Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

y the authorities representing that social group, then that personwill generally judge that procedure to be fair. Essentially,the group value model posits that people do not judge proceduresto be fair because those procedures deliver fair or favorableoutcomes, and people do not value procedural featureslike voice or respectful treatment because they signal the likelihoodof favorable outcomes. Rather, procedural features liketrust, neutrality, respect (and voice) convey important symbolicor relational information – they convey that the individualis respected by his or her group – prompting people tojudge those procedures as fair. 6 An extensive body of researchprovides strong support for these central claims of the groupvalue model.Notably, the ascendancy of the group value model in theprocedural fairness literature is the culmination of a significantshift from the parameters that defined early conflict research.Psychologists have progressed from early economic models ofsatisfaction that focused primarily on obtaining favorable outcomes,to distributive fairness models that focused primarily onobtaining fair outcomes, to procedural fairness models thatfocused primarily on procedures as instruments for shaping fairoutcomes, to a procedural fairness model that views proceduresas an important source of largely symbolic information: informationabout one’s relationship with valued social groups.Each of these developments has moved psychologists furtheraway from the proposition that outcomes are critical determinantsof procedural fairness judgments.Psychologists have also demonstrated that procedural fairnessjudgments themselves have important social and legal consequences.For example, Tyler conducted large-scale surveys ofChicago, IL, and Oakland, CA, residents. 7 Across four studies,Tyler showed that process concerns were more important thaninstrumental concerns in shaping citizens’ evaluations of thepolice and courts. Judgments about the fairness with which thepolice and courts exercised their authority predicted citizens’confidence in and support for legal authorities, their perceivedobligation to obey the law, and their willingness to cooperatewith legal authorities and legal institutions in the future—findingswhich have been replicated in numerous studies since Lindand Tyler proposed their groupvalue theory. 8Procedural fairness researchhas clearly demonstrated thatdisputants attach a great deal ofimportance to the way they aretreated by the authorities whorepresent legal institutions. 9Disputants’ evaluations of thelegal system are heavily influencedby their perception thatthey were treated fairly inencounters with judges, police,[F]airness andsatisfactionjudgments [ofdecision makerslike judges maynot be] dominatedby treatmentand relationalconcerns.and other legal authorities, and this procedural fairness effectoften trumps the effect of distributive fairness and outcomefavorability. 10 When procedural features like trust, neutrality,respectful treatment, and voice increase procedural fairnessjudgments, this functions as a non-coercive means to increasecompliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities.NEW FINDINGS IN PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS: DECISIONMAKERS VS. DECISION RECIPIENTSSeveral studies have suggested the dominant influence ofprocedural fairness on satisfaction may not apply equally to allactors in the legal system. Some studies suggest that, amongdecision makers (e.g., judges), fairness and satisfaction judgmentsare shaped by quite different factors and are not dominatedby treatment and relational concerns. For example,Lissak and Sheppard found that managers tended to emphasizecost and efficiency more strongly than fairness as criteria forresolving organizational conflict. 11 Some early procedural fairnessresearch also suggested that when assessing their satisfactionwith dispute resolution procedures or outcomes, decisionmakers were more influenced by instrumental criteria (such ascontrol over decisions and financial considerations), and lessconcerned with relational criteria (such as treatment and trustworthiness),than were decision recipients 12 .One recent paper focused directly on judgments of proceduralfairness by judges. 13 Heuer and his colleagues point to6. E. A. LIND & TOM R. TYLER, THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OFPROCEDURAL JUSTICE (1988).7. Tom R. Tyler, Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: WhatDo Majority and Minority Group Members Want From the Law andLegal Institutions?, 19 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 215 (2001).8. TOM R. TYLER ET AL., SOCIAL JUSTICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY (1997);Jason Sunshine & Tom R. Tyler, Moral Solidarity, Identificationwith the Community, and the Importance of Procedural Justice: ThePolice as Prototypical Representatives of a Group’s Moral Values, 66SOC. PSYCHOL. Q. 153 (2003); Tom R. Tyler et al., Cultural Valuesand Authority Relations: The Psychology of Conflict ResolutionAcross Cultures, 6 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL’Y & L. 1138 (2000).9. NAT’L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, HOW THE PUBLIC VIEWS THE STATECOURTS: A 1999 NATIONAL SURVEY (1999), available athttp://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_AmtPTC_PublicViewCrtsPub.pdf; DAVID B. ROTTMAN, TRUST AND CONFIDENCE INTHE CALIFORNIA COURTS: A SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC AND ATTORNEYS,PART I: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (JUDICIAL COUNCIL OFCALIFORNIA/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 2005), availableat http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/4_37pubtrust1.pdf;TOM R. TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW (2006).10. But see Linda J. Skitka, Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, Or Dothe Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Model of JusticeReasoning, 28 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL. 588 (2002).11. Robin I. Lissak & Blair H. Sheppard, Beyond Fairness: TheCriterion Problem in Research on Dispute Intervention, 13 J. APPLIEDSOC. PSYCHOL. 45 (1983).12. E.g., R. H. G. Field & R. J. House, A Test of the Vroom-Yetton ModelUsing Manager and Subordinate Reports, 75 J. APPLIED PSYCHOL. 362(1990); Madeline E. Heilman et al., Reactions to Prescribed LeaderBehavior as a Function of Role Perspective: The Case of the Vroom-Yetton Model, 69 Journal of Applied Psychology 50 (1984); PaulineHoulden et al., Preference for Modes of Dispute Resolution as aFunction of Process and Decision Control, 14 J. EXP. SOC. PSYCHOL.13 (1978).13. Larry Heuer et al., The Role of Societal Benefits and FairnessConcerns among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients, 31 LAW& HUM. BEHAV. 573 (2007).Court Review - Volume 44 63