Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real-life disadvantage

The study investigates the construct validity of a self-report questionnaire for dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice (SBI; Schmitt, Neumann, and Montada, 1995). The items of this questionnaire are combinations of four indicators of SBI (frequency of perceived injustice, intensity of anger, intrusiveness/perseverance of thoughts about the event, punitivity) with 18 types of unfair situations (e.g., performing better than others without getting any appreciation or reward). At Occasion 1, SBI, trait anger, anger in, anger out, anger control, self-assertiveness, and attitudes toward equality were measured. At Occasion 2, the subjects (57 advanced psychology students) took part in a lottery for distributing scarce teaching resources among students. The lottery led to objective advantages for some students and to objective disadvantages for others. Four reactions to the event were measured at Occasion 3: judgment of the lottery as injust, anger about the lottery, experiencing the lottery as demotivating, and approval of activities against the lottery. These reactions were regressed on the variables measured at Occasion 1. SBI was the only significant predictor of the justice judgment and the approval of activities. Anger about the lottery depended only on objective disadvantage/advantage. Experiencing the lottery as demotivating depended negatively on anger control and positively on the intrusiveness/perseverance of thoughts about the event, a subscale of the SBI inventory.     

Dispositional Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice

Dispositional Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice (SBI) is proposed as a new construct. A self-report questionnaire with four types of indicators (frequency, intensity of anger, intrusiveness of thoughts, punitivity) was developed for measuring SBI. Using structural equation modeling and the general rationale of multitrait-multimethod analysis, the convergent and discriminant validity of this questionnaire was investigated vis-à-vis measures for Trait Anger, Anger In, Anger Out, and Frustration Tolerance as related constructs. Additionally, a meaningful pattern of correlations was obtained between SBI and Life Satisfaction, Centrality of Justice, Interpersonal Trust, and Need for Control. Finally, self-reported sensitivity to befallen injustice was found to predict cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to unjust treatment in laboratory and natural settings several weeks later.     

Equity,equality, and need: A study of the patterns and outcomes associated with their use in intimate relationships

This study examined the extent to which specific justice principles (equity, equality, and need) are associated with different orientations within complex relationships. This contrasts with previous research that has focused on the extent to which justice principle use varies across relationships representing distinctly different goals. Forty-eight men and 60 women were randomly assigned to conditions of equity, equality, or need. Each was asked to describe a recent incident from their own relationship illustrating the principle to which they were assigned. Incidents were coded into one of three domains representing the multiple orientations of intimate relationships. Subjects in the need condition were more likely to describe incidents related to issues of nurturance or personal development, whereas subjects in equity and equality were more likely to describe incidents related to the allocation of responsibilities. Subjects in the equality condition rated their principles as a more desirable basis for decision making in intimate relationships than subjects in either equity or need. Regardless of the relationship domain, subjects in the equality as compared to the equity condition also reported more positive feelings about the decision and themselves as well as more positive and less negative feelings toward their partner.     

Sharing the Fruit of Labor: Flexible Application of Justice Principles in an Ultimatum Game with Joint-Production

Individuals often need to negotiate how to distribute jointly produced goods—equally (e.g., 50:50) or equitably (e.g., proportionally to their contributions). We examined whether people have stable preferences, or whether they switch between equality and equity in different situations. Pairs of anonymous participants first produced a common pie, and then distributed it in an ultimatum game. Results suggest that individuals apply different justice principles depending on their contribution. When they produced less than 50%, proposers divided the pie equally. However, when they produced more than 50%, their offers fell between equality and equity. Responders’ ratings of fairness and satisfaction varied similarly; with low production, equality was preferred, whereas with high production, equity was preferred. Nevertheless, equal and equitable offers were generally accepted, and only outright unfair offers were rejected. This suggests that individuals are relatively flexible about which justice principle should be applied, but punish proposers whose offers violate both principles.     

