Suchergebnisse

Cover; Half Title; Series Page; Title Page; Copyright Page; Dedication; Table of Contents; List of contributors; 1. The Study of Justice in Social Psychology and Related Fields; Motivating versus Motivated Justice Processes; Paradigms in the Social Psychology of Justice; Applications of the Social Psychology of Justice; The Next Frontiers; References; 2. The Biology of Fairness; The Evolution of Fairness; Responses to Inequity in Primates; Responses in Other Species Support the Hypotheses from Primates; Responses in Young Children; The Evolution of Fairness; Where to from Here?; Notes

AbstractThis is an overview of recent experiments in the courts, and the factors that should be taken into account in conducting randomized tests in this setting.

1. Introduction -- 2. Early Research in Procedural Justice -- 3. Research Methods in Procedural Justice Research -- 4. Procedural Justice in Law I: Legal Attitudes and Behavior -- 5. Procedural Justice in Law II: Sources and Implications of Procedural Justice Judgments -- 6. The Generality of Procedural Justice -- 7. Procedural Justice in the Political Arena -- 8. Procedural Justice in Organizations -- 9. Conclusions and Hypotheses -- 10. Two Models of Procedural Justice -- References -- Author Index.

Treating employees fairly produces many positive outcomes, but evidence suggests that managers' efforts to be fair are often unsuccessful because they emphasize the wrong aspects of justice. Managers tend to emphasize distributive justice, though employees may be most concerned with procedural and interactional justice. Organizational justice theory offers a framework for correcting this problem and assisting managers in their efforts to be fair. To this end, the authors describe the Missed Promotion exercise, a two-person role-play for introducing students to organizational justice theory. It provides a way to have students experience the importance of organizational justice, while teaching them about the three dimensions of justice and why managers often fail to be perceived as fair. Although the Missed Promotion exercise is simple enough to be completed in a single class session with students of any level, it reliably produces realistic responses and experiences, which allows for a useful discussion of the role of organizational justice in managerial fairness.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This study investigated the effects of different mediator behavioral styles and disputant knowledge regarding negotiation deadline on bargaining behavior. A 2 x 2 factorial design varied mediator behavioral style (task-oriented versus person-oriented) and deadline certainty (certain versus uncertain) in a simulated laboratory dispute. Disputants with task-oriented mediators made larger initial offers and reached settlement more rapidly under uncertain-deadline rather than certain-deadline conditions. Subjects with person-oriented mediators did not differ significantly in the size of their initial offers or speed of settlement across deadline condition. Similar interactions emerged for a number of attitudinal measures. The results suggest that person-oriented mediators are effective regardless of deadline uncertainty, while the effectiveness of task-oriented mediators is contingent on the ambiguity inherent in the dispute. Implications of the results for procedural and distributive justice theory and research are also discussed.

A cross-national experimental study examining perceptions of four procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution was conducted in four countries—the United States, Britain, France, and West Germany—whose legal procedures are based on differing adjudicative models. One hundred seventy-eight subjects rated the four models on a number of dimensions, including their preference for using the model for settling a conflict, the fairness of the model, and the amount of control over the resolution of the conflict vested in each of several roles. Approximately half of the subjects at each site were asked to assume the role of defendant in the adjudicated conflict, and half were asked to assume the role of plaintiff. The results showed a general preference for more "adversary" (disputant-controlled) models over more "inquisitorial" (adjudicator-controlled) models. This preference was not limited to subjects from nations (the United States and Britain) whose legal systems are based on adversary models. The conclusions of the study focused on the relationship between subjects' model preferences and the distribution of control over the adjudicative process among roles, and on the generality of this relationship in the nations studied.

Structured interviews with 996 recently fired or laid-off workers provided data for analyses of the situational and psychological antecedents of both thinking about filing a wrongful-termination claim and actually filing such a claim. Potential antecedents were drawn from relational theories of organizational justice, economic theories about claiming, and sociolegal studies of claiming in other contexts. Wrongful-termination claims were most strongly correlated with the way workers felt they had been treated at the time of termination and with their expected winnings from such a claim. Structural equation model analyses of panel data from follow-up interviews with 163 respondents four months later showed that the psychological variables were, in fact, causal antecedents rather than consequences of claiming thoughts and actions. These findings support relational models of organizational justice and lead to practical suggestions for managing the termination process so as to avoid wrongful-termination suits.

Extending theory within the justice domain and work on the human alarm system, the current paper argues that the process by which justice judgments are formed may be influenced reliably by the activation of psychological systems that people use to detect and handle alarming situations. Building on this analysis, it is further proposed that if this line of reasoning is true then presenting alarm-related stimuli, such as exclamation points and flashing lights, to people should lead to more extreme judgments about subsequent justice-related events than not presenting these alarming stimuli. Findings collected using different experimental paradigms provide evidence supporting these predictions both inside and outside the psychology lab. Implications for the social psychology of justice and the human alarm system literature are discussed.