Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-44mx8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-12T08:35:33.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff  and
Tom R. Tyler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two correlational studies test the hypothesis that procedural justice, or fairness of process, plays a role in acceptance of agreements reached through bilateral negotiation. Both studies test the relationship between the fairness of the process used to resolve a dispute, objective monetary outcomes, subjective assessments of outcome favorability, and subjective assessments of outcome fairness. Additionally, the second study tests the hypothesis that negotiations characterized by greater procedural justice result in more potential for integrative bargaining. The results suggest that procedural justice encourages the acceptance of negotiated agreements, as well as leading to the opportunity for increased integrative bargaining.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Spring 2008 , pp. 473 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arbuckle, James L., and Wothke, Werner. 1999. AMOS 4.0 User's Guide. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.Google Scholar
Baumeister, Roy F., and Leary, Mark R. 1995. The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Max H., and Neale, Margaret A. 1983. Heuristics in Negotiation: Limitations to Effective Dispute Resolution. In Negotiation in Organizations, ed. Bazerman, Max H. and Lewicki, Roy J. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Max H., and Neale, Margaret A. 1995. The Role of Fairness Considerations and Relationships in a Judgment Perspective of Negotiation. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Arrow, Kenneth J., Mnookin, Robert H., Ross, Lee, Tversky, Amos, and Wilson, Robert B. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Blount, Sally. 1995. When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effects of Causal Attributions on Preferences. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63 (2): 131–44.Google Scholar
Bolton, Gary E., and Ockenfels, Axel. 2000. ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition. American Economic Review 100:166–93.Google Scholar
Brockner, Joel, Chen, Ya-Ru, Mannix, Elizabeth A., Leung, Kwok, and Skarlicki, Daniel P. 2000. Culture and Procedural Fairness: When the Effects of What You Do Depend on How You Do It. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:138–59.Google Scholar
Charness, Gary, and Rabin, Matthew. 2002. Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–69.Google Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Carnevale, Peter J. 2003. Motivational Bases for Information Processing and Strategic Choice in Conflict and Negotiation. In vol. 35, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Zanna, Mark P. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Koole, Sander L., and Oldersma, Frans L. 1999. On the Seizing and Freezing of Negotiator Inferences: Need for Cognitive Closure Moderates the Use of Heuristics in Negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (3): 348–62.Google Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Weingart, Laurie R., and Kwon, Seungwoo. 2000. Influence of Social Motives on Integrative Negotiation: A Meta-Analytical Review and Test of Two Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (5): 889–905.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Schmidt, Klaus M. 1999. A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:817–68.Google Scholar
Fisher, Roger, Ury, William, and Patton, Bruce. 1981. Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 2002. Changing Legal Consciousness in America: The View from the Joke Corpus. Cardozo Law Review 23:2223–40.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc, and Cahill, Mia. 1994. “Most Cases Settle”: Judicial Promotion and Regulation of Settlements. Stanford Law Review 46:1339–91.Google Scholar
Galinsky, Adam D., and Mussweiler, Thomas. 2001. First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective-Taking and Negotiator Focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (4): 657–69.Google Scholar
Gilson, Ronald J., and Mnookin, Robert H. 1994. Disputing Through Agents: Cooperation and Conflict Between Lawyers in Litigation. Columbia Law Review 94:509–66.Google Scholar
Guth, Werner, Schmittberger, Rolf, and Schwarze, Bernd. 1982. An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3:367–88.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R. 2004. Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 62–76.Google Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel. 2002. The Content of Our Casebooks: Why Do Cases Get Litigated? Florida State University Law Review 29:1265–87.Google Scholar
Jolls, Christine M., Sunstein, Cass R., and Thaler, Richard. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review 50:1471–1550.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H. 1990. Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1325–48.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–50.Google Scholar
Korobkin, Russell, and Guthrie, Chris. 1994. Psychological Barriers to Litigation Settlement: An Experimental Approach. Michigan Law Review 93:107–92.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. 1986. Adjudication to Settlement: Shading in the Gray. Judicature 70:161–65.Google Scholar
Kumar, Rajesh. 2004. The Role of Fairness Considerations and Relationships in a Judgment Perspective of Negotiation. In The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, ed. Gelfand, Michele J. and Brett, Jeanne M. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lax, David A., and Sebenius, James K. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allan. 2002. Fairness Judgments as Cognitions. In The Justice Motive in Everyday Life, ed. Ross, Michael and Miller, Dale T. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lind, E. Allan, and Tyler, Tom R. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
MacCoun, Robert J., and Tyler, Tom R. 1988. The Basis of Citizens’ Perceptions of the Criminal Jury: Procedural Fairness, Accuracy and Efficiency. Law and Human Behavior 12 (3): 333–52.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Kornhauser, Lewis. 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce. Yale Law Journal 88:950–97.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., Peppet, Scott R., and Tulumello, Andrew S. 2000. Beyond Winning: Negtotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Ross, Lee. 1995. Introduction. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Arrow, Kenneth J., Mnookin, Robert H., Ross, Lee, Tversky, Amos, and Wilson, Robert B. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Molm, Linda D., Takahashi, Nobuyuki, and Peterson, Gretchen. 2003. In the Eye of the Beholder: Procedural Justice in Social Exchange. American Sociological Review 68:128–52.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2003. Economic Analysis of Law. 6th ed. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Priest, George L., and Klein, Benjamin. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 13:1–55.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Dean G., Peirce, Robert S., McGillicuddy, Neil B., Welton, Gary L., and Castrianno, Lynn M. 1993. Long-Term Success in Mediation. Law and Human Behavior 17 (3): 313–30.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Dean G., and Carnevale, Peter J. 1993. Negotiation in Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Raiffa, Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Ross, Lee. 1995. Reactive Devaluation in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Arrow, Kenneth J., Mnookin, Robert H., Ross, Lee, Tversky, Amos, and Wilson, Robert B. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Shestowsky, Donna. 2004. Procedural Preferences in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10 (3): 211–49.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69:99–118.Google Scholar
Sondak, Harris, and Tyler, Tom R. 2007. How Does Procedural Justice Shape the Desirability of Markets? Journal of Economic Psychology 28 (1): 79–92.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. 1994. The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thibaut, John, and Walker, Laurens. 1978. A Theory of Procedure. California Law Review 66:541–66.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2000. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35 (2): 117–25.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Blader, Steven L. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Blader, Steven L. 2005. Can Businesses Effectively Regulate Employee Conduct? The Antecedents of Rule Following in Work Settings. Academy of Management Journal 48 (6): 1143–58.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Folger, Robert. 1980. Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction with Citizen-Police Encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1 (4): 281–92.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Huo, Yuen J. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and the Courts. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Allan Lind, E. 1992. A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. In vol. 25, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Zanna, Mark P. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bos, Kees, and Lind, E. Allan. 2002. Uncertainty Management By Means of Fairness Judgments. In vol. 25, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Zanna, Mark P. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Lange, Paul A. M. 1999. The Pursuit of Joint Outcomes and Equality in Outcomes: An Integrative Model of Social Value Orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (2): 337–49.Google Scholar
Walton, Richard E., and McKersie, Robert B. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Welsh, Nancy A. 2004. Perceptions of Fairness in Negotiation. Marquette Law Review 87:753–67.Google Scholar