In the first study, the two variables that are manipulated include the significance of the dispute for the parties involved and the level of conflict between them. In the second study, two additional variables include the existence of a standard against which to evaluate the dispute and the existence of time pressure. The criteria of procedural justice incorporated into the analyses include the clarity of the procedure, the existence of standards, and the openness of the procedure. The results show, that in general, Japanese subjects concur with their American and West European counterparts in their attitudes toward procedural justice. This set of studies indicates that Japanese subjects consider the fairness of the procedure relatively more important than the fairness of the outcome. The results also suggest that respondents' concern with unfairness issues is independent of their concern about fairness. Process control was related to procedural fairness ratings in both studies, but decision control was significantly correlated only in the study involving the breach of contract between friends. Subjects agreed with the meaning of procedural justice as defined by legal scholars, who consider clarity of the procedure, openness of the procedure, and clarity of the standard all to be related to fairness. 4 tables, 5 notes, and 27 references