PSYCHOLOGIE PRO PRAXI

PSYCHOLOGIE PRO PRAXI

Psychologie pro praxi chce navázat na cennou tradici předchozího odborného časopisu Psychologie v ekonomické praxi s tím, že nabízí prostor pro publikování původních příspěvků z psychologie i příbuzných disciplín. Preferovány jsou tyto základní obory: psychologie pedagogická a školní, psychologie práce a organizace, psychologie sociální a vývojová, psychologie zdraví a klinická psychologie. Vítány jsou příspěvky, které se zabývají studiem psychologických témat v rámci různých aplikovaných oblastí či napříč kulturami.

PSYCHOLOGIE PRO PRAXI, Vol 54 No 2 (2019), 9–23

Spravedlnost pohledem forenzní psychologie a možnosti jejího měření v českém prostředí

[Justice from the point of view of forensic psychology and the possibilities of its measurement in the Czech environment]

Jan Jaroš, Eva Höschlová

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366486.2021.1
zveřejněno: 23. 03. 2021

Abstract

This paper is based on the one of the author’s diploma thesis defended at the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in 2019. The main objective is to present forensic psychology research, especially the research focused on the perception of justice in legally regulated decision-making procedures. Due to the absence of domestic sources, the main attention is focused on foreign research. Finally, it is the ambition of the presented paper to contribute to the professional discussion on the relevant topic within the Czech psychological community. The empirical part presents the newly developed Questionnaire of Perceived Justice in Mediation (DVSM), it’s creating stages and limitations. Also, another research activity of the authors is presented, in which the limitation of DVSM are addressed.

Klíčová slova: forensic psychology; justice; procedural justice; legal psychology

reference (60)

1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an Understanding of Inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. CrossRef

2. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. CrossRef

3. Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A. & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the Work-place: The Role of Organizational Injustice. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 947-965. CrossRef

4. Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, Formal, and Distributive Justice in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656. CrossRef

5. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85-112), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

6. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional Justice: Communications Criteria of Fairness. In R. Lewitzki (Ed.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (pp. 43-55), Jai Press.

7. Boukalová, H. & Gillernová, I. (2020). Kapitoly z forenzní psychologie, Karolinum.

8. Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations A Meta-analysis. Organizational CrossRef

9. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.

10. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. CrossRef

11. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. CrossRef

12. Cropanzano, R. & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and Distributive Justice are More Similar Than You Think: A Monistic Perspective and a Research Agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in Organizational justice (pp. 119-151), Stanford University Press.

13. Česká advokátní komora. (2005). Počet českých advokátů stale roste především díky absolventům. https://www.cak.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=487.

14. Český statistický úřad. (2011). Tab. 600 Obyvatelstvo podle ekonomické aktivity, pohlaví, věku a podle rodinného stavu. https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20534540/obcr600.pdf/f4b623af-697e-4d04-9040-7c396e101d93?version=1.0.

15. Čírtková, L. (2004). Forenzní psychologie. Aleš Čeněk.

16. De Girolamo, D. (2019). The Mediation Process: Challenges to Neutrality and the Delivery of Procedural Justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(4), 834-855. CrossRef

17. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, Equality, and Need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of CrossRef

18. Distributive Justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137-149.

19. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. Yale University Press.

20. Důvodová zpráva k zákonu o mediaci. (2011). http://forarb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/zakon-o-mediaci-duvodova-zprava.pdf.

21. Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, M., C., Sbarra, D., A. & Dillon, P. (2001). Child Custody Mediation and Litigation: Custody, Contact, and Coparenting 12 Years After Initial Dispute Resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 323-332. CrossRef

22. Greenberg, J. (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22. CrossRef

23. Greenberg, J. (1988). Cultivating an Image of Justice: Looking Fair on the Job. The Academy of Management EXECUTIVE, 2(2), 155-157. CrossRef

24. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432. CrossRef

25. Greenberg, J. (1993). The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational

26. Justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp.79-103). Erlbaum.

27. Hollander-Blumoff, R. (2017). Formation of Procedural Justice Judgments in Legal Negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(1), 19-43. CrossRef

28. Hollander-Blumoff, R. & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential. Law & Social Inquiry, 33(2), 473-500. CrossRef

29. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace & World.

30. Jaroš, J. (2019). Postoje některých zástupců veřejnosti k mediaci se zaměřením na férovost a vnímanou spravedlnost [Diplomová práce]. Univerzita Karlova.

31. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

32. Kernan, M. C. & Hanges, P. J. (2002). Survivor Reactions to Reorganization: Antecedents and Consequences of Procedural, Interpersonal, and Informational Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916-928. CrossRef

33. Kitzmann, K., M., & Emery, R. E. (1993). Procedural Justice and Parentsʼ Satisfaction in a Field Study of Child Custody Dispute Resolution. Law and Human Behavior, 17(5), 553-567. CrossRef

34. Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum. CrossRef

35. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. & de Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224-251. CrossRef

36. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 91-131. CrossRef

37. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. In K. J. Gergen (Ed.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). Plenum. CrossRef

38. Maine Statistical Analysis Center. (2017). 2017 Court Access & Fairness Survey Resport. http://justiceresearch.usm.maine.edu/files/2018/05/2017_Court_Access_and_Fairness_Survey_Report-1tpod2e.pdf.

39. Meares, T. L., Tyler, T. R. & Gardener, J. (2016). Lawful or Fair?: How Cops and Laypeople Perceive Good Policing. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Law, 105(2), 297-344.

40. Mikula, G., Petrik, B. & Tanzer, N. (1990). What People Regard as Unjust: Types and Structures of Everyday Experiences of Injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133-149. CrossRef

41. Ministerstvo spravedlnosti ČR. (2018). České soudnictví 2017: Výroční statistická zpráva. https://www.justice.cz/documents/12681/719244/2017_vyrocni_stat_zprava.pdf/27ba4524-49cb-4744-b834-2c6812f13e5d.

42. Ministerstvo spravedlnosti ČR. (2019). Seznam mediátorů. http://mediatori.justice.cz/MediatorPublic/Public /FR003_ZverejneniVybranychUdaju.aspx.

43. National Center for State Courts. (2005). Access and Fairness. http://www.courtools.org/~/media/Microsites /Files/CourTools/CourTools%20Measure%201%20-%20Access%20and%20Fairness.ashx.

44. Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556. CrossRef

45. Polišenská, V. A. (2019a). Forenzní psychologie: teorie a praxe. Vysoká škola finanční a správní.

46. Polišenská, V. A. (2019b). Forenzní psychologie v české psychologické literatuře - náhled do historie do začátku druhé světové války. E-psychologie, 13(1), 32-47. CrossRef

47. Pruitt, D. G., McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L., & Castrianno, L. M. (1993). Long-Term Success in Mediation. Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 313-330. CrossRef

48. Rottman, D. B., & Tyler, T.R. (2014). Thinking about Judges and Judicial Performance. Onati Socio-legal Series, 4(5), 1046-1070.

49. Sivasubramaniam, D. & Heuer, L. (2007). Decision Makers and Decision Recipients: Understanding Disparities in the Meaning of Fairness. Court Review, 44(1/2), 62-70.

50. Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H. & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What Factors Enhance their Perceived Adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3), 346-368. CrossRef

51. Sweeney, P. D. & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workersʼ Evaluations of the Ends and the "Means": An Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23-40. CrossRef

52. Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

53. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2010). Nudge (šťouch): Jak postrčit lidi k lepšímu rozhodování o zdraví, majektu a štěstí. Kniha Zlín.

54. Trinkner, R., Tyler, T. R. & Goff, P. A. (2016). Justice From Within: The Relations Between a Procedurally Just Organizational Climate and Police Organizational Efficiency, Endorsement of Democratic Policing, and Officer Well-being. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22, 158-172. CrossRef

55. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The Psychology of Procedural Justice: A Test of the Group-value Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830-838. CrossRef

56. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117-125. CrossRef

57. Tyler, T. R. (2007). Procedural Justice and the Courts. Court Review, 44(1/2), 26-31.

58. Tyler, T. R. (2017a). Can the Police Enhance Their Popular Legitimacy Through Their Conduct?: Using Empirical Research to Inform Law. University of Illinois law review, 2017(5), 1971-2008.

59. Tyler, T. R. (2017b). Procedural Justice and Policing: A Rush to Judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 29-53. CrossRef

60. Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. & MacCoun, R. (2015). The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75-109. CrossRef

Creative Commons License
Spravedlnost pohledem forenzní psychologie a možnosti jejího měření v českém prostředí is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

157 x 230 mm
vychází: 2 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 80 Kč
ISSN: 1803-8670
E-ISSN: 2336-6486

Ke stažení