Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions?*

Discussions of public trust and confidence in the police and the courts often assume that the key to public feelings is the public's evaluation of the outcomes that the public receives from these legal authorities. In the case of the courts, discontent is often assumed to be linked to issues of cost and delay-instrumental concerns about the outcomes delivered to the public by the courts. In the case of the police, the inability to effectively control crime is frequently seen as driving public evaluations. This article presents an alternative procedural justice based model that links public trust and confidence to views about the manner in which legal authorities treat the public. Drawing upon psychological research about public evaluations of institutions and authorities it is argued that the key issue that shapes public views is a process based evaluation of the fairness of the procedures that the police and courts use to exercise their authority. Analyses from several studies exploring the basis of public views support this procedural justice based model of public evaluation. In addition, the results provide suggestions about the elements of procedures that are central to public judgments about their fairness.     

What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes influence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty

When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual’s level of social identification with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identification promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These effects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an influence of identification and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.     

组织政治环境如何影响领导者公正准则遵从？

论文基于自我控制的强度模型,研究了组织政治环境作为情境因素影响领导者公正准则遵从的作用机制和边界条件。对来自某国有商业银行73位网点主任连续10个工作日的570个经验取样法的数据分析结果发现：(1)在个体内层次,领导者组织政治感知提高了自我耗竭,领导者职位任期削弱了该正向关系。(2)个体内层次自我耗竭对公正准则遵从的作用取决于个体间层次领导身份认同的程度：当领导身份认同较高时,二者关系为正;当领导身份认同较低时,二者关系为负。(3)当领导者职位任期较短且领导身份认同较高时,组织政治感知通过自我耗竭促进公正准则遵从;当职位任期较短且领导身份认同较低时,组织政治感知通过自我耗竭阻碍公正准则遵从。上述研究结论将公正准则遵从的前因研究从行为者中心视角拓展到情境中心视角,率先研究了组织政治感知的个体内变化及其影响,同时增进了对自我耗竭作用机制和边界条件的认识。     

The Social Construction of Injustice: Fairness Judgments in Response to Own and Others' Unfair Treatment by Authorities

The research literature in organizational justice has examined in some detail the dynamics and consequences of justice judgments based on direct experiences with fair and unfair authorities, but little is known about how people form justice judgments on the basis of reports of injustice by others or how group discussion changes justice judgments. The present study examined the consequences of distributed injustice, in which all members of a group experience some denial of voice, and concentrated injustice, in which one member experiences repeated denial of voice and others do not. It was predicted and found that mild personal experiences of injustice are a more potent source of group impressions of injustice than are reports of more severe injustice experienced by others. In both conditions, group ratings of unfairness were more extreme than were the mean of individual ratings either before or after discussion.     

Wellness as Fairness

I argue that distinct conditions of justice lead to diverse wellness outcomes through a series of psychosocial processes. Optimal conditions of justice, suboptimal conditions of justice, vulnerable conditions of injustice, and persisting conditions of injustice lead to thriving, coping, confronting, and suffering, respectively. The processes that mediate between optimal conditions of justice and thriving include the promotion of responsive conditions, the prevention of threats, individual pursuit, and avoidance of comparisons. The mechanisms that mediate between suboptimal conditions of justice and coping include resilience, adaptation, compensation, and downward comparisons. Critical experiences, critical consciousness, critical action, and righteous comparisons mediate between vulnerable conditions of injustice and confrontation with the system. Oppression, internalization, helplessness, and upward comparisons mediate between persisting conditions of injustice and suffering. These psychosocial processes operate within and across personal, interpersonal, organizational and community contexts. Different types of justice are hypothesized to influence well-being within each context. Intrapersonal injustice operates at the personal level, whereas distributive, procedural, relational, and developmental justice impact interpersonal well-being. At the organizational level, distributive, procedural, relational and informational justice influence well-being. Finally, at the community level, distributive, procedural, retributive, and cultural justice support community wellness. Data from a variety of sources support the suggested connections between justice and well-being.     

Global Inequality and International Institutions

This article considers the links between international institutions and global economic justice: how international institutions might be morally important; how they have changed; and at what those changes imply for justice. The institutional structure of international society has evolved in ways that help to undercut the arguments of those who take a restrictionist position towards global economic justice. There is now a denser and more integrated network of shared institutions and practices within which social expectations of global justice and injustice have become more securely established. But, at the same time, our major international social institutions continue to constitute a deformed political order. This combination of density and deformity shapes how we should think about international justice in general and has important implications for the scope, character, and modalities of global economic justice. Having laid out a view of normative development and where it leads, the article then examines why international distributive justice remains so marginal to current practice.     

