Toward Understanding the Psychology of Reactions to Perceived Fairness: The Role of Affect Intensity

In social psychology it has been argued that the importance of justice cannot be overstated. In the present paper, we ask whether this indeed is the case and, more precisely, examine when fairness is an important determinant of human reactions and when it is less significant. To this end we explore what drives people's reactions to perceived fairness and argue that although social justice research has reported effects of fairness perceptions on people's affective feelings, a close examination of the literature shows that these reactions appear less frequently and less strong than one would expect. It is proposed here that this has to do with the neglect in the social psychology of justice of an important determinant of affective reactions: individuals' propensity to react strongly or mildly toward affect-related events. As hypothesized, findings of two empirical studies show that especially people high in affect intensity show strong affective reactions following the experience of outcome fairness (Study1) and procedural fairness (Study2). When affect intensity is low, however, weak or no fairness effects were found, suggesting that then fairness may not be an important issue. In the discussion it is thus argued that incorporating affect intensity into the justice literature may further insights into the psychology of reactions toward fairness.     

Economic justice in later life: A Canadian perspective

A view of distributive or economic justice is presented. Economic justice can best be achieved through the construction and administration of social policies that promote equality of condition and opportunity such that people are able to achieve equitable outcomes based on their needs and the community's assessment of their contributions. A discussion of the income security situation of older Canadians provides an empirical vehicle for illustrating this view. The point is made that before economic justice can prevail social policies must be developed such that current levels of structured inequality are significantly moderated. Equity will be realized only when there is a shift in policy-making such that claims of citizenship take precedence over those claims based on the rights of property.     

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.     

“It Depends on the Outcome”: Prisoners,Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice

Social scientists have long investigated the social, cultural, and psychological forces that shape perceptions of fairness. A vast literature on procedural justice advances a central finding: the process by which a dispute is played out is central to people's perceptions of fairness and their satisfaction with dispute outcomes. There is, however, one glaring gap in the literature. In this era of mass incarceration, studies of how the incarcerated weigh procedural justice versus substantive justice are rare. This article addresses this gap by drawing on unique quantitative and qualitative data, including face‐to‐face interviews with a random sample of men incarcerated in three California prisons and official data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Our mixed‐methods analysis reveals that these prisoners privilege the actual outcomes of disputes as their barometer of justice. We argue that the dominance of substantive outcomes in these men's perceptions of fairness and in their dispute satisfaction is grounded in, among other things, the high stakes of the prison context, an argument that is confirmed by our data. These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice, but show the power of institutional context to structure perceptions of and responses to fairness, one of the most fundamental principles of social life.     

Questioning Blackmun's Thesis: Does Uniformity in Sentencing Entail Unfairness?

It is commonly believed among criminal justice scholars that sentencing guidelines increase uniformity in sentencing at the cost of fairness. They reason that guideline systems rarely take all relevant case characteristics into consideration, and as a result, impose sentences in particular cases that are biased relative to the ideal or best sentence. This bias effect is one of the primary theoretical and practical challenges faced by courts and sentencing commissions in the last 30 years, and provides one of the strongest arguments against mandatory sentencing guidelines. This article identifies a second effect of guidelines on fairness, which has not been sufficiently acknowledged by the scholarly literature: the variance effect increases the fairness of sentences directly by increasing uniformity. This article uses statistical simulation to examine the relationship between the variance effect and the bias effect. The results provide substantial evidence that the variance effect is comparatively large, and that it may often outweigh the negative effects of bias. Under these conditions, sentencing guidelines will both increase uniformity and increase fairness.     

公平正义是化解社会矛盾的根本原则

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

Procedural Justice in Resolving Family Conflict: Implications for Youth Violence Prevention

The fairness of our legal system is often judged by individuals and the public at large along dimensions of procedural and distributive justice. People seem to care about how legal decisions are made as well as about the specific outcomes reached by juries and judges. In fact, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice or injustice may influence public perceptions and confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. This paper focuses mainly on procedural justice. Using an ecological framework, we tested the hypothesis that older adolescents use the same or similar criteria for evaluating fairness in the context of family decision making that people in general use to evaluate the fairness of legal processes and decisions. We also tested the hypothesis that family decision-making procedures that are perceived to be unfair contribute to increased risk for acting out and deviant behavior among older adolescents. Principal components analysis confirmed that older adolescents use several distinct criteria for evaluating procedural fairness in the family context and that these criteria are comparable to those that people use to evaluate the fairness of legal procedures (rational and objective treatment conveying personal respect, consistent and non-discriminatory treatment reflecting social status or standing, and instrumental participation or having "an opportunity to be heard"). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis confirmed that procedural justice factors are associated with adolescent deviant behavior. We discuss implications for adolescent deviance and youth violence prevention.     

