Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest.

Abstract

School of Law University of North CarolinaUniversity of VirginiaThe relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and perceptions ofprocedural justice was studied by examining the effects of outcome on reac-tions to an adjudication procedure and the effects of procedures on reactions toan adjudication outcome. Undergraduate subjects were led to believe they hadbeen charged with wrongdoing of which they knew they were innocent. Thecharge was tried, and the subjects' outcomes were determined, using procedures(adversary or nonadversary) found previously to be high or low in perceivedprocedural justice. Subjects were then told that they had been found innocentor guilty. Perceptions of the trial process were assessed either before or afterthe verdict was announced. After the verdict additional questionnaires assessedperceptions of the verdict and overall perceptions of procedural and distribu-tive fairness. The results showed that disputants saw the adversary procedureas fairer than the nonadversary and that they saw the verdict as more fair andsatisfying, and as more accurate and unbiased, when it followed an adversarytrial. Outcome did not affect overall perceptions of procedural justice, nor wasthere any tendency for knowledge of the verdict to alter the relative positionsof the two procedures on important dimensions of disputant perceptions.