CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Legal processes and jurisprudenceCriminal Justice and PenologyPolicing Practices and Perceptions

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Procedural Processes and Legal Institutions

Tyler, Tom R., Lind, E. Allan·1991·Critical Issues in Social Justice
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4899-2629-6_5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-1-4899-2629-6_5

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Adler, J. W., Hensler, D. R., and Nelson, C. E. (1983). Simple justice. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
  2. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198. · DOI
  3. Alexander, S., Ruderman, M., & Russ, T. L. ( 1984, August). The nature of procedural justice and its influence on organizational behavior. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Meetings. Toronto.
  4. Alexander, S., & Russ, T. L. ( 1985, August) Procedural and distributive justice effects: The role of social context. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Meetings. Los Angeles, California.
  5. Anderson, J. K., and Hayden, R. M. (1980–1981). Questions of validity and drawing conclusions from simulation studies in procedural justice. Law and Society Review, 15, 293–304. · DOI
  6. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304. · DOI
  7. Bies, R. J. (1985). The influence of leader’s concerns for task, teamwork, and fairness on subordinates satisfaction and organizational evaluations. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
  8. Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1983). Grievance mediation in the coal industry: A field experiment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37, 49–69.
  9. Casper, J. D., Tyler, T. R., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law and Society Review, 22, 483–507.
  10. Conlon, D. E., Lind, E. A., & Lissak, R. I. (1989). Nonlinear and nonmonotonic effects of outcome on procedural and distributive fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1085–1099. · DOI
  11. Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 85–113.
  12. Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Damaska, M. (1975). Presentation of evidence and factfinding precision. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 123, 1083–1106. · DOI
  14. Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Advances in Social Psychology (pp. 157–229 ). Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.
  15. Earley, P. C. (1984) Informational mechanisms of participation influencing goal acceptance, satisfaction, and performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois
  16. Greenberg, J. (1987a). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals Social Justice Research, 1, 219–234.
  17. Greenberg, J. (1987b). Reactions to injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61. · DOI
  18. Hayden, R. M., & Anderson, J. K. (1979). On the evaluation of procedural issues in laboratory experiments. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 21–33.
  19. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1970). Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Volume 5, pp. 33–69 ). New York: Academic Press.
  20. Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L., and Thibaut, J. (1978). Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 13–30.
  21. Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Earley, P. C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures: Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice Research, 1, 235–249.
  22. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204. · DOI
  23. Landis, J. M., & Goodstein, L. I. (1986). When is justice fair? American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1986, 675–708.
  24. Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751–754. · DOI
  25. Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Cleveland, J. N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355–356.
  26. LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1531–1545.
  27. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Weiss (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55 ). New York: Plenum Press · DOI · Paper page
  28. Lewin K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1959). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Issues, 10, 271–299.
  29. Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643–653. · DOI
  30. Lind, E. A., & Lissak, R. I. (1985). Apparent impropriety and procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 19–29. · DOI
  31. Lind, E. A., & Lissak, R. I., & Conlon, D. E. (1983). Decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 338–350.
  32. Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. A., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T. R. (1989). The Perception of Justice: Tort Litigants’ Views of Trial, Court-Annexed Arbitration, and Judicial Settlement Conferences. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
  33. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Lissak, R. I. (1983). Procedural fairness: How employees evaluate procedures. Unpublished disseration. University of Illinois.
  35. Lissak, R. I., & Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Beyond fairness: The criterion problem in research on dispute intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 45–65. · DOI
  36. MacCoun, R. J., Lind, E. A., Hensler, D. R., Bryant, D. L., & Ebener, P. A. (1988). Alternative adjudication: An evaluation of the New Jersey Automobile Arbitration program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
  37. McEwen, C. A., & Maiman, R. J. (1984). Mediation in small claims court: Achieving compliance through consent. Law and Society Review, 18, 11–50.
  38. Musante, L., Gilbert, M. A., & Thibaut, J. (1983). The effects of control on the perceived fairness of procedures and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 223–238. · DOI
  39. O’Barr, W. M., & Conley, J. M. (1985). Litigant satisfaction versus adequacy in small claims court narratives. Law and Society Review, 19, 661–702.
  40. Rasinski, K. (1987). What’s fair is fairchrw(133) or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201–211. · DOI
  41. Rasinski, K., & Tyler, T. R. (1987). Fairness and vote choice in the 1984 Presidential election. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 5–24.
  42. Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Managers as inquisitors: Some lessons from the law. In M. Bazerman & R. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 193–213 ). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
  43. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In B. Staw and L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Volume 6, pp. 141–190 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  44. Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Justice is no simple matter: Case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953–962. · DOI
  45. Sheppard, B. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness. Social Justice Research, 1, 161–176.
  46. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  47. Thibaut, J., & Walker,L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.
  48. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51–67.
  49. Tyler, T. R. (1986a). Procedural justice in organizations. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Volume 1, pp. 7–73 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  50. Tyler, T. R. (1986b). Justice and leadership endorsement. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  51. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.
  52. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 301–355.
  53. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  54. Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes amd procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655. · DOI
  55. Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Psychology, 1, 281–292.
  56. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & Griffin, E. (1986). Alternative images of the citizen: Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 41, 970–978.
  57. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & McGraw, K. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on the endorsement of political leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 700–725. · DOI
  58. Tyler, T. R. Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81. · DOI
  59. Walker, L. LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.
  60. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  61. Wong, P. T. B., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650–663.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • American Bar Foundation (US)
ORCID
Venue
Critical Issues in Social Justice
Publisher
Springer US
Published
1991
Pages
71-98
ISSN
1572-1906 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4899-2629-6_5
OpenAlex
W15995140
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
13.01
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Critical issues in social justice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
procedural justice, legal institutions, research agenda

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review