1 John Thibaut & Laurens Walker, Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975) (“Thibaut & Walker, Procedural Justice”).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Carrie Menkel-Meadow, “Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving,” 31 UCLA L. Rev. 754 (1984); Sally Merry & Susan Silbey, “What Do Plaintiffs Want? Reexamining the Concept of Dispute,” 9 Just Sys. J. 151 (1984).Google Scholar

3 For a comparison of adversarial and inquisitorial systems, see Miriam Damaska, “Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure,” 84 Yale L. J. 483 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Subsequent work by Thibaut and Walker extended their theory to other decision-making domains. See John Thibaut & Laurens Walker, “A Theory of Procedure,” 66 Calif. L Rev. 541 (1978).Google Scholar

5 Miriam Damaska, “Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision,” 123 U. P. L Rev. 1083 (1975); Robert M. Hayden Jill K. Anderson, “On the Evaluation of Procedural Systems in Laboratory Experiments: A Critique of Thibaut and Walker,” 3 Law & Hum. Behav. 21 (1979); Jill K. Anderson & Robert M. Hayden, “Questions of Validity and Drawing Conclusions from Simulation Studies in Procedural Justice: A Comment,” 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 293 (1981).Google Scholar

6 The Thibaut and Walker research program is discussed thoroughly in chapter 2. Chapter 3 is devoted to research methods and the philosophy of science as it pertains to procedural justice studies. Chapter 3 was undoubtedly prompted by the criticisms of the laboratory simulation method that Thibaut and Walker used to explore their hypotheses. For readers trained in the social sciences this chapter is unnecessary, but for others it provides a useful background.Google Scholar

7 J. W. Adler, D. R. Hensler, & C. E. Nelson, Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program (Santa Monica, Cal: Rand Corporation, 1987).Google Scholar

8 Jonathan D. Casper, Tom R. Tyler, & B. Fisher, “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases,” 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 483 (1988); J. M. Landis & L Goodstein, “When Is Justice Fair?” 1986 A.B.F. Res. J. 675.Google Scholar

9 Blair H. Sheppard, “Justice Is No Simple Matter: A Case for Elaborating Our Model of Procedural Fairness,” 49 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 953 (1985).Google Scholar

10 Larry Heuer & Steven Penrod, “Increasing Juror's Participation in Trials: A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking,” 12 Law & Hum. Behav. 231 (1988); L. B. Sand & S. A. Reiss, “A Report on Seven Experiments Conducted by District Court Judges in the Second Circuit,” 60 N.Y.U. L Rev. 423 (1985).Google Scholar

11 Thibaut & Walker, 66 Calif. L Rev. at 541 (cited in note 4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Jean M. Brett, “Commentary on Procedural Justice Papers,”in Roy Lewicki, Max Bazerman, & Blair Sheppard, eds., 1 Research on Negotiations in Organizations (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1986).Google Scholar

13 Tom R. Tyler, K. Rasinski, & N. Spodick, “The Influence of Voice on Satisfaction with Leaders: Exploring the Meaning of Process Control,” 48 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 72 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See Neil Vidmar & Dale T. Miller, “Social Psychological Processes Underlying Attitudes Toward Legal Punishment,” 14 Law & Soc'y Rev. 565 (1980); Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964); Joseph R. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963); Kai T. Erikson, Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (New York: Wiley, 1966).Google Scholar

15 Vidmar 6k Miller, 14 Law & Soc'y Rev. at 565; Daniel Katz, “The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes,” 24 Pub. Opinion Q. 163 (1960); Edward E Jones 6k John W. Thibaut, “Interaction Goals as Bases of Inference in Interpersonal Perception,”in Renato Tagiuri & Luigi Petrullo, eds., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1958); Melvin J. Lerner, “The Justice Motive: Some Hypotheses As To Its Origins and Forms,” 45 J. Personality 1 (1977).Google Scholar

16 For references relating to the discussion in this paragraph, see Vidmar & Miller, 14 Law & Soc'y Rev. at 565; Neil Vidmar, “Justice Motives and Other Psychological Factors in the Development and Resolution of Disputes,”in Melvin Lemer & Sally Lerner, eds. The Justice Motive in Social Behavior (New York: Plenum Press, 1981) (“Lerner & Lerner, The Justice Motive”); Arthur Leff, “Injury, Ignorance and Spite—The Dynamics of Coercive Collection,” 80 Yale L. J. 1 (1970); Robert Hogan & Nicholas Emler, “Retributive Justice,”in Lerner & Lerner, The Justice Motive; Vilhelm Aubert, “Competition and Dissensus: Two Types of Conflict and of Conflict Resolution,” 7 J. Conflict Resolution 26 (1963); id., “Courts and Conflict Resolution,” 11 J. Conflict Resolution 40 (1976); William L. F. Felstiner, Richard L. Abel, & Austin Sarat, “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming …, “ 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 631 (1981); Keith O. Boyum, “The Etiology of Claims: Sketches for a Theoretical Mapping of the Claim-Definition Process,” in Keith O. Boyum & Lynn Mather, eds., Empirical Theories About Courts (New York: Longman, 1983); Patricia W. Crowe, “Complaint Reactions to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination,” 12 Law & Soc'y Rev. 217 (1978); James E. Westbrook, “The Problems with Process Bias,” 1989 J. Dispute Resolution 311; and Neil Vidmar & Regina A. Schuller, “Individual Difference and the Pursuit of Legal Rights: A Preliminary Inquiry,” 11 Law & Hum. Behav. 299 (1987).Google Scholar

