Procedural Justice in the Courtroom: The Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Revised Procedural Justice Scale

Tomasz Prusiński

doi:10.18290/rpsych20231-5

Tomasz Prusiński Maria Grzegorzewska University in Warsaw, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8782-1498

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rpsych20231-5

Keywords: procedural justice, the judiciary, district courts, civil cases, Procedural Justice Scale

Abstract

In Polish psychology there has been no systematic research so far on the experience of contact with courts and on the evaluation of this experience using the theory of procedural justice. Polish psychologists do not have Polish instruments measuring procedural justice at their disposal. The Procedural Justice Scale is a measure operationalizing the dimensions of procedural justice according to Tyler’s model: respect, neutrality, voice, understanding, and influence. The aim of the present article is to present the work on the revised version of the Procedural Justice Scale, measuring procedural justice operationalized exclusively in psychological terms, and to present the psychometric properties of this scale. In particular, the author tested the reliability of the instrument and verified its validity based on confirmatory factor analysis, scale intercorrelations, and intergroup differences. The results confirmed the five-factor structure of procedural justice. They also confirmed the criterion validity of the measure, reflected in correlations with validation instruments.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.

Antonovsky, A. (2005). Rozwikłanie tajemnicy zdrowia [Unraveling the mystery of health]. LQ.

Aranowska, E. (2005). Pomiar ilościowy w psychologii [Quantitative measurement in psychology]. Scholar.

Aranowska, E., & Rytel, J. (2012). Struktura czynnikowa kwestionariusza agresji Bussa i Perry’ego (BPQA) w polskiej adaptacji [The factor structure of the Polish adaptation of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ)]. Studia Psychologica, 2, 135–151.

Aranowska, E., & Rytel, J. (2013). Kontrowersje wokół rzetelności jako pojęcia psychometrycznego [Controversies surrounding reliability as a psychometric concept]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 56(1), 29–43.

Bierhoff, H. W., Buck, E., & Klein, R. (1986). Social context and perceived justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 165–186). Plenum Press.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and Extending the Group Engagement Model: Linkages Between Social Identity, Procedural Justice, Economic Outcomes, and Extrarole Behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.

Boda, Z., & Medve-Bálint, G. (2014). Does institutional trust in East Central Europe differ from Western Europe? European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 3(2), 1–17.

Burdziej, S. (2018). Sprawiedliwość i prawomocność [Justice and legitimacy]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.

Burdziej, S., Guzik, K., & Pilitowski, B. (2018). Fairness at trial: The impact of procedural justice and other experiential factors on criminal defendants’ perceptions of court legitimacy in Poland. Law & Social Inquiry, 1–32.

Calton, J., & Cattaneo, L. B. (2014). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on intimate partner violence victims’ mental health and likelihood of future help seeking. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 329–340.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 481–502.

Cieciuch, J., & Karaś, D. (2017). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza dobrostanu (Psychological Well-Being Scales) Caroll Ryff [Polish adaptation of Carol Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scales]. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 4(20), 815–835.

Cohn, E. S., White, S. O., & Sanders, J. (2000). Distributive and procedural justice in seven nations. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 553–579.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analysis of 25 years of procedural justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Czapiński, J. (Ed.) (2004). Psychologia pozytywna [Positive psychology]. PWN.

Daniel, K. (2007). Kryzys społecznego zaufania do sądów [The crisis of public trust in courts]. Studia Socjologiczne, 2, 61–82.

Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355–391.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403–425.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.

Jałoszewski, M. (2012). Sędzia idealny [The perfect judge]. Na wokandzie, 1(11), 17–18.

Jonkisz, A. (1998). Ciągłość teoretycznych wytworów nauki. Ujęcie strukturalne [The continuity of theoretical products of science: A structural perspective]. WUMSC.

Konarski, R. (2016). Modele równań strukturalnych [Stuctural equation models]. PWN.

Kurczewski, J. (1982). Spór i sądy [Litigation and courts]. Wydawnictwo UW.

Kurczewski, J., & Fuszara, M. (Eds.). (2004). Polskie sądy i spory [Polish courts and litigations]. Ośrodek Badań Społecznych ISNS UW.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science and Business Media.

Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regulation & Governance, 3, 1–26.

Niesiobędzka, M. (2009). Relacje podatnik – państwo jako predyktory moralności podatkowej [Taxpayer–state relations as predictors of tax morality]. Psychologia Społeczna, 3(11), 123–132.

Pavot, W., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1998). The Temporal Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 340–354.

Podgórecki, A. (1971). Zarys socjologi iprawa [An outline of the sociology of law]. PWN.

Prusiński, T. (2018). Sprawiedliwość instytucjonalna a zdrowia psychiczne stron postępowań sądowych. Wzmocnienie czy obniżenie jednostkowego dobrostanu? [Institutional justice and the mental health of parties to court proceedings. Enhancement or deterioration of individual well-being?]. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 2(23), 446–468.

Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power of judicial responses. Northeastern University Press.

Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aube, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 305–317.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.

Skąpska, G., & Bryda, G. (2013). Apolityczność czy sprawiedliwość proceduralna? Zaufanie do sądowego wymiaru sprawiedliwości na tle innych instytucji publicznych w Polsce [Apoliticality or procedural justice? Trust in the court judiciary compared to other public institutions in Poland]. Studia Socjologiczne, 1(208), 77–94.

Szymańska, A. (2016). Założenia formalne modeli weryfikowanych przy pomocy układów równań strukturalnych [Formal assumptions of the structural equation models]. Studia Psychologica, 1(16), 5–25.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.

Tomkins, A., & Applequist, K. (2008). Constructs of justice: Beyond civil litigation. In B. H. Bornstein, R. L. Wiener, R. Schopp, & S. L. Willborn (Eds.), Civil juries and civil justice (pp. 257–272). Springer.

Törnblom, K., & Vermunt, R. (Eds.) (2016). Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications. Routledge.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendant’s evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law & Society Review, 18, 51–74.

Tyler, T. R. (2007). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44(1/2), 26–31.

Tyler, T. R. (2010). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117–125.

Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 913–930.

Tyler, T. R, & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts through. Russell Sage Foundation.

Tyler, T. R, & Rasinski, K. (1991). Procedural justice, institutional legitimacy, and the acceptance of unpopular U.S. Supreme Court decisions: A reply to Gibson. Law & Society Review, 25(3), 621–630.

Vermunt, R., Van der Kloot, W. A., & Van der Meer, J. (1993). The effects of procedural and interactional criteria on procedural fairness judgments. Social Justice Research, 6(2), 183–195.