Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice

This paper argues for a conception of transnational justice that provides an alternative to globalist and statist views. In light of an analysis of the transnational context of justice, a critical theory is suggested that addresses the multiple relations of injustice and domination to be found in this context. Based on a universal, individual right to reciprocal and general justification, this theory argues for justifiable social and political relations both within and between states. In both of these contexts, it distinguishes between minimal and maximal justice and stresses the interdependence of domestic and transnational justice. On both levels, minimal justice calls for a discursive structure of justification, whereas maximal justice implies a fully justified basic social structure.     

Perception of Injustice as a Predictor of Support for Workplace Aggression

In order to determine the relationship between perceptions of injustice and support for workplace aggression, 139 subjects were presented with four scenarios representing different levels and types of injustice. Subjects then responded to an eight-item aggression scale. Support for aggressive behavior across the scenarios generally corresponded to the amount and type of perceived injustice; a procedural injustice scenario was perceived as the most unjust and led to the most support for aggression. Although the interpersonal and distributive injustice scenarios were seen as virtually identical in terms of injustice, there was significantly more support for aggression with interpersonal injustice. The strongest predictor of support for aggression in the justice scenarios, however, was simply the degree of support for aggression in a neutral, or control, scenario. It is suggested that employers need to be concerned both about fair and courteous relations with employees and also with identifying generally aggressive employees.     

分配不公正下的退缩行为：程序公正和互动公正的影响

以160名中学教师为被试,采用2×2的完全随机设计,以模拟故事（scenarios）的方法呈现刺激,研究了在职称评定中分配不公正的前提下,程序公正/不公正,互动公正/不公正对教师的退缩行为（消极怠工、拒绝帮助、离职、对校长的消极态度）的影响。结果表明,在分配不公正条件下：（1）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的消极怠工程度;（2）程序公正、互动公正均影响教师的拒绝帮助行为程度,而且交互作用显著;（3）互动公正影响教师对上司的消极态度,程序公正无显著影响;（4）程序公正和互动公正对离职意愿影响均不显著     

Retribution and Restoration as General Orientations Towards Justice

We proposed two distinct understandings of what justice means to victims and what its restoration entails that are reflected in individual‐level justice orientations. Individuals with a retributive orientation conceptualize justice as the unilateral imposition of just deserts against the offender. In contrast, individuals with a restorative orientation conceptualize justice as achieving a renewed consensus about the shared values violated by the offence. Three studies showed differential relations between these two justice orientations and various individual‐level values/ideologies and predicted unique variance in preferences for concrete justice‐restoring interventions, judicial processes and abstract justice restoration goals. The pattern of results lends validity to the understanding of justice as two distinct conceptualizations, a distinction that provides much needed explanation for divergent preferences for injustice responses. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Justice‐sensitive interpretations of ambiguous situations

The accessibility of concepts related to justice and injustice is proposed as a basic cognitive mechanism underlying the personality trait of justice sensitivity. To provide evidence for this assertion, the manner in which justice sensitivity shapes the interpretation of an ambiguous situation was investigated. It was found that, without priming, and after injustice is primed, persons high in justice sensitivity tend to perceive greater injustice in an ambiguous situation than persons low in justice sensitivity. If the restoration of justice is primed, however, persons high in justice sensitivity tend to interpret the ambiguous situation as more just when compared to persons low in justice sensitivity. Results are discussed with regard to a process‐oriented explanation of emotional and behavioural effects of justice sensitivity.     

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.     

All Justice is Social but it’s not all Social Justice

I take social injustice to be injustice perpetrated on members of society by laws and public social practices. I take social justice to be the struggle to right social injustice. After explaining these ideas, I then address the question: why are so many people opposed to the very idea of social justice? I offer a number of explanations, among them, that to acknowledge that there is social injustice in one’s society often requires considerable change on one’s part.     

Seeing Through the Fog: Love and Injustice in Bleak House

The author takes up a provocative question poised by Charles Taylor about the relationship between our commitments to a good such as neighbor love and the possibilities of achieving and sustaining social justice. Taylor's concern is not only that we make such a commitment but that we make it in such a way that we avoid its ability to lead us towards injustice rather than justice. After articulating conceptions of love, justice, and injustice, the author turns to Charles Dickens's treatment of love and injustice in Bleak House , to explore more fully how love can lead to injustice, and also its potential role in promoting justice. Dickens's view, profoundly shaped by his own sense of Christian virtues, helps us see the inner workings of love, justice, and injustice, so that we can appreciate their interconnectedness anew and understand better the urgency of Taylor's question for our time.     

