Research on Perceptions of Procedure Justice and Its Implications

从20世纪70年代开始,西方学者对程序公正的研究从伦理哲学分析转向社会心理学分析,试图揭示程序公正的心理规律.研究发现:程序公正的要素并没有绝对标准,具有一定的情境敏感性;不过,程序公正在促进人们接受法律、法律决定和从事积极行为等方面具有比结果公正更为重要的地位,这种现象甚至具有跨越文化、种族、性别的普遍性.为了对此进行解释,西方学者提出了发言权理论、团体价值理论、人际关系理论和公正启发理论等模式,各自都具有一定的解释力.不过,程序公正也有可能成为社会权威转移真实矛盾“欺骗”社会成员的统治策略.对于转型期的我国,程序公正感受研究带给我们的不是其具体的结论,而是告诉我们,研究公正问题时,应当抛开宏大话语,努力探寻中国人心目中的公正观.     

程序公正简论

程序公正并不仅仅是追求实体公正的工具和手段 ,它和实体公正都是司法活动所追求的目标 ,并且现代法治社会应以程序公正为本。程序公正的理念渊源于西方自然正义论 ,被认为具有独立和优先于实体公正的法律价值 ,它与我国法文化传统和现实存在着差异和冲突。     

程序公正对民事诉讼公正的价值

程序对民事诉讼公正的实现具有重大价值,要想实现诉讼的公正,必须要从程序着手.能够实现诉讼公正的程序,必须是公正的程序.由于民事诉讼程序的公正只能是不完善的程序公正,这样程序未必一定能带来正当的结果,必须通过一定的法律拟制方法,来实现程序公正的正当化.     

程序瑕疵与程序公正──江苏省工商局处罚南京市煤气公司行政诉讼案评析

程序瑕疵是在保证主要事实明确、实体基本公正基础上的次要性程序违反，不会根本影响程序公正与实体公正的实现，在法律后果上也不以无效或被撤销为必然。通过对一个程序争议的典型行政诉讼案例的分析，在论证程序正义的双重性价值的基础上，区别程序瑕疵和程序违法 (狭义 )的不同特征和法律后果，可使程序法在行政处罚中的适用更具可操作性和说服力。     

论程序公正对法律事实正当性的保障

本文以程序公正对法律事实正当性的保障为研究对象，针对相关问题进行了探讨。文章主要介绍了程序公正为法律事实正当性的构建提供相对独立的空间、程序公正为法律事实正当性的构建提供了理性化的运作方式以及程序公正将凸显法律事实建构的民主性特点等内容。希望本文的研究能够为相关领域的研究提供一些可以参考的借鉴和帮助。     

探讨程序公正之价值

所谓价值总是与真、善、美及有用性等伦理、文化现象发生联系的,都应是属于人的一种内心确信性的善德判断,具有符合社会、自然规律和理性的特征。用这种价值观念来研究与探讨程序公正之价值时,我们可以发现,我国对程序公正价值的认识是相当不足的,应在实践中加以丰富与完善。     

刑事诉讼程序公正的保障机制

一、程序公正的含义程序公正又被称为看得见的正义,它关系到法律尊严和法官形象公正。程序公正在司法公正中具有特殊的重要地位,其既保证实体公正最大限度地实现,又具有自身独立的存在价值。谷口安平指出:“程序是法律的心脏”。法律的正义唯有通过公正的程序才能实现,程序的公正是正确适用法律、实施裁判公正的保障机制,同时也是法律正义的直接体现,然而,程序本身的价值应取决于程序本身是否公正,换言之,只有公正的程序才能体现法律的正义。那么何为公正?justice一词具有公正,正义、正当、公平等意思,这些词含义大体相同,但意义的强弱、范…     

行政公正:行政法的价值追求

行政公正原是确保行政机关行使行政权的过程和结果可以为社会一般理性人认同、接受所要遵循的原则。行政公正包括实体公正、程序公正、"实践"公正三个方面的内容。本文指出此三者有着内在的必然联系,程序公正是实体公正实现的保障,实体公正是程序公正所要达到的目标,"实体公正是一种结果价值,而程序公正是一种过程价值,其二者的结合就构成了行政公正","实践"公正则是行政公正的外在要求。     

论简易行政程序的价值基础

我国目前正在进行统一的行政程序法典化构建,但是对于行政程序法的目标模式并没有达成一致,简易行政程序作为行政程序法律制度之一,无疑以追求公正、正义为其价值目标,但是行政资源的有限性决定了行政程序的设计必须考虑到程序实施的方便与快捷,简易行政程序正是这一价值的体现。这两种价值势必在一定程度上产生冲突。本文试图以最低限度公正的理论为视角来构建简易行政程序的理论根基。     

程序与实体:孰重孰轻?

