TWO LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS USING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AS SUBJECTS TESTED THE THEORETICAL STATEMENT THAT THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY TWO OPPOSING ATTORNEYS SERVES TO OVERCOME CERTAIN FORMS OF DECISIONMAKER BIAS. THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT, IN WHICH APPROXIMATELY HALF THE SUBJECTS WERE EXPOSED TO A BIASING PROCEDURE BEFORE HEARING THE TEST CASE, WERE CONGRUENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS. FOR SUBJECTS WHO HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO THE BIASING PROCEDURE, THERE WAS NO SUCH EFFECT OF THE MODE OF PRESENTATION. A SECOND EXPERIMENT, REPLICATING THE ORIGINAL WITH A FRENCH NONADVERSARY MODEL, WAS ALSO CONGRUENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS AND SUPPORTED THE CLAIM THAT ADVERSARY PRESENTATION COMBATS EXPECTANCY BIAS. HOWEVER, THE SECOND THEORETICAL STATEMENT THAT CLAIMS A DECISIONMAKER IS MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE ALL RELEVANT DISPUTE INFORMATION FROM ADVERSARY ATTORNEYS RECEIVED ONLY PARTIAL SUPPORT FROM EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. IN A THIRD STATEMENT SUGGESTING THAT PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE WOULD BE MORE SATISFIED WITH THE ADJUDICATED RESOLUTION WHEN ADVERSARY PROCEDURES ARE USED, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS LARGELY VERIFIED THIS PROPOSITION. A NEW THEORY OF PROCEDURE SUGGESTS THAT HIGH-CONFLICT SITUATIONS THAT USUALLY REQUIRE ADJUDICATIVE RESOLUTION CAN BE DIVIDED INTO TWO CONCEPTUAL CLASSES: THOSE IN WHICH THE DISPUTE INVOLVES THE DISTRIBUTION OF OUTCOMES AND THOSE IN WHICH THE DISPUTE INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF GENERAL FACTS OR THEORIES. THE THEORY RECOMMENDS THAT ADVERSARY PROCEDURES BE USED TO RESOLVE OUTCOME, JUSTICE-ORIENTED CONFLICTS AND THAT NONADVERSARY PROCEDURES BE USED TO RESOLVE TRUTH-ORIENTED CONFLICTS. IN ADDITION, PROCEDURES THAT ENCOURAGE PRESENTING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR CASE AND THAT FACILITATE THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL, RATHER THAN SPECIFIC LAWS, ARE BEST IN JUSTICE-ORIENTED DISPUTES. (AOP)