Social Psychology Of Justice Research Paper

In contrast to other scientific disciplines studying justice, social psychology does not take a normative approach. It deals with justice in a descriptive rather than a prescriptive way. The aim is not to define what is just and unjust, and how justice can be achieved. The focus on the contrary is on the subjective sense of justice and injustice and its impact on human action and judgment. Social psychologists study what people regard as just and unjust under given circumstances, how people deal with the concept of justice, how they react to situations that they regard as unjust, and under which circumstances, and why, people care about justice.

2. Distributive Justice: Early Beginnings And Development Of The Field

The social psychological discussion of justice originated from relative deprivation research (Stouffer et al. 1949, Runciman 1966) and Homans’ (1961) propositions about distributive justice. Although in slightly different terms, all these writings proposed that people evaluate outcomes they receive relative to some kind of comparison standard rather than in absolute terms. The comparison standards define the quality of outcome people expect to get based on the outcomes that other people receive. The evaluation of one and the same outcome differs depending upon its position relative to the comparison standard used. If the outcome is equal to the comparison standard it will be experienced as satisfying and appropriate, if it is lower it will be experienced as dissatisfying and inappropriate.

An important step in the development of the field was the research and theorizing by Adams (1965) on affective, cognitive and behavioral consequences of perceived inequity. Similar to Homans, the author suggested that people consider what they contribute to an interaction or relationship (i.e., their inputs) and what they get in return (i.e., their outcomes). They compare the ratio of their own outcomes and inputs with the outcome–input ratio of others and expect the ratios to be equal. If the outcome–input ratios of a person and the comparison other do not match, people experience inequity. Inequity is an aversive state of distress that motivates people to restore equity either ‘actually’ by behavioral means or ‘psychologically’ by cognitive reconstruction. Interestingly, equity theory claims that this holds equally for people who are worse off and those who are better off than the comparison other. Adams used the equity model to explain workers’ reactions to under and overpayment at work. Walster et al. (1978) developed equity theory as a general theory of social justice and applied it to various different kinds of social interactions and relationships.

Another important impetus came from the just world hypothesis (see Lerner 1980). According to this view, people have a basic desire to believe in a just world in which people get what they deserve. This basic desire leads people to act, or engage in cognitive distortion, in order to maintain or re-establish the belief that the world around them is just.

Early social psychological conceptualizations of justice focused on one particular form, namely distributi e justice, i.e., the justice of the distribution of outcomes or resources. In addition, the early conceptualizations concentrated on one particular principle of distributive justice, the equity or contribution principle. This principle prescribes that people’s outcomes should be proportional to their inputs, and the outcome-input ratios of different people should be equal. The narrow focus of early theory and research was later extended in several respects. Within the domain of distributive justice, alternative conceptualizations proposed the existence of multiple justice norms, the most prominent being the equality principle (to each the same), the contribution or equity principle (to each according to his contributions), and the need principle (to each according to his needs). The multiprinciple approaches to distributive justice assume that different distribution rules are regarded as just, and serve as principles of action and evaluation, under different conditions (see Deutsch 1975, Mikula 1980). One of the decisive conditions is the basic orientation of the respective social system or group. According to this view, the equality principle predominates in groups with solidarity orientation, the equity or contribution principle within production oriented groups, and the need principle in groups with caring orientation. Empirical studies in this tradition of research were designed to identify situational and personal conditions that determine which distribution principles are used and regarded as just (see Tornblom 1992).

3. Procedural Justice

Further developments in the field extended the focus and considered additional forms of justice. Justice judgments do not only refer to the way in which outcomes are distributed, but also to the decisionmaking procedures by which the distributions are arrived at, i.e., procedural justice. The social psychological study of procedural justice was stimulated by the work of Thibaut and Walker (1975). These authors studied people’s responses to different third-party procedures of conflict resolution. They found that people regard procedures that provide them with control of the decision-making process, and the decision itself, to be fairer. In addition, they found that the perceived fairness of the procedures shaped people’s satisfaction with their outcomes. Subsequent research studied particular features of procedures that contribute to the perception of procedural justice and injustice, and the consequences of these perceptions (see Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler et al. 1997).

