“我对此还没有意见”:关于荷兰小额索赔程序早期阶段自我代理诉讼当事人感知程序正义的定性研究。

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats
{"title":"“我对此还没有意见”:关于荷兰小额索赔程序早期阶段自我代理诉讼当事人感知程序正义的定性研究。","authors":"Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nBuilding on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case.\r\n\r\nRESEARCH QUESTION\r\nWhat role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures?\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nWe held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nRespondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThese results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"I do not have an opinion about that yet\\\": Qualitative research on perceived procedural justice of self-represented litigants in early stages of small claims procedures in the Netherlands.\",\"authors\":\"Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nBuilding on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESEARCH QUESTION\\r\\nWhat role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures?\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHOD\\r\\nWe held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nRespondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThese results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000612\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000612","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据最近的建议,到目前为止,在荷兰,存在着未被注意到的两极分化程度的增加和司法合法性的降低,我们研究了荷兰小额索赔程序早期阶段自我代理诉讼当事人的经验。我们的目标是通过定性访谈来评估(a)诉讼当事人是否会提到在这些法庭程序中感知到的程序正义的经历,(b)如果是,他们会提到感知到的程序正义的哪些要素,(c)他们如何形成对法官的信任判断,以及(d)受访者是否会自发地提到,在这些法庭程序的早期阶段,可用的信息有限,他们不知道他们是否认为法官公正,或者是否可以信任法官处理他们的案件。研究问题:程序公正的判决、对法官的信任和信息不确定性在民事诉讼的早期阶段发挥了什么作用?方法我们对115名自我辩护的诉讼当事人进行了访谈,了解他们在荷兰小额索赔程序中的审前经历。我们以各种方式询问受访者关于程序正义和对法官的信任。我们对诉讼当事人是否自发地提到他们没有足够的信息来回答这些问题进行编码。结果当被直接问及公平待遇和被问及具体的程序公正因素时,受访者自发地提到了程序公平的感知。有趣的是,几乎一半的受访者表示,他们对至少一个程序正义组成部分没有意见。对于“对法官的信任程度”的提问,各回答者也表示“还没有意见”。这些结果表明:(a)感知程序正义对民事诉讼中自我代理的诉讼当事人很重要;(b)在法庭程序的早期阶段,人们可能不知道他们是否认为法官是公平的,或者是否可以信任法官,并可能在访谈中自发地表明这一点。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"I do not have an opinion about that yet": Qualitative research on perceived procedural justice of self-represented litigants in early stages of small claims procedures in the Netherlands.
OBJECTIVE Building on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case. RESEARCH QUESTION What role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures? METHOD We held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions. RESULTS Respondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信