Reactions to Procedural Models for Adjudicative Conflict Resolution

Abstract

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.

The differential effects of American and British trial proceedings on juror decision-making

“…Fulero and Turner's results of procedural preference substantiate results from research conducted by Walker, LaTour, Lind and Thibaut (1974) and Lind, Erickson, Friedland, and Dickenberger (1978) on procedural justice. Walker, et al, (1974) and Lind, et al, (1978) In research conducted by Walker, LaTour, Lind, and Thibaut (1974) participants served as defendants in a trial as the result of some controversy stemming from the initial experimental activity, which was a business simulation.…”

“…The "continuum of systemic adversariness" could also be conceptualized as a continuum of distributed control, with the more adversarial 2T his study was conducted prior to the reunification of W est and East Germany in 1989. models (American and British) at the end where over control litigation is in the hands of the disputing parties, and the inquisitorial models (French and West German) at the other end of the continuum with control mostly in the hands of the decision-maker. Lind, et al, (1978) found that even in countries with legal systems based on the inquisitorial model, there was a general preference for the adversarial model. Defendant participants had a somewhat greater preference for the adversarial model than plaintiff participants did.…”

“…American and British courts have been said to exemplify adversarial models of procedural justice (Lind, Erickson, Friedland, & Dickenberger, 1978). Yet, as Fulero and Turner (1997) cooperative atmosphere within the courtroom.…”

“…Walker, et al, (1974) and Lind, et al, (1978) In research conducted by Walker, LaTour, Lind, and Thibaut (1974) participants served as defendants in a trial as the result of some controversy stemming from the initial experimental activity, which was a business simulation. Other participants served as observers of the trial.…”

“…A later study conducted by Lind, Erickson, Friedland, and Dickenberger (1978), looked at reactions to different models of adjudication from a cross-national perspective.…”