No abstract

A cross-national experimental study examining perceptions of four procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution was conducted in four countries—the United States, Britain, France, and West Germany—whose legal procedures are based on differing adjudicative models. One hundred seventy-eight subjects rated the four models on a number of dimensions, including their preference for using the model for settling a conflict, the fairness of the model, and the amount of control over the resolution of the conflict vested in each of several roles. Approximately half of the subjects at each site were asked to assume the role of defendant in the adjudicated conflict, and half were asked to assume the role of plaintiff. The results showed a general preference for more “adversary” (disputant-controlled) models over more “inquisitorial” (adjudicator-controlled) models. This preference was not limited to subjects from nations (the United States and Britain) whose legal systems are based on adversary models. The conclusions of the study focused on the relationship between subjects' model preferences and the distribution of control over the adjudicative process among roles, and on the generality of this relationship in the nations studied.

No abstract

Undergraduates and law students heard either a male or a female witness in a taped reenactment of criminal trial testimony. The testimony was presented either in a "fragmented" style, with brief answers by the witness to many questions by the lawyer, or in a "narrative" style, with long answers to few questions. Consideration of adversary court norms and sex stereotypes led to the prediction that subjects would attribute favorable evaluation of the witness by the lawyer in the female witness -narrative style condition and unfavorable evaluation of the witness by the lawyer in the male witness -fragmented style condition. The prediction with respect to the female witness was confirmed only with law students; the prediction with respect to the male witness was confirmed only with undergraduates. Subjects' own evaluations of the witness showed the same pattern of effects. Implications for social perception and social psychology of law are discussed. Social psychologists in several nations have begun to investigate the role of speech style as a factor affecting the impressions formed of speakers (see Giles & Powesland, 1975, for a review of this research). Early studies on this topic demonstrated that listeners form different impressions of a speaker depending

Two studies were carried out to compare verbal and behavioural measures of stealing and to investigate the effects of costs and benefits on stealing. In the first, 25 youths were interviewed and given opportunities to steal. The 10 who stole were not significantly more likely to say that they would steal in a hypothetical situation. In the second study, the behavioural experiments of Farrington and Knight (1979) on stealing from a “lost” letter were described to 10 subjects as hypothetical situations. Once again, there was little relationship between the verbal and behavioural results. Furthermore, the verbal results of the first study (the effects of costs and benefits on stealing) were not the same as those of the second. It is concluded that valid information about stealing can only be obtained in experiments in which actual stealing behaviour is studied.