Justice researchers identified a variety of procedural elements that contribute to perceived fairness of procedures. For instance, Leventhal (1980) proposed that procedures will be regarded just if they ensure: consistent treatment across persons and over time, utilization of accurate information, suppression of personal biases of decision makers, existence of appeal mechanisms by which wrong decisions can be corrected, representation of the affected parties in the decision-making process, and compatibility with fundamental moral and ethical values. Empirical evidence suggests that three procedural features are particularly relevant to the perception of procedural justice: the opportunity for participation of the parties concerned, decision makers’ accounting for the decisions made, and treatment of concerned parties with dignity and respect. People consider procedures that allow them to participate in the decision-making process and express their opinions and views (‘voice’) to be fairer. Interestingly, this seems to occur even when the expressed opinion does not influence the final decision, as long as the respective parties feel that their views have been seriously considered. In addition, people regard decisions more fair if the decision-making authorities explain and account for their decisions. This gives the impression of neutrality and increases people’s trust in the authorities. Finally, people regard procedures more fair when the authorities treat them with dignity and respect. Taken together, people seem to be concerned both about structural aspects of the decision procedures and social aspects, i.e., the enactment of the procedures.

Perceived procedural justice has a variety of positive consequences. Procedural justice promotes people’s acceptance of decisions, their long-term adherence to agreements, and their willingness to cooperate with groups they belong to. Perceived procedural justice also enhances the perceived legitimacy of civil authorities, institutions and rules, and people’s willingness to defer to authorities and their decisions. Finally, perceived procedural justice improves people’s satisfaction with the outcomes they receive. Strikingly, these positive consequences result even if the decision procedures lead to unfavorable outcomes for the persons concerned.

4. Reactions To Injustice

Social psychological theory and research distinguished three major types of responding to injustice: actual restoration of justice by behavioral means, psychological or cognitive restoration of justice by changing the interpretation of the situation, and nonacting or resignation (see Tyler et al. 1997). People may prefer cognitive over behavioral reactions to injustice for various reasons. People who caused injustice, and people who are advantaged unfairly, may be inclined to justify the given situation to avoid the need for compensation or restitution and to protect a positive self-image. People who are disadvantaged unfairly may be motivated to deny being victims of injustice in order to protect their self-esteem. In addition, they may come to the conclusion that they themselves are responsible for their own fate. They may also view their negative situation as a result of a legitimate process and thus not regard it as unjust. Finally, they may perceive their situation as normal and appropriate because they compare themselves predominantly with similar others who share the disadvantage. People also seem to be inclined to regard ‘what is’ as ‘what ought to be.’ Another important reason why people may not behaviorally react to injustice is that they feel powerless and have resigned to their fate.

Behavioral reactions to injustice include attempts to restore justice either in the form of seeking compensation or retaliating against the responsible agent, or leaving the unjust relationship or group. The likelihood of behavioral reactions of the former type increases when people see a chance of improving the situation, and when they assume that the situation would not change without any action. In addition, perceived personal benefits and costs will influence whether people react behaviorally or not. However, the intensity of feelings of injustice seems to be the most relevant factor. People with strong feelings of injustice are more likely to react behaviorally to injustice independently of the costs involved and the likelihood of success. Behavioral reactions to injustice can occur as individual-level responses and collective or group-level responses. Collective reactions are more likely when the injustice is perceived as a collective rather than an individual issue.

5. Subjectivity, Divergent Views Of Justice, And Social Conflict

The subjective nature of justice judgments makes it plausible that different people or groups differ in their assessments of given situations. Divergent evaluations and interpretations are particularly likely among people who hold different perspectives or roles in relation to a perceived injustice (Mikula et al. 1998, Tyler et al. 1997, Walster et al. 1978). Three particularly relevant perspectives are the perspective of those who suffer from the injustice (i.e., the ‘victim’), the perspective of those who caused the situation in question (i.e., the ‘actor’ or ‘perpetrator’), and the perspective of people who perceive the critical situation without being personally affected (i.e., the ‘observer’). Actors typically tend to regard their own behavior as appropriate and just, and to attribute any negative behavior on their part to external circumstances. Victims and observers are more likely to regard the same behavior as unjust, and attribute responsibility and blame to the actor. Similarly, majorities and minorities sometimes disagree about what constitutes a fair decision-making procedure in political settings.

Divergent views about what is just and unjust can evoke social conflicts. The notion of justice can be helpful for, but also detrimental to, the limitation and resolution of social conflicts (Mikula and Wenzel 2000). To be helpful, the conflicting parties have to reach a shared view of the situation and their entitlements or to recognize the existence of differing but equally legitimate views of justice. Rigid ideas about what is just, and the firm conviction that the own view is the only true and right one, contribute to the escalation of social conflicts. Conflicting parties may even exclude each other from the moral community within which moral values and rules of justice apply. In this case, justice loses any conflict resolving function.

