How Self-Relevant is Fair Treatment? Social Self-Esteem Moderates Interactional Justice Effects

An organizational field study examined the extent to which fair treatment influences organizational commitment was a function of employees levels of social self-esteem. Following recent research indicating that self-esteem acts as a moderator of procedural fairness effects, we suggested that to examine the relational assumption that self and procedures are related, one should assess the social dimension of self-esteem. In line with predictions, the results indeed showed that fair treatment (assessed by an interactional justice scale) positively influences affective commitment, but only when employees have low social self-esteem. These findings are discussed in light of research on relational models of justice and sociometer theory.     

Political Culture and Post-Communist Transition—A Social Justice Approach: Introduction

Social Justice Research -     

Whither Trial Consulting? Issues and Projections

Law and Human Behavior - Trial consulting is fast becoming de rigeur in major litigation. This article first reviews the growth of the field and its most common applications. Coinciding with the...     

More on Ultimate and Immanent Justice: Results from the Research Project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany”

In earlier studies it was shown that two domain-specific variates of belief in a just world, namely belief in immanent justice and belief in ultimate justice concerning severe illness, differ systematically and significantly. Only immanent justice leads to accusation and derogation of innocent victims while ultimate justice is concordant with positive evaluations of victims and helping behavior. With regard to the research project Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany (GiP, from the German Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem), two new scales were developed for purposes of measuring general belief in immanent and ultimate justice. Using a sample of 929 West Germans and 1,275 East Germans, some of the correlation patterns found in earlier studies could be replicated. For example, immanent justice did correlate with draconian judgments (the proneness to strict and severe judgments), while ultimate justice was associated with mildness. Only ultimate justice correlated with existential guilt about the underprivileged. Beside this confirmation of earlier findings, new correlation patterns were revealed. For example, only immanent justice correlated with the equity principle, whereas ultimate justice corresponded to the need and equality principles.     

Lessons from Philosophy? Interdisciplinary Justice Research and Two Classes of Justice Judgments

More and more scholars of social justice have been calling for a closer collaboration between empirical and normative disciplines. Psychological and sociological research, as well as philosophical theories can, so they claim, learn from one another and work should be based on results obtained in the other fields of research. Some political philosophers do not share this view. They argue that, since most empirical research does not capture people's moral views on justice, its results cannot be of any value to their theories. Based on this critique I suggest in the first part of this paper that empirical research should distinguish between two classes of justice judgments: First, justice judgments in a narrow sense, which are made under conditions of impartiality and grounded in moral principles, and second, justice attitudes, which differ from other types of social attitudes only in their attitude objects. In the second part I present a quasi-experimental study that aimed at testing the two different classes of justice judgments empirically. The results show that justice judgments in the narrow sense can be obtained even under conditions in which complex experimental manipulations cannot be employed. In the third part of this paper I hypothesize that justice judgments which are based on the two formal criteria provided by political philosophy (impartiality and reference to moral principles) may serve as important intervening variables when trying to explain the impact of justice beliefs on different patterns of human behavior.     

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.     

Procedural Justice for Victims and Offenders?: Exploring Restorative Justice Processes in Australia and the US

Sociolegal research indicates that when citizens perceive that legal processes and procedures are fair, both positive and negative legal outcomes will be viewed as acceptable. However, little is known about perceptions of fairness in informal contexts such as in restorative justice (RJ) practices and with victims (and offenders) who participate in these programs. Drawing on interviews with key actors engaged in post-conviction RJ programs for serious crimes in Australia and the USA, this paper asks, do post-conviction therapeutic RJ programs for violent crimes enhance procedural justice for victims and offenders? The data reveal that RJ is compatible with procedural justice for both victims and offenders. Specifically, RJ aids in correcting the harms created by the formal criminal justice system and, thus, satisfies and even greatly enhances procedural justice goals for both victims and offenders.     

Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer’s classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the “lost and found” box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.

Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy

Objectives

This study tests the generality of Tyler’s process-based model of policing by examining whether the effect of procedural justice and competing variables (i.e., distributive justice and police effectiveness) on police legitimacy evaluations operate in the same manner across individual and situational differences.

Methods

Data from a random sample of mail survey respondents are used to test the “invariance thesis” (N = 1681). Multiplicative interaction effects between the key antecedents of legitimacy (measured separately for obligation to obey and trust in the police) and various demographic categories, prior experiences, and perceived neighborhood conditions are estimated in a series of multivariate regression equations.

Results

The effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy is largely invariant. However, regression and marginal results show that procedural justice has a larger effect on trust in law enforcement among people with prior victimization experience compared to their counterparts. Additionally, the distributive justice effect on trust in the police is more pronounced for people who have greater fear of crime and perceive higher levels of disorder in their neighborhood.

Conclusion

The results suggest that Tyler’s process-based model is a “general” theory of individual police legitimacy evaluations. The police can enhance their legitimacy by ensuring procedural fairness during citizen interactions. The role of procedural justice also appears to be particularly important when the police interact with crime victims.

     

“Why There?” Islamophobia, Environmental Conflict, and Justice at Ground Zero

Conflicts over environmental spaces that are sites of trauma or have been designated as sacred involve questions about who has a legitimate stake in determining the use of the site, and where the hallowedness attached to that space ends. We examine these questions in a study of the 2009–2010 controversy about the Park51 [sic] Islamic Community Center, sometimes called the “Ground Zero Mosque,” to examine how issues of distributive, procedural, and inclusionary justice play out in a conflict over valuable land close to Ground Zero. This conflict, though in a specifically fraught locale, speaks to resistance to mosque construction in the USA and Europe. Using newspaper articles on the public debate as data (N = 65), and performing a thematic analysis, we identified four key themes: (1) views of Islam, (2) conflict, (3) American identity and ideals, and (4) proximity and place. Utilizing Chi square analyses to examine the effect of propinquity on support for Park51, we found that people living within New York City were more likely to support Park51 than those outside of the city. Our conclusion discusses constructs that link values, space, and social relations—hallowed ground, place attachment, social distance—and discuss their relationship to justice. We argue that while several kinds of justice are relevant, at its heart, this conflict concerns inclusionary questions about who can speak, who belongs, and who should be excluded.     

