Procedural and Distributive Justice Beliefs for Self and Others: Multilevel Associations with Life Satisfaction and Self-Rated Health

Personal happiness and well-being are associated with a dispositional tendency to believe in the existence of justice. In addition, research suggests that links between justice beliefs and well-being are best revealed when utilizing distinctions between a belief in justice for one’s self versus others, and also a belief in procedural versus distributive justice. Using multilevel modeling, we examined whether individual-level links to personal well-being are moderated by higher-order (county-level) justice climates. Michigan (United States) residents (N = 497) were recruited through a statewide survey to complete measures of procedural and distributive justice beliefs for self and others, life satisfaction, and self-rated health. Individual-level beliefs in justice for both self and for others were more strongly associated with life satisfaction and health in climates where beliefs about justice for others were robust. In addition, an individual-level belief in distributive justice was more strongly linked to self-rated health in high distributive justice climates, and in low procedural justice climates. Taken together, these cross-level interactions suggest that higher-order justice climates may alter relationships between individual-level justice beliefs and personal well-being. We discuss implications for justice theory and directions for continued research on well-being and happiness.     

Just world beliefs,perceived stress,and health behavior: The impact of a procedurally just world∗

Recent research suggests that a just world view may promote good health while low belief in a just world may deleteriously affect well-being. However, this research is limited in that specific components of justice beliefs that are important to health are not well articulated. Additionally, many potential pathways linking perceived fairness to physical health remain largely unexplored. In the present study, we examined how individual differences in both distributive (outcomes and allocations) and procedural (rules and processes) just world beliefs are associated with stress and health behavior. Participants were recruited from two universities (N = 426) to complete individual differences measures of procedural and distributive just world beliefs, and also measures of perceived stress, health behavior, and physical symptoms. Results suggested that procedural, but not distributive just world views were important to well-being. In particular, belief in a procedurally just world was associated directly with lower perceived stress, and also indirectly with adaptive health behaviors and fewer physical health complaints. In general, these results suggest that beliefs about a procedurally just world may be particularly important to well-being, while also suggesting specific directions and mechanisms for future attempts at developing justice-oriented health interventions.     

Disaggregated pluralistic theories of global distributive justice – a critique

Pluralistic theories of global distributive justice aim at justifying a plurality of principles for various subglobal contexts of distributive justice. Helena de Bres has recently proposed the class of disaggregated pluralistic theories, according to which we should refrain from defending principles that apply to the shared background conditions of such subglobal contexts. This article argues that if one does not justify how these background conditions should be regulated by principles of a just global basic structure, then the (apparent) realization of the principles that are justified for the subglobal contexts of distributive justice can erode and undermine justice over time. For example, the realization of justice in international trade might undermine climate justice, at least if climate justice requires increasing tariffs (in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions) but justice in international trade calls for reducing tariffs (in order to create a level playing field). Principles of a just global basic structure would have to ensure that such justice-eroding spillover effects from one to another context of justice do not occur. Finally, the article responds critically to de Bres’ objections that an account of a just global basic structure is too idealistic, not action guiding, and superfluous.     

The relationship between person–team fit with supervisor–subordinate guanxi and organizational justice in a Chinese state‐owned enterprise

The study examines how subordinates’ perceptions of justice in Chinese working teams are influenced by the person–team fit (or the misfit) of the supervisor–subordinate guanxi (SSG). We tested our hypotheses on a sample of 1,086 employees from 149 work groups in one state‐owned enterprise; using a combination of cross‐level polynomial regression and response surface analysis. The results showed that subordinates’ perceptions of justice, in terms of procedural, interactional, and distributive justice, were higher when individual SSG was congruent with the average SSG in the team (TSSG) at a high level than when an individual SSG was congruent with TSSG at a low level. Meanwhile, in the misfit situation, subordinates’ perceptions of the three dimensions of justice were higher when the individual SSG relative to TSSG (relative SSG, or RSSG) was surplus (individual SSG exceeded TSSG) versus RSSG deficient (TSSG exceeded individual SSG). Nevertheless, the subordinates’ perceptions of distributive justice were the highest when SSG and TSSG were almost equal in high level, as observed by integrating the fit with the misfit line. These findings highlight the important boundary cultural conditions of the psychological processes of justice and provide useful insights for international managers conducting their business in China.     

Précis of Justice,Luck, and Knowledge*

Justice, Luck, and Knowledge (JLK) contributes to recent developments in two areas, moral responsibility and distributive justice. Prominent luck‐neutralizing approaches to distributive justice, exemplified in work by Cohen and by Roemer, argue that justice requires equal distribution of goods for which people aren't responsible. Such views of justice haven't focused attention on responsibility itself. Meanwhile, responsibility has been illuminat‐ingly articulated in work including, and influenced by, Frankfurt's seminal essays. My book brings these separate lines of work, on justice and on responsibility, into contact, examining how the new articulation of responsibility constrains the roles responsibility can play in distributive justice. Part I focuses on responsibility and its inverse correlate, luck; Part II assesses responsibility‐based approaches to justice in light of preceding arguments about responsibility. (See JLK, 4–5 on responsibility, reactive attitudes, and accountability.)     

