Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorCukur, Cem Safak
dc.contributor.authorOezbayrak, Cansel
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-20T16:37:26Z
dc.date.available2020-11-20T16:37:26Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.identifier.issn1300-4433
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12809/5080
dc.descriptioncukur, cem safak/0000-0003-0213-489Xen_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000247877500005en_US
dc.description.abstractProcedural justice research conducted mainly in Western countries, focusing on disputants satisfaction with adversarial and inquisitorial legal procedures, has showed that adversarial trial procedures that give disputants most of the process control (voice) are the most ideal dispute resolution procedures. More recent investigation has challenged the superiority of the adversarial model of dispute resolutions. Present two studies with different samples (university students and non-student group) tested the generality of the procedural justice effects in Turkey where inquisitorial legal systems are used. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences and judgments (fairness, the role of lawyers, vs.) for using alternative procedures (single investigator, double investigator, hybrid and adversarial) to solve hypothetical adjudicated disputes (custody and malpractice). The results of two studies provide clear evidence for desirability of hybrid and adversarial procedures over the standard inquisitorial procedures across disputes. However, preferences for hybrid and adversarial procedures varied across the two studies. Also, differences in power distance beliefs and trust in the justice system have a moderating influence on procedural preferences, suggesting that procedural justice judgment might also affected by social structural factors.en_US
dc.item-language.isoturen_US
dc.publisherTurkish Psychologists Assocen_US
dc.item-rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectprocedural justiceen_US
dc.subjectadversarial-inquisitorial trial processen_US
dc.subjectpower distanceen_US
dc.subjecttrust in justice systemen_US
dc.titleAnalyses of procedural justice preferences and judgments for adjudicative dispute resolutions in Turkish contexten_US
dc.item-typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmenten_US
dc.contributor.departmentTempMugla Univ, Fen Edebiyat Fak Psikol Bolumu, Kotekli 48000, Mugla, Turkeyen_US
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.identifier.issue59en_US
dc.identifier.startpage91en_US
dc.identifier.endpage118en_US
dc.relation.journalTurk Psikoloji Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster