The Experts below are selected from a list of 33 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Allan E Lind - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Justice and the human alarm system the impact of exclamation points and flashing lights on the Justice Judgment process
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Kees Van Den Bos, Jaap Ham, Allan E Lind, Marieke Simonis, Wiljo J Van Essen, Mark RijpkemaAbstract:Extending theory within the Justice domain and work on the human alarm system, the current paper argues that the process by which Justice Judgments are formed may be influenced reliably by the activation of psychological systems that people use to detect and handle alarming situations. Building on this analysis, it is further proposed that if this line of reasoning is true then presenting alarm-related stimuli, such as exclamation points and flashing lights, to people should lead to more extreme Judgments about subsequent Justice-related events than not presenting these alarming stimuli. Findings collected using different experimental paradigms provide evidence supporting these predictions both inside and outside the psychology lab. Implications for the social psychology of Justice and the human alarm system literature are discussed.
-
individual and corporate dispute resolution using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993Co-Authors: Allan E Lind, Carol T Kulik, Maureen L Ambrose, Maria V De Vera ParkAbstract:The research reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants 84-11142 and 85-18597), the American Bar Foundation, and the Institute for Civil Justice of the RAND Corporation. The authors are grateful to Barbara Meierhoefer, Pat Lombard, and the Federal Judicial Center for supplying the Study 2 data, to Ruth Kanfer and Chris Earley for permission to reanalyze data from their study with the first author, and to Tom Tyler, Robert Sutton, Gina Ke, Bob Bies, and Karen Cook for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Two studies examined how litigants' evaluations of the outcome and process of lawsuits affected their Judgments about the fairness of procedures and their acceptance of awards from court-ordered arbitration. The studies tested predictions concerning the operation of a "fairness heuristic"-that procedural Justice Judgments mediate the effects of process impressions and outcome evaluations on the decision to accept or reject the directives of an authority. Participants in the studies were corporate and individual litigants in federal tort and contract actions that were subject to court-ordered arbitration. In both studies the decision to accept the arbitrator's award or reject it and go to trial was strongly correlated with Judgments of procedural Justice, and much or all of the effect of outcome evaluations and process impressions on award acceptance was mediated by procedural Justice Judgments, which had a stronger effect than either subjective or objective measures of the arbitration award. Separate analyses of corporate and individual decision makers in the second study suggested that both groups relied heavily on procedural Justice Judgments in deciding whether or not to accept the arbitration award. The findings provide evidence of widespread use of a fairness heuristic and support the extension of Justice-Judgment research to corporate decision making.'
Maria V De Vera Park - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
individual and corporate dispute resolution using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993Co-Authors: Allan E Lind, Carol T Kulik, Maureen L Ambrose, Maria V De Vera ParkAbstract:The research reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants 84-11142 and 85-18597), the American Bar Foundation, and the Institute for Civil Justice of the RAND Corporation. The authors are grateful to Barbara Meierhoefer, Pat Lombard, and the Federal Judicial Center for supplying the Study 2 data, to Ruth Kanfer and Chris Earley for permission to reanalyze data from their study with the first author, and to Tom Tyler, Robert Sutton, Gina Ke, Bob Bies, and Karen Cook for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Two studies examined how litigants' evaluations of the outcome and process of lawsuits affected their Judgments about the fairness of procedures and their acceptance of awards from court-ordered arbitration. The studies tested predictions concerning the operation of a "fairness heuristic"-that procedural Justice Judgments mediate the effects of process impressions and outcome evaluations on the decision to accept or reject the directives of an authority. Participants in the studies were corporate and individual litigants in federal tort and contract actions that were subject to court-ordered arbitration. In both studies the decision to accept the arbitrator's award or reject it and go to trial was strongly correlated with Judgments of procedural Justice, and much or all of the effect of outcome evaluations and process impressions on award acceptance was mediated by procedural Justice Judgments, which had a stronger effect than either subjective or objective measures of the arbitration award. Separate analyses of corporate and individual decision makers in the second study suggested that both groups relied heavily on procedural Justice Judgments in deciding whether or not to accept the arbitration award. The findings provide evidence of widespread use of a fairness heuristic and support the extension of Justice-Judgment research to corporate decision making.'
