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.     

Virtuous Circularity: Positive Law and Particular Justice

This paper argues that the positive allocative decisions paradigmatically carried out by the application of legal rules are a necessary condition for arguments about particular justice (i.e., distributive and commutative justice) to make sense. If one shifts the focus from the distinction between distributive and commutative justice to what the two aspects of particular justice are for, namely, providing criteria to judge the allocation of goods, it becomes clear that the distinction is conceptually unstable. The paper argues that stabilizing the distinction is worthwhile and that this can only be accomplished by the introduction of positive allocation schemes.     

Exploring the Structure of Positive and Negative Justice Judgments

The study challenges the commonly assumed symmetry between justice judgments that refer to the distribution of positive and negative outcomes. Based on equity and multiprinciple approaches, and particularly on the theory of framing choices, we propose a conceptual framework for analyzing the dynamics of relations between positive and negative justice judgments. According to this framework, negative judgments are more generalized (simple) and more emphatic than are positive judgments. Data analysis was based on responses of 240 German adults to 39 justice judgment items that were subjected to a Similarity Space Analysis (SSA). The analysis corroborated the hypothesis when the type of resource to be distributed was held constant. Thus, the findings may reflect the primacy and high emotional intensity of negative experiences. They also suggest that, without specification of the distributed resource, this facet of justice judgments (sign of outcome distribution) is devoid of content.     

Opening the Black Box Between Justice and Reactions to Unfavorable Outcomes in the Workplace

Though several studies have shown that the perception of social justice can effectively reduce negative attitudinal and behavioral reactions to an unfavorable outcome, few studies have tried to empirically test explanations of this mitigating effect. The present study was undertaken to fill this gap by examining under what conditions social justice suppresses negative reactions, such as exit, neglect, and aggressive voice, and stimulates positive reactions, such as considerate voice and patience. Two potential moderators were derived from the control model (Thibaut and Walker, 1975, 1978) and the group-value model (Lind and Tyler, 1988, Tyler and Lind, 1992). Ninety-eight teachers participated in the study. Results support the hypotheses that overall procedural and distributive justice discourage negative reactions, particularly when employees value control or standing, or both. Moreover, distributive justice stimulates positive reactions (i.e., considerate voice) when employees value control. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Benefits and burdens: Does it really matterWhat we allocate?

There is growing, evidence that allocation decisions concerning burdens and benefits are not processed equivalently. This paper suggests three dimensions on which information processing for resource allocations differs: status quo effects (individuals react more strongly to losses in status quo than to gains), resource valence effects (individuals react more strongly to resource allocations involving burdens than those involving benefits), and blame effects (individuals react more strongly to resource allocation decisions in which they exercise choice). Results of an empirical study confirm significant differences in the information processing of burdens and benefits, and also confirm the importance of psychological distance in the reactions of individuals to burdens and benefits allocations.For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.-Hamlet (William Shakespeare)     

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.     

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.     

Positive versus Negative Framing Affects Justice Judgments

This research demonstrates the effect of framing on justice judgments. Presenting identical allocation situations in different modes of accomplishing the resource allocation, resulting in either positive (benefits) or negative (harms) outcomes, affects justice judgments. Two independent studies revealed that participants judged non-egalitarian principles (i.e., merit, ability, effort, need, and tenure) as more just when allocation of a resource was presented in the positive framing manner (e.g., to deliver goods or to withhold bads) relative to presenting the exact same resource allocated in a negative framing manner (e.g., to deliver bads or to withhold goods). It is suggested that the way resource allocation is framed evokes favorable (or unfavorable) associations that cause people to judge the situation as more (or less) just.     

Desperately Seeking ‘Justice’ in Classical Chinese: On the Meanings of Yi

This essay sets out to search for an equivalent Chinese word to the English word ‘justice’ in classical Chinese language, through ancient Chinese philosophical texts, imperial codes and idioms. The study found that there does not seem to be a linguistic sign for ‘justice’ in classical Chinese, and further, yi resembles ‘justice’ in some ways and has been used sometimes to translate  ‘justice’, but yi is a complex concept in traditional Chinese philosophy with multiple meanings and it is dissimilar to ‘justice’ in their semantic and pragmatic meanings in Chinese and English legal culture. While ‘justice’ is a keyword and fundamental to Western law, yi is not a legal word or concept in classical Chinese in traditional China. Given its complexity, yi does not have a one-to-one equivalent in English. It sometimes carries a sense of ‘righteousness’ and occasionally ‘justice’, but yi and ‘justice’ are not equivalent. In view of these, it becomes understandable that the translations of yi in contemporary Chinese usage vary ranging from ‘friendship and justice’ to ‘greater good’, among others. The meaning of yi is still uncertain and context sensitive as it was two thousand years ago.

     

The “Economic Battle” Now and Then: (E)valuation Patterns of Distributive Justice in Cuban State-Socialism

This article disentangles and explores some commonly made assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies. Based on the conceptual framework of the multiprinciple approach of justice, it presents the results of an in-depth analysis of (e)valuation patterns of distributive justice in Cuban state-socialism. The analysis mainly focuses on ideational conceptions of distributive justice (just rewards), but it also accounts for distribution outcomes and resulting (in)equalities (actual rewards). The results of the comparative case study of the Cuban framework of institutions and political leaders’ views in two periods of time, the early 1960s and the 2010s, point to (e)valuation patterns that are generally labelled as egalitarian, such as the allocation rules of outcome equality and (non-functional) needs. However, contrary to common assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies, the results also point to several other patterns, including equity rules as well as functional and productivist allocation rules. I argue that many of these (e)valuation patterns, in their connection to the discursive storyline of the Cuban economic battle, are indeed compatible with egalitarian state-socialist ideology.

