Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

Gollwitzer, Mario; Bücklein, Katrin

doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0051-y

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present findings are consistent with previous findings in which a sense of connectedness with others increased a concern for justice when observing social transgressions (e.g., Correia et al, 2007;Gollwitzer & Bücklein, 2007;Kerr et al, 1995;Novak & Lerner, 1968;Van Prooijen, 2006;Van Prooijen & Lam, 2007). This is not to say, however, that all forms of connectedness to others increase a concern for justice in all possible situations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

We Blame Innocent Victims More Than I Do: Self-Construal Level Moderates Responses to Just-World Threats

Prooijen¹,

Bos

2009

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the impact of self-construal levels on people's tendency to blame innocent victims for the victims' fates. The authors hypothesized that when the belief in a just world is threatened, social self-construal is associated with more victim blaming than individual self-construal is. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were primed with either the individual self (with the word I) or the social self (with the word we). Results indeed showed that when threats to just-world beliefs were high, social self-activation produced more victim blaming than individual self-activation did. This effect was not found when just-world threats were low. Extending on these findings, Experiment 3 revealed that, following a just-world threat, an independent self-construal measure was negatively related to victim blaming, and an interdependent self-construal measure was positively related to victim blaming. It is concluded that self-construal levels are important to understanding the justice motive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

We Blame Innocent Victims More Than I Do: Self-Construal Level Moderates Responses to Just-World Threats

Prooijen¹,

Bos

2009

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative explanation can be provided by differences in socialization that remain even after the reunification and that may be reflected by the higher degree of interdependence that has been reported among East compared to West Germans. As research has shown, interdependence tends to be positively correlated with justice sensitivity (Gollwitzer & Bücklein, 2007).…”

Section: Perpetratormentioning

confidence: 98%

The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial Validity, Location in the Personality Facet Space, Demographic Pattern, and Normative Data

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Such a setup thus mimics lay people's responses to the injustices that they perceive on a day‐to‐day basis through modern media. One set of studies reveals that activation of the social self increases desire to punish the offender . Thus, whereas activating an individualistic mindset makes people more sensitive to personally experienced injustice, activation of a social mindset makes people more sensitive to injustice experienced by others.…”

Section: Social Motives For Justice Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One set of studies reveals that activation of the social self increases desire to punish the offender. 28 Thus, whereas activating an individualistic mindset makes people more sensitive to personally experienced injustice, 21 activation of a social mindset makes people more sensitive to injustice experienced by others. Additional findings reveal that activation of the social self also shapes justice-based reactions to crime victims.…”

Section: Social Motives For Justice Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individualistic and social motives for justice judgments

Prooijen

2013

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Justice judgments are subjective by nature, and are influenced substantially by motivational processes. In the present contribution, two motives underlying justice judgments are examined: individualistic motives to evaluate solutions to social problems that benefit the self in material or immaterial ways as fair versus social motives to conceptualize justice in terms of the well-being of others, such as a desire for equality, adherence to in-group norms, and a concern for the collective interest. A review of relevant research reveals evidence for both motivations when people make evaluations of justice. Moreover, which motive is most dominant in the justice judgment process depends on perceptual salience: whereas individualistic motives are activated when a perceiver's own needs and goals are perceptually salient, social motives are activated when others' needs and goals are perceptually salient. It is concluded that both individualistic and social motives contribute in predictable ways to justice judgments.

show abstract

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

Cited by 35 publications

References 53 publications

We Blame Innocent Victims More Than I Do: Self-Construal Level Moderates Responses to Just-World Threats

We Blame Innocent Victims More Than I Do: Self-Construal Level Moderates Responses to Just-World Threats

The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial Validity, Location in the Personality Facet Space, Demographic Pattern, and Normative Data

Individualistic and social motives for justice judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About