This article investigates the psychometric properties of a self-report inventory for measuring individual differences in four components of justice sensitivity (JS): victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity, and perpetrator sensitivity. A representative sample (N = 2510) was employed to (a) estimate the reliability of a newly developed perpetrator sensitivity scale, (b) test the factorial validity of this scale together with three previously developed scales (victim, observer, and beneficiary sensitivity), (c) estimate correlations between JS and demographic variables (gender, age, education, employment status, marital status, and residency in East versus West Germany), and (d) provide normative data for the computation of standard scores. A demographically heterogeneous convenience sample (N = 327) was used to locate the JS dimensions in the personality space of narrow facet factors. Results from confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the factorial validity of the JS scales. Regression analyses with JS scales as criteria and personality facet scales as predictors suggested that JS cannot be reduced to combinations of personality facets. Demographic effects were small, explaining a maximum of 1.4% of JS variance. Women and East Germans were found to be more justice sensitive than men and West Germans, respectively. Victim sensitivity decreased with age; perpetrator sensitivity decreased with education. Taken together, our results corroborate the validity of the JS Inventory and contribute to a better psychological understanding of JS.

The question as to which structural equation model should be selected when multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data are analyzed is of interest to many researchers. In the past, attempts to find a well-fitting model have often been data-driven and highly arbitrary. In the present article, the authors argue that the measurement design (type of methods used) should guide the choice of the statistical model to analyze the data. In this respect, the authors distinguish between (a) interchangeable methods, (b) structurally different methods, and (c) the combination of both kinds of methods. The authors present an appropriate model for each type of method. All models allow separating measurement error from trait influences and trait-specific method effects. With respect to interchangeable methods, a multilevel confirmatory factor model is presented. For structurally different methods, the correlated trait-correlated (method-1) model is recommended. Finally, the authors demonstrate how to appropriately analyze data from MTMM designs that simultaneously use interchangeable and structurally different methods. All models are applied to empirical data to illustrate their proper use. Some implications and guidelines for modeling MTMM data are discussed.

Abstract. Scales for justice sensitivity from three perspectives (victim, observer, perpetrator) were developed. A latent state-trait analysis revealed high reliabilities (≈ .95). Trait consistencies (≈ .61) were twice as large as occasion specificities (≈ .33). The correlation between observer and perpetrator sensitivity was much higher than the correlation between either one and victim sensitivity. Self-related concerns (Machiavellianism, paranoia, suspiciousness, vengeance, jealousy, interpersonal trust) correlated more highly with victim sensitivity than with observer and perpetrator sensitivity. Other-related concerns (role taking, empathy, social responsibility) correlated more highly with observer and perpetrator sensitivity than with victim sensitivity. Low correlations between justice sensitivity and a just world belief system were found. Few correlations between justice sensitivity and broad personality traits were significant. Victim sensitivity correlated with neuroticism (≈ .30). Perpetrator sensitivity correlated with agreeableness (≈ .20). Observer and perpetrator sensitivity reflected high moral standards. Victim sensitivity was a mixture of self-protective motives and moral concerns.

Learning theory, attentional processes, social influences, and biological determinants contribute to the development, persistence, and modification of expectancies. Psychological interventions should focus on optimizing expectation violation to achieve optimal treatment outcome and to avoid treatment failures.

Three studies explore the effects of perspective-specific justice sensitivity on indicators of both prosocial behavior (i.e., existential guilt, solidarity, and responsibility ascriptions towards the disadvantaged) and antisocial behavior (i.e., the willingness to transgress a norm in a moral temptation dilemma). On the basis of theoretical considerations and earlier findings it is expected that being sensitive towards injustice from a beneficiary's perspective is associated positively with prosocial and negatively with antisocial behavior, whereas the opposite should be true for being sensitive towards injustice from a victim's perspective. The results from all three studies support these hypotheses. It is argued that JS-beneficiary indicates a genuine, "other-oriented" concern for justice and social responsibility, whereas JS-victim indicates a mixture of "self-related" and justice-related concerns.KEY WORDS: justice sensitivity; prosocial behavior; antisocial behavior; moral concerns.Research on moral behavior has identified several situation and personality factors that contribute uniquely or in interaction to the explanation of moral, prosocial, and norm-compliant versus deceitful, antisocial, and delinquent behavior. Among the most powerful situation factors are behavioral costs and benefits and the presence of others who act as models, exert social control, or contribute to the diffusion of responsibility (Piliavin and Piliavin, 1972;Piliavin et al., 1981;Schwartz, 1977). Studies on deceit (Batson et al., 1997(Batson et al., , 1999Hartshorne and May, 1928) and bystander intervention (Clarkson, 1996) demonstrate how strongly moral behavior depends on the situational context.