Cross-Cultural Preferences for Distributive Justice Principles: Resource Type and Uncertainty Management

Drawing on social resource theory, we investigated the evaluation of distributive justice principles in relation to material benefits (monetary rewards in working life) and symbolic benefits (praise at university) in a cross-cultural study. We predicted that the equity principle would be perceived as more just for distributing culturally valued resources, whereas the equality principle would be perceived as more just for resources that are less valued within culture. Moreover, applying uncertainty management theory, we predicted that cross-cultural fairness evaluations would be more pronounced for individuals with higher (vs. lower) uncertainty avoidance or lower (vs. higher) uncertainty tolerance. Data of 608 Canadian and German students were collected in a two-wave survey. As expected, when allocating material benefits Canadians found the equity principle to be more just than did Germans, whereas Germans perceived the equality principle as more just than did Canadians. When allocating symbolic benefits, by contrast, Canadians perceived equality as more just than did Germans, though unexpectedly culture did not influence evaluations of the equity principle. Finally, consistent with uncertainty management theory, some of the cultural differences in the evaluation of distributive principles were more pronounced among people with higher uncertainty avoidance and lower uncertainty tolerance. Implications for cross-cultural research on distributive justice are discussed.     

Political Resistance: A Matter of Fairness

In this paper, I argue that the principle of fairness can license both a duty of fair play, which is used to ground a moral duty to obey the law in just or nearly just societies, and a duty of resistance to unfair and unjust social schemes. The first part of the paper analyzes fairness’ demands on participants in mutually beneficial schemes of coordination, and its implications in the face of injustice. Not only fairness does not require complying with unfair and unjust social schemes, but it also prohibits benefiting from such schemes. I use the case of racial segregation in the U.S. to illustrate this latter argument, and consider some objections to my investigation, given the availability and straightforwardness of justice. The second part of the paper elaborates the argument for the duty to resist. The Radical Reform argument first establishes, by elimination of the alternatives (exit and restitution), that the principal way for citizens to cease benefiting from an unfair and unjust social scheme is to radically reform it. The Resistance Argument then shows that resistance is crucial to bring about reform, so that one ought to resist unfair and unjust schemes from which one benefits. Next, I offer two arguments for collective resistance and political solidarity, one based on empirical considerations and the other based on fairness. Finally, I consider the costs of the resistance efforts which fairness may require.     

System Justification, Satisfaction, and Perceptions of Fairness and Typicality at Work: A Cross-System Comparison Involving the U.S. and Hungary

This research addresses system justification tendencies in the United States and Hungary and their potential to shape reactions to equity–equality tradeoffs in the workplace. Participants in both nations were asked to rate the fairness of, their satisfaction with, and the typicality of four hypothetical work situations. These scenarios differed in terms of which distributive justice principle was violated (equity or equality) and whether the violation favored the participant or the co-worker (self or other). While the mean level of system justification was lower in Hungary than in the U.S., multilevel models revealed that in both societal contexts the motivation to justify the system was associated with participants’ perceptions of justice in the workplace. Based on the characteristics of the two social systems, however, these tendencies played out differently. Specifically, for the U.S. participants system justification was associated with more favorable views of work situations that emphasized equity over equality and that rewarded the self over others, whereas for Hungarian participants system justification was associated with more favorable views of work situations that emphasized equality over equity and that rewarded others over the self. Results also revealed that Americans (but not Hungarians) who scored higher on system justification perceived as fairer that which they perceived as more typical of their society. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that the psychological transfer of legitimacy from socialism to capitalism in Hungary remains incomplete.     

