Reactions to Procedural Models for Adjudicative Conflict Resolution
A Cross-National Study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6283548 |
|---|---|
| Authors | A Lind (0000-0001-8625-8886, University of New Hampshire), E Allan Lind (University of New Hampshire), Bonnie E Erickson (Duke University), Nehemia Friedland (Tel Aviv University), Michael Dickenberger (Lehrstuhl fur Soczialpsychologie, University of Mannheim) |
| Year | 1978 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 318-339 |
| Publication date | 1978-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/002200277802200207 |
| OpenAlex | W1751951831 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 21 |
| References cited | 5 |
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
Adversary · Computer security · Conflict resolution · Economics · Generality · Microeconomics · Perception · Plaintiff · Political science · Preference · Resolution (logic · Computer Science · Dispute Resolution and Class Actions · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology
Justice is no simple matter
Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution
Procedural justice and participation in task selection
Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest
Procedural justice and culture
Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity
Procedural context and culture
The Adversarial Bias
Focusing on the “Social” in Social Justice Research
Organizational Justice Across Cultures
Procedural Justice and Policing
The Two Psychologies of Conflict Resolution
Toward Appropriate Peace Research
Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing
The Coevolution of Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Link Formation in Self-Organizing Policy Networks
The Portability of Electoral Procedural Fairness
The Restriction of Judicial Investigative Remand in Russia
Who Cares About Procedural Fairness? An Experimental Approach to Support for Village Elections
Procedural Justice and the Assessment of Civil Justice in Japan
Disputes in Japan
Context effects on procedural justice
Inequity In Social Exchange
Procedural Justice as Fairness
Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control
Some Determinants of Preference for Modes of Conflict Resolution
Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psychological well-being of the institutionalized aged
| Unique citing works | 21 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,46 |
| Citation span | 1980 - 2025 (46) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 21 |