On Why Procedural Justice Matters in Court Hearings: Experimental Evidence that Behavioral Disinhibition Weakens the Association between Procedural Justice and Evaluations of Judges

Abstract

Recent debates have questioned the robustness of priming effects in experimental social psychology. Here we present results from two randomized controlled field experiments, conducted in courtrooms among actual litigants, that may contribute to the robustness of our field.Specifically, we examine how litigants respond to court hearings pertaining to important decisions about their bankruptcy (Study 1) and criminal sentences that can be imposed on them (Study 2). In studying litigants' reactions to these hearings, we focus on the issue of why perceptions of how fairly litigants feel they have been treated by individual judges during court hearings are positively associated with their trust in the judges in their country (Study 1) and with the legitimate power they assign to these judges (Study 2). These linkages between procedural justice judgments in court and evaluations of judges are important examples of how people's procedural justice perceptions can affect their attitudes and behaviors. 1 We propose a new conceptual explanation why procedural justice may be linked to evaluations of judges. In our explanation we note that litigants involved in court hearings will try to understand what is going on in their hearings. To do this, we assume they will inhibit ongoing action as this will allow them to pay close attention to what is going on in the courtroom. In this state of behavioral inhibition, experiences of procedural justice encountered in the courtroom are presumed to be salient and impact litigants' impressions of how much trust and legitimate power they can assign to judges in their country. Importantly, we argue that if this line of reasoning has merit, then it should be the case that weakening the state of behavioral inhibition will attenuate the association between procedural justice and litigants' evaluations of judges.We test this line of reasoning by means of experimental manipulation. In the courtroom experiments that we will present, participants were (versus were not) reminded about having acted without behavioral

How Going to Court Affects the Attitudes Towards Courts

“…A body of research that explored the relationship between the experience of the legal process and the attitudes of the court participants towards courts (Casper, 1978;Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler, 1990;Benesh & Howell, 2001;Benesh, 2006;Thibaut & Walker, 1975) support the argument that attitudes and opinions regarding courts are associated with a number of socially and legally desirable outcomes. These include higher rate of acceptance of court decisions (Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de Vera Park, 1993), increased belief in legitimacy (Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, & Quinton, 2010;Hulst, Van den Bos, Akkermans, & Lind, 2017;Tyler & Huo, 2002), as well as obedience to laws (Tyler, 2006). In other words, viewing the process as fair has been found to be associated with positive attitudes towards courts in general, with more favorable views of court's decisions, and with higher compliance with those decisions as well.…”

Is mediation the preferred procedure in labour dispute resolution systems? Evidence from employer–employee matched data in China

“…Impressions of the process and procedures used by authorities are typically available to the perceiver, forming the heart of the fairness heuristic (Lind et al., 1993). Individual judgements of fairness on authorities can shape their willingness to accept authority and their compliance with the authority’s decisions (Hulst et al., 2017). Among the many sources of information available to employees, none is more visual than the method of the appointment of representatives in EMCs.…”

Procedural Justice on Trial

“…Importantly, Tyler and Huo (2002) show that people's perceptions of procedural fairness are not only related to the perceived legitimacy of individual police officers and judges encountered in personal interactions, but also generalize to overall views of the legitimacy of the police and courts. In line with this, Hulst et al (2017) found that defendants in criminal cases who experienced higher levels of procedural justice during their court hearings assigned greater levels of legitimate power to judges in their country. Perceptions of procedural fairness have also been found to shape views on the legitimacy of the US police (Tyler & Fagan, 2008), Congress (Tyler, 1994) and Supreme Court (Tyler & Rasinski, 1991).…”

“…Perceived procedural fairness also tends to be associated with people's evaluations of decision-making authorities, for instance in terms of trust (Gau, 2010;Grootelaar & Van den Bos, 2018;Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, & Quinton, 2010;Hulst, Van den Bos, Akkermans, & Lind, 2017;Tyler, 2001). As noted by Grootelaar and Van den Bos (2018, p. 246), " [t]rust is often used as an umbrella term measuring different concepts".…”

“…In addition, Benesh and Howell's (2001) study on confidence in local and state courts among people with and without recent court experience revealed that perceived procedural justice was associated with confidence in courts, with perceptions of courteous treatment being particularly important for court users. Studies on Dutch courtroom contexts, too, suggest strong relationships between perceived procedural justice and trust in judges (Grootelaar, 2018;Hulst et al, 2017).…”