Distributive Justice Norms and Family Work: What Is Perceived as Ideal,What Is Applied,and What Predicts Perceived Fairness?

Members of married couples rated how ideal communal, exchange, and equality rules were for their marriages. They also reported on whether they and their spouses followed each norm in general in their marriages and in the domains of housework and child care. Both men and women considered a communal norm to be more ideal than the other norms and reported that they and their spouse followed a communal norm to a greater extent than an exchange or equality rule, both in general and in the domains of housework and child care. In addition, links between reports of actual division of labor in each domain, as well as reports of norm use, and perceived fairness of the division of family work were examined. Greater inequalities in the division of labor were linked to decreased perceptions of fairness. Controlling for reports of division of labor, women's reports of the self and of the spouse following a communal norm were linked with increased perceptions of fairness as were women's reports of the spouse following an equality rule. In contrast, and again after controlling for reports of division of labor, women's reports of the self following an exchange rule and men's reports of the self and of the spouse following an exchange rule were associated with greater perceived unfairness of the division of family work.     

Is it Fair to Share? Perceptions of Fairness in the Division of Housework Among Couples in 22 Countries

This study explores the relationship between the actual division of housework and men’s and women’s perceived fairness in this regard. The central question is how the actual sharing of housework influences the perceptions of fairness in the division of housework. It is hypothesised that the perceptions of fairness differ between policy models. In countries where gender equality has been more present on the political agenda and dual-earner policies have been introduced, people are expected to be more sensitive to an unfair sharing or division of housework. By analysing the relationship between actual division of housework and perceptions of fairness in household work for 22 countries representing different family policy models, the study takes on a comparative perspective with the purpose of analysing the normative impact of policy. The analysis draws on data from the 2002 round of the International Social Survey Programme on family and changing gender roles. The results show that in countries that have promoted gender equality through the introduction of policies with an aim to promote dual roles in work and family, both women and men are more sensitive to an unfair division of household labour. The difference between perceptions in the different policy models is greater among men than among women, indicating that a politicization of the dual-earner family is more important for men’s equity perceptions than women’s.     

From Unfulfilled Wants to the Experience of Injustice: Women's Sense of Injustice Regarding the Lopsided Division of Household Labor

The present research deals with factors that contribute to women's sense of injustice regarding the lopsided division of household labor. The proposed model of perceived injustice combines elements of the distributive justice framework of Major (1993) and Thompson (1991), the two-factor model of relative deprivation (Crosby, 1982), and the attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice (Mikula, 1993). The results of a study with 132 employed women are consistent with the proposed model and show that unfulfilled wants, perceived violations of entitlement, and attributions of blame directly affect women's perceptions of being unjustly treated by their partners. Beyond that, women's judgments of injustice were indirectly affected by the outcomes of various comparison processes through their impact on perceived violations of entitlement. Finally, attributions of responsibility and perceived lack of justifications contributed indirectly to the experience of injustice through their impact on the amount of blame attributed to the partner. The findings provide evidence for the usefulness of the theories considered in this study to understand and predict women's sense of injustice, and their integration into a single model of perceived injustice.     

“程序公正感受”研究及其启示

从 #" 世纪 ’" 年代开始,西方学者对程序公正的研究从伦理哲学分析转向社会心理学分析,试图揭示程序公正的心理规律。研究发现：程序公正的要素并没有绝对标准,具有一定的情境敏感性;不过,程序公正在促进人们接受法律、法律决定和从事积极行为等方面具有比结果公正更为重要的地位,这种现象甚至具有跨越文化、种族、性别的普遍性。为了对此进行解释,西方学者提出了发言权理论、团体价值理论、人际关系理论和公正启发理论等模式,各自都具有一定的解释力。不过,程序公正也有可能成为社会权威转移真实矛盾“欺骗”社会成员的统治策略。对于转型期的我国,程序公正感受研究带给我们的不是其具体的结论,而是告诉我们,研究公正问题时,应当抛开宏大话语,努力探寻中国人心目中的公正观。     

Situated Justice: A Contextual Analysis of Fairness and Inequality in Employment Discrimination Litigation

A substantial body of sociolegal scholarship suggests that the legitimacy of the law crucially depends on the public's perception that legal processes are fair. The bulk of this research relies on an underdeveloped account of the material and institutional contexts of litigants' perceptions of fairness. We introduce an analysis of situated justice to capture a contextualized conception of how litigants narrate fairness in their actual legal encounters. Our analysis draws on 100 in‐depth interviews with defendant's representatives, plaintiffs, and lawyers involved in employment discrimination lawsuits, selected as part of a multimethod study of 1,788 discrimination cases filed in U.S. district courts between 1988 and 2003. This article offers two key empirical findings, the first at the level of individual perceptions and the second at the level of legal institutions. First, we find that neither defendants' representatives nor plaintiffs believe discrimination law is fair. Rather than sharing a complaint, however, each side sees unfairness only in those aspects of the process that work to their disadvantage. Second, we demonstrate that the very notion of fairness can belie structural asymmetries that, overall, profoundly benefit employers in employment discrimination lawsuits. We conclude by discussing how a situated justice analysis calls for a rethinking of empirical research on fairness. Audio recordings of respondents quoted in this article are available online. ¹      

