学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉

以141名中小学生为被试,采用访谈法和问卷法研究学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉及其公平观念。结果表明：(1)学生对教学调节策略的公平知觉存在差异．同伴辅导是学生认为最公平的教学调节策略,其次是丰富。高中生与初中生和小学生对加速和等待两种教学调节策略的公平知觉存在差异。(2)学生的公平观念存在年级差异,公平知觉与公平观念有关。     

Consensual Beliefs about the Fairness and Accuracy of Selection Methods at University

This study investigated student's perception of the accuracy and fairness of 17 different assessment methods to measure 8 different traits/characteristics thought to be desirable in a student. Results for accuracy and fairness judgments were similar with drug, general knowledge and intelligence tests being thought of a least accurate and fair while panel interviews and references were thought of as among the fairest selection methods. Factor analyses of the accuracy data showed that two underlying components existed labelled test and face‐to‐face methods. There was considerable consensus among the 322 respondents. The only individual difference variable which was shown to explain any variance in accuracy perceptions was self‐assessed intelligence. The possible explanations for these findings, as well as study limitations and suggested directions for future research are discussed.     

Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making

Recent multifoci research reports that multiple sources of justice exist in organizations. In expanding this framework, we address how judgments of overall procedural fairness and behavioral intentions are influenced by different experiences of voice-based participation across a multi-stage decision-making process. The results of two experiments were consistent with a fairness theory framework. Overall, decision procedures were judged to be the fairest and the intention to volunteer was highest when participants were allowed voice in their team and when their team was allowed voice by organizational authorities. When voice was denied by both the team and the organization or was denied by either party, fairness ratings, and participant intentions were depressed and did not significantly differ from each other. This pattern of results suggests that individuals are influenced by transactions across decision-making stages and that such interdependence should be considered when attempting to understand the meaningfulness of voice-based participation.     

Justice of give‐and‐take in the intimate relationship: When one partner of a couple is diagnosed with cancer

This study examined to what extent couples facing cancer (N= 55) and healthy couples (N= 74) perceived various distributions of give‐and‐take to be just or fair when occurring within a relationship of a cancer patient and his or her partner. Participants read one of three versions of a bogus interview with a couple facing cancer. In these scenarios, both partners were either equally well‐off in terms of give‐and‐take or one partner was better off than the other. In general, participants judged the equitable situation to be the fairest. Thus, even in a situation in which one partner of a couple has cancer, people generally judge a relationship in which both partners mutually support each other to be the fairest. Only in extreme situations (i.e., if the patient were in a bad condition) did participants regard a distribution according to need fairer than a distribution according to equity. Couples facing cancer and healthy couples did not differ in their judgments. In addition, emotional responses to the scenarios were studied. Consistent with equity theory, participants expected to feel most guilty in an overbenefited situation. In contrast with equity theory, however, participants did not expect to feel especially angry or sad in an underbenefited situation.     

UNIVERSALISM IN LAY CONCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: A CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMINATION

In two studies of Japanese and Australian university students, we examined the resource allocation rules of equity and equality. In both cultures, subjects were universalistic rather than relativistic in their judgments of fairness and alterability of these rules in the work place. They judged the equity rule to be unalterable by legislation or consensus. However, in both studies, the Japanese perceived equity to be less fair and equality to be less unfair than their Australian counterparts. In addition, study 2 indicated that cross-cultural differences in judgments of fairness were influenced by consideration of need. The age of the worker was a more important determinant of fairness judgments for Japanese than for Australians; the debt of a worker was a more important déterminant for Australians than for Japanese. The results are discussed with regard to the role of culture in conceptions of distributive justice.     

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

There is ample experimental evidence showing that people have a strong preference for equity in wealth allocation and social interaction. Although the behavior of gain sharing and responses to (un)fairness in allocation of wealth has been extensively investigated in studies employing economic exchange games, few studies have focused on how people respond to an unfair division of loss between individuals. In this study we developed a new variant of the ultimatum game and examined the participants' reactions to (un)fairness in both gain and loss sharing. Results from three experiments showed that the rejection rates to unfair offers were generally higher in the loss than in the gain domain. Moreover, participants were inclined to associate loss with “unfair” and gain with “fair”, with stronger associations leading to higher rejection rates in the ultimatum game. Furthermore, in subjective rating, unfair offers were perceived as being more unfair in the loss than in the gain domain. These results demonstrate an increased demand for fairness under adversity and the importance of justice in liability sharing.     

Equity,Equality, and Need in the Adult Family

Abstract

British students were given scenarios about family and business situations and were asked to rate various cost allocation decisions in terms of fairness and justice, and conflict. In terms of fairness/justice, there was no difference between the need and equity allocations in the family situation, though equity was preferred in the business situation. The equality division was the least preferred in all situations, and equity was judged to be the division the least likely to evoke conflict in all situations.     