Contributive Justice and Meaningful Work

The dominant focus of thinking about economic justice is overwhelmingly distributive, that is, concerned with what people get in terms of resources and opportunities. It views work mainly negatively, as a burden or cost, or else is neutral about it, rather than seeing it as a source of meaning and fulfilment—a good in its own right. However, what we do in life has at least as much, if not more, influence on whom we become, as does what we get. Thus we have good reason also to be concerned with what Paul Gomberg has termed contributive justice, that is, justice as regards what people are expected and able to contribute in terms of work. Complex, interesting work allows workers not only to develop and exercise their capacities, and gain the satisfaction from achieving the internal goods of a practice, but to gain the external goods of recognition and esteem. As Gomberg’s analysis of the concept of contributive justice in relation to equality of opportunity shows, as long as the more satisfying kinds of work are concentrated into a subset of jobs, rather than shared out among all jobs, then many workers will be denied the chance to have meaningful work and the recognition that goes with it. In this paper I examine the contributive justice argument, suggest how it can be further strengthened, arguing, inter alia, that ignoring contributive injustice tends to support legitimations of distributive inequality.

The amplification of reason,or the recuperation of imagination: Peter Weir's Dead Poets Society

Abstract

The principal aim of this article is to focus on the problem of the applicability of Rawls’s ideas to the growing interest in developing what might now well be called a “global bioethics”. The specific focus is the question whether Rawls’s later work helps us to develop principles of distributive justice for such an alleged global bioethics, drawing on and critically evaluating Alan Buchanan’s critical discussion of Rawls’s The Law of Peoples. The main tenets of Rawls’s theory of justice, particularly as it concerns health care as one of our “primary needs”, are discussed, drawing on the work of Norman Daniels. Secondly, an argument for the necessity of a global approach to biomedical ethics in view of the need for a more equitable provision of health care between developed and developing worlds is developed. Thirdly, the main tenets of Rawls’s The Law of Peoples, the book in which Rawls extrapolated the implications of his theory of justice to the sphere of just international law, are discussed. Allen Buchanan’s criticisms of this Rawlsian enterprise are critically reviewed. On the basis of this discussion, two additional Principles of Global Distributive Justice (PGDJ) are formulated. The first principle is: “Justice in international relations requires that the burden of catastrophic events be distributed equitably between affected and unaffected peoples”. The implications of this principle are discussed, and complemented with an extended definition of the concept of “catastrophe”. Drawing on each component of that definition, the author then illustrates how the HIV/AIDS pandemic is the best current example of an international catastrophe, and how that calls for the implementation of the formulated principle. Then follows the formulation of the second principle for distributive justice for the law of peoples. This principle is: “Justice requires that efforts at an equitable distribution of burdens at the level of international relations be met with policies from the beneficiaries that, as far as possible, sustain the benefits attained from these efforts”. The author ends by showing how this principle is being neglected by the denialism of, for example, the South African policy-makers’ lack of a responsible response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic over the past decade, and by making suggestions how this denial and neglect might be rectified in the area of the provision of antiretroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.     

Distributive Justice for Others,Collective Angst,and Support for Exclusion of Immigrants

Harsh treatment of others can reflect an underlying motivation to view the world as fair and just and also a dispositional tendency to believe in justice. However, there is a critical need to refine and expand existing knowledge, not only to identify underlying psychological processes but also to better understand how justice may be implicated in support for exclusionary policies. Across two studies, we show that support for policies that restrict immigrants is exclusively associated with thoughts about fair outcomes for other people (distributive justice for others). In Study 1, Americans' dispositional tendency to believe in distributive justice for others was associated with greater support for a policy proposing to further restrict immigrant job seekers' capacity to gain employment in the United States. In Study 2, we experimentally primed thoughts about justice in a sample of U.S. police officers. Support for a policy that mandated stricter policing of illegal immigration was strongest among officers who first thought about fair outcomes for other people, relative to other unique justice primes. Across both studies, distributive justice for others was associated with greater collective angst—perceived threat towards the future existence of Americans. Moreover, collective angst mediated the link between distributive justice for others and support for restrictive policies. Overall, this research suggests that thoughts about distributive justice for others can especially diminish compassion towards immigrants and other underprivileged groups via support for exclusionary policies. In addition, merely thinking about distributive justice for others may be sufficient to amplify social callousness.     