Justice or Welfare? Nordic Women's Shelters and Children's Rights Organizations on Children Exposed to Violence

Efforts to promote the protection of, and support to, abused women have opened up new understandings concerning children who see, hear, or in other ways are exposed to men's violence against women and its consequences. On the basis of a redefinition of children exposed to violence into children subjected to violence, some important policy changes have recently been made in the Nordic countries as regards children's status as crime victims. To enable a better understanding of the context of such changes in policy, this article explores the extent to which Nordic women's shelter/crisis centre organizations and children's rights organizations draw upon a justice discourse in relation to the issue of children exposed to violence. The analysis is based upon a study of 10 organizations working at a national level in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.     

Restorative Justice and “Empowerment”: Producing and Governing Active Subjects through “Empowering” Practices

During the last quarter-century, restorative justice has emerged as a widely-utilised response to crime in Western nations. This article, which stems from a Foucauldian genealogy of restorative justice, argues that its embeddedness within the discourse of “empowerment” renders restorative justice a politically acceptable response to crime. “Empowerment”, it is argued, is one of many conditions of emergence of restorative justice. The discourse of “empowerment” underpins restorative justice in tangible ways, and has informed legislation and policy in Western jurisdictions. This article seeks to problematise the taken-for-granted nature of this discourse. It argues that the discourse of “empowerment” produces restorative justice subjects who are increasingly governed and governable. As “empowering” restorative practices are targeted towards “disempowered” individuals and communities, concerns are raised about the potential of restorative justice to disproportionately impact upon socially marginalised populations and to increase social exclusion.     

Introduction to “Environmental Justice”

Justice issues have been prominent in the environmental debate since its beginning in the second half of the twentieth century. This is not surprising, because environmental crises highlight our conceptions of justice, challenging us to consider their adequacy as well as their implications. Does current justice theory accurately describe the issues raised by environmental threats, especially about the justice for future generations? What are the implications of perceptions of justice or injustice for responses to environmental problems, up to and including social protest? For the most part, environmental social sciences have not been at the forefront of these debates, despite some very important contributions. The goal of the present issue is, therefore, to bring together researchers in the field of environmental psychology and justice research and to provide a forum for current research in the field of environmental justice. This introduction gives a short overview of past, present, and emerging findings and questions.     

The German “Wutbürger”: How Justice Sensitivity Accounts for Individual Differences in Political Engagement

Perceived injustice can trigger strong emotional reactions and motivate political protest. Although there is vast empirical evidence for this chain of reactions, we know little about individual differences in how perceived injustice can motivate people to engage in political actions. In a survey study with 1,005 German participants, we investigated how justice sensitivity as a personality disposition accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Regression analyses revealed that justice sensitivity from an observer perspective promotes political engagement, whereas justice sensitivity from a victim perspective is not related to political engagement . In the concrete case of a political decision regarding the public transport project “Stuttgart 21” in Germany, our data indicated that perceived procedural injustice of the decision process and moral outrage mediated the relation of justice sensitivity from an observer perspective and political protest. The present findings are in line with research on the behavioral outcomes of justice sensitivity and contribute to the understanding of individual differences in political engagement and its underlying motivational processes.     

What is Fair Punishment for Alex or Ahmed? Perspective Taking Increases Racial Bias in Retributive Justice Judgments

Previous research frequently found that perspective taking may reduce various sorts of racial biases. In the present research, we propose that perspective taking may increase racial bias in the specific context of retributive justice judgments, that is, evaluations of what punishment is considered fair for offenders. In two studies, we manipulated whether or not participants took the perspective of a target offender, who was named either Alex or Ahmed. Results revealed evidence for racial bias under conditions of perspective taking in both studies: Perspective taking increased punishment for Ahmed, but not for Alex, in a theft case (Study 1). Furthermore, perspective taking decreased punishment for Alex, but not for Ahmed, in the case of less severe offense that is less clearly intentional (Study 2). The consequence is similar in both studies: More severe retributive justice judgments for Ahmed than for Alex under conditions of perspective taking.     

Justice on the line? A comparison of telephone and face-to-face advice in social welfare legal aid

This paper investigates the impact on legal advice of the major shift to telephone-only services in social welfare legal aid, which took place in April 2013. An empirical study comparing telephone and face-to-face advice reveals that face-to-face contact has considerable advantages in the advice interview. Based on interviews and observations with housing law clients, their lawyers and advisers, the findings of this qualitative study demonstrate that clients and lawyers often find it easier to express themselves and understand each other face-to-face. The face-to-face interview benefits from features including the stronger emotional connection between lawyer and client, non-verbal communication, more expansive conversation and the greater ability to consult and confer over documents. Telephone-only advice may be suitable for some more capable clients and uncomplicated matters, but this qualitative research shows that vulnerable clients are more likely to be adversely affected by the potential disadvantages of telephone-only contact. Clients with more complex social needs or with more serious or urgent cases are better served by face-to-face advice. The findings of this research should inform the LASPO review and future priorities for legal aid funding.