Effect of Mode of Adjudication,Presence of Defense Counsel,and Favorability of Verdict on Observers' Evaluation of a Criminal Trial1

In an experimental simulation, observers evaluated one of four different legal procedures in the presence of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome in a video-taped reenactment of a criminal trial. The procedures were adversarial, inquisitorial, adversarial without lawyer, and adversarial with plea bargaining. Data were gathered on the fairness and perceived satisfaction of the defendant with the final outcome, and quality of the defense and prosecution. Contrary to previous research, results showed that the several different procedures were seen as equally fair and legitimate, which suggests that how a procedure is implemented may be more important than its structural properties in observers' overall evaluations. It was also found that defendants are seen as least satisfied when the ostensibly fairest procedure (eg, adversarial) yields an unfavorable outcome. This finding supports a frustration interpretation and contradicts previous studies which report adversarial to be the most preferred dispute resolution procedure within all outcome conditions.     

Equity in Staff Selection: Managerial Attitudes and Practices

A survey of 486 managers was designed to examine how well employment equity is being implemented in Australian public and private sector organizations. Respondents were asked to report on the procedures they themselves used in their most recent staff selection. The findings on the incidence of the various selection techniques generally confirmed those of previous studies, specifically that the interview is the single most common technique. Although the large majority of managers professed pro-equity attitudes, most also displayed a belief in gender stereotypes and almost half misunderstood the requirements of affirmative action in Australia. Most selection decisions appear to have been based on merit-related factors, but a surprisingly high proportion of managers admitted to potentially discriminatory practices. Factors such as age, good looks and the absence of physical disability were rated as having been important in more than a third of selection decisions. Also, factors such as gender, marital status, race and colour influenced some managers in job selection. However, such discriminatory factors appear to have been less important in the public sector and in larger organizations which would have had more exposure to equity and affirmative action programs.     

Need norm, demographic influence, social role, and justice judgment

The relationships of distributive justice norms (equity, equality, and need), social role, and demographic variables to judgments of fairness, satisfaction, employer obligation, and employee entitlement were investigated. Subjects functioning as recipient's co-workers, allocators, or observers responded to a need-based salary allocation situation. Multiple regression analyses showed that endorsement of the need norm was most important. Justice norms and demographics each predicted significant unique variance in all of the criterion judgments. Social role yielded significant differences for fairness judgments. The findings indicate that where a situation increases the salience of nonequity factors other justice norms, such as recipient needs, may become more important than the equity norm. The results also suggest the importance of respondent social roles and demographic characteristics in the study of justice judgments.     

Fairness and preference

Two equity models were evaluated by fitting them to subjects' judgments of the fairness of payment distributions to “self” and “other” under hypothetical work situations. Neither the E. Walster, G. W. Walster, and E. Berscheid (Equity: Theory and Research, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978) equity formulation nor Harris' (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 194–209) linear model adequately accounted for the fairness judgments regardless of whether self worked more or less than other. Subjects also were asked to indicate their most preferred payment distributions and these preferences were significantly different from the fairness judgments. Results suggested that fairness judgments were influenced by a bias in the direction of overpayment to self.     

The Equity-Control Model as a Predictor of Vandalism Among College Students1

The equity-control model of vandalism (Baron & Fisher, 1984; Fisher & Baron, 1982) is used to conceptualize vandalism among college students. The model predicts that vandalism is most likely where there are low perceived equity (perceived lack of fairness in one's social or environmental arrangements) and low to moderate perceived control (perceived inability to effectively modify outcomes and arrangements). To test the model, university students were given questionnaires which measured perceived equity and control as these factors relate to the university and to dormitory living. Using multiple regression analysis, the interaction of equity and control was predictive of vandalism: Subjects with low perceived equity and control were most likely to report they engaged in vandalistic acts.     

Is Justice the Same for Everyone? Examining Fairness Items Using Multiple-group Analysis

Purpose  The purpose of this study was to examine whether fairness assessed in a widely used multisource instrument written by practitioners possessed a similar factor structure as fairness measured in academic literature, and whether different groups based on their relationship to the ratee (e.g., peers, subordinates, supervisors) perceived a similar structure to the construct. Design/methodology/approach  Multisource data were collected for 141 managers from a variety of organizations across the United States, who participated in a leadership development program offered by Personnel Decisions International (PDI), a global management consulting firm. Findings  The study results show that fairness measured with a widely used multisource instrument indeed assesses the same construct as that examined in the academic literature. Peers, subordinates, and supervisors perceived fairness similarly, whereas self-reports of fairness differed, suggesting that they function as a systematic source of variance in the measurement of fairness. Implications  The findings in this study demonstrate that leaders can be confident that their constituents are all conceptualizing fairness the same way, such that differences are meaningful and not due to differences in the understanding of the items in the instrument. Originality/value  The proliferation of the use of multisource feedback instruments in leadership development programs has facilitated the assessment of the fairness of managers. This study shows that perceptions of fairness of the manager as reported by his or her constituencies (e.g., peers, supervisor, subordinates) change very little as a function of who is doing the perceiving, which heretofore has not been shown.