Distributive Luck

Abstact

This article explores the Rawlsian goal of ensuring that distributions are not influenced by the morally arbitrary. It does so by bringing discussions of distributive justice into contact with the debate over moral luck initiated by Williams and Nagel. Rawls’ own justice as fairness appears to be incompatible with the arbitrariness commitment, as it creates some equalities arbitrarily. A major rival, Dworkin’s version of brute luck egalitarianism, aims to be continuous with ordinary ethics, and so is (a) sensitive to non-philosophical beliefs about free will and responsibility, and (b) allows inequalities to arise on the basis of option luck. But Dworkin does not present convincing reasons in support of continuity, and there are compelling moral reasons for justice to be sensitive to the best philosophical account of free will and responsibility, as is proposed by the revised brute luck egalitarianism of Arneson and Cohen. While Dworkinian brute luck egalitarianism admits three sorts of morally arbitrary disadvantaging which correspond to three forms of moral luck (constitutive, circumstantial, and option luck), revised brute luck egalitarian-ism does not disadvantage on the basis of constitutive or circumstantial luck. But it is not as sensitive to responsibility as it needs to be to fully extinguish the influence of the morally arbitrary, for persons under it may exercise their responsibility equivalently yet end up with different outcomes on account of option luck. It is concluded that egalitarians should deny the existence of distributive luck, which is luck in the levels of advantage that individuals are due.     

“I Believe in Cusk”: The Effect of Explicit Belief Statements on Children’s Reality Status Judgments and Beliefs about Consensus

Children learn about the world through others’ testimony, and much of this knowledge likely comes from parents. Furthermore, parents may sometimes want children to share their beliefs about topics on which there is no universal consensus. In discussing such topics, parents may use explicit belief statements (e.g., “Evolution is real”) or implicit belief statements (e.g., “Evolution happened over millions of years”). But little research has investigated how such statements affect children’s beliefs. In the current study, 4- to 7-year-olds (N = 102) were shown videos of their parent providing either Explicit (“Cusk is real”) or Implicit (“I know about cusk”) belief testimony about novel entities. Then, children heard another speaker provide either Denial (“Cusk isn’t real”) or Neutral (“I’ve heard of cusk”) testimony. Children made reality status judgments and consensus judgments (i.e., whether people agree about the entity’s existence). Results showed that explicit and implicit belief statements differentially influenced children’s beliefs about societal consensus when followed by a denial: explicit belief statements prevented children from drawing the conclusion that there is societal consensus that the entity does not exist. This effect was not related to age, indicating that children as young as 4 use these cues to inform consensus judgments. On the reality status task, there was an interaction with age, showing that only 4-year-olds were more likely to believe in an entity after hearing explicit belief statements. These findings suggest that explicit belief statements may serve as important sources of both children’s beliefs about novel entities and societal consensus.     

SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social justice (which includes retributive and distributive justice) is most clearly satisfied by a system of Divine rewards and punishments: an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly just Being could determine in each case how much effort was made and effect the appropriate distribution of rewards and punishments. A correct understanding of social justice naturally leads us to suppose that there is an afterlife, a God, a free choice — though it is logically possible at least that social justice could be satisfied in some future (very advanced) human society. There will still be those who have their doubts about the correctness of any view according to which justice cannot be attained by fallible creatures who have an incomplete knowledge of one another's behaviour. But, surely, these doubts are not sufficient to discredit my view. There is no a priori reason for rejecting such a view. There is nothing about our use of the term ‘justice’ and its cognates which implies that such a view is mistaken. (Otherwise the statement “There is no justice in this world’ would be meaningless.) To the contrary, there are widely held religious views, Christian as well as non-Christian, which take this view quite seriously. If there is no a priori reason for rejecting this view, then there must be some independent reason for rejecting it. In other words, we need some independent reasons for believing that social justice can be attained by fallible creatures with limited knowledge. The mere fact that we might feel uncomfortable with my theory is not reason enough to reject it. Finally, those who do experience this discomfort might ask themselves whether such discomfort stems from their moral experience or whether they are simply intent on finding justice in imperfect human institutions.     

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.     

Unity with(in) Plurality: Rawls’s Idea of Public Justification Reinterpreted

Abstract

This paper explores and interprets Rawls’s idea of public justification by analysing the types of reasons that citizens use when engaged in public justification of a political conception of justice. In particular, I focus on the distinction between “consensual” and “distributive” modes of justification. Some critics have argued that Rawls is unclear whether he is relying on “consensual” or “distributive” forms of reasoning; others argue that Rawls shifts inconsistently between them. I attempt to clarify this puzzle. I show that consensual and distributive modes of public reasoning are not mutually exclusive to each other. On the contrary, they are introduced as necessary components of public justification in Rawls’s theory. Thus, his model is consensual-cum-distributive. I also suggest some reasons why this model can better account for the liberal idea of pluralism, and how it offers a more realistic moral and political psychology, giving the account greater epistemic virtue than its alternatives.     

