Explaining Choices in Procedural and Distributive Justice Across Cultures

A previous study (Leung, Bond, & Schwartz, 1990) established that an expectancy-valence model could be used effectively to explain behaviours in three social domains both within and across cultures. In this study the model was applied to the domains of resource allocation and conflict resolution in order to pinpoint which expectancies and which valences were carrying the explanatory weight of the respondents' behavioural strategies. For both Israeli and Hong Kong students the expectancies and, less strongly, the valences tapping harmony and performance quality were important for resource allocation; those tapping animosity reduction and process control, for conflict resolution. Suggestions were offered for broadening the net of explanatory constructs for future work aimed at specifying subjective factors associated with justice-related behaviours.     

Procedural Justice and Culture

The past fifteen years have seen the development of a considerable research literature on the social psychology of procedural justice (see Lind & Tyler, 1988, for a review). Procedural justice research reveals some serious shortcomings in the exchange theories that have traditionally dominated Western analyses of the social psychology of groups, and in so doing, the procedural justice literature has important ramifications for cross-cultural psychology. Results from a number of studies conducted in the United States and Western Europe show that individualistic, self-interest based models of human behaviour are insufficient to explain procedural justice phenomena. Instead, procedural justice effects frequently reveal strong group-oriented concerns and motivations even in cultural contexts generally thought to be characterized by individualistic orientations. The research literature also shows that if a group's procedures are judged to be fair, people are more likely to show group-oriented behaviour and to hold more favourable attitudes toward the group and its leaders. These findings have led to the development of a theory of justice judgments—the Lind and Tyler group-value theory—which is based on group norms and relations rather than on social exchange theory. We describe a general model of social behaviour that integrates group- and individually-oriented behaviour, and we discuss the implications of the model for social and cross-cultural psychology.     

The Protestant Work Ethic and Just World Beliefs in Great Britain and India

This study examined Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) and Just World Beliefs (JWB) in Great Britain and India. Secondary school children, university students and adults completed seven PWE questionnaires and the JWB questionnaire. A three-way (sex × occupational status × nationality) ANOVA showed highly significant main effects, particularly for nationality, but few significant interactions. Generally females more than males, Indians more than Britons, and schoolchildren more than adults endorse the PWE and JWB. Possible experimental artifacts and moderator variables are considered along with the possibility that genuine cultural differences were found. These results are discussed in terms of the relevant literature on cross-cultural studies of the PWE and BJW.     

Exposed eye area (EEA) in the expression of various emotions.

Exposed eye area (EEA) was measured in photographs of Indian adults who modeled six emotions--happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust--as well as a neutral expression. The data were analyzed with a 2 x 6 (Eyes x Emotions) factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). EEA for neutral expression was used as the covariate measure. The EEAs of the two eyes did not differ significantly during the expression of emotion. The EEAs for fear and surprise were significantly larger, and the EEA for disgust was significantly smaller than those for either other emotions or neutral expression.     

Retraining Displaced Workers: Factors Affecting Success in Training Programs

In this study 21 displaced workers were interviewed regarding factors affecting their participation in training programs funded by the Job Training Partnership Act. Differences between program participants and nonparticipants, differences among program participants, and differences among nonparticipants were identified.