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.     

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: Theory and research

The concept of distributive justice and the theoretical and empirical work conducted on it during the past two decades are examined. Three questions provide the structure for this examination: (i) What are fundamental conceptual dimensions of distributive justice and the specific substantive issues to which they are related? (ii) What central questions has recent work on distributive justice addressed? and (iii) What are the most important emerging issues on which work in the near-term future should focus? Much of the theory and research examined in the paper is social psychological in nature, but reference is made to related work in related disciplines, particularly sociology and philosophy.     

Perfect justice procedures

Perfect justice procedures are such that rule out envy. At the core of such procedures lies the divide-and-choose procedure (one divides, the other chooses), which guarantees that individuals be satisfied with outcomes. The divide-and-choose principle is extended here ton individuals, to the sharing of nondividable goods, to job allocation, and to social satisfaction. The introduction of this principle into social psychology and sociology is proposed, and a comparison between equity and satisfaction is outlined.     

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.     

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.     

Distributing Adventitious Resources: The Effects of Relationship and Grouping

This study examines the effect of two variables—relationship and grouping—on the distribution of resources which are unearned, or adventitious. Strangers and acquaintances made decisions about the distribution of an adventitious resource either as individual decision makers or as members of a small group. Results indicate that acquaintances were more likely to share the resource than were strangers, and that group members were more likely to share than were individual allocators. Equality received the highest overall rating as a norm for distributing the adventitious resource. At the same time, subjects expected allocators to keep the resource instead of applying an equality distribution norm.     

A new look at equity and outcomes as determinants of satisfaction in close personal relationships

This research reexamined the previously established relation between allocation of resources and satisfaction in close relationships. Using self-report data from two different samples, undergraduate students and married couples, we replicated and extended the procedure employed in past studies to assess the relative strength of equity, equality, and own outcomes as predictors of relationship satisfaction. As expected the two samples differed in the relative strength of the correlates of satisfaction. The married couples revealed different predictors of satisfaction depending upon which of two forms their relationship had taken. Those who reported being in an identity (communal) relationship were most satisfied when they provided high inputs to enhance their partner's outcomes, whereas those in an exchange relation were more responsive to the outcomes they received. The dating students, whether they reported being in an identity or exchange relation, were most satisfied when their own outcomes were maximized. The results also suggested methodological limitations in the earlier studies that had compared the relative association with satisfaction of an unreliable measure of equity with minimal variance and a highly reliable measure of outcomes with considerably greater variance. The previously established strong association between the person's satisfaction and their own outcomes in a close relationship was found to be dependent upon the nature of the sample and the relative reliability of the correlates employed in the regression analyses.     

Procedural decisions in intergroup conflict situations: The influence of hierarchical group membership

A review of research on procedural and distributive justice shows that whereas distributive justice research has examined people's actual choice of outcomes, procedural justice research has paid little attention to the investigation of people's actual choice of procedures. In the present paper, three experiments are presented, all investigating people's actual choice of procedures. In all three experiments, participants were in a middle-management position where their subordinates demanded an opportunity to voice their opinion, while their superiors demanded that the subordinates should not be allowed voice. In Experiments 1 and 2 it was found that participants who were induced to identify with the low hierarchical group (subordinates) allowed more voice than participants who were induced to identify with the high hierarchical group (superiors), but that the effect of hierarchical group membership was absent when maximizing performance (Experiment 1) or participative values (Experiment 2) were explicitly emphasized. In Experiment 3 it was found that the effect of hierarchical group membership on procedural decision making was also evident in persons who progressed from identifying with both hierarchical groups to identifying with one hierarchical group. In the discussion it is argued that cross-fertilization between the fields of procedural and distributive justice will deepen our understanding of social justice in general.     

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.     

社会分配法的价值范畴分析

分配正义作为社会分配法的基本价值范畴,是一个由平等、自由、公平、效率等要素性价值目标构成价值体系。但是,在不同国家的特定社会经济条件下,分配法律制度的主导价值追求和目标排序是有明显差异的。在分配法律制度中,分配正义将通过基本原则这一价值载体来确认和指导法律调整分配关系的目标定位和路径选择。     

The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way,maybe

To highlight the advances and limitations in the study of organizational justice as reflected by the articles in this issue, the field is characterized as being in its intellectual adolescence. Following this analogy, some signs of scientific maturity are noted. Among these are (a) increased attention to the connections between organizational justice and various organizational processes, (b) expanded efforts toward conceptual refinement, and (c) greater reliance on research conducted in natural settings. At the same time, the adolescent state of the field is also marked by its intellectual awkwardness and immaturity. Indications of this include (a) the absence of guiding theory, (b) an underdeveloped research agenda, and (c) an overreliance on the use of ad hoc measurements. Based on these limitations, suggestions are made for ways of nurturing the field's development. The article concludes with an optimistic vision of tomorrow's field of organizational justice.     

Are inputs sometimes outcomes? Some thoughts on definition in distributive justice

This paper argues that the central concepts of justice theory (e.g., inputs and outcomes) have not been well defined and that this lack of precision in definition has led to subsequent ostensible inconsistencies in empirical findings. We offer definitions of both inputs and outcomes in a manner that facilitates more formal theoretical formulations and specifies a functional relationship between the two. In addition, the concept of relevance is discussed. This discussion highlights the difference in determinations of what is relevant to an outcome and the moral desirability of the distribution rule producing those outcomes. We suggest that the perception of what is relevant to the production of an outcome and how much it should be weighted is a source of potential conflict and/or disagreement between groups who are allocators or recipients of resource distributions. The potential disjuncture between what is considered relevant and what is considered moral in terms of allocation decisions is a potential source of dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice across groups. The discussion also suggests that it is not simply a difference in rule preference across groups that may lead to negative feelings regarding allocations but even when groups agree on the rule they may not agree on either the factors to be included in the assessment of relevance or on the morality of the distribution resulting from such assessments. Finally we introduce the concept of exchange domain as a mechanism for facilitating theoretical development.     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.     

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.     

Equity and the allocation of health care resources: Proposition or oxymoron?

The rate of changes in the allocation of health care resources has escalated in the past decade in an attempt to provide for cost containment and a more equitable distribution while retaining quality of care. In this issue, economists, physicians, psychologists, and sociologists examine the current health care environment for evidence relevant to the effect of these changes and provide a guideline for future direction.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Procedural fairness and work group responses to performance evaluation systems

In a variety of settings, procedures that permit predecision input by those affected by the decision in question have been found to have positive effects on fairness judgments, independent of the favorability of the decision. Two major models of the psychology of procedural justice make contrary predictions about whether repeated negative outcomes attenuate such input effects. If such attenuation occurs, it would lessen the applicability of procedural justice findings to some real-world settings, such as organizations, where procedures often provide repeated negative outcomes. The present laboratory investigation examined the procedural and distributive fairness justments produced by high- and low-input performance evaluation procedures under conditions of repeated negative outcomes. Thirty-five three-person groups of male undergraduates participated in a three-round competition. Groups either were or were not allowed to specify the relative weights to be given to two criteria used in evaluating their performance. All groups received negative outcomes on each of the three rounds. A second experimental factor varied whether or not the group learned after losing the second round that it could not possibly win the third and final round of the competition. Measures of procedural and distributive fairness showed that the high-input procedure led to judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness across all three rounds. The input-based enhancement of fairness occurred regardless of whether reward was possible. The implications of these findings for theories of procedural justice and for applications of procedural justice to organizational settings are discussed.