Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims

Norman G. Poythress, Joe Schumacher, Richard Wiener, Mary Murrin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Procedural justice theorists Thibaut and Walker (1978) asserted that the Anglo‐American adversary process is the most ideal for resolving disputes involving high conflict of interest. Sheppard (1985) asserted that this claim may be premature and argued for the investigation of more complex litigation models in procedural justice research. This survey study examined the procedural justice attributes of five litigation procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Three groups of subjects (psychology undergraduates, N= 87; first‐year law students, N= 88; and jury venire persons, N= 65) read written descriptions of the Anglo‐American adversary model, the inquisitorial model, and three hybrid procedures that combine some features of these two basic models. Subjects then rated each model on six procedural justice attributes. Analyses focused on ratings of the adversary model as compared to the three hybrid models. Results indicated that the adversary model was consistently rated higher than the hybrid models on only one procedural justice measure, voice. On the remaining procedural justice measures, the hybrid models were comparable to, and frequently rated higher than, the adversary model. The results are supportive of Sheppard's plea that researchers investigate more complex procedural models, and the findings are considered in light of Lind and Tyler's (1988) plea for the development of hybrid procedures that may optimize both subjective and objective procedural justice outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1639-1658
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume23
Issue number20
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1993

Fingerprint

Malpractice
Social Justice
Jurisprudence
Conflict of Interest
Dissent and Disputes
Research Personnel
Students
Psychology
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims. / Poythress, Norman G.; Schumacher, Joe; Wiener, Richard; Murrin, Mary.

In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 20, 10.1993, p. 1639-1658.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Poythress, Norman G. ; Schumacher, Joe ; Wiener, Richard ; Murrin, Mary. / Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims. In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1993 ; Vol. 23, No. 20. pp. 1639-1658.
@article{778da38645da4253859887bf98878279,
title = "Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims",
abstract = "Procedural justice theorists Thibaut and Walker (1978) asserted that the Anglo‐American adversary process is the most ideal for resolving disputes involving high conflict of interest. Sheppard (1985) asserted that this claim may be premature and argued for the investigation of more complex litigation models in procedural justice research. This survey study examined the procedural justice attributes of five litigation procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Three groups of subjects (psychology undergraduates, N= 87; first‐year law students, N= 88; and jury venire persons, N= 65) read written descriptions of the Anglo‐American adversary model, the inquisitorial model, and three hybrid procedures that combine some features of these two basic models. Subjects then rated each model on six procedural justice attributes. Analyses focused on ratings of the adversary model as compared to the three hybrid models. Results indicated that the adversary model was consistently rated higher than the hybrid models on only one procedural justice measure, voice. On the remaining procedural justice measures, the hybrid models were comparable to, and frequently rated higher than, the adversary model. The results are supportive of Sheppard's plea that researchers investigate more complex procedural models, and the findings are considered in light of Lind and Tyler's (1988) plea for the development of hybrid procedures that may optimize both subjective and objective procedural justice outcomes.",
author = "Poythress, {Norman G.} and Joe Schumacher and Richard Wiener and Mary Murrin",
year = "1993",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01059.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "1639--1658",
journal = "Journal of Applied Social Psychology",
issn = "0021-9029",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "20",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims

AU - Poythress, Norman G.

AU - Schumacher, Joe

AU - Wiener, Richard

AU - Murrin, Mary

PY - 1993/10

Y1 - 1993/10

N2 - Procedural justice theorists Thibaut and Walker (1978) asserted that the Anglo‐American adversary process is the most ideal for resolving disputes involving high conflict of interest. Sheppard (1985) asserted that this claim may be premature and argued for the investigation of more complex litigation models in procedural justice research. This survey study examined the procedural justice attributes of five litigation procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Three groups of subjects (psychology undergraduates, N= 87; first‐year law students, N= 88; and jury venire persons, N= 65) read written descriptions of the Anglo‐American adversary model, the inquisitorial model, and three hybrid procedures that combine some features of these two basic models. Subjects then rated each model on six procedural justice attributes. Analyses focused on ratings of the adversary model as compared to the three hybrid models. Results indicated that the adversary model was consistently rated higher than the hybrid models on only one procedural justice measure, voice. On the remaining procedural justice measures, the hybrid models were comparable to, and frequently rated higher than, the adversary model. The results are supportive of Sheppard's plea that researchers investigate more complex procedural models, and the findings are considered in light of Lind and Tyler's (1988) plea for the development of hybrid procedures that may optimize both subjective and objective procedural justice outcomes.

AB - Procedural justice theorists Thibaut and Walker (1978) asserted that the Anglo‐American adversary process is the most ideal for resolving disputes involving high conflict of interest. Sheppard (1985) asserted that this claim may be premature and argued for the investigation of more complex litigation models in procedural justice research. This survey study examined the procedural justice attributes of five litigation procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Three groups of subjects (psychology undergraduates, N= 87; first‐year law students, N= 88; and jury venire persons, N= 65) read written descriptions of the Anglo‐American adversary model, the inquisitorial model, and three hybrid procedures that combine some features of these two basic models. Subjects then rated each model on six procedural justice attributes. Analyses focused on ratings of the adversary model as compared to the three hybrid models. Results indicated that the adversary model was consistently rated higher than the hybrid models on only one procedural justice measure, voice. On the remaining procedural justice measures, the hybrid models were comparable to, and frequently rated higher than, the adversary model. The results are supportive of Sheppard's plea that researchers investigate more complex procedural models, and the findings are considered in light of Lind and Tyler's (1988) plea for the development of hybrid procedures that may optimize both subjective and objective procedural justice outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991131680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991131680&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01059.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01059.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84991131680

VL - 23

SP - 1639

EP - 1658

JO - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Social Psychology

SN - 0021-9029

IS - 20

ER -