群体情境下儿童的分配公平性

群体情境下儿童的资源分配决策受到群体身份、群体地位和群体规范的影响。在群体因素与公平分配之间, 儿童或坚持公平正义, 或偏向群体利益。这三种群体因素对儿童的分配公平性均造成了影响; 个体因素也会影响群体情境下儿童的分配决策。未来研究应对群体因素多加关注, 通过操控分配情境中的群体信息, 尝试探讨三种群体因素之间的相互作用, 以进一步了解复杂的群体情境下儿童的分配公平性。群体情境下影响分配公平性的个体因素也是需要未来研究逐一验证和讨论的问题。     

Partiality and distributive justice in African bioethics

African ethical theories tend to hold that moral agents ought to be partial, in the sense that they should favour members of their family or close community. This is considered an advantage over the impartiality of many Western moral theories, which are regarded as having counterintuitive implications, such as the idea that it is unethical to save a family member before a stranger. The partiality of African ethics is thought to be particularly valuable in the context of bioethics. Thaddeus Metz, in particular, argues that his African-derived theory best accounts for a number of plausible intuitions, such as the intuition that health care practitioners ought to be biased towards the patients for whom they are directly responsible. In this article, I claim that the plausible intuitions drawn on in favour of partiality can be satisfactorily explained on the basis of impartial moral theories. Moreover, I argue that blanket acceptance of partiality has problematic consequences for distributive justice in resource allocation in biomedical contexts. By contrast, impartial theories can justify plausible instances of partiality whilst avoiding the pitfalls of fully partial moral theories. Although this provides grounds for abandoning partiality in principle, I claim that this finding should not be seen as damaging to African medical ethics. Instead, it prompts investigation of underexplored possibilities of impartial African moral theories. To demonstrate the value of this direction, I sketch some novel and attractive conceptions that combine impartiality with elements of African ethics.     

儿童的分配公平性:心理理论的作用

心理理论是影响儿童分配公平性的重要因素之一。"多重动机"的理论假设认为心理理论能够帮助儿童在不同的动机中权衡利弊,找到满足自我利益和他人需求之间的平衡;其中,感知需求、推断意图、理解情绪是影响独裁者博弈、最后通牒博弈、第三方惩罚中分配公平性的主要成分。未来研究需为此提供更多实证依据,探讨不同类型的公平分配与心理理论各组成成分的关系,以及可否通过训练心理理论能力促进儿童公平概念的发展。     

A social categorisation approach to distributive justice

In this chapter, I put forward an approach to distributive justice in terms of categorisation processes. It is assumed that a hierarchical set of social categorisations determine the identity of those individuals or groups considered for an allocation in a given situation, and whether or how these potential recipients are subcategorised and differentiated for decisions on their relative entitlement. I review empirical evidence for the approach and its predictions that (1) the salience of a shared inclusive identity enhances perceptions of equal entitlement, whereas (2) perceptions of different entitlements are based on the perceived defining values of the relevant inclusive category. Following from either process, (3) people are more justice motivated when they identify with the relevant inclusive category. Further, (4) subgroup identities influence the representation of the inclusive categorisation and/or the target of one's justice concerns, and thus the meaning of justice.     

Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain

Past research has found that distributive justice preferences vary markedly both as a function of gender of allocator and the domain in which outcomes or rewards are allocated (e.g., relationships vs. work contexts). This study examined the interaction of these two factors in determining distributive justice preferences. Subjects were asked to fill out two scales designed to assess the degree to which their general distributive preferences in work contexts and in relationships were benevolent (prefer inputs to exceed outcomes), equity sensitive (prefer outcome/input ratios to be equal), or entitled (prefer outcomes to exceed inputs). Results revealed that women's preferences were significantly more benevolent (or less entitled) than men's in work domains, but that men's and women's distributive preferences did not differ significantly in relationships. In addition, both sexes indicated significantly more entitled preferences in work domains than in relationships, but the difference between domains was much greater for men than for women. These results suggest that, when considering issues of justice, men make a greater distinction between domains than do women, and that previously observed gender differences in distributive justice preferences may be specific to the work domain.     