The development of children's preferences for equality and equity across 13 individualistic and collectivist cultures

A concern for fairness is a fundamental and universal element of morality. To examine the extent to which cultural norms are integrated into fairness cognitions and influence social preferences regarding equality and equity, a large sample of children (N 2,163) aged 4–11 were tested in 13 diverse countries. Children participated in three versions of a third‐party, contextualized distributive justice game between two hypothetical recipients differing in terms of wealth, merit, and empathy. Social decision‐making in these games revealed universal age‐related shifts from equality‐based to equity‐based distribution motivations across cultures. However, differences in levels of individualism and collectivism between the 13 countries predicted the age and extent to which children favor equity in each condition. Children from the most individualistic cultures endorsed equitable distributions to a greater degree than children from more collectivist cultures when recipients differed in regards to wealth and merit. However, in an empathy context where recipients differed in injury, children from the most collectivist cultures exhibited greater preferences to distribute resource equitably compared to children from more individualistic cultures. Children from the more individualistic cultures also favored equitable distributions at an earlier age than children from more collectivist cultures overall. These results demonstrate aspects of both cross‐cultural similarity and divergence in the development of fairness preferences.     

公平或是利益?权力对分配公平感的影响

通过3个实验逐步考察了高、低权力个体对三种分配方案(公平/劣势不公平/优势不公平)的公平感。结果发现：(1)被试的公平评级从高到低依次为公平、优势不公平、劣势不公平, 做出评级的反应时则从快到慢依次为公平、劣势不公平、优势不公平; (2)相对于低权力被试, 高权力被试对劣势不公平分配的公平评级更低, 而对公平分配和优势不公平分配的公平评级更高, 且做出公平判断的反应时更短。基于这些结果, 作者提出了公平与利益权衡的公平优先效应及权力的自我增强假设, 以更好地理解权力和公平的本质及二者的关系。     

Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments

The authors assessed the impact that social value orientations--prosocial (i.e., concerned about outcomes for both oneself and others) versus proself (i.e., concerned about one's own outcome only)--had on fairness judgments in a non-negotiation setting. The results indicated that prosocials generally formed fairness judgments in a manner suggested by equity theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw an equal outcome as fairer than a favorable or unfavorable outcome. The fairness determinations of proselfs, however, tended to follow the tenets of self-interest theory: Given the same input as a comparison other, they saw a favorable outcome as fairer than an unfavorable outcome. Contrary to self-interest theory, proselfs did not find a favorable outcome fairer than an equal outcome. These findings indicate that social value orientations differentially affect the evaluation of outcome information in the formation of fairness judgments.     

公平敏感性研究述评

公平敏感性是基于对Adams公平理论的批评提出来的,反映的是人们在公平问题上的个体差异性。该文首先对公平敏感性概念的提出与修正进行了回顾,并介绍了公平敏感性的测量方法和分类标准;然后分析了公平敏感性对于结果变量的直接及调节效应,个人及社会文化因素对公平敏感性的影响,并介绍了公平敏感性的跨文化比较;最后指出该领域未来的研究应着重澄清对概念理解的差异,改进分类标准,加强对公平敏感性影响因素以及中国人公平敏感性的研究     

The choice between allocation principles: amplifying when equality dominates

One hundred and ninety participants (95 undergraduates and 95 employees) responded to a factorial survey in which a number of case-based organizational allocation tasks were described. Participants were asked to imagine themselves as employees in fictitious organizations and chose among three allocations of employee-development schemes invested by the manager in different work groups. The allocations regarded how such investments should be allocated between two parties. Participants chose twice, once picking the fairest and once the best allocation. One between-subjects factor varied whether the parties represented social (i.e., choosing among allocations between two different work groups) or temporal comparisons (i.e., choosing among allocations between the present and the following year). Another between-subjects factor varied whether participants' in-group was represented by the parties or not. One allocation maximized the outcome to one party, another maximized the joint outcome received by both parties, and a third provided both parties with equal but lower outcomes. It was predicted that equality, although always deficient to both parties, would be the preferred allocation when parties represented social comparisons and when choices were based on fairness. When parties represented temporal comparisons, and when choices were based on preference, maximizing the joint outcome was hypothesized to be the preferred allocation. Results supported these hypotheses. Against what was predicted, whether the in-group was represented by the parties or not did not moderate the results, indicating that participants' allocation preferences were not affected by self-interest. The main message is that people make sensible distinctions between what they prefer and what they regard as fair. The results were the same for participating students who imagined themselves as being employees and participants who were true employees, suggesting that no serious threats to external validity are committed when university students are used as participants.     

A COMPARISON OF RUSSIAN AND U.S. PAY ALLOCATION DECISIONS, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE JUDGMENTS, AND PRODUCTIVITY UNDER DIFFERENT PAYMENT CONDITIONS

This article reports the results of two studies of pay-related attitudes and behaviors of Russian and U.S. managers and students. In a pay allocation role play, managers in both countries place primary emphasis on individual performance (equity) and secondary emphasis on coworker relations and equality. In addition, Russian managerial subjects utilized need in their pay allocations. In a series of experiments, both Russian and U.S. students preferred the equity rule, although there were no productivity effects across different allocation rules. Procedural justice effects were also observed. Implications for pay practices are examined.