Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T16:48:07.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance Among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Naomi Creutzfeldt  and
Ben Bradford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attitudes toward legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance, and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 985 - 1016
Copyright
© 2016 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The term ombuds is chosen here as a gender neutral term to describe public and private organisations that deal with people's complaints about public bodies and businesses, outside of the courts, in the UK. We did not, however, change the names of the “ombudsmen” bodies in the UK.

References

Barrett-Howard, Edith., & Tyler, Tom R. (1986) “Procedural Justice as a Criterion in Allocation Decisions,” 50 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beetham, David (1991) The Legitimation of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bercovitch, Jacob, & Houston, Allison (1985) “Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem-Solving,” 31 UCLA Law Rev. 754–842.Google Scholar
Bottoms, Anthony, & Tankebe, Justice (2012) “Criminology: Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice,” 102 The J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 119–70.Google Scholar
Bradford, Ben 2014. “Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation between Police and Public,” 24 Policing and Society: An International J. of Research and Policy 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, Ben, Jackson, Jonathan, & Hough, Mike (2013) Police Legitimacy in Action: Lessons for Theory and Practice (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2236691). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
Brockner, Joel, & Wiesenfeld, Batia M. (1996) “An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures,” 120 Psychological Bulletin 189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casper, Jonathan D., Tyler, Tom R., & Fisher, Bonnie (1988) “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coicaud, Jean-Marc (2002) Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Christoper & Creutzfeldt, Naomi (2013) Implementing the consumer ADR directive (policy brief 2013 ADR conference in Oxford) http://www.csls.ox.ac.uk/documents/FLJSCDRPolicybrief2013.pdf.Google Scholar
Creutzfeldt, Naomi (2013) “The Origins and Evolution of Consumer Dispute Resolution Systems in Europe,” in Resolving Mass Disputes: ADR and Settlement of Mass Claims, Hodges and Stadler. UK: Edward Elgar. 223–46.Google Scholar
Gau, Jacinta (2011) “The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: An Empirical Test of Core Theoretical Propositions,” 39 J. of Criminal Justice 489–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gau, Jacinta (2014) “Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure,” 39 American J. of Criminal Justice 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., Spence, & Lester K. (2003) “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court,” 47 American J. of Political Science 354–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Jerald, & Folger, R. (1983) “Procedural Justice Participation and the Pair Process Effect in Groups and Organizations,” in Paulus, P.B., ed., Basic Group Processes. New York: Springer-Verlag. 235–56.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jerald, & Tyler, Tom R. (1987) “Why Study Procedural Justice in Organizations?” 1 Social Justice Research 127–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Christopher, & Creutzfeldt, Naomi (2013) Implementing the EU Consumer ADR Directive. Available at: http://www.fljs.org/sites/www.fljs.org/files/publications/Hodges-Creutzfeldt_0.pdf (accessed 21 September 2016).Google Scholar
Hodges, Christopher J. S., Benöhr, Iris, & Creutzfeldt-Banda, Naomi (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Oxford, Portland, OR: Hart Pub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, Geert (1980) Culture's Consequences- International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hough, Mike, Jackson, Jonathan, & Bradford, Ben (2013) “Legitimacy, Trust and Compliance: An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice Theory Using the European Social Survey,” in Tankebe, J., & Liebling, A., eds., Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2234339 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2234339.Google Scholar
Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, Peter (1999) “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives,” 6 Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary J. 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Jonathan (2015) “On the Dual Motivational Force of Legitimate Authority,” in Bornstein, B. H., and Tomkins, A.J., eds., Cooperation and Compliance with Authority: The Role of Institutional Trust. 62nd Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. New York: Springer. 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Jonathan, & Gau, Jacinta (2015) “Carving up Concepts? Differentiating between Trust and Legitimacy in Public Attitudes towards Legal Authority,” in Shockley, E., Neal, T.M.S., Pytlik Zillig, L., & Bornstein, B., eds., Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust: Towards Theoretical and Methodological Integration. New York: Springer. 49–69.Google Scholar
Jackson, Jonathan, et al. (2012) Just Authority?: Trust in the Police in England and Wales. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012a). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions, British Journal of Criminology, 52, 6, 1051–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, Kwok, & Lind, E. Allan (1986) “Procedural Justice and Culture: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Investigator Status on Procedural Preferences,” 50 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 1134–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, & Earley, P.C. (1992) “Procedural Justice and Culture,” 27 International J. of Psychology 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, & Tyler, Tom R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, et al. (1980) “Procedure and Outcome Effects on Reactions to Adjudicated Resolution of Conflicts of Interests,” 39 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E.A., et al. (1990) “In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants’ Evaluations of Civil Justice System Experiences,” 24 Law & Society Rev. 953–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Krisina, Bradford, Ben, Jackson, & Jonathan (2016) “Motivating Compliance Behavior among Tax Offenders: Procedural Justice or Deterrence?” 43 Criminal Justice & Behavior 102–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesing, Michael, Bratton, Jason, & Gertz, Marc (2007) “The Construct Validity and Refinement of Process-Based Policing Measures,” 34 Criminal Justice & Behavior.Google Scholar
Stuhmcke, Anita (1998) “The Corporatisation and Privatisation of the Australian Telecommunications Industry: The Role of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman,” 21 University of New South Wales Law J. 807–831.Google Scholar
Tankebe, Justice (2013) “Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police Legitimacy,” 51 Criminology 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tapp, June L, & Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971) “Developing Senses of Law and Legal Justice,” 27 J. of Social Issues 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, John, & Walker, Laurens (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analsysis. HIllsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Trinkner, Rick, & Cohn, Ellen S. (2014) “Putting the “Social” Back in Legal Socialization: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Cynicism in Legal and Nonlegal Authorities,” 38 Law and Human Behavior 612–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. (1988) “What Is Procedural Justice?: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures,” 22 Law & Society Rev. 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1996) “The Relationship of the Outcome and Procedural Fairness: How Does Knowing the Outcome Influence Judgments about the Procedure?” 9 Social Justice Research 311–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. (2011) Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivation. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom, & Blader, Steven. (2000) Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom, & Blader, Steven. (2003) “A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process,” 29 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 747–58.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Jackson, Jonathan (2013) Future Challenges in the Study of Legitimacy and Criminal Justice (May 1, 2013). Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 264. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2141322 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2141322 (accessed 21 September 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Jackson, Jonathan (2014) “Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement. 20 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Rasinski, Kenneth (1991) “Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson,” 25 Law & Society Rev. 621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Caine, A. (1981) “The Role of Distributional and Procedural Fairness in the Endorsement of Formal Leaders,” 41 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 642–55.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., & Huo, Yuen J. (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
van den Bos, Kees, Vermunt, Riel, & Wilke, Henk (1997) “Procedural and Distributive Justice: What Is Fair Depends More on What Comes First Than on What Comes Next,” 72 J. of Personality and Social Psychology 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Nancy A. (2002) “Disputants’ Decision Control in Court-Connected Mediation: A Hollow Promise without Procedural Justice,” 1 J. of Dispute Resolution 179.Google Scholar