Speaking for Themselves: Perceived Procedural Justice Among Self-Represented Litigants in Dutch Small Claims Procedures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62355/ejels.55673Keywords:
informational uncertainty, procedural justice, small claims, self-representationAbstract
This study examines how self-represented litigants perceive procedural justice and trust in Dutch small claims procedures. Using qualitative interviews conducted after real-life court hearings, we examined what respondents mentioned and considered relevant when talking about perceived procedural justice and trust in judges and the Dutch judiciary. Furthermore, because self-represented litigants have limited knowledge of the law and civil procedure, we were interested in whether they would mention issues of informational uncertainty spontaneously during their interviews. Findings show that components of perceived procedural justice are well interrelated and that respondents shared detailed accounts of voice and due consideration particularly. Respondents referred to procedural justice by their opponents often in terms of issues of respect, due consideration and neutrality. Notably, respondents shared accounts of informational uncertainty spontaneously during the interviews, particularly when asked about the accuracy of the judge and trust in the Dutch judiciary. This suggests that self-represented litigants may still have limited information to form procedural justice and trust perceptions, even after court hearings in small claims procedures. These findings highlight the importance of studying procedural justice and trust by means of qualitative studies, letting litigants speak for themselves.References
Ansems, Lisa F. M., Kees Van den Bos, and Elaine Mak. 2020. “Speaking of justice: A qualitative interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in Dutch criminal cases.” Law & Society Review 54 (3): 643-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12499.
Boeije, Hennie. 2010. Analysis in qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Blendon, Robert J., John M. Benson, and Joachim O. Hero. 2014. "Public trust in physicians – U.S. medicine in international perspective." The New England Journal of Medicine 371(17) : 1570-1572. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1406707.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Colquitt, Jason A. 2001. “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386.
Creutzfeldt, Naomi, and Ben Bradford. 2016. “Dispute resolution outside of courts: Procedural Justice and decision acceptance among users of ombuds services in the UK.” Law & Society Review 50 (4): 985-1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.122234.
Cropanzano, Russell, Marion Fortin, and Jessica F. Kirk. 2015. “How do we know when we are treated fairly? Justice rules and fairness judgments.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 33: 279–350, edited by M. Ronald Buckley, Anthony R. Wheeler, and Jonathan R. B. Halbesleben. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120150000033010.
De Mesmaecker, Vicky. 2014. Perceptions of Criminal Justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315885964.
Dutch Judiciary. 2018. Incassozaken. The Hague: Dutch Judiciary Report. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/rapport-incassozaken-Rechtspraak.pdf
Dutch Judiciary. 2019. Doorlooptijden in beweging: Eindrapport project doorlooptijden Rechtspraak. The Hague: Dutch Judiciary Report.
Emery, Lydia F., David M. Silverman, and Rebecca M. Carey. 2023. “Conducting research with people in lower-socioeconomic-status contexts.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 6 (4): https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231193044.
Ellinas, Antonis A. 2023. “The interview method in comparative politics: The process of interviewing far-right actors.” Government and Opposition 58 (4): 661-681. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.58.
Gau, Jacinta M. 2011. “The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: An Empirical Test of Core Theoretical Propositions.” Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (6): 489-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.004.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transactions.
Grieshofer, Tatiana. 2014. “Legal-lay discourse and procedural justice in family and county courts.” In Elements in Forensic Linguistics, edited by Tim Grant and Tracy Gales. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009378031.
Grootelaar, Hilke A. M., and Kees van den Bos. 2018. “How litigants in Dutch courtrooms come to trust judges: The role of perceived procedural justice, outcome favorability, and other sociolegal moderators.” Law & Society Review 52 (1): 234-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12315.
Harry, Beth, Keith M. Sturges, and Janette K. Klingner. 2005. “Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis.” Educational Researcher 34 (2): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034002003.
Janssen, Anne A. A., Kees van den Bos, and Kim G. F. van der Kraats. 2025. “’I Do Not Have an Opinion About That Yet’: Qualitative Research on Perceived Procedural Justice of Self-Represented Litigants in Early Stages of Small Claims Procedures in the Netherlands.” Law and Human Behavior 49 (3): 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000612.
Jolowicz, J. A. 2003. “Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52 (Part 2): 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/52.2.281.
