Preference for the Merit Principle Scale: An Individual Difference Measure of Distributive Justice Preferences

The present paper describes the development and validation of the Preference for the Merit Principle (PMP) Scale, a measure to assess people's preference for allocating outcomes on the basis of the distributive justice principle of merit. On the basis of data from a large sample of undergraduate students, we tested the construct and predictive validity of the scale and compared the results with the performance of two existing justice scales (Rasinski's, 1987, Proportionality Scale, and Rubin and Peplau's, 1975, Belief in a Just World Scale). Overall, we found that the PMP Scale had superior construct validity as compared with the Proportionality Scale. In brief, the PMP Scale was more independent of conceptually distinct constructs, such as prejudice and right-wing authoritarianism. In addition, unlike the Proportionality and Just World Scales, the PMP Scale was able to predict participants' future attitudes toward affirmative action     

The Effect of Distributive Justice on Willingness to Pay for Municipality Child Care: An Extension of the GEF Hypothesis

Public-goods dilemmas are characterized by conflicts between self-interest and the welfare of a group or society at large. Research has identified several factors that enhance cooperation in such dilemmas. However, less is known about how concern for distributive justice affects willingness to contribute in asymmetric public-goods dilemmas. To test the hypothesis that contributions to a common resource is related to perceived fairness, experiments were performed to investigate willingness to pay to the social service of child care in hypothetical societies. Experiment 1 aimed at replicating a previous survey study (Biel et al., 1997). Experiments 2 and 3 were extensions. In all three experiments subjects were asked to indicate how fair they considered different distributions of the quality of child care provided by their municipality. These distributions corresponded to the principles of equality, equity, and need. University students (32, 48, and 32 in the three experiments, respectively) served as subjects. Ratings of perceived fairness were positively related to willingness to pay. Other factors also positively related to willingness to pay included ability to pay, personal need, expected payment from others, and the number of households who had to contribute in order to maintain the quality. Furthermore, decreasing municipality size increased willingness to pay.     

Book Review: Considering Social Justice: A Review of David Miller's Principles of Social Justice

Miller's volume is a useful, thorough, and innovating overview of the subject of social justice. It inspires three lines of critical response. The first involves the symbiotic role of philosophy and empirical inquiry in the analysis of justice. The second involves the qualities of opportunity that ought to underlie justice. Finally, there are a few lessons regarding the status of justice in the overall evaluation of society that can be learned from the case of the United States, which has an anomalously bad record with respect to distributive justice. The centrality of politics is one of the implications of the analysis.     

Equality and differentiation: Effects of group structure on allocations

Two studies using vignettes explore some conditions under which equity, equality, and need as allocation rules are taken into account by an outside allocator. Independent variables include information about success or failure of a work group, level of morale of the group, relative contributions of work group members, responsibility for outcome, and influence of one individual on others. Results suggest that differentiation based on both equity and need results from a focus on individual deserving while equality among status equals results from focus on group level factors. An interaction between outcome and contribution appears when group level factors are included; these effects also appear when there are two rather than only one target person differing from the rest of a group; an overreward effect depends on attributions of responsibility for outcome; and an influential member is seen as deserving even if a low contributor. No gender differences were found.     

Distributive Justice and the Allocation of Costs,Losses, and Profits

In an experimental study, participants read a scenario about five business partners who sold plants at a flea market. Each partner obtained a different outcome and still had to pay the costs of the partnership. Participants either had to indicate what they considered to be a fair distribution of the costs (given each individual partner's earnings) or what they considered to be a fair distribution of the net results (the total outcome minus the costs). The total outcome was either higher or lower than the costs (i.e., the enterprise resulted in a net profit or a net loss). The results indicate that fairness judgments are affected by the target of distribution. Negative outcomes are distributed differently than positive outcomes, and within the domain of negative outcomes, marked differences are observed between costs and net losses. The results are explained in terms of the differential salience of the distribution of the net result.     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

Relational Justice in Organizations: The Group-Value Model and Support for Change

This paper examines the psychological dynamics of the Group-Value Model for a behavioral orientation which has seldom been considered in the social justice literature: acceptance and support for change. A field study was conducted, with 176 participants members of an organization which was undergoing a change process. Participants were asked (a) to think of a specific relevant conflict situation with their supervisor; (b) to evaluate supervisor's behavior in that situation, with respect to relational and distributive justice; (c) to state the justice aspects most valued in conflict situations with their supervisor. A test of the model was conducted through a mediation analysis. According to the Group-Value Model (GVM), respect experienced within the group and pride in the group were mediating variables between justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change in the organization. Interactional and procedural aspects (relational judgements) were the only ones to predict pride, respect, and behavioral orientation, and were also the ones most valued in general conflict situations with the supervisor. The model was also tested at three different levels of analysis: organization as a whole, department, and work group. This confirmed pride and respect within the group as mediating variables between relational justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change at the department and workgroup levels.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

Using nationally representative data, we test three theories about distributive and procedural justice and their relation to job satisfaction. Our results support the group-value model more than the personal outcomes model by showing that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than is distributive justice. Furthermore, although other research has supported the psychological contract model by showing that experiences with downsizing alter how procedural justice and distributive justice are related to organizational commitment, we find that downsizing does not alter their relationship with job satisfaction.     

An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice: Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the integration of distributive and procedural justice in positive and negative outcome allocations. The framework consists of seven basic assumptions, seven propositions, and seven groups of interrelated hypotheses. The expected outcome offers a coherent program for future justice research based on the realization that distributive and procedural aspects of fairness cannot be meaningfully treated (1) in isolation from one another, and (2) without taking into account the valence of the allocated outcome. The framework should also reveal the need to reassess existing distributive and procedural justice study conclusions that neglected to examine the interactive effects of the allocation outcome (distribution) and the procedure and the outcome valence.     

Justice on the road to change in the people's republic of China

Dengist reform programs, including mandated changes in the operation of Chinese industrial enterprises, depart radially from previous Maoist practices and ideologies. With these changes, issues of distributive justice have become extremely salient in China. We explore shifting norms regarding distributive justice in China, with a focus on the conceptions of, and implications for, practicing managers. After first reviewing the pertinent literature, we present some original data gathered from Chinese managers in 1986 and in 1989, comparing them to data gathered from managers in the United States.     

Privacy and procedural justice in organizations

This paper advances the argument that individual privacy is a procedural justice issue in organizations. A review of the organizational privacy literature supports this argument, and new directions for procedural justice research are suggested. In addition, it is argued that a focus on individual privacy highlights the political and paradoxical implications of procedural justice issues in organizations.     

Managing Equality in Social Dilemmas: Emotional and Retributive Implications

The equality rule is an important coordination rule in symmetric public good dilemmas. Although prior research emphasized that people use the equality rule out of efficiency concerns (as it helps to obtain the public good in the most efficient manner among group members), it may also reflect a true preference for fairness. More precisely, research examining emotional and retributive reactions as a result of a violation of the equality rule by a fellow group member showed that equality indeed is related to people’s personal values and what they consider to be fair. The present paper suggests that a violation of the equality rule results in emotional reactions, and these emotional experiences encourage further retributive actions. The different reactions following an equality violation are described as a function of three features: (1) the motives to use equality, (2) attributions for explaining the violation, and (3) the honesty of the given explanation. The write-up of this paper was partly supported by GOA/05/04 from the Research Fund of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The research and write-up was supported by a fellowship of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 016.005.019), awarded to the second author.     

Distributive Justice and Attitudes Toward the Welfare State

Current debates concerning the viability of the welfare state evoke the question of the social bases of support of the welfare state. Past research has documented fairly consistent relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes toward welfare policies. Yet, the nature of these relationships is not well understood. In the paper we argue that the level of support for the welfare state is largely determined by the principles of distributive justice espoused by individuals as well as their images of society. We develop a theoretical framework, which outlines the structural relationship between social attributes, principles of justice, perceived conflict, and support for the welfare state. Using data from a recent population survey on the legitimation of inequality, conducted in Israel in 1999 (N = 1057), we test a number of hypotheses. For the empirical analysis we use structural equation modeling with multiple indicators. Our findings reveal substantial support for policies aimed at reducing inequality. At the same time we find strong support for rewards according to merit and unequal earnings distribution. The impact of social attributes on attitudes toward the welfare state is partially mediated by the justice principles and images of society.     

New directions in social stratification and income distribution: Introduction

The contributors to this special issue address important problems in the area of social stratification and income distribution. More specifically, Van der Sar and Van Praag offer a solution to the problem of measuring the relative importance of a social position by referring to the individual utility function. Hermkens and Boerman test hypotheses derived from functionalist and marxist theory concerning the degree of value consensus associated with the differential allotment of income and prestige to social positions. Shepelak points to the effects of a prevailing system of norms and values — beliefs about meritocracy, fair shares and opportunity — on the equalization of incomes. Arts and Van Wijck study social constraints to income equalization and focus on the inadequacy of decision-making processes and imperfect implementation of decisions. In the final contribution to this issue, Jasso examines the behavioral and social consequences of the simultaneous operation of two distinct considerations on courses of action: the individual's own well-being and the societal common good.     

A Taxonomy of Normative and Empirically Oriented Theories of Distributive Justice

The study proposes a taxonomy that maps and organizes various normative (ought) and empirically oriented (is) theories of distributive justice, with the aim of examining possible relations between these two research traditions. The taxonomy distinguishes between theories according to two shared dimensions of content: (a) microjustice versus macrojustice principles and (b) the unidimensional versus multidimensional character of these principles. The combination of these dimensions yields four groups of theories of distributive justice: unidimensional macro (the utilitarian approach); multidimensional macro (Rawls' theory of justice); unidimensional micro (desert and equity theories); and multidimensional micro (Miller's theory and the multiprinciple approach). A fifth group of hybrid theories is identified (including Walzer's and Jasso's theory of justice), which is built upon the layers of the other taxonomy cells, combining elements of macro- and microjustice and emphasizing the multidimensional character of distributive justice. The analysis revealed that the empirical and normative traditions have much in common. In certain cases, as with the utilitarian approach and Rawls' theory, empirical research has sought correspondence between the ought and the is. In other cases, such as with equity theory and the multiprinciple approach, it has used some basic normative ideas and assumptions as its starting point. Nevertheless, these research traditions often develop in parallel ways without sufficient mutual recognition or interaction. The study concludes by considering possible exchanges that may develop between these two traditions, examining to what extent and how philosophical–normative and empirically oriented research can contribute to one another.     

Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events

This study utilized a justice framework to investigate punished subordinates' attitudinal reactions to specific disciplinary events. Results suggested that personality variables (negative affectivity and belief in a just world) influenced subordinate perceptions of the disciplinary event. In addition, belief in a just world had a direct effect on satisfaction with the supervisor, intention to leave, and organizational commitment. Contrary to expectations, harshness (a distributive aspect of the event) influenced perceptions of procedural justice and attitudes toward the institution (organizational commitment) and the leader (trust in supervisor), in addition to its influence on perceptions of distributive justice. The influence of procedural aspects of the event on attitudinal outcomes varied by dependent variable. The implications for future research and for management are discussed.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.