Gender differences in distributive justice: The role of self-presentation revisited

Kidder, Bellettirie, and Cohn's [(1977) Secret Ambitions and Public Performances: The Effects of Anonymity on Reward Allocations Made by Men and Women, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 70–80] self-presentational account of gender differences in distributive justice was examined. Men and women attending two, primarily white, northeastern universities distributed a jointly earned reward between themselves and a hypothetical co-worker who was either a stranger or a friend and whose inferior task performance resulted from either low ability or low effort. Subjects made their allocations under both public and private conditions. Men allocated more equitably (i.e., according to co-worker input) in public than women did, whereas women allocated more equitably in private than men did, only when working with strangers who exerted low effort. In addition, among female subjects, private allocations to low-effort strangers were more equitable than public allocations. Among male subjects, however, public allocations to low-effort strangers were more equitable than private allocations. The conditions under which men make equitable allocations and women make equal allocations, and possible reasons for these differences, are discussed.This research was presented at the 62nd annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 11–14, 1991, New York, NY. We are grateful to Brenda Major, Victor Benassi, Rebecca Warner, members of the University of New Hampshire Social Psychology Research Group, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Rawls on the maximin rule and distributive justice

Philosophical Studies -     

Decision frame and procedural justice: interactive effects on perceptions of distributive justice

This work examined the effect of procedural justice and item frame on responses to positively and negatively worded survey items. Under conditions of low procedural justice, there is a significant difference in the rating of distributive justice items positively and negatively framed, but not when procedural justice is high. Implications for decision frame theory and biasing of responses to survey items are considered.     

The paradox of global environmental justice: Appealing to the distributive justice framework for the global South

While a relativist view of environmental ethics could be quite difficult to justify, it is also difficult to be so strict about the quest for global environmental justice. At the same time, even though the reality of environmental degradation is plain to see, most African traditional communities, and even their respective states at large, still wallow in poverty such that they remain in need of developing themselves if they are to reach the level of development of the countries in the global North. More so, the majority of indigenous and mostly poor and underrepresented African people in the global South are faced with disproportionate amounts of environmental benefits and burdens compared to their counterparts in the global North. In this article, I therefore seek to examine a normative framework for conceptualising global environmental justice within different environmental, social, political and economic contexts. I consider how best environmental benefits and burdens could be fairly distributed across communities with different environmental, social, political and economic advantages. In the end, I appeal to John Rawls’s conception of distributive justice as a framework for arriving at an acceptable view of global environmental justice that takes into account the circumstances of the global South.     

Gender and distributive justice: The influence of gender-related characteristics on allocations

The influence of dispositional and situational gender-related factors on the distributive justice behavior of males and females was examined in this research. Using the self-other allocation paradigm, traditional and andrognyous subjects outperformed traditional or androgynous opposite-sex co-workers (Experiment 1) or same-sex co-workers (Experiment 2). The task gender-linkage and the physical attractiveness of the opposite-sex co-workers were also considered. The results indicated that androgynous persons were more generous in their allocations and were less influenced by the gender-related characteristics of an opposite-sex co-workers than traditional persons. In same-sex dyads, males were more equitable than females and were uninfluenced by gender-related factors. Traditional, but not androgynous, females adjusted their allocation behavior according to the gender-linkage of the task, allocating more equitably on gender-congruent tasks than on gender-incongruent tasks. The significance of these findings to understanding sex differences in distributive justice behavior is discussed.     

Synergistic person x situation interaction in distributive justice behavior

A person x situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals' justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.     

