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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Resource Priority,Fairness, and Equality-Efficiency Compromises

A central issue in theories of social justice is the potential conflict between equality and efficiency in the distribution of resources. We suggest here that resource priority is a key factor that moderates the perceived fairness of equality/efficiency compromises in resource allocation. Participants were presented with scenarios involving a policy change that pitted equality against economic efficiency in the allocation of a variety of resources that differed in their importance levels (basic versus non-basic). We found that participants gave more weight to efficiency considerations at the expense of equality in distributing non-basic (higher-level) resources than in distributing basic resources. We discuss the priority hypothesis in connection with norms of justice, human motives, the need hierarchy (deficiency versus growth needs), the consumption of basic versus non-basic resources, and the legitimacy of allocation policies. The paper is based on portions of doctoral research conducted by Eviathar Matania under the supervision of Ilan Yaniv.     

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.     

Tort tales and total justice: Exploring attitudes toward everyday tort claims for workplace injuries

Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between “tort tale,” “total justice,” and “mixed” narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants' views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious—a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.     

Why are Forest Owners Satisfied with Forest Policy Decisions? Legitimacy,Procedural Justice,and Perceived Uncertainty

The perceptions of 460 Finnish forest owners regarding national forest policy were examined with a questionnaire measuring institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, perceived uncertainty, and satisfaction with decisions. Research hypotheses, which were derived from the group-value theory and the system justification theory, were tested. The results showed that high institutional legitimacy reduced the effect of procedural justice on the satisfaction with political decisions. Procedural justice predicted the acceptance of decisions only when institutional legitimacy was low. Moreover, perceived uncertainty increased the perception of legitimacy. The implications of these findings for a social psychological theory of legitimacy and policymaking are briefly discussed.     

Equality and Distributions of Inheritance in Families

Inheritance distributions in families involve people in deciding about the meaning and application of equality. Using a distributive justice perspective, this study used hypothetical vignettes to examine 89 older adults' judgements about inheritance distributions to children under systematically varied conditions related to a child's relative deservedness or need. Participants endorsed the cultural norm of equal distribution where there was little information about circumstances. When they knew an adult child's circumstances, 80 percent of participants qualified their adherence to equality in situations that evoke other distributive principles which are important in families, for example, reciprocity and responsiveness to need. Decisions about inheritance distributions involve adapting social norms to different family circumstances, taking account of specific roles and relationships, and giving personal meanings to the concept of equality.     

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants' views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic‐level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their often‐erroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants' perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.     

Civics,Policy, and Demoralization

Civics can be distinguished from policy. Civics concerns basic principles and institutions of political and legal order. Policy concerns specific ways in which particular ends are pursued by the state. Different conceptions of civics involve different views of criminal sanction, its justification, and its aims. The discussion highlights some of the main contrasts between different conceptions of criminal justice and the relation of criminal justice to a more comprehensive conception of justice. However, current carceral practice (in the U.S. and also the U.K.) has several morally objectionable features that impede and erode prisoners’ capacities for participating successfully in civil society. In addition, former prisoners face obstacles that, in effect, continue their punishment after completion of sentence. Those are respects in which current practices cause demoralization. The morally objectionable features of demoralization merit being addressed regardless of the state of the debate between rival conceptions of civics and the relationship of criminal justice to justice more comprehensively understood.     

中小股东法律保护正当性辨析

中小股东的法律保护在正义、平等和效率等方面都面临着一定程度的质疑,因此其正当性只能是一种有条件的和有限度的。只有在为达成一定的社会目的、实现机会平等和克服公司自治局限性的意义上,中小股东的法律保护才具有正当性。     

Occupational stress and the line correctional officer

Stress is clearly a part of the human condition, especially in today’s crowded and complex society. In the criminal justice system in particular, occupational stress can be seen to be a problem for its employees. The present study examined aspects of stress for the line correctional officer, utilizing a number of approaches. Situations perceived as stressful were identified by interviews conducted with correctional officers. Information was then gathered by interviewing a second sample as to the types of coping responses available to correctional officers in these situations. The results indicated that officers reported periodic work overload, the handling of promotions, and conflicts with supervisors and initiates to be the most stressful situations. Correctional officers also indicated that in most of the stressful situations generated, there were few coping responses available to them, and that they had little or no control over these situations. Since most of the situations presented to correctional officers resulted in no constructive coping responses, the hypothesis was advanced that correctional officers who stay on the job develop cognitive coping processes in order to handle stressful situations. Furthermore, correctional officers tended to deny the stresses of the occupation and consequently experience feelings of helplessness and alienation.     

