Moral Judgment and Distributive Justice

Abstract

Abstract. This research focused on the modes of distributive justice employed by individuals differing in the maturity of their moral judgments. Based upon a social exchange model, theoretical distinctions were made among five modes of distribution response: selfinterest, parity, equity, social responsibility, and individual responsibility. Each of 44 male subjects aged 13-18 was led to believe that he was a member of a group of four students whp were to be rewarded for their work. After being induced to work for 1 h, the subject was asked to distribute $ 5.60 among the group members. The inputs of the other (fictitious) members were arranged such that distributions adhering to each of the posited modes could be distinguished. A discriminant analysis of distribution response groups revealed that a subject's orientation in Kohlberg's hierarchy of moral stages was a significant predictor of distribution response, while age of subject was not. Relationships between specific stages and distribution responses were discussed, as were the implications of these results for a general theory of distributive justice.

Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: An experimental lab study*

“…Although others have proposed the importance of the auditor's ethical beliefs as a deterrent to underreporting (Lightner et al, 1982), the present study is the first to empirically test and validate this proposition. Its findings are consistent with earlier experimental studies (Gunzburger, Wegner, and Anooshian, 1977;Leming, 1978;Brabeck, 1984), all showing important and systematic relationships between individuals' levels of moral reasoning and their ethical behavior. Taking this one step further, auditing firms may be able to reduce underreporting by raising the moral reasoning levels of its auditors.…”

Parental Beliefs About Nonresident Fathers’ Obligations and Rights

“…Fourth, we expect that, compared with foreign‐born parents, native‐born parents will emphasize parental obligations and rights more, on the basis that Americans are more prone to support an equity principle for the distribution of rewards than are people in other societies (Cohn, White, & Sanders, 2000; Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Isaka, 1988; Leung & Bond, 1984; Törnblom & Foa, 1983). Finally, age may be related to parental judgments because previous studies show that preferences for different principles of reward allocation shift systematically with increasing age or advancing moral stages, beginning with a principle of self‐interest, moving to a principle of equality, and finally progressing to a principle of equity (Gunzburger, Wegner, & Anooshian, 1977; Hook & Cook, 1979; Lane & Coon, 1972; Leventhal & Lane, 1970). In this study, we examine how the association between each of these factors and parental perceptions of nonresident fathers’ obligations and rights might differ by gender.…”

On the Distinction Between Individual Deserving and Distributive Justice

“…The only sense in which previous work can be said to have recognized the potential conflict, albeit implicitly and not in the normative terms in which it is described here, is in discussions of the self-interest of the allocator as recipient. Most of this work has focused on children and the developmental aspects of distributive justice (e.g., Gunzburger, Wegner & Anooshian, 1977;Lane & Coon, 1972;Leventhal, Popp & Sawyer, 1973;Lerner, 1974b) or the public-private nature of allocations (e.g., Regis & Gruzen, 1976; Shapiro, 1975;Rivera & Tedeschi, O f course, there can be no conflict between individual deserving and distributive justice if an individual's understanding about the extent to which each has been fulfilled is based precisely on the same information. Thus, if the principle involved is equity (Eckhoff s [ 19741 'relative equality according to desert' and Leventhal's [ 1976aI contributions rule), an individual would judge the justice of a distribution and the extent to which any recipient received the outcome he or she deserved in the same way.…”