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。     

DIFFERENT WRONGS,DIFFERENT REMEDIES? REACTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES AFTER PROCEDURAL AND INTERACTIONAL INJUSTICE

To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice ( Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001 ), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.     

组织不公正及其效果研究述评

从组织公正感的研究出发,比较全面地介绍了国外关于3种组织不公正,即分配不公、程序不公正和互动不公正研究及其效果,特别分析了组织不公正对组织的具体危害,这种危害包括隐蔽的攻击、退缩行为和公开的攻击。文章还介绍了我国学者关于分配不公平方面的研究。最后,作者指出组织不公正研究可能存在的问题,即组织不公正可能本质上不同于组织公正,组织不公正研究存在操作定义狭隘和跨文化障碍,以此为基础描述了未来的研究方向     

Justice and Social Conflict

This article analyzes possible effects of ideas of justice, perceptions of injustice, and the use of justice arguments on the emergence, course, and resolution of social conflicts. Four functions of justice are identified: (1) ideas of justice and perceptions of injustice can elicit or evoke social conflicts; (2) justice arguments and rhetorics can be used to support one's own position in a dispute; (3) the basic value and the principles and rules of justice can restrict social conflicts and help to generate ways of conflict resolution; (4) the labelling of conflict resolutions as just can increase the acceptance of the resolution. The analysis is illustrated by making reference to a recent case of international conflict and diplomatic controversy.     

Can global justice provide a path toward achieving justice across the Americas?

In this article, I investigate actions that the United States took against Costa Rica during the 1980s in order to argue that current discussions about global justice and its foundations are flawed in three ways. First, it misidentifies the parties of global justice as individual citizens. Second, it conceptualizes global justice as exclusively a distributive justice concern and, as a result, it misidentifies what constitutes a global injustice as being the adverse fate of individuals who live in a poor nation. Finally, the current debate provides no guidance in what must be considered to identify the specific obligations one nation may have to another nation. Given these three problems, I maintain that we conceptualize global injustice as an issue of social justice rather than one exclusively of distributive justice. This will require identifying nations as the parties to global justice, at least in certain cases, and realizing that our goal is to remedy oppressive global structures of power. Utilizing the social justice I propose will put us on the road toward achieving justice across the Americas.     

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.     

Just Promise: Reformulating Justice as a Practice of the Gift

The triune God's justice is best understood as promised justice. Promised justice enables Christian practices that critique and end injustice.     

The Influence of Perceived Injustice on the Endorsement of Political Leaders1

Recent public opinion polls have suggested that there is a striking lack of public support for national political leaders and institutions. The two studies discussed in this paper explore why public evaluations of political leaders and institutions are low. In particular, they examine the role of perceived injustice in creating dislike for and distrust of leaders and institutions. This focus upon justice is contrasted with the more traditional focus upon the level of outcomes received from the political system and upon congruence in citizen-leader policy preferences. The results strongly support a focus upon justice by showing that judgments of injustice exercise an influence upon leadership evaluations and in stitutional endorsements which is independent of beliefs about the level of outcomes the political system is providing to citizens or of public support for government policies. In fact, both studies suggest that judgments of justice or injustice have more influence upon the endorsement of political leaders and institutions than do outcome-related concerns.     

The Problem of Historical Rectification for Rawlsian Theory

In this paper we claim that Rawls’s theory is compatible with the absence of rectification of extremely important historical injustices within a given society. We hold that adding a new principle to justice-as-fairness may amend this problem. There are four possible objections to our claim: First, that historical rectification is not required by justice. Second, that, even when historical rectification is a matter of justice, it is not a matter of distributive justice, so that Rawls’s theory is justified in leaving it unaddressed. Third, that dealing with historical injustice is outside of the scope of ideal theory, so that even when historical rectification is required by justice, Rawls’s theory starts with the assumption that no such historical injustice has occurred. Fourth, that while historical injustice is within the scope of Rawls’s theory, there is no need for further principles of justice to deal with it, so that the correct regulation of the principles of justice-as-fairness would ensure the rectification of all relevant historical injustices of a particular society. While we offer several arguments against the first and second objections, we address the last two at length and show that both fail.     

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.