Avoiding and Settling Justice Conflicts 557Extensive empirical research has confirmed the impact of
fair procedures on conflict resolution and on the acceptance
of authoritative decision-making. From a normative perspec-
tive, the question of which procedures are just is a crucial
one. Although Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) book is entitled
Procedural Justice,the authors address the issue of control
more than they do that of justice. Preferences for procedures
of conflict resolution that give more control over to the par-
ties involved may well be motivated by self-interest—as
Thibaut and Walker have argued—and not by a justice
motive. Therefore, it is crucial to ask whether the parties in-
volved claim to have control by voice only for themselves or
equally for the other party. Leventhal (1980) has drawn up a
set of justice rules for the procedures of decision making—
for example, impartiality of the authorities, consistent use of
arguments, consideration of relevant information, objectivity
in the review of information, and revision of decisions if new
information becomes available. The granting of a voice to all
concerned is also essential—all concerned should be given
the opportunity to present their views and claims and to take
influence on the decision-making process by having their
views and claims considered by the authorities. These are
criteria that have emerged in Western cultures as procedural
rights to be claimed by everyone. There is ample general
evidence of what has been dubbed the fair procedure effect,
which refers to the phenomenon that perceived procedural
fairness helps the parties involved to accept even those
decisions or outcomes that are less favorable than they had
expected or hoped for (Greenberg & Folger, 1983).
However, a higher level of education is probably required
for individuals to understand exactly what is actually meant by
Leventhal’s list of criteria—and to determine whether author-
ities observe these rules or violate them. Intellectually less
demanding criteria for procedural fairness would therefore be
helpful. The concept of respectful and decent treatment by au-
thorities is easy to grasp. In their group value theory of proce-
dural justice, Lind and Tyler (1988) emphasize the way people
are treated by authorities. According to their theory, people
care about their valuation and status in their group, commu-
nity, company, or society, and they infer this status from the
way they are treated by authorities. Because the way one
is treated by authorities is informative with respect to one’s
social status and has an impact on one’s self-esteem—as is as-
sumed by political theorists such as Lane (1988) and Rawls
(1971), as well as by psychologists (cf. Tyler, Degouey, &
Smith, 1996; Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997)—
the concern for respectful and decent treatment in conflict-
resolution procedures would appear to be motivated by the
striving to gain or to maintain high self-esteem and a positive
self-concept. Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value theory of
procedural justice has inspired a wide range of research activ-
ities and has generated an impressive body of knowledge about
the favorable impact that perceived respectful and decent treat-
ment by authorities has on one’s own perceived status, on
one’s self-esteem, on the acceptance of decisions, and on one’s
trust in authorities’ fairness and the legitimacy of institutions
(Tyler et al., 1997; Vermunt & Törnblom, 1996).
One question as to the justice component of group value
theory remains open, however: Is everyone entitled to claim
decent, respectful treatment by authorities? Even those who
have seriously violated the law and social norms? Respectful
treatment by benevolent authorities may enhance self-
esteem, and it may produce further beneficial effects, includ-
ing the willingness to accept the authorities’ decisions, but
that alone does not imply that justice is involved. Only if au-
thorities were obliged to treat everyone in a respectful or
even friendly manner, everybody would be entitled to claim
this kind of treatment, regardless of whether they deserve it.
But is everyone truly entitled to receive respectful treatment?
Or is this kind of treatment only deserved and claimable by
certain people—for example, by law-abiding citizens, by
people who have accumulated merits, by employees who al-
ways have given their best?
Brockner et al. (1998) and Heuer, Blumenthal, Douglas,
and Weinblatt (1999) have made first steps to approach this
question empirically. They could identify subjects’ self-esteem
as a moderator variable: Specifically, having a voice and influ-
ential informational input into an ongoing dispute is correlated
more closely with perceived procedural fairness among
people with high self-esteem than it is among those with low
self-esteem. Respondents with high self-esteem seem to as-
sume that they deserve and are entitled to respectful treatment
as well as to being given a voice. Consequently, they and only
they tend to associate respectful treatment with fairness to
resent unfairness if they do not get what they expect.
Nevertheless, positive effects that are analogous to the fair
procedure effect may well be observable also in cases in
which perpetrators are benevolently treated respectfully and
decently by legal authorities: Such defendants may gain trust
that the sentence is fair, may accept the authority of the judges
instead of opposing them, may feel accepted as members of
the community, and may reciprocally accept the rules of that
community. Benevolence and grace may well have signifi-
cant integrating power, even if they are not to be claimed.Settling Justice Conflicts by MediationThere is good reason to assume that at their core, all hot social
conflicts are conflicts of justice (Montada, 2000). Insights into
procedural justice—as well as insights into the prevalence of