skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025968acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Factors in Fairness and Emotion in Online Case Resolution Systems

Published: 02 May 2017 Publication History

Abstract

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.

References

[1]
Gerald G. Ashdown and Michael A. Menzel. 2002. Convenience of the Guillotine: Video Proceedings in Federal Prosecutions, The. Denv. UL Rev. 80, 63.
[2]
John H. Barton. 1975. Behind the legal explosion. Stanford Law Review, 567--584.
[3]
France Bélanger and Lemuria Carter. 2009. The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM 52, 132--132.
[4]
Nathan Bomey. 2015. Traffic court goes digital: Start-up fosters settlements. Retrieved August 9, 2016 from http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2015/03/1 5/court-innovations-university-of-michigan-law-school-spinoff/24447787/
[5]
Rebecca Brennan. 2011. Mismatch. com: Online Dispute Resolution and Divorce. Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 13, 197.
[6]
Maximilian A. Bulinski and J.J. Prescott. 2016. Online Case Resolution Systems: Enhancing Access, Fairness, Accuracy, and Efficiency. Michigan Journal of Race & Law 21, 205.
[7]
Kevin Burke, Steve Leben and Procedural Fairness. 2008. Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction. Court Review 44, 4.
[8]
Chao-Min Chiu, Hua-Yang Lin, Szu-Yuan Sun and Meng-Hsiang Hsu. 2009. Understanding customers' loyalty intentions towards online shopping: an integration of technology acceptance model and fairness theory. Behaviour & Information Technology 28, 4: 347--360.
[9]
Jason A. Colquitt, Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher O. L. H. Porter and K. Yee Ng. 2001. Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 3: 425--445.
[10]
Fred D. Davis. 2011. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3: 319--340.
[11]
Alan R. Dennis and Susan T Kinney. 1998. Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research 9, 3: 256--274.
[12]
Lynn Dombrowski, Gillian R. Hayes and Melissa Mazmanian. 2014. E-Government Intermediaries and the Challenges of Access and Trust. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 2: 1--22.
[13]
Anthony G. Greenwald and Linda Hamilton Krieger. 2006. Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review 94, 4: 945--967.
[14]
Meredith Johnson Harbach. 2012. Outsourcing Childcare. Yale JL & Feminism 24, 254.
[15]
Mike Harding, Bran Knowles, Nigel Davies and Mark Rouncefield. 2015. HCI, Civic Engagement & Trust. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15), 2833--2842.
[16]
Eszter Hargittai. 2008. An Update on Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy. Social Science Computer Review 27, 1: 130--137.
[17]
Michael E. Heintz. 2001. Digital Divide and Courtroom Technology: Can David Keep Up with Goliath, The. Fed. Comm. LJ 54, 567.
[18]
Natalie Helbig, J. R. Gil-García and Enrico Ferro. 2009. Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly 26, 1: 89--97.
[19]
Shin-Yuan Hung, Chia-Ming Chang and Ting-Jing Yu. 2006. Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly 23, 1: 97--122.
[20]
M. Ethan Katsh. 1995. Dispute resolution in cyberspace. Conn. L. Rev. 28, 953.
[21]
Stephanie Kimbro. 2013. Using Technology to Unbundle in the Legal Services Community. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Occasional Paper Series, February.
[22]
Stephanie Kimbro. 2015. Increasing online engagement between the public and the legal profession with gamification. SSRN, 1--30.
[23]
Rene Kizilcec. 2016. How Much Information? Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16).
[24]
Legal Design Lab. 2016. Hack for justice: a design sprint to make Callifornia's criminal justice system more user-friendly. Retrieved August 9, 2016 from http://www.legaltechdesign.com/hack-for-justice-write -up/-1
[25]
Melissa Labriola. 2013. Innovation in the Criminal Justice System. Center for Court Innovation.
[26]
Robert Bennett Lubic. 2004. Reducing costs and inconveniences in international commercial arbitration and other forms of alternative resolution through online dispute resolution. The American Review of International Arbitration 15: 507--639.
[27]
Hara Noriko and Rob Kling. 2007. Information Technology Support for Communities of Practice: How Public Defenders Learn about Winning and Losing in Court. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 1: 76--87.
[28]
Gary M. Olson and Judith S. Olson. 2000. Distance matters. Human-computer interaction 15, 2: 139--178.
[29]
Judith S. Olson and Stephanie Teasley. 1996. Groupware in the wild: Lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '96), 419--427.
[30]
Charles Owen and Ronald Staudt. 2004. Access to justice: meeting the needs of self-represented litigants. Pearson Custom Publication
[31]
Ronald W. Staudt and Paula L. Hannaford. 2002. Access to Justice for the Self-Represented Litigant : An Interdisciplinary Investigation by Designers and Lawyers. Syracuse L. Rev., 52, 1017.
[32]
John Thibaut and Laurens Walker. 1978. A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 541--566.
[33]
Tom R. Tyler. 1988. What is procedural justice? criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review 1, 103--135.
[34]
Tom R. Tyler. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 5: 830--838.
[35]
Tom R. Tyler. 2000. Social Justice : Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35, 2: 117--125.
[36]
Amy Voida, Lynn Dombrowski, Gillian R. Hayes and Melissa Mazmanian. 2014. Shared Values / Conflicting Logics : Working Around E - Government Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 3583--3592.
[37]
Sivaporn Wangpipatwong, Wichian Chutimaskul and Borworn Papasratorn. 2008. Understanding Citizen's Continuance Intention to Use e- Government Website : a Composite View of Technology Acceptance Model and Computer Self-Efficacy. The Electronic Journal of e-government 6, 1: 55--64.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Making Human Resource Management Decisions on Fairness: A Case of Resume ScreeningSustainability10.3390/su1609384016:9(3840)Online publication date: 2-May-2024
  • (2024)Why the Fine, AI? The Effect of Explanation Level on Citizens' Fairness Perception of AI-based Discretion in Public AdministrationsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642535(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of incomeLaw & Society Review10.1111/lasr.1265357:2(189-213)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Factors in Fairness and Emotion in Online Case Resolution Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2017
    7138 pages
    ISBN:9781450346559
    DOI:10.1145/3025453
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 02 May 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. courts
    2. cscw
    3. e-government
    4. fairness
    5. judicial systems
    6. justice
    7. procedural justice