Procedural Justice and the Assessment of Civil Justice in Japan

In analyzing the data from a structured interview survey with Japanese litigants of civil trials, we examined the relationships between their perceptions of outcomes and process of the trials, responses to the trials, and evaluation of the judicial system. The results showed that both favorability of trial outcomes and procedural fairness of trials increased satisfaction with the trial outcomes and evaluation of the judicial system. Satisfaction was largely determined by perceived favorability, while the evaluation of the judicial system was largely determined by perceived procedural fairness, suggesting a justice bond effect that justice fortifies people's societal commitment. Consistent with procedural justice theories, the perception of procedural fairness was increased by the sense of control and the appraisal of relational factors, though both were affected by favorability.     

‘In this Day and Age’: Social Facts,Common Sense and Cognition in Tort Law Judging in the United Kingdom

Tort law judging in the United Kingdom includes judicial ‘truth claims’ or ‘social facts’ about the world, society, and institutional and human behaviour. Although corrective justice and rights scholars assert tort law is autonomous and internally referential, social facts can be influential in tort decisions. While there is some evidence of judicial use of empirical research, many social facts are based on judicial notice, judicial common sense, and intuition. Social facts, often based on judicial common sense, play a role in tort judging. However, they can also be fertile ground for the introduction of cognitive bias and judicial error. The role of social facts in tort judging is not confined to ‘policy’ reasoning but includes social framework, context, and background. Emerging research on judicial cognition can help explain the nature and impact of common‐sense social facts. There is a need to consider potential responses to judicial use of social facts and judicial cognition.     

The Neurobiology of Fairness and Social Justice: An Introduction

The study of social justice has always been an interdisciplinary undertaking, but in recent years neurobiologists have joined scholars and scientists from other areas to tackle complex questions concerning fairness, empathy, equality, hierarchy, and ideological conflict and polarization. By synthesizing insights from multiple, mutually informative levels of analysis, it is possible to shed new light on basic biological processes that reflect, inspire, and inhibit the pursuit of a more just society. With this special issue we highlight groundbreaking research on the neurobiology of fairness and social justice, bringing together six articles that address core themes of social justice, including individual variability in definitions of fairness, the genetic basis of economic egalitarianism, neural bases of empathy in environmental and intergroup domains, and the neural and genetic correlates of ideological polarization. Taken in conjunction, these diverse contributions bring multiple theoretical perspectives and research methods to bear on the shared goal of understanding and promoting social justice.     

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.     

AFTER LABELING AND CONFLICT

Criminology will become somewhat more concerned for values in the future hence shifting slightly from the empirical, scientific end of the spectrum toward the normative, philosophical end. This will result from crises in criminal justice. from the “coming crisis in western sociology.” from the effects of “critical criminology” from changes in social science generally. and from broader circumstances of criminology and criminal justice.     

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.     

Determining Disability: New Advances in Conceptualization and Research

This special issue of Psychological Injury and Law on disability presents state-of-the-art conceptualization and empirical research that will help psychologists and attorneys in the area of disability determination. This paper constitutes an introduction to and contextualization of the articles in the issue. It focuses on key advances in the field of disability research that are anticipated to move forward the practice of psychological injury and law. These new advances include the following: (1) a theoretical shift toward an integrative and dynamic biopsychosocial framework of health and disability, (2) development of complex multidimensional constructs of motivation, including primary, secondary, and tertiary gains and losses involved in disability claims, (3) increased emphasis on the perception of fairness and justice in disability claims from both psychological and legal perspectives, (4) increased understanding of the functional impact of psychological impairment, (5) inclusion of age-related factors in predicting disability, and (6) the interdisciplinary growth of this field.     

