The Psychology of Procedural Preference: How Litigants Evaluate Legal Procedures Ex Ante

• Author: Donna Shestowsky
• Pages: 637-710

The Psychology of Procedural Preference: How Litigants Evaluate Legal Procedures Ex Ante Donna Shestowsky  ABSTRACT: This Article reports the findings of the first multi-jurisdictional study of litigants’ perceptions of legal procedures shortly after their cases are filed in court. It begins by explaining why research on how litigants assess procedures could be used to advance procedural justice and mitigate the negative impact that the economic downturn has had on the resolution of civil cases. It then presents analyses regarding: (1) how attractive litigants find various legal procedures (e.g., Negotiation, Mediation, Non-binding Arbitration, Binding Arbitration, Jury Trials, Judge Trials); (2) how they assess the relative probability that they will use each procedure; (3) how their attraction ratings and “expected use” estimates compare for each procedure; and (4) whether demographic, case type, relationship, and attitudinal factors predict their attraction to each procedure. The analyses revealed that litigants preferred Mediation, the Judge Trial, and Attorneys Negotiate with Clients Present to all other examined procedures. The lack of relations between attraction to procedures and many of the predictor variables (i.e., demographic, case type, relationship, and attitudinal factors) suggests that some factors previously associated with ex ante perceptions are not significant predictors when evaluated concurrently. The major findings are discussed in the context of dispute resolution systems design in courts, client counseling protocols, procedural justice, and the psychology of litigants more broadly. I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 640 II. THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING HOW LITIGANTS EVALUATE PROCEDURES EX ANTE: RATIONALE FOR THE CURRENT STUDY ............ 642  Professor of Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Scholar, University of California, Davis, School of Law. J.D., Stanford Law School; Ph.D. (Psychology), Stanford University; M.S. (Psychology), Yale University; B.S., Yale University. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Donna Shestowsky, University of California, Davis, School of Law, 400 Mrak Hall Drive, Davis, CA 95616. 638 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99:637 A. W HAT W E A LREADY K NOW A BOUT D ISPUTANTS ’ P REFERENCES .......... 645 1. What Past Research Suggests About Procedural Preferences ............................................................................. 645 2. Debate over Conclusions from Past Research ...................... 648 3. Review of the Two Field Studies on Litigants’ Ex Ante Preferences ............................................................................. 651 III. METHOD ................................................................................................ 654 A. S TUDY C OURTS ................................................................................. 654 B. M ATERIALS ...................................................................................... 655 C. P ARTICIPANT R ECRUITMENT ............................................................. 656 D. P ARTICIPANTS .................................................................................. 658 IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................. 663 A. R ELATIVE A TTRACTIVENESS OF P ROCEDURES ..................................... 663 B. C OMPARISONS OF E XTREME A TTITUDES R EGARDING P ROCEDURES ...... 666 C. E XPECTED U SE OF P ROCEDURES ......................................................... 667 D. A TTRACTIVENESS OF P ROCEDURES C OMPARED TO E XPECTED U SE ....... 669 E. P REDICTORS OF A TTRACTIVENESS OF S PECIFIC P ROCEDURES ............... 670 V. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 673 A. P REFERENCES FOR P ROCEDURES ......................................................... 673 B. E XPECTED U SE OF P ROCEDURES ......................................................... 677 C. A TTRACTIVENESS OF P ROCEDURES C OMPARED TO E XPECTED U SE ....... 678 D. P REDICTORS OF A TTRACTIVENESS OF S PECIFIC P ROCEDURES ............... 679 1. Repeat Litigants Liked Binding Arbitration More than First-Time Litigants ................................................................ 680 2. Confidence in Trial Win Was Associated with Attraction to Court-Related Adjudicative Procedures ........................... 681 3. Women Liked the Jury Trial and Binding Arbitration Less than Men ........................................................................ 683 4. Personal Injury Litigants Liked the Jury Trial More than Property Litigants, but Case type Was Not a Major Predictor Otherwise ............................................................... 684 5. Relationship Variables Were Associated with Attraction to the Negotiation Options, but Not with Attraction to Adversarial Procedures such as Binding Arbitration or Trials........................................................................................ 