司法的不法与司法的不正义（上）——违反正当法律程序

在司法过程中,法官不依法裁判就是司法的不法,没有公平与公正裁判就是司法的不正义。在司法领域也存在着如下的拉德布鲁赫公式：在司法的不法与虽不正义但仍属依法裁判的司法之间划出一条截然分明的界限是不可能的,但最大限度明晰地作出另外一种划界还是可能的,即凡正义根本不被追求或构成正义之核心的公开、公平、公正原则有意不被承认的司法裁决,就不仅仅是司法的不正义,它根本上就是司法的不法。     

司法的不法与司法的不正义（下）——违背实在法证成原则和衡平与正义原则

在司法过程中，法官不依法裁判就是司法的不法，没有公平与公正裁判就是司法的不正义。在司法领域也存在着如下的拉德布鲁赫公式：在司法的不法与虽不正义但仍属依法裁判的司法之间划出一条截然分明的界限是不可能的，但最大限度明晰地作出另外一种划界还是可能的，即凡正义根本不被追求或构成正义之核心的公开、公平、公正原则有意不被承认的司法裁决，就不仅仅是司法的不正义，它根本上就是司法的不法。     

Perceptions of fairness in the division of responsibility for old parents

Pairs of sisters in 50 families in which at least one parent was aged 75+ were asked in open-ended questions to describe the division of filial responsibility in their families and their feelings about it. The relationship between the quality of ties among siblings and evaluations of the fairness of the division of responsibility is explored. The argument is made that rules of distributive justice are invoked largely within the context of the projected futures of existing relationships.     

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.     

The Process Matters: Fairness in Repository Siting For Nuclear Waste

Siting contested infrastructure such as repositories for nuclear waste very often faces strong local resistance. One major reason for this opposition may arise because siting processes do not appropriately consider fairness issues such as transparency, the availability of options, or the sufficient involvement of concerned and affected people. The aim of this study was to analyze people’s concerns related to justice in siting nuclear waste. Besides procedural aspects, both distributive justice and outcome valence are considered important and therefore the “total fairness model” by T?rnblom and Vermunt (Soc Justice Res 12:39–64, 1999) was used as a framework. In three quasi-experimental studies (N ₁ = 53; N ₂ = 56; N ₃ = 83) applying conjoint analysis, respondents ranked 11 vignettes with the three attributes procedural justice, distributional justice, and outcome valence. Each vignette represents a realistic scenario of a site selection process for the disposal of nuclear waste in Switzerland. All the three studies yield a consistent result: vignettes representing a situation with a fair process are top-ranked by respondents; situations with negative outcome valence are ranked lowest; distributive issues turned out to be of minor importance. We conclude that procedural fairness should be given more attention in any kind of contested infrastructure siting and that real-world examples like the one discussed here can inform justice research.     

Responding to young people responsible for harm: a comparative study of restorative and conventional approaches

Research investigating the impact of restorative responses on offenders has increased in sophistication and complexity over the last decade. Extending beyond earlier studies documenting satisfaction with restorative justice, investigators have considered its relationship with recidivism, reparation compliance and perception of fairness. A few experimental studies have compared conventional and restorative approaches, with results generally favoring the latter. This study focuses on intermediate outcomes of justice approaches on adolescents responsible for harm. These outcomes represent benefits of restorative justice often theoretically argued but rarely empirically evaluated. The study employed a quasi‐experimental design and scales developed through previous qualitative research and consultation with stakeholders. Adolescents participating in conventional vs restorative responses, in both court and school contexts, were compared on eight variables in three areas: accountability, relationship repair and closure. While some variation in outcome depends on context, the results add to the growing literature documenting the benefits of restorative approaches.     

Functions of Social Representations in Honour Violence: The “Other East” as Responsible

Although extensive research has been carried out in the field of social justice in terms of femicide in defence of family honour around the globe, intersecting aspect of identity as an underlying psychological mechanism to justify the social sources of these killing has not been addressed in much detail. The present study, therefore, examined the role of (a) diverse social representations in femicide, (b) geography and ethnicity in social representations of honour violence, and (c) the functions of these diverse social representations in maintaining social injustice towards women through the promotion of occidentalism in line with the boundaries for a hegemonic notion of western modernisation. Two studies were conducted. The first study includes a content analysis investigating data from 73 respondents living in the western part of Turkey. The present findings showed that there are different social representations of honour killings, such as töre killings and namus killings. These diverse representations were found to reflect the fact that individuals delegitimise töre killings as eastern, outrageous, tribalistic, and related to family honour while legitimising namus killings as personal, valuable, self-aware, and vulnerable, in the context of “westernised” Turkey. The second study comprises an experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: namus killing, töre killing, and control. The results showed that diverse social representations of femicide have psychological functions such that a namus representation gives more legitimacy to femicide than does a töre representation. The consideration of diverse representations in honour killings and their functions has the potential to inform research as well as to build effective prevention policies targeting the reduction in femicides. A focus on the concept of namus and an emphasis on moving the focus of social representations away from responsible backwards, “the other East” and towards namus as one of the leading sources of domestic violence may switch the problem from the perception of victimised eastern women and to a general injustice problem.

