OBJECTIVE To examine whether litigants' initial attraction to legal procedures (e.g., mediation, hearings, jury trials) predicted their postexperience evaluations of the procedures and whether attendance moderated this relationship. HYPOTHESIS Litigants' initial attraction to the legal procedure that later resolved their case would better predict postexperience satisfaction and fairness for litigants who adjudicated versus settled. I also explored whether the predicted relationship would vary as a function of litigants' attending the procedure and when case duration, lawyer involvement, and litigants' repeat player status were included in the models. METHOD Four hundred-twelve state court litigants rated their attraction to different legal procedures at the start of their cases and 335 (81.3% retention) rated their satisfaction with, and fairness of, the procedure that ultimately resolved their case. RESULTS Initial attraction to and ex post evaluations of legal procedures were more strongly related among litigants who adjudicated versus settled, but this association did not hold when the covariates were included. Instead, lawyer involvement and shorter duration were associated with increased ex post satisfaction and fairness. For litigants who personally attended their procedure, initial attraction was unrelated to later evaluations of fairness and those who settled evaluated their procedure as fairer compared to those who adjudicated. By contrast, for litigants who did not attend, initial attraction was positively related to later fairness evaluations and there was no fairness difference between settlement and adjudication. The same attendance patterns emerged irrespective of whether the covariates were included. CONCLUSIONS Lawyer involvement and shorter case duration better predicted litigants' evaluations of legal procedures than their initial attraction to procedures. Attendance was associated with increased fairness evaluations for settlement relative to adjudication and initial attraction was positively related to fairness only when litigants did not attend their procedure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

寄予厚望？在使用法律程序之前和之后比较诉讼方的态度。

目的要研究诉讼人最初对法律程序的吸引力（例如，调解，听证，陪审团审判）是否预测了他们对该程序的事后评估，以及出庭是否调解了这种关系。假设诉讼人最初对后来解决其案件的法律程序具有吸引力，这将更好地预测审判或定居的诉讼人的事后满意度和公正性。我还探讨了预期的关系是否会随着诉讼人参加诉讼程序的变化而变化，并且在模型中包括案件持续时间，律师介入以及诉讼人的重复参与者身份时是否会发生变化。方法412名州法院诉讼人在案件开始时对他们对不同法律程序的吸引力进行了评估，而335（81。3％的保留率）评估了他们对最终解决案件的程序的满意度和公平性。结果在审判和定居的诉讼当事人之间，最初对法律程序的吸引力和对法律程序的事后评价之间有着更强的相关性，但是当包括协变量时，这种关联并不成立。相反，律师的参与和较短的工作时间与事后满意度和公正性的提高有关。对于亲自参加诉讼程序的诉讼人而言，最初的吸引力与后来的公平性评估无关，而定居者则认为其诉讼程序比那些裁决的人更为公平。相比之下，对于没有参加诉讼的诉讼人，最初的吸引力与后来的公平性评估呈正相关，解决和裁决之间没有公平性差异。无论是否包含协变量，出现的出席模式都相同。结论与最初吸引诉讼者相比，律师的参与和较短的案件持续时间可以更好地预测诉讼人对法律程序的评估。出勤与公正性评估有关的裁决增加有关，并且只有当诉讼人不参加诉讼时，最初的吸引力才与公正性正相关。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。出勤与公正性评估有关的裁决增加有关，并且只有当诉讼人不参加诉讼时，最初的吸引力才与公正性正相关。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。出勤与公正性评估有关的裁决增加有关，并且只有当诉讼人不参加诉讼时，最初的吸引力才与公正性正相关。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。