Whose Safety Net? Home Insurance and Inequality

Drawing on prior theoretical and empirical work that has begun to constitute the insurance field as a distinct sociolegal research project, this study uses quantitative and qualitative data collected following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to explore distributional questions within that field. Survey results show that higher income, age, and education were associated with having home insurance and that Hispanics and blacks were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to have insurance. The study provides the first quantitative evidence of bias in the insurance claims process by documenting a statistically significant and substantial ethnic difference in the timing of insurance payments. The qualitative research helps to explain the difference in the timing of insurance payments as the product of unconscious bias by insurance adjusters. The study concludes by proposing market-structuring regulation to reduce the inequality encountered.     

Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential

Two correlational studies test the hypothesis that procedural justice, or fairness of process, plays a role in acceptance of agreements reached through bilateral negotiation. Both studies test the relationship between the fairness of the process used to resolve a dispute, objective monetary outcomes, subjective assessments of outcome favorability, and subjective assessments of outcome fairness. Additionally, the second study tests the hypothesis that negotiations characterized by greater procedural justice result in more potential for integrative bargaining. The results suggest that procedural justice encourages the acceptance of negotiated agreements, as well as leading to the opportunity for increased integrative bargaining.     

Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals

Several articles have been written about the relative prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Almost uniformly, however, those rankings have focused on sociology and criminology journals and have generally reflected a sociological orientation. If criminal justice is indeed a separate discipline, such approaches are tantamount to asking psychologists to rate sociological journals within a list of psychology journals. Our approach is first to separate respondents by their degree of identification with criminal justice and their educational orientation. Second, we compile a list of responses to questions about prestige and utility to practitioners across the range of criminal justice and criminology journals. Analyses of these data indicate that there are differences in the way scholars rate journals, based on their identity with criminal justice and their educational orientation. These differences, however, are found in specific journals and in types of journals (i.e., police, corrections, criminal justice) rather than in aggregate perceptions of all criminal justice and criminology journals.     

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.     

The prospects for prepaid long-term care: the Arizona Medicaid experiment

Arizona is adding long-term care to its prepaid, capitated alternative to Medicaid. This article discusses the potential for this major cost-control experiment. Experience suggests that those able to quality for long-term care will fare better than the poor did in the previous system. However, limiting eligibility will be the primary means of controlling costs; significant price competition is not likely to develop. The bidding process will serve more to transfer risk to contract providers than to improve program efficiency. Potential cost savings will be more than offset by an increased identification of need.