6. Why Do People Care About Justice?

The question of why people care about justice received different answers in different social psychological theories. One group of theorists assume that people are concerned about justice because it serves their self-interest of maximizing their outcomes in the long run. For instance, equity theorists (Walster et al. 1978) proposed that social systems develop rules of justice, and induce members to follow these rules, because this can maximize collective outcomes. People expect others to follow the rules and follow the same rules themselves as long as it is in their interest to do so. Early theorizing on procedural justice (Thibaut and Walker 1975) argued in a similar way. People care about fair procedures, and regard procedures that give them control over outcomes to be fairer, because they help them to maximize their outcomes in the long run. The relational or group-value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler 1988, Tyler and Lind 1992) provides an alternative perspective. According to this theory, people are concerned about their position in groups. They use experiences with their treatment by authorities as a source of information about their position. The evidence that they are treated justly indicates that they are regarded as valuable and worthy members of the group. This has positive implications for their self-esteem and self-worth. While providing different explanations of people’s caring about justice, due to instrumental concerns about outcomes versus relational concerns about group status, both groups of theorists regard justice as a means rather than an end in itself. Other authors criticize that these views do not capture the essential feature of justice as a moral ought. Without denying that justice may be used as an instrumental means, they argue that justice often is an end in itself. People are motivated intrinsically to behave justly, and sometimes act in ways which are not in line with self-interested motives and maximizing own outcomes. Future justice research will have to consider, and try to integrate, the different theoretical positions and analyze the conditions which stimulate the two manifestations of justice concerns in people’s conduct and thinking.

7. Areas Of Social Justice Research

Social justice research expanded into many different areas of social life: work organizations, legal institutions, educational settings, civil institutions, social policy and economics, gender issues, environmental issues, international conflicts, family issues, close personal relationships, and coping with life crisis and victimization. People’s perceptions of justice and their reactions to injustice in work organizations have been one of the main areas of social justice research from the very beginnings of equity theory. The rapid growth of this line of research has led some authors to use the generic term ‘organizational justice’ (see Cropanzano and Greenberg 1997). Empirical evidence shows that the perception of distributive justice shapes people’s satisfaction with the outcomes they receive, work performance, absenteeism, and turnover. The perception of procedural justice influences workers’ organizational citizenship behaviors and reactions to a variety of organizational measures such as personnel selection procedures, performance evaluations, layoff decisions, strategic organizational planning and change, and workplace drug screening.

8. Concluding Remarks

Social psychological research has substantiated impressively that people care about justice and proved that justice judgments influence human conduct and thinking. Justice matters on the interpersonal level, the intergroup level, and the societal level, even though differences exist with respect to the justice principles that are used in evaluations of justice and injustice, the perception of personal and collective injustice, and the conditions that lead to personal level and group level reactions to perceived injustice (Tyler and Smith 1998). Some authors argue that moral values and rules of justice apply only within a limited range of social relationships. People are less concerned about justice with respect to people who are outside their own social group or category. People can be excluded from the moral community within which moral values and rules of justice apply because they are dissimilar or different or because they are perceived as competitors or enemies.

Bibliography:

1. Adams S J 1965 Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 267–99
2. Cropanzano R, Greenberg J 1997 Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. International Review of Industrial and/organizational Psychology 12: 317–72
3. Deutsch M 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues 31: 137–49
4. Homans G C 1961 Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York
5. Lerner M J 1980 The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum, New York
6. Leventhal G S 1980 What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen K J, Greenberg M S, Willis R H (eds.) Social Exchange. Advances in Theory and Research. Plenum, New York, pp. 27–55
7. Lind E A, Tyler T R 1988 The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, New York
8. Mikula G 1980 On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In: Mikula G (ed.) Justice and Social Interaction: Experimental and Theoretical Contributions from Psychological Research. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 127–66
9. Mikula G, Athenstaedt U, Heschgl S, Heimgartner A 1998 Does it only depend on the point of view? Perspective-related differences in justice evaluations of negative incidents in personal relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 931–62
10. Mikula G, Wenzel M 2000 Justice and social conflict. International Journal of Social Psychology 35: 126–35
11. Runciman W G 1966 Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
12. Stouffer S A, Suchman E A, De Vinney L C, Star S A, Williams R A, Jr. 1949 The American Soldier: Adjustments during Army Life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
13. Thibaut J, Walker L 1975 Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
14. Tornblom K Y 1992 The social psychology of distributive justice. In: Scherer K R (ed.) Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 177–236
15. Tyler T R, Lind E A 1992 A relational model of authority in groups. In: Zanna M (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Plenum, New York, pp. 115–91
16. Tyler T R, Smith H J 1998 Social justice and social movement. In: Gilbert D T, Fiske S T, Lindzey G (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp. 585–629
17. Tyler T R, Boeckmann R J, Smith H J, Huo Y J 1997 Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Westview Press, Boulder, CO
18. Walster E, Walster G W, Berscheid E 1978 Equity. Theory and Research. Allyn and Bacon, Boston