Robert Zbiral - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
czech constitutional court Judgment of 31 january 2012 pl us 5 12 a legal revolution or negligible episode court of Justice decision proclaimed ultra vires
Common Market Law Review, 2012Co-Authors: Robert ZbiralAbstract:Text analyzes (one could say criticizes) the Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court "Slovak Pensions no. 17", which for the first time declared Court of Justice Judgment ultra vires. Author explores in detail background, reasons for and consequences of the decision.
Kees Van Den Bos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
toward a better understanding of the Justice Judgment process the influence of fair and unfair events on state Justice sensitivity
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: R Wijn, Kees Van Den BosAbstract:People differ in the way they regard Justice. Although some people may be relatively unaffected by Justice issues, many others regard Justice as a very important concept and react to it accordingly. Prior research suggests that this sensitivity to Justice is a stable personality trait. In three studies, we show that (compared to neutral events) experiencing just and unjust events (directed toward the self or others) can elevate state levels of Justice sensitivity. We discuss the implications of these findings, including the notion how these results can lead to a better understanding of the Justice Judgment process. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Justice and the human alarm system the impact of exclamation points and flashing lights on the Justice Judgment process
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2008Co-Authors: Kees Van Den Bos, Jaap Ham, Allan E Lind, Marieke Simonis, Wiljo J Van Essen, Mark RijpkemaAbstract:Extending theory within the Justice domain and work on the human alarm system, the current paper argues that the process by which Justice Judgments are formed may be influenced reliably by the activation of psychological systems that people use to detect and handle alarming situations. Building on this analysis, it is further proposed that if this line of reasoning is true then presenting alarm-related stimuli, such as exclamation points and flashing lights, to people should lead to more extreme Judgments about subsequent Justice-related events than not presenting these alarming stimuli. Findings collected using different experimental paradigms provide evidence supporting these predictions both inside and outside the psychology lab. Implications for the social psychology of Justice and the human alarm system literature are discussed.
Maureen L Ambrose - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
individual and corporate dispute resolution using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993Co-Authors: Allan E Lind, Carol T Kulik, Maureen L Ambrose, Maria V De Vera ParkAbstract:The research reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants 84-11142 and 85-18597), the American Bar Foundation, and the Institute for Civil Justice of the RAND Corporation. The authors are grateful to Barbara Meierhoefer, Pat Lombard, and the Federal Judicial Center for supplying the Study 2 data, to Ruth Kanfer and Chris Earley for permission to reanalyze data from their study with the first author, and to Tom Tyler, Robert Sutton, Gina Ke, Bob Bies, and Karen Cook for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Two studies examined how litigants' evaluations of the outcome and process of lawsuits affected their Judgments about the fairness of procedures and their acceptance of awards from court-ordered arbitration. The studies tested predictions concerning the operation of a "fairness heuristic"-that procedural Justice Judgments mediate the effects of process impressions and outcome evaluations on the decision to accept or reject the directives of an authority. Participants in the studies were corporate and individual litigants in federal tort and contract actions that were subject to court-ordered arbitration. In both studies the decision to accept the arbitrator's award or reject it and go to trial was strongly correlated with Judgments of procedural Justice, and much or all of the effect of outcome evaluations and process impressions on award acceptance was mediated by procedural Justice Judgments, which had a stronger effect than either subjective or objective measures of the arbitration award. Separate analyses of corporate and individual decision makers in the second study suggested that both groups relied heavily on procedural Justice Judgments in deciding whether or not to accept the arbitration award. The findings provide evidence of widespread use of a fairness heuristic and support the extension of Justice-Judgment research to corporate decision making.'