Gender equity, traditional masculine culture, and female homicide victimization

Several prior studies of gender equity and female violent victimization showed a positive relationship between the two, with some scholars defining this as a backlash effect due to increasing gender equity in the context of conservative gender role expectations. This assertion was tested here under a more general set of theories about real and perceived threats to White male dominance in the United States that suggested that the positive relationship between gender equity and female victimization was conditioned by the strength of traditional masculine culture. Using cross-sectional data and employing a commonly tested baseline model to control for other structural covariates of homicide rates, variables were introduced to represent gender income equity and different components of traditional masculine culture. Results confirmed a positive cross-sectional relationship between gender income equality and White non-Hispanic female homicide victimization rates, but did not show the expected interaction effects, leading the authors to conclude that other structural or cultural factors were the source of the positive relationship.     

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.     

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.     

How Litigants in Dutch Courtrooms Come to Trust Judges: The Role of Perceived Procedural Justice,Outcome Favorability,and Other Sociolegal Moderators

This paper examines the hypothesis that litigants' perceived procedural justice is positively associated with their trust in judges. We argue that although this association might seem quite robust, it can vary across contexts. In particular, we suggest that the nature and magnitude of the association between procedural justice and trust in judges depends on outcome concerns, and other sociolegal moderators such as outcome importance and prior court experience. We tested our predictions in three different types of law cases among 483 litigants at court hearings of the district court of the Mid‐Netherlands. As predicted, our results indicate that perceived procedural justice was positively associated with trust in judges when outcomes were relatively favorable, and that this association was even stronger when outcomes were relatively unfavorable. The courtroom context studied here enabled us to explore how other sociolegal variables moderated these relationships.     

Social justice in the modern regulatory state: duress,necessity and the consensual model in law

This paper examines the role of the consensual model in law and argues that if substantive justice is to be the goal of law, the use of individual choice as a legal criterion for distributive and retributive purposes must be curtailed and made subject to substantive considerations. Substantive justice arguably requires that human rights to life, well-being, and the commodities essential to life and well-being, be given priority whenever a societal decision is made. If substantive justice is a collective societal responsibility, the individual cannot be justly rewarded or punished for his or her choices with respect to life, well-being and essential commodities insofar as these choices are justified or excused by standards of substantive justice. Societal conditions and institutional arrangements should be recognized as grounds for justification and excuse because they may impose limits and constraints on the choices available to an individual that are as unavoidable and compelling as those imposed by chance or by another human being.     

On equity in intergroup exchange process,outcome distributions,and some considerations of cognitive orientation

Interactive behavior, viewed on a continuum ranging from intragroup to intergroup situations, is modeled in an attempt to describe the effectiveness of feedback structures in the modification of exchange equity. It is concluded that intragroup situations permit the use of feedback in the alternation of interpersonal equity relations, but that the corresponding application to integroup structures is highly limited. Collectivities that do not constitute groups in the traditional sociological sense are difficult to manipulate and care must be taken to select aspects of interactive outcomes shared by participants if attempts to modify unjust interactive structures are to be successful.     

Cognitive Salience of Subjugation and the Ideological Justification of U.S. Geopolitical Dominance in Japan

To explore the causal role of cognition about subjugation in the justification of the geopolitical status quo, Japanese attitudes about U.S.–Japan relations were assessed after experimentally making salient either Japan’s dominance or subjugation regarding the United States. In addition, participants completed measures of ideology, including system justification, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism. Results demonstrated that those reminded of Japan’s geopolitical subjugation to (but not dominance over) the U.S. endorsed U.S. hegemony to the degree that system justification motivation was high. Findings suggest that (a) international hierarchies have attitudinal consequences that may be especially pronounced among those who endorse the status quo, and (b) current Japanese policy-related attitudes are influenced by the salience of U.S. hegemony in Japan.