     

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 Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

Is It the What or the How? The Roles of High‐Policing Tactics and Procedural Justice in Predicting Perceptions of Hostile Treatment: The Case of Security Checks at Ben‐Gurion Airport,Israel

What affects perceptions of hostile treatment by police, characterized by feelings such as humiliation and intimidation? Is it what the police do to the citizen, or is it about how they do it? The important effects of procedural justice are well documented in the policing literature. Yet, it is not clear how high‐policing tactics, coupled with procedural justice, affect one's sense of hostile treatment: is it the case that what the police do does not matter as long as they follow the principles of procedural justice, or do some invasive or unpleasant tactics produce negative emotions regardless of the amount of procedural justice displayed by the officer? In the present study we examine this question in the context of security checks at Ben‐Gurion Airport, Israel. Using a survey of 1,970 passengers, we find that the behavioral elements of procedural justice are an important antidote, mitigating the negative effects of four “extra” screening measures on the perceived hostility of the checks. At the same time, two security measures retain an independent and significant effect. We discuss the implications of our findings and hypothesize about the characteristics of policing practices that are less sensitive to procedural justice.     

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.     

Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO

The WTO is not explicitly concerned with the problem of regulatoryjurisdiction in connection with prudential regulation (as opposedto industrial policy regulation). However, as the WTO has addressedincreasingly complex regulatory barriers to trade, it has developedseveral devices that have the implicit effect of allocatingregulatory jurisdiction among states.This article reviews afew illustrative cases in WTO law, including Helms–Burton,Shrimp, and Gambling. This review suggests how these cases maybe understood as dealing with allocation of regulatory jurisdiction.Negative integration rules such as national treatment or proportionalitymay serve as devices applied by tribunals for allocation ofregulatory authority. The WTO has very limited rules of positiveintegration—whereby states either harmonize regulationor agree on more specific allocations of regulatory authority,such as mutual recognition. However, it has developed a modestdegree of capacity to engage in positive regulation, or to referto positive integration rules developed in other contexts, suchas Codex Alimentarius. Finally, this article examines theoreticalbases for allocating and reallocating regulatory jurisdictionin order to establish a framework by which to analyse the roleof the WTO in this context.     

Book review

This article looks at the vast contributions political philosopher Hal Pepinsky has made to effecting a peaceful, needs‐meeting vision of justice in the academic fields of criminology and criminal justice over the past three decades. The article examines his life's work as reflected in his most recent book, Peacemaking: Reflections of a Radical Criminologist. This work demonstrates that those who push the boundaries of scholarly disciplines, such as he has done, sometimes find themselves in conflict with those most invested in controlling the allocation of the rewards those disciplines mete out. As Professor Pepinsky increasingly became an outsider he took the risk of taking on the burdens of other outsiders whose pain and suffering the vast majority of his academic colleagues turned their eyes from.     

The effect of inputs and performance outcomes on allocation decisions

This study used a 2×2×5 factorial vignette study to examine allocations. The factors included gender, task (cooperative vs. competitive), and information (ability only, diligence only, performance only, ability and performance, diligence and performance). The study confirms previous findings that allocations in competitive situations are more equitable than in cooperative settings. Further, allocations in diligence conditions are more equitable than those in ability conditions. However, results reveal that allocations based on knowledge about performance outcomes are different from those based on attributional inputs. The role of inputs and performance in the allocation process is discussed.     

To Our Benefit or at Your Expense? Justice Considerations in Intergroup Allocations of Positive and Negative Resources

Several studies consistently demonstrated a positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In line with classical minimal group experiments, laboratory groups favored their in-group when allocating positive resources or evaluating positive dimensions. However, they refrained from discriminating behavior as soon as negative resources had to be distributed between groups. We propose that this is due to valence-specific differences in the consideration and perception of social justice. Several studies tested whether social norms inhibiting in-group favoritism and out-group derogation are differently interpreted or weighed due to the valence of resources. Consequently, a survey of these studies is given and their implications for classical theories on intergroup behavior and future research on social discrimination are discussed.     

Challenging the ‘invariance’ thesis: procedural justice policing and the moderating influence of trust on citizens’ obligation to obey police

Objectives

This paper examines the effects of a procedural justice policing intervention on citizens’ feelings of obligation to obey police. It examines whether the efficacy of procedural justice on citizens’ obligation to obey police may be contingent on citizens’ level of trust in police during a police–citizen encounter.

Methods

This research draws on survey data from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). QCET was a randomized controlled field trial implemented by the Queensland Police Service. The trial exposed citizens to either a procedural justice experience (experimental condition) or standard police practice (control condition) during a random roadside stop. Survey responses were received from 1107 drivers in the experimental condition and 1655 drivers in the control condition.

Results

Compared to the control condition, the procedural justice condition yielded higher levels of trust in the police officer conducting the roadside stop. No differences in obligation to obey police were observed between the two conditions. Importantly, citizens’ level of trust in the officer moderated the effect of the intervention on obligation to obey police. Specifically, the procedural justice condition had a negative effect on obligation to obey for those reporting low trust in police. For those high in trust, the procedural justice intervention had a slight but insignificant positive effect on obligation to obey.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that procedural justice effects can vary between individuals; specifically, the findings reveal that procedural justice interventions can sometimes be counter-productive, depending on the level of trust a citizen exhibits toward police during an encounter. Police agencies should therefore be aware of potential counter-productive effects when implementing procedural justice in the field.

     

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.