Procedure and Outcome Effects on Reactions to Adjudicated Resolution of Conflicts of Interest
Examined the effects of outcome on reactions to an adjudication procedure and the effects of procedures on reactions to an adjudication outcome. 111 male undergraduates were led to believe they had been charged with wrongdoing of which they knew they were innocent. The charge was tried, and the Ss outcomes were determined using procedures (adversary or nonadversary) high or low in perceived procedural justice. Ss were then told that they had been found innocent or guilty. Perceptions of the trial process were assessed either before or after the verdict was announced. After the verdict, additional questionnaires assessed perceptions of the verdict and overall perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness. Results show that disputants saw the adversary procedure as fairer than the nonadversary and that they saw the verdict as more fair and satisfying, and as more accurate and unbiased, when it followed an adversary trial.