Experimental insight into the fair process effect and its boundary conditions: External attributions may moderate reactions to procedural justice in legal contexts

The perception of being treated fairly during decision-making processes is an important topic in the research literature on law and society. Many studies have indeed found that perceived procedural justice affects people’s reactions, for instance, by increasing their trust in legal authorities and lowering their intentions to protest against these authorities’ decisions. Here, we reveal support for this fair process effect and point to some of its potential boundary conditions. In our experimental study, 239 participants imagined being the defendant during a single-judge criminal court hearing that used either a fair or an unfair procedure. Following the experience of a fair as opposed to an unfair procedure, participants showed more trust in judges and were less inclined to protest against the judicial ruling. Interestingly, the effect of the procedure manipulation on trust in judges was moderated by the extent to which participants attributed their case outcomes to external causes. We found a fair process effect among participants with relatively low external attribution ratings, while this effect attenuated and was not statistically significant among participants whose external attribution ratings were relatively high. These findings point to the possibility that attributional processes can moderate people’s responses to procedural justice in legally relevant contexts

Legitimacy of Institutions for Conflict Resolution: an Introduction

A key aspect of institutions for conflict resolution is their legitimacy. What legitimacy entails, however, is essentially contested and depends in part on whether one takes a legal, normative, or social perspective. The current special issue aims to gain a better understanding of legitimacy within the context of institutions for conflict resolution by examining (1) whether and, if so, how studying institutions for conflict resolution through the lens of legitimacy can deepen our understanding of these institutions, and (2) whether and, if so, how studying legitimacy in the specific context of institutions for conflict resolution can enrich our understanding of legitimacy. After introducing the term ‘institutions for conflict resolution’ and detailing current approaches to legitimacy, this Introduction assesses what the potential cross-fertilisation between both concepts may look like. We do so based on the papers included in this special issue, which showcase the diversity of ways in which legitimacy of institutions for conflict resolution may be researched, as they focus on different types of conflicts that take place within different fields of law and involve different kinds of institutions. Finally, we take stock of the insights yielded by the papers included in this issue, and reflect on directions for further research on legitimacy, institutions for conflict resolution, and their cross-fertilisation

Legitimacy of Institutions for Conflict Resolution: an Introduction

A key aspect of institutions for conflict resolution is their legitimacy. What legitimacy entails, however, is essentially contested and depends in part on whether one takes a legal, normative, or social perspective. The current special issue aims to gain a better understanding of legitimacy within the context of institutions for conflict resolution by examining (1) whether and, if so, how studying institutions for conflict resolution through the lens of legitimacy can deepen our understanding of these institutions, and (2) whether and, if so, how studying legitimacy in the specific context of institutions for conflict resolution can enrich our understanding of legitimacy. After introducing the term ‘institutions for conflict resolution’ and detailing current approaches to legitimacy, this Introduction assesses what the potential cross-fertilisation between both concepts may look like. We do so based on the papers included in this special issue, which showcase the diversity of ways in which legitimacy of institutions for conflict resolution may be researched, as they focus on different types of conflicts that take place within different fields of law and involve different kinds of institutions. Finally, we take stock of the insights yielded by the papers included in this issue, and reflect on directions for further research on legitimacy, institutions for conflict resolution, and their cross-fertilisation

Procedural Justice on Trial: A Critical Test of Perceived Procedural Justice From the Perspective of Criminal Defendants

When criminal defendants appear before their court hearings, are they concerned only with the outcomes of their cases or also with the fairness of the procedure? Which aspects of procedures make defendants feel treated fairly? And are there circumstances under which procedures that are perceived as unfair may have nice aspects? These questions were central to the current research. The overarching research aim was to subject perceived procedural justice to a critical test. Previous studies have often found a fair process effect: a positive association between perceived procedural justice and important other variables, such as trust in judges. In addition, studies in organizational and laboratory contexts indicate that the fair process effect may sometimes be attenuated or even reversed. People then respond less positively or even negatively to perceived procedural justice. This has to do with people’s need to protect their self-esteem by attributing negative outcomes to external causes. Unfair procedures offer more opportunities for making such external attributions than fair procedures. Hence, unfair procedures may have nice aspects, especially when people feel strongly evaluated. The current research examines the importance of perceived procedural justice, and the possibility of an attenuated or reversed fair process effect, in the context of criminal cases. First, qualitative interviews with 100 defendants in single judge criminal cases examined whether defendants mention aspects of procedural justice themselves and, if so, which aspects they mention. The large majority of respondents mentioned aspects of procedural justice themselves at some point during the interview, and in particular perceived neutrality appeared to play a central role in this regard. Second, a survey was conducted among 198 defendants with a non-western ethnic-cultural background involved in single judge criminal cases. The underlying idea was that some of them might feel negatively evaluated by society in the sense of perceived discrimination, which could make them respond differently to perceived procedural justice. The results showed that perceived procedural fairness was significantly associated with how defendants judged their outcomes, the extent to which they wanted to protest against their outcomes, their self-esteem, and their trust in Dutch judges. These associations were not attenuated or reversed depending on perceived discrimination. Third, an experiment was conducted among 239 citizens with a non-western ethnic-cultural background who imagined being the defendant during a single judge criminal court hearing. This study assessed external attribution ratings more directly. Procedural justice had a significant effect on outcome judgments, protest intentions, and trust in Dutch judges. An attenuation of the fair process effect was found on only one variable: For participants with relatively high external attribution ratings the effect of procedural justice on trust in judges was not significant. Collectively these results indicate that perceived procedural justice matters, even when it is subjected to a critical test in the context of criminal cases, during which there may be much at stake for defendants. These results are relevant for judges who want to enhance perceptions of procedural fairness, for example. The final chapter reflects on such possible implications from a normative perspective