A Rejection Threshold in Justice Evaluations: Effects on Judgment and Decision-Making

This research examined the process through which justice evaluations are formed. Using image theory's screening process we hypothesized that a rejection threshold exists with regard to violations of just treatment (e.g., laying off an employee without notice). If the number of violations exceeds the decision-maker's threshold, a negative justice evaluation results. Nonviolations (e.g., providing laid-off employees with a generous severance package) were hypothesized to only influence justice evaluations when violations do not exceed the threshold. Three studies compared the impact of justice violations and nonviolations on fairness evaluations. We also examined differences in fairness evaluations operationalized as judgments vs decisions. Results indicated that when makingjudgmentsabout fairness, both violations and nonviolations are equally important. However, when one has todecideon a course of action based on considerations of fairness, nonviolations are only considered if fewer than three violations have been encountered. These results identify important distinctions between judgment and decisions and have implication for research examining outcomes of justice evaluations.     

Testing an attribution‐of‐blame model of judgments of injustice

The attribution‐of‐blame model of judgments of injustice, which is the focus of this article, depicts judgments of injustice as blaming of an actor who is seen as responsible for the violation of the entitlement of somebody else without sufficient justification. Responsibility and blame are conceptualized in the model in accordance with Heider (1958) and Shaver (1985). The article briefly describes the background and the propositions of the model and its scope. Then it reports a series of four correlational and one experimental studies which tested the validity of the model. The findings lend support to the propositions that attributions of causality and intention and perceived lack of sufficient justification contribute to the perception of injustice beyond the mere perception that somebody's entitlement or deserving has been violated. However, no support was found for the assumption that perceived control of the respective agent contributes to the perception of injustice. The concluding section discusses the main findings of the studies and points to questions which should be pursued in future research in order to establish the range of validity of the proposed model of judgments of injustice. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competent Enough,But Would You Vote for Her? Gender Stereotypes and Media Influences on Perceptions of Women Politicians

Though research has demonstrated that media coverage of men and women politicians differ, fewer studies have examined the dual influence of gender stereotypes and types of media coverage in influencing public perceptions of women politicians. Study 1 (N = 329) examined how pre‐existing attitudes toward women leaders and valence of media message impacted perceptions of a woman senator and evaluations of the media source. Study 2 (N = 246) explored how media focus on a woman politician's personality or ability impacted perceptions of her warmth/likability and competence. Results suggest the media has particular influence on judgments of women politicians' likability (the “competent but cold” effect), providing evidence that women politicians need to be vigilant in monitoring their media depictions.     

Justice and power: when will justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law?

Two studies are presented which test whether justice can motivate support for government policies and authorities even when such support is not in people's obvious personal or group interest. In the first study, White San Francisco Bay area residents' attitudes toward Congressionally-authored affirmative action policies and anti-discrimination laws were investigated. In the second study, African-American San Francisco Bay area residents' feelings of obligation to obey the law were investigated. The results from both studies show a significant relationship between evaluations of social justice and respondents' political attitudes. More importantly, a significant relationship between relational evaluations of Congress and political attitudes is found in both studies. This relationship suggests how justice can motivate policy and government support even if such support does not yield direct personal or group benefits. Finally, the results from both studies indicate when instrumental and relational concerns will be related to political attitudes. If people identified with their particular advantaged or disadvantaged group, instrumental concerns were more strongly related to their political attitudes, but if people identified with a superordinate category that included both potential outgroup members and relevant superordinate authorities, relational concerns were more strongly related to their political attitudes.     

Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions

Research on organizational justice has flourished in the last 30 years. During that time, researchers have generally sought to answer three questions: (1) Why do people care about justice? (2) What affects justice judgments? and (3) What outcomes are associated with justice judgments? The papers in this special issue of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes on organizational justice reflect how these three questions are explored in contemporary justice research. This introduction to the special issue considers how the papers represent trends and developments in current justice research. Several themes are identified: the role of justice in a broader model of group engagement, the empirical examination of justice as a moral virtue, the effect of social context on justice judgments, and the darker reactions to injustice. Thus, the special issue provides insight not only to familiar justice questions but also to the evolution of the field and its future direction.     

Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice

The present research explores third parties’ (e.g., jurors, ombudsmen, auditors, and employees observing others’ encounters) ability to objectively judge fairness. More specifically, the current research suggests that third parties’ justice judgments and reactions are biased by their attitudes toward the decision recipient and, in particular, the affective aspect of those attitudes as characterized by their felt social emotions. We explore how the congruence of a social emotion (i.e., the extent to which the emotion reflects feeling a subjective sense of alignment with the target of the emotion) can influence their evaluations of recipients’ decision outcomes. The five studies presented show that congruence can lead third parties to react positively to objectively unfair decision outcomes and, importantly, that the influence of social emotions on subjective justice judgments drive third party reactions to decisions, decision makers, and even national policies.     