Kramer, Xandra, Ivo Tillema, and Mark L. Tuil. 2014. “De verstekprocedure getoetst: Een empirisch onderzoek naar de verstekprocedure in het licht van het KEI-programma.” Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 22 (1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5553/TCR/092986492014022001001.
Lammers, Joris, Eileen Pauels, Alexandra Fleischmann, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2022. “Why people hate congress but love their own congressperson: An information processing explanation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 48 (3): 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002336.
Lareau, Annette. 2021. Listening to people: A practical guide to interviewing, participant observation, data analysis, and writing it all up. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226806600.001.0001.
Leitch, Jennifer A. 2013. “Looking for quality: the empirical debate in access to justice research.” 31Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 31 (2): 229-255.
Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4.
Lind, E. Allan. March 1992. “The fairness heuristic: Rationality and “relationality” in procedural evaluations.” Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Irvine, CA.
Lind, E. Allan. 2001. “Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations.” In: Advances in organizational justice, edited by Jerald Greenberg and Russell Cropanzano. Stanford University Press.
Liang, Juan, Hongyu Ma, Kees van den Bos, Xiaoring Cheng, Bin Wang, Hengqing Tong, and Xucheng Guo. 2016. “Ease-of-retrieval effects on procedural justice judgements under conditions of informational and personal uncertainty.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 19: 336-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12152.
McKeever, Gráinne, Lucy Royal-Dawson, Eleanor Kirk, and John McCord. 2022. “The snakes and ladders of legal participation: Litigants in person and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Journal of Law and Society 49 (1): 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12344.
Noy, Chaim. 2008. “Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (4): 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2024. OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions: 2024 results – Country notes: Netherlands. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results-country-notes_a8004759-en/netherlands_d71d7263-en.html.
Oishi, Nina L. 2023. “Judging Debt: How Judges’ Practices in Consumer-Credit Court Undermine Procedural Justice.” The Yale Law Journal Forum, 271-304.
Pleasence, Pascoe, and Nigel J. Balmer. 2018. Legal confidence and attitudes to law: Developing standardised measures of legal capability. Pascoe Pleasence.
Statistics Netherlands. 2025. ”Vertrouwen in mensen en in organisaties; persoonskenmerken.” Accessed May 7, 2025. https://www.cbs.nl/nl- nl/cijfers/detail/85533NED.
Storgaard, Asbjørn. 2023. “Access to justice research: On the way to a broader perspective.” Oñati Socio-Legal Series 13 (4): 1209-1238. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1352.
Thibaut, John W., and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
Van den Bos, Kees. 2024. The fair process effect: Overcoming distrust, polarization, and conspiracy thinking. Cambridge University Press.
Van den Bos, Kees 2001. “Uncertainty management: The Influence of Uncertainty Salience on Reactions to Perceived Procedural Fairness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (6): 931-941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.931.
Van den Bos, Kees. 1999. "What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect." Journal of Experimental social psychology 35 (6): 560-577.
Van den Bos, Kees, and E. Allan Lind. 2002. “Uncertainty management by means of fairnessjudgments.” Advances in experimental social psychology, 34: 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80003-X.
Van den Bos, Kees, Henk A. M. Wilke, and E. Allan Lind. 1998. “When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (6): 1449–1458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449.
Van der Kraats, Kim G. F. 2022. Het civiele procesrecht als struikelblok. Boom Juridisch.
Website Dutch Judiciary. 2025. “Dagvaardingsprocedure beginnen bij de kantonrechter.”Accessed on July 10, 2025. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Naar-de-rechter/rechtszaak-beginnen-particulier-of-organisatie/Paginas/dagvaardingsprocedure-beginnen-kantonrechter.aspx#b3629e28-7565-4022-b440-19c8e1758f3947efa6c7-8a98-4cf3-bd8d-4e9cf14eec0185.
Whelan, Chris J. 1990. Small Claims Courts: A comparative study. Oxford University Press.
Zimmerman, Nourit, and Tom R. Tyler. 2010. “Between access to counsel and access to justice: A psychological perspective.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 37 (1): 473–507. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol37/iss1/15.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anne A.A. Janssen, Kees van den Bos, Kim G.F. van der Kraats
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
