Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Trial Procedures in a Medical Malpractice Case. Law Hum Behav 21, 257–268 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024886631151
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024886631151