Gender-related inequalities in the division of family work in close relationships: A social psychological perspective

We offer a social psychological perspective on gender-related inequalities in close relationships and integrate two lines of research that have focused on the intrapersonal perceptions and interpersonal consequences respectively of the gendered division of labour. We start with a brief summary of research on gender-related inequalities in the division of labour and discuss prior explanations and paradigms. We then address the extent to which spouses consider the division of labour as fair and the factors that contribute to perceptions of (un)fairness. Central to our argument is the distributive justice framework (<citeref rid="b76">Major, 1987</citeref>, <citeref rid="b77">1993</citeref>; <citeref rid="b113">Thompson, 1991</citeref>) which claims that fairness judgements are affected by people's wants and values, comparison standards, and justifications. In the following section, we address the question of whether dissatisfaction over the division of labour causes relationship conflict and how couples manage these conflicts. The main argument is that conflict over the division of labour generally comprises an asymmetrical conflict structure (with wives as complainants and husbands as defenders of the status quo), which elicits asymmetrical conflict interaction patterns (i.e., demand/withdraw interaction) that result in asymmetrical outcomes (i.e., status quo maintenance). Finally, we summarise the main conclusions and address contributions to theory and research as well as directions for further research.     

Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice

The present research explores third parties’ (e.g., jurors, ombudsmen, auditors, and employees observing others’ encounters) ability to objectively judge fairness. More specifically, the current research suggests that third parties’ justice judgments and reactions are biased by their attitudes toward the decision recipient and, in particular, the affective aspect of those attitudes as characterized by their felt social emotions. We explore how the congruence of a social emotion (i.e., the extent to which the emotion reflects feeling a subjective sense of alignment with the target of the emotion) can influence their evaluations of recipients’ decision outcomes. The five studies presented show that congruence can lead third parties to react positively to objectively unfair decision outcomes and, importantly, that the influence of social emotions on subjective justice judgments drive third party reactions to decisions, decision makers, and even national policies.     

Justice as a basic human need

A stark encounter with some of the hostages and their families at the time of a parliamentary coup brought to mind the significance of justice for human development and community discourse. The evidence is presented, the concept of justice explored, human needs defined, and the argument advanced for more psychologists to extend their present academic and professional concerns with aspects of civil and criminal justice to include a concern with the social. The suggestion is that together all three components of justice are sufficiently compelling a component of human welfare to feature in any list of basic needs. Epistemologically they could also be construed as presenting a combined orthogonal domain to be integrated with moral values and be recognised as a stream of the emerging scientist-practitioner-metaphysician model. In raising the topic, attention is paid to the contributions of constitutional and international lawyers, moral philosophers, and a few pioneer psychologists. The hope is that others in such realms as child development, forensic services, industrial/organisational psychology, pastoral psychology, political psychology, and social psychology, might be sufficiently inspired to consider its relevance, undertake requisite training, and redesign their research accordingly.     

“Doing justice” in psychological methodology: From science and experiments to anecdotes

Methodology is intrinsically related to “object” and its quality is based on the degree to which a method is doing justice to the object, demonstrating the entanglement of ontic, epistemic, and ethical considerations. The intent of “doing justice” is at the core of methodology and is the de facto guiding principle for conducting research and for producing knowledge. Objects in psychology can range from subjectivity to science and conflicts emerge because of giving primacy to particular objects. Using this perspective, various meanings of doing justice, critics’ challenges, deviations from doing justice to an object, ethical-political dimensions and the dialectics of doing justice in relation to objects are discussed. If doing justice is at the core of methodology, then the issue becomes under what circumstances a particular method is doing justice in relation to a particular object. Contrasting the experiment with anecdotes, it is shown dialectically that the former has no privileged status in psychology, and that experiments that are not replicated only do justice as anecdotal evidence.     

A Plea for Internormative Ethics

Plurality of life forms and value systems is a given (almost) everywhere on earth. Imposing on them a value system or individual values and virtues from an exterior position is rather counterproductive. Value systems are normative for individual communities but not the same. They are to relate to each other and to interact, negotiating with each other common goals and the validity and limits of values involved in their relationships and shared action. Anything else leads to tensions and violence. Internormative ethics reflect on such interaction of value systems.     

The generalizability of reactions to assessment: An application of the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS) in academic settings

This study tested the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS) in an educational setting. The sample consisted of 617 students. Four different confirmatory models were tested, followed by an IRT analysis to test the scale structure at the item level in the two different contexts (selection vs. academic exams). Results indicated that the 11‐factor structure is the best factorial solution, and SPJS items were found to be free of DIF.     

But Affirmative Action hurts Us! Race-related beliefs shape perceptions of White disadvantage and policy unfairness

Drawing on social identity theory, we examine how Whites’ race-related beliefs drive their reactions to race-based Affirmative Action Policies (AAPs). Across laboratory and field settings, we find that Whites with relatively high modern racism (MR) or collective relative deprivation (CRD) beliefs perceive greater White disadvantage in organizations that have race-based AAPs, than in organizations that do not. Alternatively, race-based AAPs do not lead to perceptions of White disadvantage among Whites with relatively low MR and CRD beliefs. We also find that White disadvantage mediates the relationship between the combined effects of race-based AAPs, MR beliefs, and CRD beliefs and the perceived fairness of the organization’s selection and promotion policies. Our findings suggest that race-based AAPs do not necessarily lead to perceptions of White disadvantage, but are contingent upon the interpretive lens of Whites’ MR and CRD beliefs, and also offer practical insights for preventing negative reactions to race-based AAPs.     

Why Levelling Down could be Worse for Prioritarianism than for Egalitarianism

Derek Parfit has argued that, in contrast to prioritarianism, egalitarianism is exposed to the levelling down objection, i.e., the objection that it is absurd that a change which consists merely in the betteroff losing some of their well-being should be in one way for the better. In reply, this paper contends that (1) there is a plausible form of egalitarianism which is equivalent to another form of prioritarianism than the Parfitian one, a relational rather than an absolute form of prioritarianism, and that (2), although this relational or egalitarian form of prioritarianism is hit by the levelling down objection, the Parfitian form is also hit by it, or worse objections, if it is fully worked out.

The role of a mentoring group for family therapy trainees and therapists of color

This article discusses the development, process, and impact of a mentoring group for family therapists of color. A within-group process for trainees of color in a predominantly White institution can provide a valuable resource for support, validation, empowerment, and collective action. The article examines how such mentoring promotes the effectiveness of therapists of color, as well as the practices and goals of social justice and diversity within training institutions and the field in general. Reflections and recommendations for implementing such a group are offered, as well as a personal narrative of a group member's experience of finding her voice in the group.     

民初政治道德建构思想的历史透视——以《正谊》杂志为中心

民国初期,部分社会志士以《正谊》杂志为阵地,以道德救亡为主旨,围绕高扬道德为共和所需理念、确立道德因时更张理论、主张铸就共和道德精神、提倡规范国民言行、坚信重塑人格为救亡要途展开政治道德的理论诠释。此举与学理清算道德堕落、名实相悖,官僚治国、“恶精神”泛滥,官无人格、寡廉鲜耻,人心颓废、思潮隳堕等弊端联系在一起。欲藉反省自爱、外力逼迫、典型示范、塑造人格等方法以重铸近代政治理想人格,进而达到实际救亡之目的。