Most of the research on the subjective consequences of procedural models is favorable to the adversary model. The literature generally supports the proposition that parties to a dispute prefer adversary procedures, view them as fairer, and experience greater satisfaction with their outcomes. Studies show that adversary procedures reduce some types of bias and enhance other types. Moreover, although the literature is not totally consistent, it generally shows that the order of presenting information in court has consequences for the recall and impact of evidence. Recency effects can be expected when the decisionmaker is focusing on general issues but not when personal characteristics become important to the verdict. Other research shows that the types of jury instructions now in use in many jurisdictions are difficult to understand and can be improved. Some instructions are followed, while others, on the jurors' responsibility to disregard some information, are often ignored. Further research is needed on these issues, as well as, on the propriety of juries and alternatives to trial. A graph and about 70 references are supplied.