685 6. Court Impressions Related to Attraction to Judicial Decisions ................................................................................. 686 E. D EMOGRAPHIC V ARIABLES ................................................................ 686 F. C AVEATS R EGARDING I NTERPRETATIONS OF THE F INDINGS ................. 687 VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 690 2014] THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROCEDURAL PREFERENCE 639 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................ 691 APPENDICES............................................................................................ 693 A PPENDIX A: E LIGIBLE C ASE T YPES BY C OURT ........................................... 693 A PPENDIX B: S TUDY C OURTS .................................................................... 695 A PPENDIX C: P ARTICIPANT R ECRUITMENT ................................................ 700 A PPENDIX D: D ESCRIPTIONS OF P ROCEDURES ............................................. 701 A PPENDIX E: D ESCRIPTIVE S TATISTICS OF U NTRANSFORMED C ONTINUOUS V ARIABLES FROM R EGRESSION M ODEL ............................................... 704 A PPENDIX F: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF A TTORNEYS N EGOTIATE W ITHOUT C LIENTS ......................................................... 705 A PPENDIX G: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF A TTORNEYS N EGOTIATE WITH C LIENTS P RESENT ............................... 706 A PPENDIX H: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF THE J URY T RIAL .............................................................................................. 707 A PPENDIX I: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF THE J UDGE T RIAL .............................................................................................. 708 A PPENDIX J: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF J UDGE D ECIDES W ITHOUT T RIAL ................................................................. 709 A PPENDIX K: F ACTORS P REDICTING THE A TTRACTIVENESS OF B INDING A RBITRATION ................................................................................... 710 640 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 99:637 “Legal authorities can both do their jobs well and create public satisfaction. The key is to have a clear understanding of what people want from the courts . . . . The first issue involved in knowing what people want from the courts is to examine people’s preferences concerning how disputes should be resolved.” —Tom R. Tyler  I. INTRODUCTION The global economic downturn that sent the United States into a severe recession from 2007 to 2009 1 has wreaked havoc on court systems throughout the country. The recession has forced forty-three states to substantially cut their judicial budgets, 2 which is striking given that more than ninety-six percent of all litigation occurs in state courts. 3 The waiting time for civil trials in many jurisdictions has dramatically increased—in at least one major metropolitan area, the waiting time for many cases is five years or longer 4 —and budgets for alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) programs have shrunk. 5 Thus, in the contemporary legal world, many litigants struggle to obtain civil justice. In this light, lawyers and courts must strive harder to assist litigants in need. But capable assistance requires an understanding of what litigants think about their options. The need for empirical research that elucidates litigants’ perceptions of, and preferences for, procedures—e.g., arbitration, mediation, negotiation, trial—has arguably never been greater. Many courts  Tom R. Tyler, Citizen Discontent with Legal Procedures: A Social Science Perspective on Civil Procedure Reform , 45 AM. J. COMP. L. 871, 876 (1997). 1 . See Sara Murray, Slump Over, Pain Persists , WALL ST. J. (Sept. 21, 2010, 12:01 AM), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503691644231892.html. 2. As States Cut Court Budgets, Who Pays the Price? , NPR (Oct. 4, 2011, 12:00 PM), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141043681 (interviewing Mary McQueen, president of the National Center for State Courts). 3. Id. However, the number of dispositions continues to grow despite the decline in the number of trials. See Brian J. Ostrom et al., Examining Trial Trends in State Courts: 1976–2002 , 1 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 755, 773 (2004). 4. See Stephen Stock, California Superior Courts in Crisis , NBC BAY AREA (July 24, 2013, 10:05 AM), http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/California-Superior-Courts-in-Crisis-2166 68081.html. 5. For example, in 2011, budgets for some New York ADR centers were reduced by nearly 40%. Matt Chandler, Campaign to Restore Child Mediation Funds Launched , BUFFALO BUS. FIRST (Jan. 11, 2012, 11:11 AM)...