Natural law and history in Locke's theory of distributive justice

According to the tradition of natural law justice is inherent to, and should always be observed in, all interpersonal relations: the science of natural law is nothing more or less than the expression of such principles of justice. The theoretical peculiarities that crop up regarding the lawfulness of appropriation are determined by the indirect interpersonal relations that take place within the process of appropriation: though appropriation is an action directed not towards another person or his property, but towards tangible external goods, this action may have important consequences for other people. Therefore Locke's theory of appropriation is a theory of justice.Locke's solution is made possible by the methodological improvement which allows a clear separation between the natural law and the historical and empirical conditions of its application: this improvement is a consequence of the distinction between modes and substances established in Locke's Essay.Locke's theory can be considered an extensive re-elaboration, in polemic against Filmer, of the anti-monopolistic principle characteristic of the whole of Scholastic social thought: this principle is intimately connected with the principle of man's natural liberty.Locke maintains a negative and formal conception of justice: justice prohibits interference with others' liberty of appropriation. Alongside the justice is the positive and conditional obligation of charity which prescribes the transfer of some of one's own goods to others who need them in order to survive. But for Locke there are precise limits on the obligation of charity: the application of charity suspends the application of justice only when the immediate physical survival is at stake; in all other cases justice leaves no room for charity.The Lockian negative conception of justice, which allows unlimited liberty of appropriation, is dependent on the empirical and historical condition of the incommensurability of the main resource. The widespread use of money acts as an accelerating element in the process of exhaustion of the incommensurability of land-resources but, at the same time, it renders self-preservation and appropriation almost completely independent of the natural environment. Money creates an infinite number of opportunities for the outlay of labour irrespective of the availability of land, that is, it renders labour the principal resource of the civilized world, and labour is an incommensurable and infinitely reproducible resource. The incommensurability of the labour resource thus supports the Lockian theory of negative distributive justice; but over the Lockian solution already loomed the threatening shadow of pauperism.The subject of this essay is further dealt with in my book on Locke's political and social philosophy Nel crepuscolo della probabilitá, Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1983. There I develop further the interpretation of Locke's theory of justice presented here and analyse his theoretical and historical presuppositions.     

The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice

A classic debate in the organizational justice literature concerns the question of whether procedural justice and distributive justice are independent constructs. We investigate this question by using fMRI methods to examine brain activation patterns associated with procedural and distributive unfairness. We observed a clear dissociation of activation between these two forms of justice, and only a minimal amount of shared activation in the hypothesized regions. Specifically, unfair procedures evoked greater activation in parts of the brain related to social cognition, such as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and the superior temporal sulcus (STS), whereas unfair outcomes evoked greater activation in more emotional areas of the brain, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula (AI) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We interpret the findings as supporting the notion that the two forms of justice reflect distinct constructs, while recognizing that, as forms of justice, they are closely related nomologically.     

Being angry for different reasons: the role of personality in distributive justice

The present research examines personality predictors of anger in response to unfavorable and favorable outcomes with regard to violations of the distributive justice principle of equality. Two studies showed that feelings of anger in response to equality violations were related to neuroticism and agreeableness, albeit for different reasons. Depending on whether the equality violation was favorable or not, anger could be predicted by either feelings of threat or guilt for neuroticism and perceptions of responsibility for agreeableness. These findings add to the literature on boundary conditions of justice and reveal how core personality dimensions contribute to emotional reactions in distributively unjust situations, even if the outcome is personally favorable.     

The relationship between abusive supervision,distributive justice and job satisfaction: A substitutes for leadership approach

IntroductionRecently, interest in abusive supervision has grown (Tepper, 2007). However, little is still known about organizational factors that can reduce the adverse effects of abusive supervision.ObjectiveBased on a substitute for leadership perspective (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), we predict that job resources adequacy and role clarity act as buffers in the negative relationship between abusive supervision, distributive justice and job satisfaction.MethodA sample of 253 employees from a City Hall was used to test our hypotheses.ResultsWe found that abusive supervision was significant and negatively related to distributive justice when job resources adequacy and role clarity were low, but not when job resources adequacy and role clarity were high, with consequences for job satisfaction.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that job resources adequacy and role clarity can reduce the negative impact of abusive supervision, which then lessens distributive unfairness perceptions and job dissatisfaction.