PROCEDURAL JUSTICE JUDGMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS

Procedural justice theorists Thibaut and Walker (1978) asserted that t he Anglo-American adversary process is the most ideal for resolving di sputes involving high conflict of interest. Sheppard (1985) asserted t hat this claim may be premature and argued for the investigation of mo re complex litigation models in procedural justice research. This surv ey study examined the procedural justice attributes of five litigation procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Three groups of subjects (psychology undergraduates, N = 87; first-year law students, N = 88; and jury venire persons, N = 65) read written descriptions of the Anglo-American adversary model, the inquisitorial model, and three hybrid procedures that combine some features of these two basic model s. Subjects then rated each model on six procedural justice attributes . Analyses focused on ratings of the adversary model as compared to th e three hybrid models. Results indicated that the adversary model was consistently rated higher than the hybrid models on only one procedura l justice measure, voice. On the remaining procedural justice measures , the hybrid models were comparable to, and frequently rated higher th an, the adversary model. The results are supportive of Sheppard's plea that researchers investigate more complex procedural models, and the findings are considered in light of Lind and Tyler's (1988) plea for t he development of hybrid procedures that may optimize both subjective and objective procedural justice outcomes.