Justice Beliefs in School: Distinguishing Ultimate and Immanent Justice

This paper combines two recent developments in just world research: the conception of belief in a just world (BJW) as a resource for coping and well-being in everyday life, and the distinction between two different facets of BJW, namely belief in immanent justice (BIJ) and belief in ultimate justice (BUJ). Moreover, these two aspects are adapted to the school context and educational psychology. Scales for measuring ultimate and immanent justice in schools were developed within a German pilot reform project with a sample of 1274 pupils. The two facets could be distinguished by means of factor analysis. The reliability of the two scales is satisfactory, and their validity is confirmed by their differential correlational patterns. Results show that not every form of BJW automatically functions as a coping resource. In fact, only BUJ is able to protect pupils' mental well-being, whereas immanent justice can actually jeopardize well-being. Similarly, BUJ is associated with the perception of solidarity and learning enjoyment in class, whereas BIJ is more closely associated with the experience of rivalry and competition in class. Finally, the socialization of the two justice beliefs is considered. The cross-sectional data provide some evidence to suggest that friendly and supportive parenting styles can promote BUJ, whereas strict parenting styles may further BIJ. More longitudinal research is needed to obtain further insights into these phenomena.     

Individual Conceptions of Justice and Their Potential for Explaining Proenvironmental Decision Making

In Germany, community-based climate-protective decisions were measured on micro up to macro levels, and the role justice appraisals play in decision-making was investigated in comparison to responsibility-related and self-centered motives. Results reveal that in the field of carbon dioxide emission, gaps between those who are gaining profits and those who have to suffer from negative side effects are recognized by the community on a national as well as an international level. For gaining behavioral impact, the perception of these gaps needs to be regarded under a moral perspective and considered unjust. These justice appraisals are shown to be stable predictors of climate-protective commitments, even when powerful responsibility-related variables were included in the regression analyses. Self-centered motives proved to be of minor importance.     

Ecological Belief in a Just World

To date, there is considerable evidence that the perception of injustice influences environmental behavior in a positive way. Nevertheless, some people do not take action, even if the injustice seems obvious. Concerning this matter, approaches like the belief in a just world theory or system justification theory provide an explanation. However, so far, there is no scientific research on whether the perception of ecological justice, which is taken for granted, concerning an ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) may lead to differences in people’s environmental behavior. This paper investigates a newly conceived construct of the EBJW, regarding its occurrence as well as its disposition in the context of other constructs. Therefore, a new scale has been developed for the purpose of this study by means of a questionnaire with German citizens (n = 312) examining motives for energy-relevant behavior. The scale analyses confirm the validity of the new scale. Even though the EBJW did not score high in the total sample, possibly due to significant differences between the participants (particularly socio-demographic variables and different group memberships) it can be stated that there is definitely a relationship between the EBJW and justification arguments and, ultimately, a lack of responsibility for energy saving. Regression analyses reveal that the EBJW, together with cognitive and affective appraisals of justice, can explain energy-relevant commitment, such as engagement in behavior that has negative impact on the climate. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the EBJW is measurable and that it seems to warrant further research.     

Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments

A model was outlined (i) to explain readiness to proenvironmental commitments and decisions in everyday life by six categories of predictor variables, including justice appraisals of pollution control, basic rights, appraisals of pollution, of pollution causation, of the efficacy of pollution control measures, and of ecological responsibility, and (ii) to generate hypotheses on the relationships between the predictor variables. Model variables were assessed by a questionnaire study (N=518) referring to the problem of air pollution. Proenvironmental commitments and decisions could be well predicted by morally relevant appraisals, especially by justice appraisals (e.g., approving proenvirommental laws, taxes, and subsidies, rejecting the justice of the current environmental policy and of mere appeals), whereas predictors representing self-protective motivations remained insignificant. Justice appraisals are in line with the “causation principle of justice”: Those who caused the pollution are made responsible for its reduction and should pay the costs for the pollution control. Results demonstrate that justice appraisals are essential determinants of people's ecologically relevant emotions, cognitions, and engagements. Moreover, they reveal that the responsibility for pollution control is not left with state and economy but is also regarded as a matter that concerns the citizens.