17 See Thibaut & Walker, Procedural Justice ch. 2, 3, and 6–21 (cited in note 1).Google Scholar

18 Pauline Houlden, Stephen Latour, Laurens Walker, & John Thibaut, “Preferences for Modes of Dispute Resolution as a Function of Process and Decision Control,” 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychology 13 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See K. Leung & Allan E. Lind, “Procedural Justice and Culture: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Investigator Status in Procedural Preferences,” 50 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 1134 (1986).Google Scholar

20 Lon Fuller, “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication,” 92 Harv. L Rev. 353 (1978); id., “Mediation—Its Forms and Functions,” 44 S. Cal L Rev. 305 (1971).Google Scholar

21 See William M. O'Barr & John M. Conley, “Lay Expectations of the Civil Justice System,” 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 137 (1988); Merry & Silbey, 9 Just. Sys. J. at 151; see generally Laura Nader & Harry F. Todd, Jr., eds., The Disputing Process: Law in Ten Societies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978); P. H. Gulliver, Disputes and Negotiations (New York: Academic Press, 1979); Sally E. Merry, “Disputing Without Culture,” 100 Harv. L Rev. 2057 (1987).Google Scholar

22 Regina A. Schuller, “Preferences for Adjudication, Arbitration, and Mediation: An Empirical Investigation (M.A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, 1985).Google Scholar

23 Larry B. Heuer & Steven Penrod, “Procedural Preferences as a Function of Conflict Intensity,” 51 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology 700 (1986). This article is in fact discussed briefly by Lind and Tyler (at 88).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Kenneth Kressel & Dean G. Pruitt, “Conclusion: A Research Perspective on the Mediation of Social Conflict,” in Kenneth Kressel & Dean G. Pruitt, eds., Mediation Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989) (“Kressel & Pruitt, Mediation Rssearch”).Google Scholar

25 Dean E. Peachey, “What People Want from Mediation,” in Kressel & Pruitt, Mediation Research. Google Scholar

26 Peter J. van Koppen, “Justice and Power in Civil Law Negotiations,” 2 Soc. Just Res. 137 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 See Joel Rosch, “Institutionalizing Mediation: The Evolution of the Civil Liberties Bureau in Japan,” 21 Law & Soc'y Rev. 244 (1987); Setsuo Miyazawa, “Taking Kawashima Seriously: A Review of Japanese Research on Japanese Legal Consciousness and Disputing Behavior,” 21 Law & Soc'y Rev. 219 (1987); Frank K. Upham, “Litigation and Moral Consciousness in Japan: An Interpretive Analysis of Four Japanese Pollution Suits,” 10 Law & Soc'y Rev. 579 (1976).Google Scholar

28 See generally, David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley, 1965); Herbert McClosky, “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics,” 58 Am. Pot Sci. Rev. 361 (1964).Google Scholar

29 Tom R. Tyler, K. Rasinski, & K. McGraw, “The Influence of Perceived Injustice on Support for Political Authorities,” 15 J. Applied Soc. Psychology 700 (1985).Google Scholar

30 K. Rasinski & Tom R. Tyler, “Fairness and Vote Choice in the 1986 Presidential Election,” 16 Am. Pol Q. 5 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 E. N. Muller & T. O. Jukam, “On the Meaning of Political Support,” 27 Am. J. Pol Sci. 785 (1977).Google Scholar

32 An alternative possibility is that disadvantaged persons may be less sophisticated in their ability to present their views.Google Scholar

33 A recent study by James L. Gibson, “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance,” 23 Law & Soc'y Rev. 469 (1989), examined the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and unpopular institutional decisions by means of survey data. Gibson concluded that perceptions of institutional procedure had little impact on compliance. However, Gibson also acknowledged that the failure to find the expected relationship may possibly be ascribed to his methodology. See id. at 491.Google Scholar

34 S. Alexander & M. Ruderman, “The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Organizational Behavior,” 1 Soc. Just. Res. 117 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Robin I. Lissak, “Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, Champaign, 1983).Google Scholar

36 See supra notes 14, 15, 16, and accompanying text.Google Scholar

37 See Lauren G. Wispe, “Positive Forms of Social Behavior: An Overview,” 28 J. Soc. Issues 1 (1972); or id., ed., Altruism, Sympathy, and Helping: Psychological and Sociological Principles (New York: Academic Press, 1978).Google Scholar

38 Vidmar & Miller, 14 Law & Soc'y Rev. at 565 (cited in note 14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 See John Thibaut, Laurens Walker, Stephen Latour, & Pauline Houlden, “Procedural Justice as Fairness,” 26 Stan. L Rev. 1271 (1974). Using the insight from John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), the researchers created conditions that placed disputants either in front of or behind a “veil of ignorance” regarding which procedures would be used to resolve their dispute. Of those in front of the veil, some were advantaged and some were disadvantaged. Those persons in a disadvantaged role or behind the veil showed stronger preferences for procedures that favored disadvantaged parties, whereas advantaged persons showed a preference for procedures that favored advantaged parties. Thibaut et al., 26 Stan. L Rev. at 1283. These findings seem consistent with the findings in studies discussed supra at text immediately preceding note 5 and the text around notes 7 and 8. They also are very consistent with the self-interest bias posited by an instrumentalist perspective.Google Scholar