Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:51:32.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Signaling Effect of Pro se Status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Victor D. Quintanilla ,
Rachel A. Allen  and
Edward R. Hirt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When claimants press their claims without counsel, they fail at virtually every stage of civil litigation and overwhelmingly fail to obtain meaningful access to justice. This research program harnesses psychological science to experimentally test a novel hypothesis: mainly, a claimant's pro se status itself sends a signal that biases decision making about the claimant and her claim. We conducted social psychological experiments with the public (N = 157), law students (N = 198), and employment discrimination lawyers (N = 39), holding the quality and merit of a Title VII sex discrimination case constant. In so doing, we examined whether a claimant's pro se status itself shapes stereotypes held about the claimant and biases decision making about settlement awards. These experiments reveal that pro se status influences stereotypes of claimants and settlement awards received. Moreover, the signaling effect of pro se status is exacerbated by socialization in the legal profession. Among law-trained individuals (i.e., law students and lawyers), a claimant's pro se status generates negative stereotypes about the claimant and these negative stereotypes explain the adverse effect of pro se status on decision making about settlement awards.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , Fall 2017 , pp. 1091 - 1121
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2017 

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.)

References

Albiston, C. R., and Nielsen, L. B. 2006. The Procedural Attack on Civil Rights: The Empirical Reality of Buckhannon for the Private Attorney General. UCLA Law Review 54:1087–1134.Google Scholar
Albiston, C. R., and Sandefur, R. L. 2013. Expanding the Empirical Study of Access to Justice. Wisconsin Law Review 101:1–20.Google Scholar
Best, R. K., Edelman, L. B., Hamilton Krieger, L., and Eliason, S. R. 2011. Multiple Disadvantages: An Empirical Test of Intersectionality Theory in EEO Litigation. Law & Society Review 45 (2):991–1025.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L., and Martin, A. D. 2010. Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2):389–411.Google Scholar
Brake, D. L., and Grossman, J. L. 2007. Failure of Title VII as a Rights‐Claiming System. North Carolina Law Review 86:859–935.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. 2007. Psychology Is a Hub Science, Association of Psychological Science Observer 20 (8).Google Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., and Glick, P. 2007. The BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (4):631–48.Google Scholar
Daniels, S., and Martin, J. 2015. Tort Reform, Plaintiff's Lawyers and Access to Justice. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Erlanger, H., and Klegon, D. 1978. Socialization Effects of Professional School. Law & Society Review 13:11–35.Google Scholar
Farhang, S., and Spencer, D. M. 2014. Legislating Incentives for Attorney Representation in Civil Rights Litigation. Journal of Law & Courts 2:241–71.Google Scholar
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. M. 1986. Legal Culture and the Welfare State. In Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, ed. Teubner, Gunther, 13–27. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. 1983. Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society. UCLA Law Review 31:4–71.Google Scholar
Greiner, J., and Pattanayak, C. W. 2012. Randomized Evaluation in Legal Assistance: What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make? Yale Law Journal 121:2118–214.Google Scholar
Kaiser, C. R., and Miller, C. T. 2001. Reacting to Impending Discrimination: Compensation for Prejudice and Attributions to Discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27:1357–67.Google Scholar
Kaiser, C. R., and Quintanilla, V. D. 2014. Access to Counsel: Psychological Science Can Improve the Promise of Civil Rights Enforcement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (1): 95–102.Google Scholar
Kaiser, C. R., and Wilkins, C. L. 2010. Group Identification and Prejudice: Theoretical and Empirical Advances and Implications. Journal of Social Issues 66 (3): 461–76.Google Scholar
Kerwin, D. 2004. Charitable Legal Programs for Immigrants: What They Do, Why They Matter and How They Can Be Expanded. Immigration Briefings 1.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. M. 1998. Legal Advocacy and Nonlawyers at Work. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Landsman, S. 2012. Pro se Litigation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8 (1):231–53.Google Scholar
Legal Services Corp. 2009. Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low‐Income Americans. Washington, DC: Legal Services Corp.Google Scholar
Major, B., Quinton, W. J., and Schmader, T. 2003. Attributions to Discrimination and Self‐Esteem: Impact of Group Identification and Situational Ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (3):220–31.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. 2007. Inside the Law School Classroom: Toward a New Legal Realist Pedagogy. Vanderbilt Law Review 60:483 –513.Google Scholar
Miller, R. E., and Sarat, A. 1980. Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture. Law & Society Review 15:525–66.Google Scholar
Myrick, A., Nelson, R. L., and Nielsen, L. B. 2012. Race and Representation: Racial Disparities in Legal Representation for Employment Civil Rights Plaintiffs. New York University Journal of Legislation and Social Policy 15:705–59.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. L., Berrey, E. C., and Nielsen, L. B. 2008. Divergent Paths: Conflicting Conceptions of Employment Discrimination in Law and the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4:103–22.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. B., and Nelson, R. L. 2005. Scaling the Pyramid: A Sociolegal Model of Employment Discrimination Litigation. In The Handbook of Research on Employment Discrimination: Rights and Realities, ed. Nielsen, L. B. and Nelson, R. L., 3–34. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. B., Nelson, R. L., and Lancaster, R. 2010. Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7:175–201.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., and Davidenko, N. 2009. Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:867–72.Google Scholar
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., and Ipeirotis, P. G. 2010. Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5:411–19.Google Scholar
Prothro, E. T., and Melikian, L. H. 1955. Studies in the Stereotypes v. Familiarity and the Kernel of Truth Hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology 41:3–10.Google Scholar
Quintanilla, V. D. 2011. Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study of Iqbal's Effect on Claims of Race Discrimination. Michigan Journal of Race and Law 17:1–61.Google Scholar
Reinert, A. A. 2015. Measuring the Impact of Plausibility Pleading, Virginia Law Review 101:2117–83.Google Scholar
Rhode, D. 2009. Whatever Happened to Access to Justice? Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 42:869–70.Google Scholar
Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. E. 1991. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: McGraw‐Hill.Google Scholar
Sandefur, R. L. 2008. Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality. Annual Review of Sociology 34:346–52.Google Scholar
Sandefur, R. L. 2010. Impact of Counsel: An Analysis of Empirical Evidence. Seattle Journal of Justice 9:52–85.Google Scholar
Sandefur, R. L. 2015. Elements of Professional Expertise: Understanding Relational and Substantive Expertise through Lawyers Impact. American Sociological Review 80(5):909–33.Google Scholar
Sarat, A., and Felstiner, W. L. F. 1995. Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power and Meaning in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schoenholtz, A. I., and Jacobs, J. 2001. The State of Asylum Representation: Ideas for Change. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 16:739–72.Google Scholar
Seron, C., Frankel, M., Van Ryzin, G., and Kovath, J. 2001. The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City's Housing Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment. Law & Society Review 35:419 –34.Google Scholar
Selbin, J., Charn, J., Alfieri, A., and Wizner, S. 2012. Service Delivery, Resource Allocation, and Access to Justice: Greiner and Pattanayak and the Research Imperative, Yale Law Journal Online 122:54.Google Scholar
Shanahan, C. F., Carpenter, A. E., and Mark, A. 2016. Lawyers, Power, and Strategic Expertise. Denver Law Review 93:469–521.Google Scholar
Shelton, J. N., and Stewart, B. 2004. Confronting Perpetrators of Prejudice: The Inhibitory Effects of Social Costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly 28: 215–23.Google Scholar
Stapleton, W. V., and Teitelbaum, L. E. 1972. In Defense of Youth: A Study of the Role of Counsel in American Juvenile Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar