Philosophy and the resolution of equality conflicts

This article examines Rowan’s discussion of my earlier paper (Messick, 1995). His warnings about the naturalistic fallacy and self-interest are well taken, but they constitute less serious threats to the usefulness of my suggestions than he indicates.     

Equality,fairness, and social conflict

There are three generic problems that arise in the use of the concept of equality as a principle of fairness. These problems concern (i) determining when equality is appropriate as opposed to some other principle, (ii) deciding how equality is to be operationalized, and (iii) determining how to implement equality. The proposal is made that these intrapersonal decision conflicts are mirrored by social conflicts when multiple interests are involved. This way of looking at social conflicts also suggests some novel ways to approach conflict resolution.     

公平正义是化解社会矛盾的根本原则

重视和做好社会矛盾化解是新时期、新形势下我国的现实要求，也是构建和谐社会的必要条件。社会矛盾实质上是最终受一定社会物质生活条件制约的社会关系、利益关系的矛盾，公平正义则是在这种物质生活条件下基本适合生产力发展要求的、达到一定平衡的从而能为大多数人认同为公平、正义的利益关系。实现社会主义初级阶段的公平正义是预防和化解现阶段我国的社会矛盾的根本原则，完善社会主义法制、厉行法治是实现社会公平正义、预防和化解社会矛盾的根本原则和基本条件。     

Individual and collective justice and injustice: Implications for intergroup conflict

This paper focuses on the combined impact of individual and collective justice and injustice on intergroup conflict. The basic premise is that an adequate understanding of the course of intergroup relations requires knowledge not only about relevant conditions on the intergroup level, but also about the intragroup conditions that might predispose each group to assume a particular type of social orientation. It is assumed that an individual is more dissatisfied when both s/he and her/his group are unjustly treated than when only either one is. The consequences of different combinations of justice and injustice for the individual and his/her group are specified for the intensity of conflict between two groups. Sixteen intergroup scenarios are first derived and rank-ordered, via three assumptions, in terms of how aversive they are likely to be from the perspective of one of two interacting groups. The viewpoints of both groups are then taken into account in an attempt to make predictions about the potential for and intensity of intergroup conflict.     

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.     

Bargaining for justice: A means to resolve competing justice claims

In many types of social situations, individuals defend their claims to a portion of the rewards by arguing that they are just. Although a great deal of research demonstrates that individuals differ in their distribution preferences and thus their beliefs about what is fair, the literature curiously omits consideration of the consequences of these differences, especially the conflict they may engender. This paper first reviews the few attempts to address such justice conflict. The limitations of these approaches suggest concerns to be addressed in an alternative framework. The paper presents a theoretical discussion of this alternative that integrates assumptions about distribution preferences, justice beliefs, conditions fostering the emergence of justice conflict, and elements of negotiation processes as a basic framework for predictions about the bargaining strategies individuals may employ to resolve competing justice claims.     

Just as you like it: How allocators decide in cases of conflict between own and recipients' views of justice

The present study examined how people, who are instructed to make just allocations, decide in situations of conflict when their personal views of what constitutes the appropriate justice standard are partly at variance with the opinions and preferences of the recipients of the allocations. We expected, in line with recent theories, which stress that justice behavior is at least partly motivated by the desire to get one's actions accepted and approved, the allocation decisions to be influenced not only by the allocators' own ideas of what constitutes a just solution but also by the preferences they perceive to exist for the recipients. It was predicted that the likelihood that allocators will abandon their personally preferred justice standards and allocate in accordance to recipients' preferences will increase with increasing numbers of cues suggesting an alternative allocation. Subjects having a strong personal preference for the equality over the equity standard of justice were asked to make just allocations of payments among two workers. Availability vs. lack of explicit information about the recipients' allocation preferences and expectation of future interaction with one of the recipients were used to operationalize differing amounts of pressure exerted on the allocators' decisions. Results showed a considerable readiness on the part of the allocators to abandon their own views of justice, the amount of readiness varying with the amount of pressure that was weighing upon them.     

Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences

A preliminary statement of a theoretical framework integrating psychological and societal determinants of justice in human affairs is presented. It is proposed that the social structure provides the rules of entitlement and decision making that regulate the course of routine social interaction. These societally based norms are representable in people's conscious thought processes. By contrast, the psychologically generated rules of entitlement, typically contradict conventionally accepted rules of thought and discourse and thus remain unconscious. The major part of the discussion considers the motivationally important circumstances that engage the unconscious psychologically compelling determinants and how their appearance in behavior is both shaped and legitimized by the situationally prevailing normative context. The final section considers some of the more important methodological, theoretical, and social policy implications of this social psychological theory of entitlements.     

论刑事诉讼与行政诉讼的冲突及其解决

为解决刑事诉讼中出现的行政问题及行政诉讼中出现的刑事问题,避免行政诉讼与刑事诉讼审理结果的冲突,应将两类诉讼中的相关问题分为本诉附属问题与审判前提问题,允许法院刑事审判庭在特定情况下审理行政问题;在对同一行为究竟应承担刑事责任还是行政责任难以确定时,以“刑事责任优先”为处理原则。     

公平正义价值观的司法解读

保障在全社会实现公平和正义,是我国司法活动和司法改革追求的价值目标。但对公平正义基本内涵的理解和把握影响着司法功能的实现和人们对司法正义的期待。本文结合司法实践的发展现状,对社会正义观在我国的确立及其内涵、司法之于社会的功能定位、司法正义的相对性以及我国通过司法实现正义的制度化途径进行了思考,提出了自己的观点。     

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.     

Power and fairness in negotiations

This paper reports the results of a laboratory experiment on power (specifically, authority) on negotiation process and outcomes. The experiment found that when given a goal to appear fair, high authority negotiators take less of the resources than when not given a goal to appear fair. Furthermore, this paper predicted and found that the relationship between authority imbalance and concern for fairness on negotiation outcomes is a multiplicative relationship. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed within the context of negotiations in intraorganizational relationships.This paper is based on a dissertation by the author, entitled Authority, Dependency, and Fairness in Negotiations. This work was completed while the author was a student at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.     

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.     

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.     

Procedural justice and ethical decision making

Procedural justice, in the form of voice and respectful treatment by supervisor, and ethical decision making are examined in this research. Ethical decision making is hypothesized to be a direct function of moral intent, as indicated by willingness to use moral criteria in decision making. Moral intent is, in turn, expected to be a function of the decision-making context, including perceptions of voice, respect and trust between supervisor and subordinate, and moral climate. Individual moral development is also expected to have a positive effect on moral intent. Results generally support the model, with two exceptions. First, perception of voice has a negative effect on moral intent, while caring climate and respectful supervisory relations have the expected positive effect on moral intent. These results suggest either a compensatory model of ethical decision making or a complacency effect. Second, individual characteristics had very little effect on either the decision made or the level of moral intent developed, save for one decision. These results suggest an important overlooked variable, the salience of issues for procedural justice concerns.     

法哲学视野中的人的思考

人是属人世界中的一切存在和关系的中心。以此出发 ,人理应也是法的关系和法的世界的主体与中心。法的构建与历史演进、法的底蕴、法的根本价值指向和评价都应当在人中寻找。法哲学是对人的存在、人性、人的本质的理解和把握。法作为对象性的存在和关系 ,对主体的人又产生重大制约作用 ,法使人成为法的存在物、权利的存在物。     

Context effects on procedural justice: Effects of interrelatedness,trust, and penalty on procedural preferences

The relationship of context to procedural preferences was studied by examining the effects of interrelatedness, trust, and penalty on preferences for adversary and inquisitorial hearing procedures. Subjects imagined themselves members of different communities and were led to believe that they had been accused of committing an offense of which they knew they were innocent. Interrelatedness, trust, and penalty interacted to affect subjects' ratings of both hearing procedures. Subjects in highly trusting settings (i) preferred the inquisitorial procedure more than those in nontrusting settings and (ii) preferred the adversary procedure less than their nontrusting counterparts. A penalty effect was also found. As penalty increased, subjects increased in their preference for the adversary procedure and decreased in their preference for the inquisitorial procedure, but only in noninterrelated communities. The implications for prior research and for the role of interrelatedness in procedural choice are discussed.     

徘徊在限权与放权之间——社会转型时期对司法理念的探索

为应对转型时期社会对司法的需求,最高人民法院提出了"能动司法"理念,各级人民法院积极践行,取得了成效,并引发了广泛关注和讨论。能动司法实践中,司法权无序扩张影响了司法的公信力,但能动司法依然是社会转型时期中国的现实选择。我们应当客观评价能动司法理念,承认能动司法的限度,防止能动带来的负面影响。探寻新的司法理念,以继续推进司法体制改革适应社会发展。     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.