NCJ Number
150011
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 18 Issue: 4 Dated: (August 1994) Pages: 361- 376
Date Published
1994
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This study examined procedural preferences, perceptions of fairness, and compliance with outcome for a sample of 198 mental health professionals who read a vignette that described a malpractice case and were asked to imagine themselves in the defendant's role.
Abstract
Using a between-subjects design, each subject was offered two possible trial procedures for resolving the case: the standard adversarial procedure and one of five possible hybrid procedures. Using scales that juxtaposed these two procedures, subjects provided judgments on 12 procedural justice dimensions. A series of regression analyses examined the most important determinants of PREFERENCE judgments. FAIRNESS ratings, and ratings of imagined COMPLIANCE with trial outcomes. PREFERENCE ratings were significantly influenced by perceived FAIRNESS of the procedures and by OUTCOME CONTROL. Perceived accuracy of the available trial procedures contributed most of the unique variance explained for dependent measures of FAIRNESS and COMPLIANCE. The authors advise that models that represent variations on the standard adversarial model or hybrids that share some features of both the adversarial and inquisitorial models have fared well compared with the standard adversarial model in terms of desirable procedural justice attributes. Although some of the relationships established in earlier studies appear robust, these studies suggest that the attribute of perceived accuracy of procedures, which was not investigated in previous work, may significantly influence procedural justice judgments. Thus, respondents' perceptions and concerns about accuracy should be considered by investigators in future research in this area. 4 tables and 16 references