| Abstract: | Study 1 examined fairness perceptions about gender-based selection. Using a 2 × 3 × 4 (sample × justification × merit discrepancy) between-subjects design, and a scenario approach involving a hypothetical selection case, results showed that (1) males and females perceived gender-based selection as unfair and that the level of perceived unfairness was directly related to the size of discrepancy in merits between the female appointee and the rejected male candidate, (2) the provision of either an ethical or a legislative justification exacerbated perceptions of injustice. To reframe the findings in the context of relative deprivation theory, study 2 repeated study 1 with a professional sample as well as both measures of fairness perceptions and feelings of deprivation. Results on fairness perceptions replicated those of study 1. Findings concerning deprivation included: (1) gender-based selection induced a similar level of feeling (or empathy) of deprivation among male and female professionals; (2) the level of felt deprivation was not related to the size of merit discrepancy; (3) the provision of either form of justification further intensified feelings (or empathy) of deprivation. The implications were discussed within the framework of relative deprivation theory. |