The Epistemology of Justice

In arguing about justice, different sides often accept common moral principles, but reach different conclusions about justice because they disagree about facts. I argue that motivated reasoning, epistemic injustice, and ideologies of injustice support unjust institutions by entrenching distorted representations of the world. Working from a naturalistic conception of justice as a kind of social contract, I suggest some strategies for discovering what justice demands by counteracting these biases. Moral sentiments offer vital resources to this end.     

Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations: Challenging Self‐Sufficient Arguments in “Race” Discourse

While the public debate on whether to apologise to the Stolen Generations ended on 13 February, 2008, public opinion was still divided, reflected particularly in the arguments against apologising that were common in political and public discourse. We examine the ways in which differing arguments can be flexibly deployed and combined within a political context to not just resist, but also to support, an act of reparation for historical injustice. In particular, we consider how Rudd makes use of specific rhetorically self‐sufficient arguments to justify offering the apology; precisely the same arguments that had previously been used by political leaders and members of the public to oppose the apology. It is the use of such arguments in combination with each other and additional common tropes drawn from egalitarian and liberal discourse that allow for the building of a rhetorically powerful case for offering the apology. Rather than the traditional focus of such research on the ways in which racism is accomplished in talk, we suggest that Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations can be seen as a practical tool‐kit for building an “anti‐racist” rhetoric in the context of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous relations in Australia.     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: towards a shared responsibility for the common good

In this article, we explore the debate on corporate citizenship and the role of business in global governance. In the debate on political corporate social responsibility it is assumed that under globalization business is taking up a greater political role. Apart from economic responsibilities firms assume political responsibilities taking up traditional governmental tasks such as regulation of business and provision of public goods. We contrast this with a subsidiarity-based approach to governance, in which firms are seen as intermediate actors who have political co-responsibilities in society endowed upon them by (inter)national governmental institutions. We argue that both approaches face conceptual and empirical problems, and do not make clear the content and scope of political corporate responsibility. Based on Iris Marion Young’s account of political responsibility we argue that corporate actors and governmental actors have a shared responsibility to tackle societal problems. Taking political corporate responsibility not only entails engaging in private action or engaging in public–private partnerships, but it also includes aiding governmental actors to remedy injustice or even create public institutions where they do not yet exist. By adding this perspective we contribute to the debate on responsibility in corporate citizenship and clarify the political role business can play in global governance.     

Vertical individualism and injustice: The self‐restorative function of revenge

In the current paper, we examine the role of vertical individualism in determining revenge behavior following an injustice. Drawing on existing theory and research, we hypothesized that victims who are more vertically individualistic will be more likely than those who are less vertically individualistic to engage in revenge following the experience of injustice as a means of restoring self‐esteem. The results from three studies—employing different methodologies and operationalizations of revenge—support our reasoning. Moreover, two of the studies provide support for the proposed self‐esteem maintenance mechanism underlying the relation between vertical individualism and revenge. Although much research in psychology and organizational justice has demonstrated that the experience of injustice can threaten one's identity, our data are the first to demonstrate that responding to injustice can restore people's self‐esteem to homeostasis. The present studies thus demonstrate that in some instances revenge may have an intrapsychic benefit for the victim, which helps to explain why some people engage in revenge despite possible negative interpersonal consequences. We discuss implications of our findings for social and organizational justice theory and for potentially mitigating revenge reactions to injustice. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Global basic structure and institutions: The WTO as a practical example

In this article, I discuss the location of the sources of global poverty and injustice. I take it as granted that the members of the globally lowest income group live in unacceptable conditions and suffer from injustice. Yet the source of this injustice is a debatable question. Often the existing global institutions are seen as major causes behind this injustice. By taking the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations as a practical example, I aim to show that blaming the institutions as such can lead to misguided conclusions. The WTO, in fact, is quite just if one merely analyses its institutional structure. I argue that the major source of injustice are rather the prevailing power structures and the conduct of individual governments within this institutional framework, in other words the metaprocedural unfairness in the trade negotiations. I further argue that applications of Rawlsian theory of justice tend to be misleading at the global institutional level, as they focus disproportionately on the institutional structure, and tend to underestimate the relevance of the conduct of governments and the existing power structures, which allow powerful countries to use the institutional framework unjustly in their favour.     

理性-经验加工对不公正情绪和行为反应的影响:公正敏感性的调节作用

基于认知-经验理论,采用行为实验法和情境故事法,探讨了不同信息加工方式对不公正情绪和行为反应的影响,以及受害者敏感性对两者关系的调节作用。结果表明,与理性加工相比,经验加工下个体对不公正有更强烈的负性情绪反应,合作意向更低;受害者敏感性调节加工方式与不公正行为反应之间的关系,即受害者敏感性低时,加工方式与人际公正对合作意向交互作用显著,受害者敏感性高时,加工方式与人际公正对合作意向没有交互作用。