Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T20:29:04.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thinking Holistically About Procedural Justice in Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Case Study of the German Federal Ombudsman Scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2022

Ben Bradford Open the ORCID record for Ben Bradford [Opens in a new window] ,
Naomi Creutzfeldt Open the ORCID record for Naomi Creutzfeldt [Opens in a new window]  and
Felix Steffek
Ben Bradford
Affiliation:
Professor of Global City Policing, Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science; Director of the Institute for Global City Policing, University College London, United Kingdom
Naomi Creutzfeldt
Affiliation:
Professor of Socio-Legal Studies, University of Westminster Law School, London, United Kingdom n.creutzfeldt@westminster.ac.uk
Felix Steffek
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge; Director of Studies, Newnham College, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines data collected from users of the German Federal Ombudsman Scheme (GFOS). The data was collected as part of a research project to understand how the GFOS operates in practice and how its procedures and outcomes are accepted by its users. We begin from the premise that experience of procedural justice during this alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process will build institutional legitimacy, and the article makes three contributions to the literature on procedural justice. First, we extend evidence of the link between procedural justice and legitimacy to a novel institutional context that is different in many ways to the criminal justice focus of much of the extant literature. Second, we consider the motivations of service users to engage with ADR as potential moderators of that link. Third, we analyze the relationship between procedural justice, subjective outcomes, and the actual outcomes provided to service users. Overall, we conclude that the link between procedural justice and legitimacy can be identified among those with very different motivations for using the GFOS.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , August 2023 , pp. 748 - 779
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barkworth, J. M., and Murphy, K.. 2021. “Procedural Justice, Posturing and Defiant Action: Exploring Prisoner Reactions to Prison Authority.” Justice Quarterly 38, no. 3: 537–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bies, R. J. 1987. “The Predicament of Injustice: The Management of Moral Outrage.” Research in Organizational Behavior 9: 289–319.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., and Tyler, T. R.. 2009. “Testing and Extending the Group Engagement Model: Linkages between Social Identity, Procedural Justice, Economic Outcomes, and Extrarole Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 2: 445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blankenburg, E. 1998. “Patterns of Legal Culture: The Netherlands Compared to Neighboring Germany.” American Journal of Comparative Law 46, no. 1: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomgren, A., Martinez, L., and Smith, S. E.. 2020. Dispute System Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bolger, P. C, and Walters, G. D.. 2019. “The Relationship between Police Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and People’s Willingness to Cooperate with Law Enforcement: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Criminal Justice 60: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, B. 2014. “Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion, and Cooperation between Police and Public.” Policing and Society 24, no. 1: 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, B., Murphy, K., and Jackson, J.. 2014. “Officers as Mirrors: Policing, Procedural Justice and the (Re)Production of Social Identity.” British Journal of Criminology 54, no. 4: 527–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., and Roberts, B.. 2014. “What Price Fairness When Security Is at Stake? Police Legitimacy in South Africa.” Regulation and Governance 8, no. 2: 246–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, V. A. 2009. Defiance in Taxation and Governance: Resisting and Dismissing Authority in a Democracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J. 2002. “Making Sense of Procedural Fairness: How High Procedural Fairness Can Reduce or Heighten the Influence of Outcome Favorability.” Academy of Management Review 27, no. 1: 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, W. E. 1990. “Foreword: Study on Paths to a Better Way.” Duke Law Journal: 808–10.Google Scholar
Cheng, K. K. Y., Pushkarna, N., and Ri, S.. 2020. “Enhancing the Legitimacy of Sentences in the Minds of the Public: Evidence from a Public Opinion Survey in Hong Kong.” Punishment & Society 22, no. 5: 617–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Civil Justice Council. 2022. “The Resolution of Small Claims: Final Report.” https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220125-CJC-Small-Claims-Report-FINAL-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. E., and Cohen, M. E.. 2003. “Relative Satisfaction with ADR: Some Empirical Evidence.” Dispute Resolution Journal 57, no. 4: 37–41.Google Scholar
Cortes, P. 2017. The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market: Upgrading from Alternative to Online Dispute Resolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creutzfeldt, N. 2016. “Implementation of the Consumer ADR Directive.” Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 5, no. 4: 169–75.Google Scholar
Creutzfeldt, N. 2018. Ombudsmen and ADR: A Comparative Study of Informal Justice in Europe. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creutzfeldt, N., and Bradford, B.. 2016. “Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK.” Law & Society Review 50, no. 4: 985–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creutzfeldt, N., and Steffek, N.. 2021. Abschlussbericht zur Funktionsweise der Allgemeinen Verbraucherschlichtungsstelle und der Universalschlichtungsstelle des Bundes in Kehl. Berlin: Bundestags-Drucksache.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D., and Van Knippenberg, D.. 2003. “Cooperation with Leaders in Social Dilemmas: On the Effects of Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability in Structural Cooperation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91, no. 1: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. 2018. Resolving Consumer Disputes: Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Court System. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf.Google Scholar