作为“中介”的“复合平等”——沃尔泽对罗尔斯分配正义理论的批判及其限度

沃尔泽认为,罗尔斯通过＂原初状态设置＂所演绎出的＂正义二原则＂只是一种实现通常之＂简单平等＂的分配正义原则,无法解决由诸多领域所构成之社会的分配正义问题。因而基于对西方世界分配现状的观察及其人性观,沃尔泽提出了＂复合平等＂的分配正义理论。事实上,只有罗尔斯的＂正义二原则＂才能有效实现社会的分配正义。因此,沃尔泽的分配正义理论实际上只是深刻理解罗尔斯＂正义二原则＂的＂过渡理论＂或＂中介＂,而不是对后者的根本性超越。     

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

Building and extending on justice theories and work on self-regulation, the current paper proposes a self-activation hypothesis of affective reactions to fair and unfair events, stating that in circumstances in which people’s selves are activated, stronger affective reactions to fair and unfair events are more likely, compared to circumstances in which people’s selves are not or less strongly activated. Findings of two experiments indeed show that simply activating the self (supraliminally or even subliminally) amplifies affective reactions to fair and unfair procedures (Experiment 1) and fair and unfair outcomes (Experiment 2). These findings thus reveal the important role of activation of the self for understanding fairness reactions. In the discussion, we note the relevance of our self-activation hypothesis for insights into different accounts formulated in the justice domain.     

Perceived fairness of drug-testing policies: An application of Leventhal’s principles of procedural justice

Employees rate the fairness of organizational policies by applying principles of distributive and procedural justice. Using Leventhal’s (1980) Principles of Procedural Justice, the current study surveyed 279 upper-level college and graduate students to determine the impact each principle has on support for drugtesting policies. The results support the hypothesis that drug-testing programs that violate these principles are viewed as unfair.     

Fundamental principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights and the applications

Legal principle, which underlies the value of the legal system, is supposed to be the origin and basis of concrete legal rules. It has also resulted from abstracting and summarizing the value and spirit of these legal rules. In light of the universality and hierarchy of legal principle, the principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into the following two types: one is the fundamental principles applied to the what, why and how a legal system shall be constructed, such as principles of sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, joint development, and international cooperation, which also can be expressed as the principles of sovereignty, international coordination and cooperation, fairness and justice. The other type includes those existing in the legal system and capable of being applied directly, such as the principle of national treatment, principle of minimum standard, principle of independence (for industrial property right), principle of independent protection (for copyright), principle of compulsory implementing patent (for patent right) and doctrine of priority (for industrial property right), etc. In my opinion, the principles of the international protection system of IPR shall follow the latter model, indicating that they shall be provided and written in the international conventions on the grounds that they can be applied directly, and that they can be universally applied to the whole international protection system of IPR instead of exclusive application to one certain system. Hereupon, the author believes that principles concerning the international protection system of IPR should include the principles of national treatment, minimum protection standard and public interest.     

论不当得利制度的功能--一种体系化取向的民法学思考

近代民法以公平观念为基础建构了不当得利制度.但不能用公平观念支配不当得利制度的适用.不当得利制度的内在功能为取除受益人无法律上原因而获得的利益,其出发点为受益人是否受有利益,而受益人是否有故意或过失对不当得利的构成没有影响;该制度的外在功能为克服成文法的局限性,体现矫正正义.     

More on Ultimate and Immanent Justice: Results from the Research Project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany”

In earlier studies it was shown that two domain-specific variates of belief in a just world, namely belief in immanent justice and belief in ultimate justice concerning severe illness, differ systematically and significantly. Only immanent justice leads to accusation and derogation of innocent victims while ultimate justice is concordant with positive evaluations of victims and helping behavior. With regard to the research project Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany (GiP, from the German Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem), two new scales were developed for purposes of measuring general belief in immanent and ultimate justice. Using a sample of 929 West Germans and 1,275 East Germans, some of the correlation patterns found in earlier studies could be replicated. For example, immanent justice did correlate with draconian judgments (the proneness to strict and severe judgments), while ultimate justice was associated with mildness. Only ultimate justice correlated with existential guilt about the underprivileged. Beside this confirmation of earlier findings, new correlation patterns were revealed. For example, only immanent justice correlated with the equity principle, whereas ultimate justice corresponded to the need and equality principles.     

经济法的实质正义观及其实现

形式正义和实质正义分别属于近代和现代法律分配权利和义务的价值观念。形式正义是按照绝对平等和自由的原则分配权利和义务,而实质正义则是根据主体身份特征进行倾斜式分配。实质正义不但促进了民法的社会化,而且催生了经济法和社会法的诞生。实质正义首先通过立法环节转化为具体的权利和义务规范及法律责任,其次通过行政和司法机关得以实现。     

The effects of unfair procedure on negative affect and protest

The present study extends earlier research on procedural unfairness by assessing subjects' reactions to a procedural change before they learn about the outcome of the changed procedure. Subjects performed a series of four tests. After three tests, the procedure to calculate the test scores was changed into a procedure that was very inaccurate or slightly inaccurate compared to what subjects had experienced until then. The very inaccurate procedure was judged as more unfair as the slightly inaccurate procedure. As predicted, the unfair procedure raised negative affect and motivated subjects to protest. Implications of the results for procedural justice theory are discussed.     

Procedural Justice,Outcome Favorability and Emotion

This study investigated the effects of procedural justice on discrete emotional responses. Based upon the cognitive appraisal model of emotion, it was argued that the experience of procedural justice (or injustice) allows individuals to derive meaning from favorable and unfavorable allocation decisions. Thus, procedural justice works with outcome favorability to produce a variety of emotional states. These ideas were tested in a laboratory experiment. As predicted, two happiness-related emotions (happiness and joy) and a sadness-related emotion (disappointment) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability. Two anger-related emotions (anger and frustration) were highest when an unfavorable outcome occurred because of an unfair procedure. Higher levels of guilt and anxiety were reported when an unfair procedure resulted in a favorable outcome. Contrary to predictions, a third happiness-related emotion (pride) showed only a main effect for outcome favorability.     

When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?

This study examines the relative importance of six policy outcomes related to different fairness principles for the perceived fairness and acceptability of pricing policies aimed at changing transport behaviour. The fairness and acceptability of six different types of transport pricing policies were systematically higher if policy outcomes were related to environmental justice and equality. The policy measures were evaluated as more acceptable and fair when respondents believed that future generations, nature and the environment were protected (reflecting environmental justice), and to a lesser extent, when everybody was equally affected by the policy outcomes (reflecting equality), irrespective of absolute differences in fairness and acceptability of the policies. Policy outcomes reflecting egoistic concerns (e.g. being financially worse off and being worse off than others) and equity (e.g. proportional to people’s income and contribution to problems) were related to the fairness and acceptability of some policy measures, but no systematic pattern was found across six policy measures. This suggests that policy outcomes related to distributions that focus on collective considerations appear to be more important for the fairness and acceptability of transport pricing policies than those focusing on individual interests. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.     

平等是一门科学——就业歧视法律控制的比较研究

世界上有代表性的几个国家反就业歧视的理论和经验,显示了不同国家在就业平等领域的宪法、立法、行政和司法等诸多方面的努力,其经验和教训足以为解决中国目前普遍存在的形形色色的就业歧视提供有益的借鉴和启示。本文表明,平等不仅是一种崇高的理念,更是一门实实在在的学问。运用在就业领域,各国宪法和立法上的平等原则纠正了职场上五花八门、许许多多的不合理和不公正的歧视。事实上,各国法院所发展出来的鉴别歧视的方法是大同小异的。它们共同构成了一套探测和扫除就业歧视的工具库,帮助我们远离愚昧和偏见,造就一个更为理性、公平和高效的社会。     

WTO下行政补贴的原则探究

WTO下的行政补贴原则应在行政法基本原则的框架下 ,充分吸收WTO基本原则的有关内容 ,并纳入《SCM协定》的有关规定 ,以使其内容具体明确。据此 ,应包括平等原则、比例原则、公开原则、国家辅助作用原则。平等原则着眼于对竞争者公平竞争权的保障 ;比例原则着眼于补贴措施与公益目的之间的均衡 ;补贴公开原则着眼于对行政主体在补贴领域裁量权的程序限制 ;国家辅助作用原则着眼于控制补贴行为的范围和程度