Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T02:19:42.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In the Eye of the Beholder: Tort Litigants' Evaluations of their Experiences in the Civil Justice System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

E. Allan Lind ,
Robert J. Maccoun ,
Patricia A. Ebener ,
William L. F. Felstiner ,
Deborah R. Hensler ,
Judith Resnik  and
Tom R. Tyler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little is known about the reactions of tort litigants to traditional and alternative litigation procedures. To explore this issue, we interviewed litigants in personal injury cases in three state courts whose cases had been resolved by trial, court-annexed arbitration, judicial settlement conferences, or bilateral settlement. The litigants viewed the trial and arbitration procedures as fairer than bilateral settlement, apparently because they believed that trials and arbitration hearings gave their case more respectful treatment. They were less satisfied with the outcome of judicial settlement conferences than with the outcome of bilateral settlements, because judicial settlement conference outcomes were more likely to fall below their expectations. In general, procedural justice judgments and outcome satisfaction were little related to objective outcome, cost, or delay; instead the evaluations appeared to be determined largely by perceptions of whether the procedure met litigants' criteria for procedural fairness and expectations on outcomes and costs. Gender, income, and race did not have much effect on evaluations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 1990 , pp. 953 - 996
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Law and Society Association.

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.)

Footnotes

The research reported here was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program. The authors are grateful to Craig McEwen and Carrie Menkel-Meadow for their comments on an earlier report of this research and to Gina Ke for her comments on this manuscript. The project on which this report is based was designed and conducted by Ebener, Felstiner, Hensler, and Resnik. Lind, MacCoun, and Tyler analyzed the data. Lind, MacCoun, and Hensler wrote the report, with assistance from the other authors.

