Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

Abstract

Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer's classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the ''lost and found'' box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.Keywords Justice Á Fairness Á Morality Á Symbolic interaction Forays into studying the psychology of fairness over the last 70 or so years have yielded dozens of theories and thousands of empirical studies. The goal of this review is to selectively rummage through the last several decades of theory and research to explore where we have been, re-examine issues and ideas we may have forgotten or neglected to sufficiently follow-up or apply forward, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future.

When leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy influences leaders' adherence to procedural fairness rules

“…First, although inconsistent treatment of employees is often considered procedurally unfair, a needs-based allocation of 'resources' has been more prevalent in interdependent situations where there is a stronger focus on personal development and when the resources that are being allocated are not money or status but, for example, information (Elliott & Meeker, 1986;Mannix, Neale, & Northcraft, 1995;Parks, Conlon, Ang, & Bontempo, 1999). Secondly, adhering to a fairness rule can be favorable for those who value it, but not unfavorable for those who do not consider it particularly important (Skitka, 2009), suggesting that differential treatment is not necessarily considered unfair.…”

Why is Justice Regarded as so Important? Theoretical Considerations and an Empirical Test of a Fundamental Question

“…A core finding of normative and empirical justice research is that justice issues do not arise in every allocation or distribution process but are bound to specific conditions (Mikula, 2002;Skitka, 2009;Vanberg, 2007). Justice is relevant only in situations in which individual or collective actors decide who should get how much of a good or carry a burden, meaning that outcomes depend on human decisions and not coincidence or other causes.…”

Die wahrgenommene Gerechtigkeit des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens: Geschlechtstypische Muster und die Bedeutung des Haushaltskontextes

“…Geht man von der Grundannahme der Theorie sozialer Produktionsfunktion aus, wonach Menschen zwei grundlegende Ziele verwirklichen möchten -(1) Steigerung des physischen Wohlbefindens und (2) der sozialen Wertschätzung (Lindenberg 1986(Lindenberg , 1991 (Skitka 2003(Skitka , 2009 (Bittman et al 2003). Zum einen ist das von der Frau außerhalb des Haushalts erwirtschaftete Geld in geringerem Maße innerhalb des Haushalts in Zeit konvertierbar und zum anderen folgt der Statuswert einer geschlechtstypischen Orientierung: Für Männer ist er nach außen gerichtet und für Frauen nach innen (Pahl 1983, Zelizer 1994 …”