Procedural Justice in Negotiation: Procedural Fairness, Outcome Acceptance, and Integrative Potential

Two correlational studies test the hypothesis that procedural justice, or fairness of process, plays a role in acceptance of agreements reached through bilateral negotiation. Both studies test the relationship between the fairness of the process used to resolve a dispute, objective monetary outcomes, subjective assessments of outcome favorability, and subjective assessments of outcome fairness. Additionally, the second study tests the hypothesis that negotiations characterized by greater procedural justice result in more potential for integrative bargaining. The results suggest that procedural justice encourages the acceptance of negotiated agreements, as well as leading to the opportunity for increased integrative bargaining.     

公平正义价值观的司法解读

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

Sentiments of justice

In empirical research on social inequality one question remains largely open: Why are certain types of social inequalities legitimate or not? Three theoretical approaches to this question are discussed: the universalist, the cultural, and the interactionist approach. The interactionist approach is defended: Sentiments of justice can be predicted or deduced from the system in which the actors are located. It is important to know whether actors have reasons to be interested in the system of interaction in question, including reasons for approving the rules and the mode of its functioning. At the same time, the existence of an unrestricted residue must also be recognized: With good reasons one group of individuals can find that a certain state of affairs is just, another group that it is unjust. Because divergences of opinion are inescapable, certain questions pertaining to the issue of social justice can only be resolved by the method of regulated political debate. Questions of social justice can in no way be resolved a priori.     

The Historical Context of Small Claims Courts

The conception of simple, informal, lawyerless courts where ordinary people can settle their affairs amicably without expense, delay, technicality, or contentiousness has fascinated Americans since colonial times. This theme can be seen running through the movements to codify the law, simplify legal procedure, open the practice of law to Everyman, create conciliation courts; the creation of the small claims courts and administrative tribunals; and attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to divert small matters out of the courts altogether and into Neighborhood Justice Centers and other informal dispute resolution mechanisms. The long and complex history of reform has been characterized by cyclical shifts in emphasis between two principal modes of characterizing small claims. One mode characterizes small claims as petty private quarrels and has led to attempts to supply justice by aiding fair outcomes between the particular parties. Since no broader social impact of the dispute is seen, the most efficient possible individual level response is viewed as appropriate. The other mode perceives small claims as particular instances of important systematic injustices between social groups or classes and has led to attempts to use small claims processing as the forum for making important policy. Perceiving broad social impact of the resolution of small claims, one will see a mobilization of aggregate resources to deal with them as important social problems as appropriate. As a result, entire classes of cases and issues may be skimmed off and dealt with collectively as important social-legal problems. When this occurs the perception of the small claims that remain shifts to the other mode, and they are viewed as less important residual petty quarrels meriting less attention and resources. This periodic skimming off of certain claims and waning of collective attention to the remaining mass of claims has introduced a cyclical element into the development of small claims courts (and other legal reforms). Thus the mode of preceiving small claims itself conditions the mode of legal response which is advocated.     

e-Justice: A Comparative Study of Computerization and Procedural Justice in Social Security

Procedural justice, which refers to the fairness of the process of decision making, is contrasted with substantive justice, which refers to the fairness of the outcomes. Extending the work of Mashaw, it is argued that there are six normative models of procedural justice: bureaucracy, professionalism, legality, managerialism, consumerism and markets. Using data from a comparative study of computerization in the social security systems of 10 countries in Europe, North America and Australasia, bureaucracy emerges as the dominant model, followed either by managerialism or by legality. Professionalism and the market are the least important models. The effect of computerization has been to intensify and entrench the bureaucratic and managerial models and undermine the professional model. In addition to presenting general trends, the paper also presents and attempts to account for differences between the 10 countries in the study.     

Social networking sites and the legal profession: Balancing benefits with navigating minefields

The purpose of this article is to review the impact of social networking sites on law, the legal profession and dispute resolution. Within a very short period of time, social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace, combined with social networking hardware platforms, such as iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, and Android, have infiltrated the profession of law and dispute resolution. Many legal professionals now have a social networking profile, use information on social networking sites as evidence, and interact with other lawyers and judges through such forums. This increased interaction in a publically accessible and viewable medium presents a challenge to the legal profession's traditional ideas of independence, confidentiality, and rules of evidence. Social networking mediums are here to stay. Therefore, this article looks at how this trend affects law and the legal profession, what issues it presents to lawyers and judges, whether new laws are necessary to take into account the impact of social networking sites and the benefits of such technology in fostering access to justice and helping parties achieve justice.