William G. Austin

Internal standards revisited: Effects of social comparisons and expectancies on judgments of fairness and satisfaction

Abstract Two studies examined the effect of two comparison processes on perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. Rewards relative to others (social comparison) and relative to expectancies (expectancy comparison) were orthogonally varied while absolute level of reward was held constant. Both studies showed, contrary to previous theory, that only social comparisons are related to perceived fairness, yet both comparisons are significantly related to satisfaction in an additive manner. Social comparisons explained more variation in satisfaction and dominated responses to more specific measures of affect. Partial support for specific predictions derived from equity theory and expectancy theory are reported. The overall results are interpreted as demonstrating the importance of the salience of frames of reference in reward evaluation. Estabilished practices create expectations, and since men have traditionally received greater rewards than women for the same services, they expect disproportionate rewards and tend to be disappointed if they do not get them. But these expectations have nothing to do with investments, and neither are they rooted in a conception of justice. ( Blau, 1964, p. 195)

Friendship and Fairness Effects of Type of Relationship and Task Performance on Choice of Distribution Rules

Individuals involved in a continuous relationship (college roommates) and strangers allocated rewards for a task under conditions of either high or low performance. It was predicted and found that roomates would overlook differences in merit and choose an equality distribution rule, whereas strangers would choose equality when they performed poorly and merit when they excelled. Results are interpreted in terms of the important situation-defining effect of type of relationship.

Equity and the Law: The Effect of a Harmdoer's “Suffering in the Act” on Liking and Assigned Punishment

Publisher Summary This chapter reviews equity theory concerning its possible usefulness in illuminating the legal process and presents some preliminary research findings. It discusses the four propositions of the equity theory: individuals will try to maximize their outcomes; groups can maximize collective reward by evolving accepted systems for “equitably” apportioning rewards and costs among members; when individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they become distressed; and individuals who discover they are in an inequitable relationship attempt to eliminate their distress by restoring equity. Equity theory deals with mens perceptions of fairness and justice. It seems reasonable to suppose that mens perceptions should have some impact on their judicial decisions. The application of equity principles enables judges to consider mitigating circumstances (i.e., inputs) in handing down sentences (i.e., outcomes). The chapter considers the equity theory and the law from perspective of the harmdoer, the victim, or an impartial observer.

The Investigation Component in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Abstract Part of the data gathering and analysis in any parenting time evaluation involves investigation into sources of information that provide a factual basis for measuring key factors. However, this investigative function of the child custody evaluator has not been systematically described. In this article, investigative data collection is discussed in terms of holding a discriminating and skeptical eye in reviewing sources of information. The need to conduct forensic “detective work” and factfinding is discussed. The importance of the investigative mindset for the evaluator is to increase the completeness and accuracy of measurement of key variables, which increases the validity and accuracy of predictions on child developmental outcomes for the court.

Forensic Expert Roles and Services in Child Custody Litigation: Work Product Review and Case Consultation

Courts determining the best interests of children in custody disputes frequently request help from mental health experts. This article addresses the three expert services typically provided to the court (evaluator, reviewer, and instructor) as well as the trial consultation services offered to attorneys for the parties. After noting recent developments in scientific methodology and processes that evaluators use to inform and instruct the court, we examine the work product review and consultation services that have emerged to help the court understand the scientific relevance and reliability of the evaluators work product. But reviewers, instructional experts, and consultants are retained by attorneys, not the court. Ethical reviewers and consultants remain objective and loyal to the data and facts of the case. While others have suggested ethical and professional standards based upon “role” designations, we advocate for recognizing the overlapping nature of these four services and argue that reducing these services to their “role” obfuscates the complexity and multiple facets within each service. Establishing best practices and minimum standards should revolve around the experts loyalty to the data, the ability to develop opinions based upon this factual basis, and the ability to resist pressures that bias or distort this process.

Psychological and Legal Considerations in Reviewing the Work Product of a Colleague in Child Custody Evaluations

This article has three primary objectives: 1) to examine what the authors believe are some important psycholegal and ethical considerations for work product reviews of a child custody evaluation; 2) to make suggestions to custody evaluators and retained reviewers to incorporate the concept of “helpfulness to the court” as a fundamental, guiding principle; and 3) to offer some suggestions about how and why a custody evaluator might derive some positive value from a competent and ethical review of his or her work product. The role of a reviewer of the work product of the courts appointed child custody evaluator is becoming more common in custody litigation. The functions and ethics of this evolving role are discussed. The inherent tension between a retained reviewers obligation to provide ethical and helpful testimony to the court, while in the role of a retained expert, is examined. The psychological perspectives of both evaluator and reviewer are presented. This article discusses the commonly held, but erroneous, belief that a psychologist (as a retained reviewer) has an ethical duty to discuss his/her concerns with the psychologist whose work was reviewed. The legal and ethical reasons why the APA ethics code (2002) does not apply to review work are presented.

Response to Amundson, Lux and Hindmarch: Critique of Investigative Practices Article

ABSTRACT This article responds to a commentary by Amundson, Lux and Hindmarch (2005), in which they offer a pejorative criticism about our article (Austin & Kirkpatrick, 2004) in which we described the investigative component within comprehensive child custody evaluations–something they label as “maximalist” evaluations and contrast with a model they prefer called the “minimalist” approach. We believe our approach to custody evaluations is in keeping with the current standard of practice and professional guidelines.

Parental gatekeeping forensic model and child custody evaluation: Social capital and application to relocation disputes

ABSTRACT The parental gatekeeping, forensic evaluation model for child custody evaluators and other family court practitioners is presented. Gatekeeping refers to the ability of each parent to support the other parent–child relationships. The gatekeeping concept represents a common best interest statutory factor. Patterns or subtypes of gatekeeping are defined: facilitative, restrictive, and protective. A justification analysis is required when a parent is not supportive and/or restrictive on the other parent’s access to the child. The restrictive parent needs to identify the reasons for being restrictive/protective and show the nature of the harm. Relevant research is reviewed on joint parental involvement and gatekeeping. The gatekeeping model is applied to the context of relocation disputes. Relocation is framed as restrictive gatekeeping and the child custody relocation analysis is presented as a justification analysis in terms of the facts, context, reasons for moving, advantages/disadvantages, and legal factors that need to be assessed and considered.