Abstract
African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, and European American students rated their procedural preferences in response to a hypothetical conflict scenario and then recalled a real dispute in which they had been involved. Subjects of all four ethnicities and of both genders preferred persuasion and negotiation to other options. There were significant, ethnic and gender differences in preferences, as well as differences for the nature of the relationship and the nature of the issue, but these differences were small in comparison to the overall pattern of procedural preferences. Reports of actual procedure use also showed differences in procedure use across genders, ethnicities, and relationship type, but the differences were relatively small. Procedural fairness was the strongest predictor of both procedural preference and affect toward actual procedure use.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bierbrauer, G. A. (1990, July). Variations between and within legal culture: A cross-cultural comparison of Kurds, Lebanese, and Germans. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Kyoto, Japan.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Schwartz, S. Explaining choices in procedural and distributive justice across cultures.International Journal of Psychology,27, 211–227.
Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. (1985) How are responses to verbal insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 111–127.
Brett, J. M. (1986). Commentary on procedural justice papers. In R. Lewicki, M. Bazerman, & B. Sheppard (Eds.),Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 81–90) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Felstiner, W. L. F. (1974). Influences of social organization on dispute processing.Law and Society Review, 9, 63–94.
Gilligan, C. (1979). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of mortality.Harvard Educational Review 47, 481–517.
Gilligan, C. (1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gluckman, M. (1969).Ideas and procedures in African customary law. London: Oxford University Press.
Gulliver, P. H. (1979).Disputes and negotiations: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710.
Hofstede, G. (1980).Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125–136.
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reaction to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908.
Leung, K., Au, Y. F. Fernández-Dols, J. M., & Iwawaki, S. (1992). Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivistic cultures.International Journal of Psychology, 27, 195–210.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Carment, D. W. Krishan, L., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1990). Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing: A cross-cultural study.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 373–388.
Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural, preferences.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134–1140.
Leung, K., & Wu, P. G. (1990). Dispute processing: A cross-cultural analysis. In: R. Brislin (Ed.),Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 209–231). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lind, E. A. (1992a, June). Procedural justice and procedural preferences: Evidence for a fairness heuristic. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Conflict Management, Minneapolis.
Lind., E. A. (1992b, March) Cross-cultural studies of procedural justice. Colloquium presented at the Institute for Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley.
Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: A cross-national study.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318–341.
Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. E., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T. R. (1990). in the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants' evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system.Law & Society Review, 24, 953–996.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988).The social psychology of procedural, justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Nader, L. (1969). Styles of court procedure: To make the balance. In L. Nader (Ed.),Law in culture and society. Chicago: Aldine.
Nader, L., & Todd, H. F. (1978).The disputing process: Law in ten societies. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–66). New York: Academic Press.
Stack, C. B. (1974).All our kin. New York: Harper & Row.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975).Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1974). Procedural justice as fairness.Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271–1289.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural context.Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, H. B., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin., G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures.Australian Journal of Psychology 38, 257–267.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Tyler, T. R. (1990).Why citizens obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy and compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 25, pp. 115–192). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research reported here was supported by National Science Foundation grants Nos. SES-9113863 and SES-9113752 and by the American Bar Foundation. The manuscript was prepared while the first author was a Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley and while the second author was supported by an American Psychological Association Research Fellowship. The present study is part of a larger international study of culture and disputing, conducted by the present authors in collaboration with Dr. Kwok Leung of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Dr. Günter Bierbrauer of the University of Osnabrück. Their work on the overall project contributed substantially to the present study. Thanks are due to Eileen Young, Pui Lau, and Annie Chen for their assistance in conducting this research.
About this article
Cite this article
Lind, E.A., Huo, Y.J. & Tyler, T.R. ... And justice for all. Law Hum Behav 18, 269–290 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499588
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499588