Abstract
A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burger, W. E. (1982). Isn't there a better way?Am. Bar Assoc. J. 68: 274–277.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1975).Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change.Law Soc. Rev. 8: 94–135.
Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1988).LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (eds.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, pp. 91–131.
Lind, E. A. (1990).Arbitrating High-Stakes Cases: An Evaluation of Court-Annexed Arbitration in a United States District Court, RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
Lind, E. A., and Earley, P. C. (1990). Some thoughts on self and group interest: A parallel processor model. Unpublished manuscript, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, IL.
Lind, E. A., and Earley, P. C. (in press). Procedural justice and culture.Int. J. Psychol.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., and Earley, P. C. (1990) Voice, control and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments.J. Per. Soc. Psychol. 59: 952–959.
Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. E., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., and Tyler, T. R. (1990). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants' evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system.Law Soc. Rev. 24: 953–996.
Lind, E. A., and Shapard, J. S. (1981).Evaluation of Court Annexed Arbitration in Three Federal District Courts, Federal Justice Center, Washington, DC.
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988).The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York.
MacCoun, R. J., Lind, E. A., Hensler, D. R., Bryant, D. L., and Ebener, P. A. (1988).Alternative Adjudication: An Evaluation of the New Jersey Automobile Arbitration Program, RAND Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
Pound, R. (1906/1963). “The causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.” Address delivered at the annual convention of the American Bar Foundation, 1906 (reprinted by the American Judicature Society, Chicago, 1963).
Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What's fair is fair ... or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53: 201–211.
Tyler, T. R. (1990).Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (in press). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25, Academic Press, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lind, E.A., Ambrose, M., Park, M.d.V. et al. Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures. Soc Just Res 4, 325–336 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01126779
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01126779