Factors in Fairness and Emotion in Online Case Resolution Systems

Courts are increasingly adopting online information and communication technology, creating a need to consider the potential consequences of these tools for the justice system. Using survey responses from 209 litigants who had recently used an online case resolution system, we investigate factors that influenced litigants' experiences of fairness and emotional feelings toward court officials. Our results show that ease of using the online case resolution system, the outcome of the case, and a litigant's perceptions of procedural justice are positively associated both with whether the litigant views the process as fair and whether the litigant ultimately feels positive emotions toward court officials. We also analyze the online explanations litigants offer in their arguments to courts and litigant answers to an open-ended question about their court experiences, and highlight design and practical implications for online systems seeking to improve access to justice.

[1]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Groupware in the wild: lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation , 1996, CSCW '96.

[2]  T. Tyler The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. , 1989 .

[3]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  John Thibaut,et al.  A Theory of Procedure , 1978 .

[5]  Rebecca Brennan,et al.  MISMATCH.COM: ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND DIVORCE , 2012 .

[6]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations , 2006 .

[7]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  Lynn Dombrowski,et al.  Shared values/conflicting logics: working around e-government systems , 2014, CHI.

[9]  Lynn Dombrowski,et al.  E-government intermediaries and the challenges of access and trust , 2014, TCHI.

[10]  Sivaporn Wangpipatwong,et al.  Understanding Citizen’s Continuance Intention to Use e-Government Website: a Composite View of Technology Acceptance Model and Computer Self-Efficacy , 2008 .

[11]  Ronald W. Staudt Access to Justice for the Self-Represented Litigant: An Interdisciplinary Investigation by Designers and Lawyers (with P. Hannaford) , 2002 .

[12]  Noriko Hara,et al.  Information technology support for communities of practice: How public defenders learn about winning and losing in court , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Ronald W Staudt Access to Justice: Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants (with C. Owen & E. Pedwell) , 2002 .

[14]  Shin-Yuan Hung,et al.  Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system , 2006, Gov. Inf. Q..

[15]  France Bélanger,et al.  The impact of the digital divide on e-government use , 2009, CACM.

[16]  Szu-Yuan Sun,et al.  Understanding customers' loyalty intentions towards online shopping: an integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[17]  René F. Kizilcec How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface , 2016, CHI.

[18]  Stephanie L. Kimbro Increasing Online Engagement between the Public and the Legal Profession with Gamification , 2015 .

[19]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. , 1988 .

[20]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  An Update on Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy , 2009 .

[21]  Kevin Burke Steve Leben,et al.  Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction , 2007 .

[22]  M. Scott Donahey,et al.  Dispute Resolution in Cyberspace , 1998, Journal of International Arbitration.

[23]  Stephanie L. Kimbro Using Technology to Unbundle in the Legal Services Community , 2013 .

[24]  Mark Rouncefield,et al.  HCI, Civic Engagement & Trust , 2015, CHI.

[25]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[26]  John H. Barton,et al.  Behind the Legal Explosion , 1975 .

[27]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure , 2000 .

[28]  Maximilian A. Bulinski,et al.  Online Case Resolution Systems: Enhancing Access, Fairness, Accuracy, and Efficiency , 2016, Michigan Journal of Race & Law.

[29]  Sue Ferrere Innovation in the Criminal Justice System: Policy Lessons and Impacts of Pretrial Reforms , 2018 .

[30]  Michael E. Heintz The Digital Divide and Courtroom Technology: Can David Keep Up With Goliath? , 2002 .

[31]  Noriko Hara Information technology support for communities of practice: How public defenders learn about winning and losing in court , 2007 .

[32]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[34]  Jim Gibson,et al.  Outsourcing Childcare , 2015 .