New directions in social stratification and income distribution: Introduction

The contributors to this special issue address important problems in the area of social stratification and income distribution. More specifically, Van der Sar and Van Praag offer a solution to the problem of measuring the relative importance of a social position by referring to the individual utility function. Hermkens and Boerman test hypotheses derived from functionalist and marxist theory concerning the degree of value consensus associated with the differential allotment of income and prestige to social positions. Shepelak points to the effects of a prevailing system of norms and values — beliefs about meritocracy, fair shares and opportunity — on the equalization of incomes. Arts and Van Wijck study social constraints to income equalization and focus on the inadequacy of decision-making processes and imperfect implementation of decisions. In the final contribution to this issue, Jasso examines the behavioral and social consequences of the simultaneous operation of two distinct considerations on courses of action: the individual's own well-being and the societal common good.     

社会科学中质的研究与量的研究之争及其启示

在社会科学研究领域一直存在着关于质的研究和量的研究的争论,形成了质的研究和量的研究两大阵营的长期对峙,双方相互批判和排斥,强调和夸大己方的优势。尽管双方的力量此消彼长,但任何一方都没能彻底压倒或取代对方。这一情况表明,这两种研究都是必不可少的,都具有不可替代的存在价值。考察和分析这场争论能为我们理解、反思和深化当前科学方法论研究提供丰富的素材和有益的启示。     

A Self-Activation Hypothesis of Affective Reactions to Fair and Unfair Events: Evidence for Supraliminal and Subliminal Processes

Building and extending on justice theories and work on self-regulation, the current paper proposes a self-activation hypothesis of affective reactions to fair and unfair events, stating that in circumstances in which people’s selves are activated, stronger affective reactions to fair and unfair events are more likely, compared to circumstances in which people’s selves are not or less strongly activated. Findings of two experiments indeed show that simply activating the self (supraliminally or even subliminally) amplifies affective reactions to fair and unfair procedures (Experiment 1) and fair and unfair outcomes (Experiment 2). These findings thus reveal the important role of activation of the self for understanding fairness reactions. In the discussion, we note the relevance of our self-activation hypothesis for insights into different accounts formulated in the justice domain.