在纠纷解决中拓展我们的正义模式:对互动正义贡献的实地检验

Tina Nabatchi, Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)
{"title":"在纠纷解决中拓展我们的正义模式:对互动正义贡献的实地检验","authors":"Tina Nabatchi, Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.305205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historically, researchers in conflict management have used theories of distributive and procedural justice to explain participant satisfaction with dispute resolution processes. Using a large national sample of exit surveys collected from participants in the United States Postal Service (USPS) REDRESS(R) program, the authors show that the procedural justice model better fits the data from this employment mediation program than the distributive justice model. However, the procedural justice model, as traditionally framed, includes no component for measuring changes in the relationship between the disputants. The authors suggest that an interactional model of justice, which includes measures of empowerment and recognition in a transformative index, in addition to measures of process and resolution, can better explain participant satisfaction with this program. The results of a multiple regression analysis support this hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":236533,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2002 Salt Lake City Meetings (Archive)","volume":"519 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expanding Our Models of Justice in Dispute Resolution: A Field Test of the Contribution of Interactional Justice\",\"authors\":\"Tina Nabatchi, Lisa Blomgren Amsler (formerly Bingham)\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.305205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Historically, researchers in conflict management have used theories of distributive and procedural justice to explain participant satisfaction with dispute resolution processes. Using a large national sample of exit surveys collected from participants in the United States Postal Service (USPS) REDRESS(R) program, the authors show that the procedural justice model better fits the data from this employment mediation program than the distributive justice model. However, the procedural justice model, as traditionally framed, includes no component for measuring changes in the relationship between the disputants. The authors suggest that an interactional model of justice, which includes measures of empowerment and recognition in a transformative index, in addition to measures of process and resolution, can better explain participant satisfaction with this program. The results of a multiple regression analysis support this hypothesis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":236533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IACM 2002 Salt Lake City Meetings (Archive)\",\"volume\":\"519 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IACM 2002 Salt Lake City Meetings (Archive)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.305205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IACM 2002 Salt Lake City Meetings (Archive)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.305205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

历史上,冲突管理研究者使用分配正义和程序正义理论来解释参与者对争端解决过程的满意度。作者利用从美国邮政服务(USPS) REDRESS(R)项目参与者中收集的大型全国性退出调查样本,表明程序正义模型比分配正义模型更适合该就业调解项目的数据。然而,传统框架下的程序正义模式不包括衡量争端双方关系变化的要素。作者认为,除了过程和解决方案的措施外,一个互动的正义模型,包括变革指数中的赋权和认可措施,可以更好地解释参与者对该计划的满意度。多元回归分析的结果支持这一假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Expanding Our Models of Justice in Dispute Resolution: A Field Test of the Contribution of Interactional Justice
Historically, researchers in conflict management have used theories of distributive and procedural justice to explain participant satisfaction with dispute resolution processes. Using a large national sample of exit surveys collected from participants in the United States Postal Service (USPS) REDRESS(R) program, the authors show that the procedural justice model better fits the data from this employment mediation program than the distributive justice model. However, the procedural justice model, as traditionally framed, includes no component for measuring changes in the relationship between the disputants. The authors suggest that an interactional model of justice, which includes measures of empowerment and recognition in a transformative index, in addition to measures of process and resolution, can better explain participant satisfaction with this program. The results of a multiple regression analysis support this hypothesis.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Expanding Our Models of Justice in Dispute Resolution: A Field Test of the Contribution of Interactional Justice
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1