School of Law.
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Jun;44(3):179-193. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000370.
To examine whether litigants' initial attraction to legal procedures (e.g., mediation, hearings, jury trials) predicted their postexperience evaluations of the procedures and whether attendance moderated this relationship.
Litigants' initial attraction to the legal procedure that later resolved their case would better predict postexperience satisfaction and fairness for litigants who adjudicated versus settled. I also explored whether the predicted relationship would vary as a function of litigants' attending the procedure and when case duration, lawyer involvement, and litigants' repeat player status were included in the models.
Four hundred-twelve state court litigants rated their attraction to different legal procedures at the start of their cases and 335 (81.3% retention) rated their satisfaction with, and fairness of, the procedure that ultimately resolved their case.
Initial attraction to and ex post evaluations of legal procedures were more strongly related among litigants who adjudicated versus settled, but this association did not hold when the covariates were included. Instead, lawyer involvement and shorter duration were associated with increased ex post satisfaction and fairness. For litigants who personally attended their procedure, initial attraction was unrelated to later evaluations of fairness and those who settled evaluated their procedure as fairer compared to those who adjudicated. By contrast, for litigants who did not attend, initial attraction was positively related to later fairness evaluations and there was no fairness difference between settlement and adjudication. The same attendance patterns emerged irrespective of whether the covariates were included.
Lawyer involvement and shorter case duration better predicted litigants' evaluations of legal procedures than their initial attraction to procedures. Attendance was associated with increased fairness evaluations for settlement relative to adjudication and initial attraction was positively related to fairness only when litigants did not attend their procedure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
考察诉讼当事人对法律程序（如调解、听证、陪审团审判）最初的吸引力是否能预测他们对程序的后续体验评估，以及出席是否会调节这种关系。
对后来解决案件的法律程序最初的吸引力将更好地预测诉讼当事人在裁决和和解后对程序的满意度和公平感。我还探讨了如果将案件持续时间、律师参与度和诉讼当事人的重复参与者身份纳入模型，预测的关系是否会因诉讼当事人参加程序的情况和时间而有所不同。
412 名州法院诉讼当事人在案件开始时对不同法律程序的吸引力进行了评分，335 名（81.3%的保留率）对最终解决案件的程序的满意度和公平感进行了评分。
在裁决和和解的诉讼当事人中，对法律程序最初的吸引力和事后评估之间的关系更为密切，但当纳入协变量时，这种关联并不成立。相反，律师参与度和较短的持续时间与事后满意度和公平感的增加有关。对于亲自参加程序的诉讼当事人，最初的吸引力与后来的公平感评估无关，而和解的诉讼当事人比裁决的诉讼当事人认为程序更公平。相比之下，对于未参加的诉讼当事人，最初的吸引力与后来的公平感评估呈正相关，和解和裁决之间没有公平感差异。无论是否纳入协变量，都会出现相同的出席模式。
律师参与度和较短的案件持续时间比诉讼当事人对程序的最初吸引力更能预测他们对法律程序的评价。与裁决相比，和解时的出席与更高的公平感评估有关，而只有当诉讼当事人未参加其程序时，最初的吸引力才与公平感呈正相关。
