In Turner v. Rogers, the U.S. Supreme Court charged judges with ensuring due process for unrepresented litigants in civil proceedings. We argue that engaged judging overlaps with the group value theory (GVT) criterion of trustworthiness, which along with respect and neutrality typically exert a direct effect on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. However, numerous scholars have claimed that justice judgments stem from deservingness—a theory that poses a considerable contrast to GVT . In a study of New York City Housing Court tenants, most of whom were unrepresented, we examined whether deservingness moderates the impact of perceived treatment on justice judgments such that tenants who do not believe they deserve positive treatment will view such treatment as unfair. Results indicated that, with one exception, perceived treatment exerted a direct effect on various justice judgments as predicted by GVT, but in contrast to deservingness. Tenants were overwhelmingly positive about their housing court experience despite the documented inequalities that exist for most unrepresented litigants in housing court. These findings suggest a discrepancy between tenants’ perceptions and the realities of housing court.

在特纳诉罗杰斯案中，美国最高法院责令法官确保在民事诉讼中对无人代表诉讼人进行正当程序。我们认为，参与式判断与信任的群体价值理论（GVT）准则重叠，该准则连同尊重和中立性通常对公平和满意的感知产生直接影响。但是，许多学者声称，正义的判断源于应得性，这一理论与GVT形成了鲜明的对比。在对纽约市住房法院租户的研究中，其中大多数人无人代理，我们研究了应得程度是否会减轻人们对司法判决的知觉待遇的影响，从而使那些认为自己不应该得到积极待遇的租户将其视为不公平。结果表明，除了一个例外，GVT预测，知觉的治疗会对各种司法判决产生直接影响，但与应得性相反。尽管有证据表明住房法院中大多数无人任职的诉讼人存在不平等现象，但租户对他们的住房法院经验还是非常乐观。这些发现表明房客的看法与住房法院的现实之间存在差异。