References

References

ABEL, Richard (1974) “A Comparative Theory of Dispute Institutions in Society,” 8 Law & Society Review 217.Google Scholar
ADAMS, J. Stacy (1965) “Inequity in Social Exchange,” in Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
ADAMS, J. Stacy (1963) “Toward an Understanding of Inequity,” 67 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 422.Google Scholar
ADLER, Jane W., HENSLER, Deborah R., and Charles E., NELSON (1983) Simple Justice: How Litigants Fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION WORKING GROUP (1986) Dispute Resolution in Massachusetts: Final Report of the Governor's Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group. Boston, MA: Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group.Google Scholar
BLAU, Peter M. (1968) “Interaction: Social Exchange,” in Sills, David L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 7. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
BRETT, Jeanne (1986) “Commentary on Procedural Justice Papers,” in Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B., and Bazerman, M. (eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
BURGER, Warren E. (1982) “Isn't There a Better Way?” 68 American Bar Association Journal 274.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D. (1978) “Having Their Day in Court: Defendant Evaluations of the Fairness of Their Treatment,” 12 Law & Society Review 237.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D., TYLER, Tom R., and Bonnie, FISHER (1988) “Procedural Justice in Felony Cases,” 22 Law & Society Review 483.Google Scholar
COHEN, Ronald L. (1988) “Fabrications of Justice.” Presented at the International Conference on Social Justice and Societal Problems, Leiden, The Netherlands, August.Google Scholar
COHEN, Ronald L. (1985) “Procedural Justice and Participation,” 38 Human Relations 643.Google Scholar
CONNOLLY, Paul R. J., and Saundra, SMITH (1983). “The Litigant's Perspective on Delay: Waiting for the Dough,” 8 Justice System Journal 271.Google Scholar
EBENER, Patricia A., and Donna R., BETANCOURT (1985) Court-annexed Arbitration: The National Picture. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
ERLANGER, Howard S., Elizabeth, CHAMBLISS, and Marygold S., MELLI (1987) “Participation and Flexibility in Informal Processes: Cautions from the Divorce Context,” 21 Law & Society Review 585.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William L. F. (1974) “Influences of Social Organization on Dispute Processing,” 9 Law & Society Review 63.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen M. (1987) “Justice Chicago Style,” 1987 University of Chicago Legal Forum 1.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen M. (1984) “Against Settlement,” 93 Yale Law Journal 1073.Google Scholar
GILLIGAN, Carol (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women 's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
FISS, Owen M. (1979) “In a Different Voice: Women's Conceptions of Self and of Morality,” 47 Harvard Educational Review 481.Google Scholar
GLUCKMAN, Max (1969) Ideas and Procedures in African Customary Law. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
GOLDBERG, Stephen B., GREEN, Eric D., and Frank E. A., SANDER (1985) Dispute Resolution. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
GULLIVER, Philip H. (1979) Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
HARDING, Sandra G. (1987) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
HAYDEN, Robert M., and Jill K., ANDERSON (1979) “On the Evaluation of Procedural Systems in Laboratory Experiments: A Critique of Thibaut and Walker,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 21.Google Scholar
HEINZ, Anne, and Wayne, KERSTETTER (1979) “Pretrial Settlement Conference: Evaluation of a Reform in Plea Bargaining,” 13 Law & Society Review 349.Google Scholar
HELSON, Harry (1964) Adaptation-Level Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
HENSLER, Deborah R. (1986) “What We Know and Don't Know About Court-administered Arbitration,” 69 Judicature 270.Google Scholar
HOMANS, George C. (1961) Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
HOULDEN, Pauline (1981) “Impact of Procedural Modification on Evalustions of Plea Bargaining,” 15 Law & Society Review 267.Google Scholar
JÖRESKOG, Karl G., and SÖRBOM, Dag (1988) LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
KELLEY, Harold H., and John W., THIBAUT (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
LANDIS, Jean M., and Lynne, GOODSTEIN (1986) “When Is Justice Fair?” 1986 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 675.Google Scholar
LANE, Robert E. (1988) “Procedural Goods in a Democracy: How One Is Treated Versus What One Gets,” 2 Social Justice Research 177.Google Scholar
LEVENTHAL, Gerald S. (1980) “What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships,” in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., and Willis, R. (eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan (1990) Arbitrating High-Stakes Cases: An Evaluation of Court-annexed Arbitration in a United States District Court. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, MacCOUN, Robert J., EBENER, Patricia A., FELSTINER, William L. F., HENSLER, Deborah R., RESNIK, Judith, and Tom R., TYLER (1989) The Perception of Justice: Tort Litigants' Views of Trials, Court-annexed Arbitration, and Judicial Settlement Conferences. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
LIND, E. Allan, and Tom R., TYLER (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCOUN, Robert J., LIND, E. Allan, HENSLER, Deborah R., BRYANT, David L., and Patricia A., EBENER (1988) Alternative Adjudication: An Evaluation of the New Jersey Automobile Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
MARKS, Jonathan B., JOHNSON, Earl E. Jr., and Peter L., SZANTON (1984) Dispute Resolution in America: Processes in Evolution. Washington, DC: National Institute for Dispute Resolution.Google Scholar
