skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 75494 Find in a Library
Title: Reactions to Procedural Models for Adjudicative Conflict Resolution - A Cross-National Study
Journal: Journal of Conflict Resolution  Volume:22  Issue:2  Dated:(June 1978)  Pages:318-341
Author(s): E A Lind; B E Erickson; N Friedland; M Dickenberger
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 25
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
Grant Number: GS-28590X
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report describes a cross-national experimental study examining perceptions of four procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution, which was conducted in four countries whose legal procedures are based on differing adjudicative models.
Abstract: The countries participating in the study were the United States, Great Britain, France, and West Germany. A total of 178 university students rated the 4 models on a number of dimensions, including their preference for using the model for settling a conflict, fairness of the model, and the amount of control over resolution of the conflict vested in each of several roles. Approximately 50 percent of the subjects at each site were asked to assume the role of the defendant in the adjudicated conflict, and 50 percent were asked to assume the role of the plaintiff. The results showed a general preference for adversary (disputant controlled) models over inquisitorial (adjudicator controlled) models. This preference was not limited to subjects from the United States and Great Britain, whose legal systems are based on adversary models. The primary value of this study resides in its confirmation of the importance of control relationships in determining reactions to adjudicative conflict resolution and in the demonstration that this psychological process seems to transcend national boundaries. Three graphs, six footnotes, four tables, and 24 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Conflict resolution; France; Germany; Great Britain/United Kingdom; Models; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.