公正是人类社会所推崇的最高尚 的品格。诉讼制度之所以能够存在并发 展下去。根本的一点就在于它的公正性。如果失去了公正，诉讼制度必然会 灭亡。老百姓之所以要到法院打官司，就在于他们相信法院是公正的，否则， 他就不会到法院来了。按照传统的理论分类，司法公正为程序公正和实体公 正。实体公正是指案件审理的结果符合 实体法规定、是公平的。程序公正是指 审理案件的程序和过程是公正的。其实 还可以有一种分类，就是实际上的公正 和感觉上的公正。这种分类听起来似乎很荒谬，但在司法实践中这个问题却非 常突出。一个案子从法律上…     

Disputes in Japan: A cross-cultural test of the procedural justice model

Research on procedural justice has provided ample evidence that people are concerned not only with the outcome of disputes but also with the fairness of the procedures used to resolve disputes. The majority of the studies examining the importance of procedural justice have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries. This study tests the generality of the procedural justice model by examining the importance of fair procedures to people in a non-Western country, Japan. This study also examines the meaning of a fair procedure from a legal perspective. Past studies have drawn the procedural justice criteria considered from social psychology. We examine several additional criteria derived from the legal concept of due process of law. Results indicate that fair procedures are more important to subjects than fair outcomes in both a traffic accident dispute and a breach of contract case. Furthermore, across both types of disputes, fairness concerns are more important than nonfairness concerns. These results are consistent with findings from studies conducted in Western countries. A new finding that emerges from the study is that the clarity with which a procedure is formulated and presented is a strong determinant of procedural justice judgments.     

Impact of procedural factors on perceived justice in divorce settlements

We used a decision-making conceptual framework from family resource management combined with procedural justice frameworks from social psychology to (i) articulate the elements and rules of procedural fairness, (ii) develop a theoretical organization and code to include procedural fairness principles as applied to legal decision processes in divorce, and (iii) describe the perceptions of divorcing parties about the violations of procedural fairness principles in their own divorce process. Procedural fairness principles included accuracy, consistency, ethicality, bias suppression, correctability, and representativeness. Results of qualitative data analyses were consistent with experimental studies in that divorced people were concerned with fair procedures and particularly with violations of the principles of ethicality, consistency, accuracy, and representativeness.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.     

程序正义理论的再梳理:从《正义论》到《政治自由主义》——遵循罗尔斯思想发展的轨迹

在1971年出版的<正义论>里,罗尔斯将程序正义分为:完善的程序正义、不完善的程序正义、纯粹的程序正义;并认为:纯粹的程序正义决定了结果的实体正义.在学术界,罗尔斯的程序正义理论产生了涟漪:赞同观点和反对主张同时存在.作为自身学术思想的发展,在1993年出版的<政治自由主义>里,罗尔斯修订了其在<正义论>里的观点,认为:程序正义的正义性,部分依赖结果的实体正义性.学术思想的修正,并不代表罗尔斯对程序正义理论的放弃,而是加强了程序正义理论的现实实践基石.     

The relationship of the outcome and procedural fairness: How does knowing the outcome influence judgments about the procedure?

Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can clearly separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. Two experiments are reported which address that question. In both studies respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure (behind the veil), while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation (in front of the veil). Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes themeaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes theweight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

The Role of Societal Benefits and Fairness Concerns Among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients

Four experiments examined the role of costs and benefits versus procedural and distributive justice for procedural fairness and procedural evaluations among decision makers and decision recipients. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the responses of actual judges in a 2 (high versus low benefit) x 2 (search procedure conducted respectfully versus disrespectfully) randomized factorial. In both studies judges evaluated procedures differently than is typical among samples of decision recipients: outcome concerns strongly influenced both procedural evaluations and procedural fairness while procedural concerns such as voice and respect were minimally influential. Whereas fairness concerns continued to be important among these decision makers, outcome fairness was more influential than procedural fairness. Studies 3 and 4 varied role (authority versus subordinate), procedural respect, and societal benefits. Both experiments supported our predictions that procedural criteria would dominate the procedural evaluations of subordinates whereas outcome concerns such as societal benefits would dominate the procedural evaluations of authorities.     

Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity

In social psychology it has been argued that the importance of justice cannot be overstated. In the present paper, we ask whether this indeed is the case and, more precisely, examine when fairness is an important determinant of human reactions and when it is less significant. To this end we explore what drives people's reactions to perceived fairness and argue that although social justice research has reported effects of fairness perceptions on people's affective feelings, a close examination of the literature shows that these reactions appear less frequently and less strong than one would expect. It is proposed here that this has to do with the neglect in the social psychology of justice of an important determinant of affective reactions: individuals' propensity to react strongly or mildly toward affect-related events. As hypothesized, findings of two empirical studies show that especially people high in affect intensity show strong affective reactions following the experience of outcome fairness (Study1) and procedural fairness (Study2). When affect intensity is low, however, weak or no fairness effects were found, suggesting that then fairness may not be an important issue. In the discussion it is thus argued that incorporating affect intensity into the justice literature may further insights into the psychology of reactions toward fairness.     

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Why is it that some people respond in a more negative way to procedural injustice than do others, and why is it that some people go on to defy authority while others in the same situation do not? Personality theorists suggest that the psychological effect of a situation depends on how a person interprets the situation and that such differences in interpretation can vary as a function of individual difference factors. For example, affect intensity—one’s predisposition to react more or less emotionally to an event—is one such individual difference factor that has been shown to influence people’s reactions to events. Cross-sectional survey data collected from (a) 652 tax offenders who have been through a serious law enforcement experience (Study 1), and (b) 672 citizens with recent personal contact with a police officer (Study 2), showed that individual differences in ‘affect intensity’ moderate the effect of procedural justice on both affective reactions and compliance behavior. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice had a greater effect in reducing anger and reports of non-compliance among those lower in affect intensity than those higher in affect intensity. Both methodological and theoretical explanations are offered to explain the results, including the suggestion that emotions of shame may play a role in the observed interaction.     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.