MASHAW, Jerry L. (1985) Due Process in the Administrative State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MASHAW, Jerry L. (1976) “The Supreme Court's Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value,” 44 University of Chicago Law Review 28.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A. (June, 1988) “Choosing to Settle: Lessons About Disputant Expectations for Justice.” Presented at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Vail, CO.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A., and Richard J., MAIMAN (1986) “The Relative Significance of Disputing Forum and Dispute Characteristics for Outcome and Compliance,” 20 Law & Society Review 439.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A., and Richard J., MAIMAN (1984) “Mediation in Small Claims Court: Achieving Compliance Through Consent,” 18 Law & Society Review 11.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A., and Richard J., MAIMAN (1982) “Arbitration and Mediation as Alternatives to Court,” 10 Policy Studies Journal 712.Google Scholar
McEWEN, Craig A., and Richard J., MAIMAN (1981) “Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment,” 33 Maine Law Review 237.Google Scholar
MENKEL-MEADOW, Carrie (1985a) “For and Against Settlement: Uses and Abuses of the Mandatory Settlement Conference,” 33 UCLA Law Review 485.Google Scholar
MENKEL-MEADOW, Carrie (1985b) “Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women's Lawyering Process,” 1 Berkeley Women's Law Journal 39.Google Scholar
MERRY, Sally E., and Susan S., SILBEY (1984) “What Do Plaintiffs Want? Reexamining the Concept of Dispute,” 9 Justice System Journal 151.Google Scholar
MICHELMAN, Frank I. (1973) “The Supreme Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One's Rights—Part I,” 1973 Duke Law Journal 1153.Google Scholar
NADER, Laura (1969) “Styles of Court Procedure: To Make the Balance,” in Nader, L. (ed.), Law in Culture and Society. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
NADER, Laura, and Harry F., TODD (1978) The Disputing Process: Law in Ten Societies. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE (1985) “Dispute Resolution: A Task Force Report by the North Carolina Bar Foundation.” Raleigh: North Carolina Bar Association.Google Scholar
O'BARR, William M., and John M., CONLEY (1988) “Lay Expectations of the Civil Justice System,” 22 Law & Society Review 137.Google Scholar
O'BARR, William M., and John M., CONLEY (1985) “Litigant Satisfaction Versus Legal Adequacy in Small Claims Court Narratives,” 19 Law & Society Review 661.Google Scholar
PALMORE, John S. (1981) “The Urgency of Economic Litigation,” 67 American Bar Association Journal 814.Google Scholar
PEARSON, Jessica (1984) “An Evaluation of Alternatives to Court Adjudication,” 7 Justice System Journal 420.Google Scholar
PEARSON, Jessica, and Nancy, THOENNES (1985) “Mediation Versus the Courts in Child Custody Cases,” 1 Negotiation Journal 235.Google Scholar
PEARSON, Jessica, and Nancy, THOENNES (1984) “Mediating and Litigating Custody Disputes: A Longitudinal Evaluation,” 17 Family Law Quarterly 497.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1988) “On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for Our Judges,” 61 Southern California Law Review 1877.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1987) “Judging Consent,” 1987 University of Chicago Legal Forum 43.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1984) “Tiers,” 57 Southern California Law Review 837.Google Scholar
RESNIK, Judith (1982) “Managerial Judges,” 96 Harvard Law Review 374.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin (1976) “Alternatives in Dispute Processing: Litigation in a Small Claims Court,” 10 Law & Society Review 339.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin, and William L. F., FELSTINER (1988) “Law and Social Relations: Vocabularies of Motive in Lawyer/Client Interaction,” 22 Law & Society Review 737.Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin, and William L. F., FELSTINER (1986) “Law and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer's Office,” 20 Law & Society Review 94.Google Scholar
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. (1986) “Legal Interference with Private Preferences,” 53 University of Chicago Law Review 1129.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John, and Harold H., KELLEY (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John, and Laurens, WALKER (1978) “A Theory of Procedure,” 66 California Law Review 541.Google Scholar
THIBAUT, John, and Laurens, WALKER (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1990) Why Citizens Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1989) “The Quality of Dispute Resolution Procedures and Outcomes: Measurement Problems and Possibilities,” 66 Denver University Law Review 419.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1988) “What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures,” 22 Law & Society Review 301.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R. (1984) “The Role of Perceived Injustice in Defendants' Evaluations of Their Courtroom Experience,” 18 Law & Society Review 51.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., CASPER, Jonathan D., and Bonnie, FISHER (1989) “Maintaining Allegiance to Political Authorities: The Role of Prior Attitudes and the Use of Fair Procedures,” 33 American Journal of Political Science 629.Google Scholar
TYLER, Tom R., and Robert, FOLGER (1980) “Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction with Citizen-Police Encounters,” 1 Basic and Applied Social Psychology 281.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil (1986) “Assessing the Effects of Case Characteristics and Settlement Forum on Dispute Outcomes and Compliance,” 21 Law & Society Review 156.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil (1985) “An Assessment of Mediation in a Small Claims Court,” 41 Journal of Social Issues 127.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil (1984) “The Small Claims Court: A Reconceptualization of Disputes and an Empirical Investigation,” 18 Law & Society Review 515.Google Scholar
WALL, James A. Jr., and Lawrence F., SCHILLER (1983) “The Judge Off the Bench: A Mediator in Civil Settlement Negotiations,” in Bazerman, M. H. and Lewicki, R. J. (eds.), Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Case Cited

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).Google Scholar