De Mesmaecker, V. 2014. Perceptions of Criminal Justice. Abingdon Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, D., and Wolak, J.. 2012. “When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness.” Political Behavior 34, no. 2: 301–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donner, C., Maskaly, J., Fridell, L., and Jennings, W. G.. 2015. “Policing and Procedural Justice: A State-of-the-art Review.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 38, no. 1: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eidenmuller, H., and Engel, M.. 2014. “Against False Settlement: Designing Efficient Consumer Rights Enforcement Systems in Europe.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 29: 261–98.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Persson, M., Gilljam, M., and Lindholm, T.. 2019. “Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance.” British Journal of Political Science 49, no. 1: 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 2019. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes. Doc. COM(2019)425. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2019/EN/COM-2019-425-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF.Google Scholar
Garth, B. G., and Sarat, A., eds. 1998. How Does Law Matter? Vol. 3. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, C., Williams, J., Brennan, C., and Hirst, C.. 2016. “Designing Consumer Redress: A Dispute System Design (DSD) Model for Consumer-to-Business Disputes.” Legal Studies 36: 438–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greger, R. 2019. “Verbraucherstreitbeilegung: Kein Durchbruch, viele Fragen.” Verbraucher und Recht 2: 43–48.Google Scholar
Grootelaar, H. A., and van den Bos, K.. 2018. “How Litigants in Dutch Courtrooms Come to Trust Judges: The Role of Perceived Procedural Justice, Outcome Favourability, and Other Sociolegal Moderators.” Law & Society Review 52, no. 1: 234–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heede, K., 2000. European Ombudsman: Redress and Control at Union Level. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Heuer, L., Penrod, S., Hafer, C. L., and Cohn, I.. 2002. “The Role of Resource and Relational Concerns for Procedural Justice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 11: 1468–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, L., and Stroessner, S. J.. 2011. “The Multi-Value Basis of Procedural Justice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, no. 3: 541–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, G. 2020. “Zuständigkeiten der Allgemeinen Verbraucherschlichtungsstellen in der Liste des BfJ: Irreführung statt Vademecum.” Verbraucher und Recht 3: 219–20.Google Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R., and Tyler, T.. 2008. “Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential.” Law & Social Inquiry 33: no. 2: 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander-Blumoff, R., Tyler, T.R. 2011. “Procedural Justice and the Rule of Law: Fostering Legitimacy in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2: 1–20. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2011/iss1/2.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. 2018. “Norms, Normativity, and the Legitimacy of Justice Institutions: International Perspectives.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 145–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J., and Bradford, B.. 2019. “Blurring the Distinction between Empirical and Normative Legitimacy? A Methodological Commentary on ‘Police Legitimacy and Citizen Cooperation in China’.” Asian Journal of Criminology 14, no. 4: 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., and Tyler, T. R.. 2012. “Why Do People Comply with the Law?: Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions.” British Journal of Criminology 52, no. 6: 1051–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, N. S. N., Van der Leun, J. P., and Kunst, M. J.. 2020. “Crime Victims’ Evaluations of Procedural Justice and Police Performance in Relation to Cooperation: A Qualitative Study in the Netherlands.” Policing and Society 30, no. 3: 225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwong, J. Y., and Leung, K.. 2002. “A Moderator of the Interaction Effect of Procedural Justice and Outcome Favourability: Importance of the Relationship.” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 87, no. 2: 278–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucsko-Stadlmayer, G., 2009. “The Spread of the Ombudsman Idea in Europe.” Back to Roots: Tracing the Swedish Origin of Ombudsman Institutions 12: 2–14.Google Scholar
Kyprianides, A., Bradford, B., Jackson, J., Yesberg, J., Stott, C., and Radburn, M.. 2021. “Identity, Legitimacy and Cooperation with Police: Comparing General-Population and Street-Population Samples from London.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 27, no. 4: 492–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., and Earley, P. C.. 1990. “Voice, control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, no. 5: 952–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., and de Vera Park, M. V.. 1993. “Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness As a Decision Heuristic.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38, no. 2: 224–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A., and van den Bos, K.. 2002. “When Fairness Works: Toward a General Theory of Uncertainty Management.” Research in Organizational Behavior 24: 181–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, S., and Bradford, B.. 2015. “Enhancing Public Trust and Police Legitimacy during Road Traffic Encounters: Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial in Scotland.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 11, no. 3: 419–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., and Tyler, T. R.. 2013. “Shaping Citizen Perceptions of Police Legitimacy: A Randomized Field Trial of Procedural Justice.” Criminology 51, no. 1: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. J., 2015. “Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).” International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper no. 2015-59. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2608140.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. J. 2000. “Mothers and Fathers of Invention: The Intellectual Founders of ADR.