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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A socio-emotional relational framework for infidelity: the relational justice approach

Current clinical models for addressing infidelity tend not to make social context issues a central focus; yet, societal gender and power structures, such as female responsibility for relationships and limited male vulnerability, affect the etiology of affairs and create power imbalances in intimate relationships. How therapists respond to these societal influences may either limit or enhance the mutual healing of both persons in the relationship. Thus attention to these societal processes is an ethical issue. This paper presents one perspective, the Relational Justice Approach, for working with infidelity. It places gender, power, and culture at the center of intervention in couple therapy, and includes three stages: (1) creating an equitable foundation for healing, (2) placing the infidelity in a societal context, and (3) practicing mutuality. Each stage is illustrated with case examples and contrasted with current practice regarding infidelity.     

The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level multifoci framework

In this article, which takes a person-situation approach, the authors propose and test a cross-level multifoci model of workplace justice. They crossed 3 types of justice (procedural, informational, and interpersonal) with 2 foci (organization and supervisor) and aggregated to the group level to create 6 distinct justice climate variables. They then tested for the effects of these variables on either organization-directed or supervisor-directed commitment, satisfaction, and citizenship behavior. The authors also tested justice orientation as a moderator of these relationships. The results, based on 231 employees constituting 44 work groups representing multiple organizations and occupations, revealed that 4 forms of justice climate (organization-focused procedural and informational justice climate and supervisor-focused procedural and interpersonal justice climate) were significantly related to various work outcomes after controlling for corresponding individual-level justice perceptions. In addition, some moderation effects were found. Implications for organizations and future research are discussed.     

Cross-cultural differences in distributive justice: a comparison of Turkey and the U.S

When allocators make decisions about distributing resources, they face a dilemma if the expectations for consequences that will flow from particular choices are incongruent with each other. For example, a certain allocation choice might be expected to make an allocator appear warm and likable but unfair. Previous research has found that culture can shape these perceptions and, thus, their congruence or incongruence. The present study further investigated these ideas. Differences between Turkish and U.S. students' perceptions of allocators who distributed resources on the basis of merit vs. need were investigated. Results revealed an allocation dilemma among the U.S. but not among the Turkish students. Specifically, the U.S. students perceived greater incongruence among allocation consequences for both merit and need choices than did the students from Turkey for whom perceptions of allocator's fairness were more aligned with perceptions of allocator's warmth.     

Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural justice principles

Differences in perceptions of fairness may result from differential emphasis on distributive and procedural justice. The author found that organizational role and gender influenced the extent to which distributive and procedural justice principles were used when participants allocated and evaluated pay raises. When participants took the role of a supervisor, they were more likely to use procedural justice principles; when they took the role of a subordinate, they were more likely to use distributive justice principles. Also, men were more likely to use distributive justice than procedural justice principles when allocating and evaluating raises. These findings suggest that organizations should become aware of individual and role-based differences in emphasis on justice-related factors that could potentially lead to perceptions of unfairness.     

Green with envy and nerves of steel: Moderated mediation between distributive justice and theft

The relationship between distributive justice and theft is well established, but the underlying mechanism for this relationship is not yet well understood. We expect that the discrete emotions that individuals experience when they have been paid unfairly may influence how they behave and their personality traits help them cope with unfair pay. In the present study, we therefore use the appraisal model to examine which discrete emotion (i.e., anger, disappointment, and envy) mediates the relationship between distributive justice and theft and conservation of resources theory to examine how emotionality is a personal resource that varies among individuals to help them cope with unfair pay. Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental condition where we manipulated the fairness of the pay that they received, measured the discrete emotions that they felt after being informed of their pay, and objectively measured how much they stole. The results indicate that envy mediates the relationship between distributive justice and theft and there is a moderating effect of emotionality on distributive justice and envy; and envy and theft. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved

Some argue that the high heritability of IQ renders purely environmental explanations for large IQ differences between groups implausible. Yet, large environmentally induced IQ gains between generations suggest an important role for environment in shaping IQ. The authors present a formal model of the process determining IQ in which people's IQs are affected by both environment and genes, but in which their environments are matched to their IQs. The authors show how such a model allows very large effects for environment, even incorporating the highest estimates of heritability. Besides resolving the paradox, the authors show that the model can account for a number of other phenomena, some of which are anomalous when viewed from the standard perspective.