论司法程序公正要素

司法程序公正要素的结构体系应以人的主体性为理论基础。只有能够体现当事人的尊严和人格,保护当事人的程序主体地位的要求和内容,才可以纳入结构体系的架构。     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

Privacy and procedural justice in organizations

This paper advances the argument that individual privacy is a procedural justice issue in organizations. A review of the organizational privacy literature supports this argument, and new directions for procedural justice research are suggested. In addition, it is argued that a focus on individual privacy highlights the political and paradoxical implications of procedural justice issues in organizations.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.     

Children's criteria for procedural justice: Developing a Young People's Procedural Justice Scale

A Procedural Justice Scale for Young People was developed to examine the criteria that Grades 7 and 9 students thought were important in judging the fairness of the procedures used to judge a case of a hypothetical young thief. A 10-item scale was developed using unidimensional scaling and factor-analytic techniques. The study supports the earlier work on adults by Thibault and Walker (1978) and Tyler (1988) showing that for children too procedural justice concerns make a contribution to satisfaction with the outcomes and procedures of a case.     

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its expected-value (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.     

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.     

Context effects on procedural justice: Effects of interrelatedness,trust, and penalty on procedural preferences

The relationship of context to procedural preferences was studied by examining the effects of interrelatedness, trust, and penalty on preferences for adversary and inquisitorial hearing procedures. Subjects imagined themselves members of different communities and were led to believe that they had been accused of committing an offense of which they knew they were innocent. Interrelatedness, trust, and penalty interacted to affect subjects' ratings of both hearing procedures. Subjects in highly trusting settings (i) preferred the inquisitorial procedure more than those in nontrusting settings and (ii) preferred the adversary procedure less than their nontrusting counterparts. A penalty effect was also found. As penalty increased, subjects increased in their preference for the adversary procedure and decreased in their preference for the inquisitorial procedure, but only in noninterrelated communities. The implications for prior research and for the role of interrelatedness in procedural choice are discussed.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals

One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.     

Frustration effects in procedural justice research: The case of drug-testing legislation

A scenario methodology was used to investigate reactions to negative outcomes resulting from drug-testing procedures. The drug-testing procedures reflected variations in State law governing the use of drug tests in employee selection. Results suggest that individuals responded most negatively to negative outcomes resulting from the legally mandated procedures. Results are discussed as an example of the frustration effect observed in the procedural justice literature. Frustration effects were most severe for individuals who were most certain, based on personal knowledge, that the drug test results were inaccurate.     

Measuring attitudes toward grievance systems: A procedural justice perspective applied to the workplace

Contractual grievance procedures have long been utilized in union-management relationships to resolve workplace disputes. Little research attention, however, has focused on determining unionized workers' perceptions of and attitudes about such procedures. This study develops an instrument designed to measure worker attitudes toward the grievance procedure (ATGP). The survey items and conceptual framework are based on prior research in the areas of administrative and procedural justice. Employing a national sample (N=1080) from a single union, the results support a multidimensional attitudinal measure. Four key dimensions of workers' assessment of the grievance procedure were found: (i) Fairness, (ii) Effectiveness, (iii) Representation, and (iv) Importance. The structure of the measure was stable across identified sub-groups in the sample. Some differences in the attitudinal assessment on the four dimensions emerged depending upon union office holding and the grievance-filing experience of the respondents. Last, potential future applications of the instrument are discussed.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

Beyond normative constraints: Declining institutionalism and the emergence of substantive and procedural justice

Popular notions of what it means to be put on trial invariably generate thoughts of the adversarial criminal trial, most often before a judge and jury. However, the criminal trial as the site for the testing of evidence of wrongdoing via a model of proof that proceeds according to prescribed processes in a normative institutional milieu is in decline. Controversially, this decline has been met with resistance from the legal profession, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders seeking to preserve the due process model that defines the criminal trial as an adversarial exchange between state and defendant. While the due process model continues to dominate as popular conceptualisation, the twenty-first century criminal trial has changed to such an extent that it is no longer seen as the quintessential form for the meting out of procedural fairness and testing of state's evidence, that emerged toward the end of the seventeenth century. Rather, the rise of control orders, modifications to the law of evidence, and the right of the accused to confront their accuser, together with the inclusion of non-traditional agents of justice, specifically victims and the community, has brought forward an era of substantive and procedural justice that lies beyond the normative constraints of the criminal trial. Robed counsel and bewigged judges beware; the advent of substantive and procedural justice has allowed for greater innovation transgressing the orthodoxies of criminal law in common law systems of justice. This paper will consider the virtues of the introduction of a transgressive criminal procedure.     

Fairnes issues and job satisfaction among korean employees: The significance of status value and procedural justice in work orientation

This study investigates how justice or fairness issues such as procedural justice, distributive justice, and status equity affect job satisfaction among Korean employees. Incorporating cultural values and social norms salient in Korea, the study hypothesizes that perceptions of procedural justice enhance more job satisfaction than perceptions of distributive justice among Korean employees. Another hypothesis, based on Korean employees' aspiration for higher occupational status, predicts that perceptions of status equity, i.e., occupational prestige of their current jobs relative to their human capital, also increase job satisfaction more than perceptions of distributive justice. These two hypotheses were tested with a sample of 501 full-time employees in Korea. Supporting the hypotheses, the results indicated that (i) perceptions of procedural justice produce more job satisfaction than do perceptions of distributive justice; and (ii) perceptions of status equity are the most important factor predicting job satisfaction among the three fairness issues. Cross-cultural implications of these findings are discussed in more detail.The author thanks Professor Hyunho Seok and the Korean Social Science Council (KSSC) for their 1990 national survey data sets.     

Putting the group back into intergroup justice studies

This paper argues that groups have traditionally been conceptualized in two major ways—subjective and objective—which correspond to the different conceptions found within the disciplines of psychology and sociology. We argue that the term group is frequently used too carelessly since rarely are readers informed of the conception of group to which the findings are relevant. Findings generated from studies involving one conception of group may not allow valid inferences to groups conceptualized differently. We suggest that a more sociological conception of group is needed to balance the current emphasis based in the psychological tradition. We believe that such a difference in conceptualizing groups could well lead to very different speculations about the nature of intergroup justice relations.