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 16, no. 1: 1–37.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B.. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2: 340–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. 2016. “Turning Defiance into Compliance with Procedural Justice: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Encounters through Motivational Posturing.” Regulation & Governance 10, no. 1: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K., and Barkworth, J.. 2014. “Victim Willingness to Report Crime to Police: Does Procedural Justice or Outcome Matter Most?” Victims & Offenders 9, no. 2: 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K., Bradford, B., and Jackson, J.. 2016. “Motivating Compliance Behavior among Offenders: Procedural Justice or Deterrence?” Criminal Justice and Behavior 43, no. 1: 102–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, A., and Quinton, P., P. 2011. It’s a Fair Cop? Police Legitimacy, Public Cooperation, and Crime Reduction. London: National Policing Improvement Agency.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., and Telep, C. W.. 2017. “Procedural Justice and Legal Compliance.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, D. S., and Telep, C. W.. 2020. “Procedural Justice and Legal Compliance: A Revisionist Perspective.” Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 3: 761–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicklin, J. M., Greenbaum, R., McNall, L. A., Folger, R., and Williams, K. J.. 2011. “The Importance of Contextual Variables When Judging Fairness: An Examination of Counterfactual Thoughts and Fairness Theory.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114: 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2021, OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.Google Scholar
Poitras, J., and Le Tareau, A.. 2008. “Dispute Resolution Patterns and Organizational Dispute States.” International Journal of Conflict Management 19, no. 1: 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Reif, L. C., 2004. The Ombudsman, Good Governance, and the International Human Rights System. Vol. 79. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Rowe, Mary P. 1991. “The Ombudsman’s Role in a Dispute Resolution System.” Negotiation Journal 7: 353–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., and Madon, N. S.. 2018. “Is Dissatisfaction with Police Inevitable? Testing an Integrated Model of Motivational Postures and Procedural Justice in Police-Citizen Contacts.” Police Practice and Research 19, no. 2: 125–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandefur, R. L. 2009. “Fulcrum Point of Equal Access to Justice: Legal and Nonlegal Institutions of Remedy.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 42: 949–78.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., and Hutchinson, S.. 2003. “Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Justice Research 16, no. 4: 309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffek, F., Unberath, H., Genn, H., Menkel-Meadow, C., and Greger, R., eds. 2013. Regulating Dispute Resolution: ADR and Access to Justice at the Crossroads. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. R. 2003. “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Public Support for Policing.” Law and Society Review 37, no. 3: 513–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankebe, J. 2009. “Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness Matter?” Criminology 47, no. 4: 1265–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankebe, J. 2010. “Public Confidence in the Police: Testing the Effects of Public Experiences of Police Corruption in Ghana.” British Journal of Criminology 502: 296–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor Poppe, E. S. 2021. “Institutional Design for Access to Justice.” University of California Irvine Law Review 11: 781–810.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J., L. and Walker. 1978. “A Theory of Procedure.” California Law Review 66: 541–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 1994. “Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 5: 850–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. 2017. “Procedural Justice and Policing: A Rush to Judgement?” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13: 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., and Bies, R. J.. 1990. “Beyond Formal Procedures: The Interpersonal Context of Procedural Justice.” In Advances in Applied Social Psychology: Business Settings, edited by Carroll, J., 77–98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R., and Blader, S. L.. 2003. “The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 7, no. 4: 349–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., and Huo, Y. J.. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., and Jackson, J.. 2014. “Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 20, no. 1: 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Camp, T. 2017. “Understanding Victim Participation in Restorative Practices: Looking for Justice for Oneself As Well As for Others.” European Journal of Criminology 14, no. 6: 679–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Camp, T., and Wemmers, J. A.. 2013. “Victim Satisfaction with Restorative Justice: More Than Simply Procedural Justice.” International Review of Victimology 19, no. 2: 117–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bos, K. 2003. “On the Subjective Quality of Social Justice: The Role of Affect As Information in the Psychology of Justice Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, no. 3: 482–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vidmar, N. 1992. “Procedural Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution.” Psychological Science 3, no. 4: 224–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, G. D., and Bolger, P. G.. 2019. “Procedural Justice Perceptions, Legitimacy Beliefs, and Compliance with the Law: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 15, no. 3: 341–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vovak, H., Zastrow, T., Braga, A. A., and Turchan, B.. 2022. “Reforming the Police through Procedural Justice Training: A Multicity Randomized Trial at Crime Hot Spots.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 14: p.e2118780119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worden, R. E., and McLean, S. J.. 2017. Mirage of Police Reform. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/luminos.30.Google Scholar