The importance of perceived procedural justice among defendants with a non-Western background involved in Dutch criminal cases.

This study aims to put perceived procedural justice to a critical test in the context of Dutch criminal court hearings. To that end, we surveyed 198 criminal defendants to examine whether their perceptions of procedural fairness were significantly associated with trust in judges and intentions to protest against judicial rulings, among other variables. We also examine the possibility that sometimes unfair procedures may have nice aspects, because they offer opportunities to attribute negative outcomes to external causes. Previous studies conducted in different settings support this line of reasoning by showing that associations between perceived procedural justice and other variables are sometimes attenuated or even reversed, particularly when people feel strongly evaluated. The current study takes these insights into the novel context of Dutch criminal court hearings by focusing on defendants with a non-Western ethnic-cultural background. Some of these defendants may feel negatively evaluated by society, which can manifest as a high level of perceived discrimination. Thus, we examine whether the associations between perceived procedural justice and important other variables may be attenuated or reversed depending on respondents’ perceptions of everyday discrimination and their outcome judgments. Our results revealed significant associations between perceived procedural justice on the one hand and trust in judges and protest intentions on the other hand, which remained intact regardless of perceptions of everyday discrimination and outcome judgments. Hence, even in this real-life courtroom context, procedural justice was a relevant concern. Taken together, our findings support the importance of perceived procedural justice, even when it is put to a critical test

Emergency Department observational data in The Netherlands

With this prospectively registered data (2011 - 2016) of three emergency departments in the Netherlands research was done to adress the question whether older sepsis patients present at the Emergency Department with a higher disease severity and to adress the question whether older patients receive an equal quality of care

Initial disease severity and quality of care of emergency department sepsis patients who are older or younger than 70 years of age

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Due to atypical symptom presentation older patients are more prone to delayed sepsis recognition. We investigated whether initial disease severity <i>before</i> emergency department (ED) treatment (including treatable acute organ dysfunction), quality of ED sepsis care and the impact on mortality was different between patients older and younger than 70 years. If differences exist, improvements are needed for ED management of older patients at risk for sepsis.</p><p>Methods</p><p>In this observational multicenter study, ED patients who were hospitalized with a suspected infection were stratified by age <70 and ≥70 years. The presence of treatable and potentially reversible acute organ dysfunction was measured by the RO components of the Predisposition, Infection, Response and Organ dysfunction (PIRO) score, reflecting acute sepsis-related organ dysfunction developed <i>before</i> ED presentation. Quality of care, as assessed by the full compliance with nine quality performance measures and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR: observed/expected in-hospital mortality), was compared between older and younger patients.</p><p>Results</p><p>The RO-components of the PIRO score were 8 (interquartile range; 4–9) in the 833 older patients, twice as high as the 4 (2–8; P<0.001) in the 1537 younger patients. However, full compliance with all nine quality performance measures was achieved in 34.2 (31.0–37.4)% of the older patients, not higher than the 33.0 (30.7–35.4)% in younger patients (P = 0.640). In-hospital mortality was 9.2% (95%-CI, 7.3–11.2) in patients ≥70, twice as high as the 4.6% (3.6–5.6) in patients <70 years, resulting in an SMR (in study period) of ~0.7 in both groups (P>0.05).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Older sepsis patients are sicker at ED presentation but are not treated more expediently or reliably despite their extra acuity The presence of twice as much treatable acute organ dysfunction <i>before</i> ED treatment suggests that acute organ dysfunction is recognized relatively late by general practitioners or patients in the out of hospital setting.</p></div

Quality of care as assessed by achievement of quality performance measures in the groups <70 and ≥70 years of age.

<p>Quality of care as assessed by achievement of quality performance measures in the groups <70 and ≥70 years of age.</p

Illustration of the problem.

<p>With increasing age, both sepsis incidence and treatable organ dysfunction increase. However, quality of care, as assessed by full compliance to all nine quality performance measures, remains the same. *The increasing sepsis incidence, is according to an epidemiological study by Angus et al. [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0185214#pone.0185214.ref003" target="_blank">3</a>]</p