De- and rehumanization in the wake of atrocities

Abstract

This paper investigates the phenomena of de- and rehumanization. Daniel Bar-Tal has identified different societal activities and beliefs common in situations of protracted conflict, of which dehumanization is one. The reversal of dehumanization, namely rehumanization, is necessary in order to change a society from an ethos of conflict, to one with an ethos of peace. As the activity of dehumanization is complex, in order to understand how rehumanization can occur, the phenomenon of dehumanization is analyzed, and different types of dehumanization discussed. The paper fmally proposes a dialectical process of rehumanization utilizing imaginative understanding, with a focus on the interplay between treatment and perception.     

Examining the Relationships Between the Justice Facets and Turnover Intent: The Mediating Roles of Overall Justice and Psychological Strain

We examined how interpersonal justice from coworkers, the traditional justice facets (i.e., distributive, procedural, interpersonal, informational), and overall justice perceptions relate to employee psychological strain and turnover intentions in Canadian Armed Forces personnel. Specifically, we hypothesized that overall justice would mediate the relationships between the justice facets (including coworker justice) and strain, and strain would mediate the relationship between overall justice and turnover intent. We used a cross-sectional correlational design with personnel from 2 military units (total N = 218) as our sample. A 2-step structural equation modeling technique was used to evaluate our hypotheses. Support for our hypotheses was obtained with 1 exception: informational justice did not predict overall justice judgments. Our results suggest that employees’ reactions to individual justice events and different sources of justice exert their effects on strain and turnover intent indirectly through their impact on a global evaluation of justice in their work environment.     

When do multiple dimensions of procedural justice predict agreement to publicly endorse your employer in recruitment advertisements?

This field study linked multiple dimensions of procedural justice to working nurses' (N=198) agreement to permit their names to appear in recruiting advertisements for their employer. Using a longitudinal design, surveys were completed at two different times. After controlling for differences in gender, tenure, job involvement, and distributive justice; nurses who perceived higher procedural justice of work schedules and work assignments were more likely to permit their names to appear in recruitment advertisements. Unlike prior research that found high procedural justice offset the negative impact of low distributive justice, in this study high procedural justice interacted with high distributive justice to produce a positive organizational citizenship behaviour.     

When Leaders Are Seen as Transformational: The Effects of Organizational Justice1

In 2 studies, we attempted to make a first step toward integrating the literature on transformational leadership and organizational justice. We examined the extent to which justice affects perceptions of transformational leadership. We predicted that especially interactional justice should have strong effects. Study 1 was a vignette study (N = 100) in which distributive, procedural, and interactional justice were manipulated orthogonally. As expected, only interactional justice affected transformational leadership perceptions. Study 2 replicated these results in an organizational field study (N = 257). Distributive and procedural justice affected perceptions of transformational leadership, but when interactional justice was entered in the regression equation, their effects disappeared. Implications for integrating the literature on transformational leadership and organizational justice are discussed.     

Spirituality and Sexuality: An Exploration of the Religious Beliefs of Non-Heterosexual Christians in Great Britain

Abstract

This article analyzes the religious beliefs of 565 gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians, focusing on God, Jesus Christ and the Bible. Most respondents saw no conflict between their sexualities and their Christian faith. The examination of these religious beliefs uncovers themes that appear to be influenced by their social circumstances, the core of which being their stigmatized sexualities. Their beliefs of God were consistent with the ‘love and justice’ theme of queer theology. Jesus Christ was perceived as a good role model committed to social justice. Although the divinity of Christ was acknowledged, they did not consider him the exclusive way to salvation. The Bible was considered still relevant to everyday life. It was, however, not regarded as the sole guide for Christian living, and it should be interpreted through the lens of shifting socio-cultural realities and personal experiences. On the whole, the data seem to suggest that the respondents' personal experiences and collective social circumstances have an impact on their religious beliefs.     

Linking Justice, Performance, and Citizenship via Leader–Member Exchange

While organizational justice continues to garner attention by researchers, why perceptions of justice influence a variety of outcomes is still in need of explanation. In this paper, we examine one type of social exchange process that may provide a better link between perceptions of fairness and important organizational outcomes. Specifically, we examine how leader–member exchange (LMX) affects the relationship between employee perceptions of fairness and supervisor-rated performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Data from our study demonstrates that LMX fully mediates the relationship between interactional justice and performance and OCBs. In addition, the results demonstrate that LMX moderates the relationship between both distributive and procedural justice and OCBs.     

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.