     

Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts

There has been an increasing amount of research conducted on issues of procedural justice. Although this research has demonstrated that the type of procedure used to allocate outcomes has an independent influence on people's judgments of the fairness of a decision, there is growing empirical evidence that such judgments are influenced by the enactment of the procedure as well. Fairness concerns raised about the propriety of a decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures are representative of a desire forinteractional justice. In this paper, we present three studies that examine the effects of giving acausal account, or a justification, versus not providing a justification, on judgments of interactional fairness and endorsement of a decision maker's actions. In Study I, a laboratory study, ratings of interactional fairness and support for a manager were higher when subjects received a causal account that claimed mitigating circumstances for a manager's improper action than when they did not receive such a causal account. A second laboratory study replicated the same pattern of findings in two different organizational contexts. In addition, it was found that the perceived adequacy of the causal account was a critical factor explaining its effect. In Study 3, a field setting, ratings of both interactional fairness and procedural fairness were higher when a manager provided anadequate causal account to justify the allocation of an unfavorable outcome. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on interactional and procedural justice.     

Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status—the importance of procedural fairness deservingness—and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

法律公正是构建和谐社会的法治基础

社会公平正义是社会和谐的基本条件,制度是社会公平正义的根本保证。社会不公多与法律制度不公有关。完善法律制度,保证立法公正是维护社会公平正义,实现社会主义和谐社会最基本的制度保障。完善社会主义法律制度必须坚持以人为本的原则,科学立法、民主立法,实现以体现公正价值,体现民众意愿,适应社会发展的良法之治。同时还应该完善违宪审查制度,维护社会主义法制的统一和尊严,树立社会主义法制权威,夯实社会和谐的法治基础。     

Ecological Belief in a Just World

To date, there is considerable evidence that the perception of injustice influences environmental behavior in a positive way. Nevertheless, some people do not take action, even if the injustice seems obvious. Concerning this matter, approaches like the belief in a just world theory or system justification theory provide an explanation. However, so far, there is no scientific research on whether the perception of ecological justice, which is taken for granted, concerning an ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) may lead to differences in people’s environmental behavior. This paper investigates a newly conceived construct of the EBJW, regarding its occurrence as well as its disposition in the context of other constructs. Therefore, a new scale has been developed for the purpose of this study by means of a questionnaire with German citizens (n = 312) examining motives for energy-relevant behavior. The scale analyses confirm the validity of the new scale. Even though the EBJW did not score high in the total sample, possibly due to significant differences between the participants (particularly socio-demographic variables and different group memberships) it can be stated that there is definitely a relationship between the EBJW and justification arguments and, ultimately, a lack of responsibility for energy saving. Regression analyses reveal that the EBJW, together with cognitive and affective appraisals of justice, can explain energy-relevant commitment, such as engagement in behavior that has negative impact on the climate. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the EBJW is measurable and that it seems to warrant further research.     

Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review

Manipulations of outcome favorability and outcome fairness are frequently treated as interchangeable, and assumed to have redundant effects. Perceptions of outcome fairness and outcome favorability are similarly presumed to have common antecedents and consequences. This research tested the empirical foundation of these assumptions by conducting a meta-analytic review of the justice literature (N = 89 studies). This review revealed that outcome fairness is empirically distinguishable from outcome favorability. Specifically: (a) there is weaker evidence of the fair process effect when the criterion is outcome fairness than when it is outcome favorability, (b) outcome fairness has stronger effects than outcome favorability, and equally strong or stronger effects as procedural fairness on a host of variables, such as job turnover and organizational commitment, and (c) manipulations of outcome fairness and favorability have stronger effects on perceptions of procedural fairness than the converse.     

Social Justice and the Human–Environment Relationship: Common Systemic, Ideological, and Psychological Roots and Processes

Historical analyses and contemporary social psychological research demonstrate that prevailing systems, institutions, and practices espouse an ideology of conflict between humans and the natural world. The established paradigm of society espouses domination of and separation from the natural environment, and manifests in environmentally detrimental attitudes and practices. Ecological exploitation appears to stem from the same root socioeconomic processes as social injustice—the hierarchical arrangement of power which places some groups and the environment in a position devoid of power or rights. Accordingly, endorsement of social and environmental injustice is exacerbated by tendencies toward domination and hierarchy, such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Moreover, injustice is perpetuated by motivation to uphold and justify social structures and the dominant paradigm, which stifles societal change toward intergroup fairness and equality and motivates denial and neglect in the face of environmental problems. Ideological tendencies in service of the system, including political conservatism, belief in a just world, and free market ideology, contribute toward perpetuating injustice as well as anti-environmental sentiment and behavior. Considering the shared psychological and ideological underpinnings of social and environmental injustice point to important interventions, such as cultivating interdependence through contact, fostering inclusive representations, and harnessing ideological motives toward overcoming resistance to change, and carry implications for expanding the scope of justice theory, research, and practice.