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHI '17
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 600 of 2,400 submissions, 25%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI 2025
    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)75
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
    Reflects downloads up to 15 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Replacing Humans in Making Human Resource Management Decisions on Fairness: A Case of Resume ScreeningSustainability10.3390/su1609384016:9(3840)Online publication date: 2-May-2024
    • (2024)Why the Fine, AI? The Effect of Explanation Level on Citizens' Fairness Perception of AI-based Discretion in Public AdministrationsProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642535(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • (2024)Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of incomeLaw & Society Review10.1111/lasr.1265357:2(189-213)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
    • (2024)Public perceptions of remote courts and equal access: who prefers remote video proceedings and why?Current Issues in Criminal Justice10.1080/10345329.2024.230597937:1(94-110)Online publication date: 25-Jan-2024
    • (2023)The Limits and Dangers of Self Help: A Field Experiment in an Arizona Housing CourtSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4426678Online publication date: 2023
    • (2023)When Biased Humans Meet Debiased AI: A Case Study in College Major RecommendationACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems10.1145/361131313:3(1-28)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Addressing Interpersonal Harm in Online Gaming Communities: The Opportunities and Challenges for a Restorative Justice ApproachACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/360362530:6(1-36)Online publication date: 25-Sep-2023
    • (2022)Comparing the Perceived Legitimacy of Content Moderation Processes: Contractors, Algorithms, Expert Panels, and Digital JuriesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35129296:CSCW1(1-31)Online publication date: 7-Apr-2022
    • (2022)Do Humans Prefer Debiased AI Algorithms? A Case Study in Career RecommendationProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3490099.3511108(134-147)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2022
    • (2022)The Role of Digital Transformation in Fostering Transparency: An e-Court System Case StudyThe Role of Digital Technologies in Shaping the Post-Pandemic World10.1007/978-3-031-15342-6_17(219-230)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media