On the Distinction Between Individual Deserving and Distributive Justice

Cohen, Ronald

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1979.tb00422.x

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Personal depri-vation refers to individuals' evaluations of their personal outcomes relative to their personal entitlements, whereas group deprivation refers to an evaluation of one's group's outcomes relative to the group's entitlements. These two forms differ in their definition of the recipient unit of the resource allocation (Cohen 1987;Eckhoff 1974;Wenzel 2000) and in the level of abstraction of the target of one's justice evaluation (person versus group).…”

Section: Levels Of Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Identification As a Determinant of Concerns About Individual-, Group-, and Inclusive-Level Justice

Wenzel

2004

Soc Psychol Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Justice is a multifaceted phenomenon. Capturing some of its complexity, Brickman et al. (1981) suggested a conceptual distinction between micro-and macrojustice. Although this distinction has been influential at a theoretical level (e.g., Tyler et al. 1997), so far little empirical research has investigated it further (e.g., Clayton 1994Clayton , 1998Sinclair and Mark 1991). For instance, we do not know yet when people will be more concerned about micro-or macrojustice. In the present paper, I redefine and extend the conceptual differentiation, including a "mesolevel" of grouplevel justice considerations, and apply it to tax compliance (also see Wenzel 2003). Using data from a survey involving Australian citizens (V. Braithwaite 2000), I investigate the conditions under which the various levels of justice perceptions are relevant to compliance behavior. Specifically, I investigate differently inclusive levels of social identification as determinants for the three levels of justice concerns. The research con-tributes to our understanding of the complex relation between identity and justice. Brickman et al. (1981) define microjustice as justice principles that determine a target person's entitlements on the basis of that person's relative characteristics, such as contributions, status, and needs. Microjustice principles thus are based on an assessment of relevant individual features, and prescribe an allocation of goods as if in exchange for these "inputs" (Folger 1984; see Walster, Walster, and Berscheid 1978). In contrast, macrojustice refers to justice principles that determine certain distributional features of the outcome allocation. Macrojustice principles are not based on an assessment of individual characteristics but prescribe a certain pattern, or certain parameters, of the whole outcome distribution (Folger 1984; for related distinctions see Cohen 1979;Eckhoff 1974). Brickman et al. (1981 argue that the distinction between micro-and macrojustice is important for understanding tensions and controversies about certain justice issues. In the case of affirmative action, for instance, opponents may refer to principles of microjustice that prescribe the allocation of goods, such as jobs and promotions, on the basis of individual qualifications, while supporters may refer to principles of macrojustice that LEVELS OF JUSTICE

show abstract

Section: Levels Of Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Identification As a Determinant of Concerns About Individual-, Group-, and Inclusive-Level Justice

Wenzel

2004

Soc Psychol Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there may be several competing explanations to account for these findings, one possible way of understanding why subjects responded as they did is by reference to equity theory (Adams, 1965;Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1973;1978) and distributive justice (Cohen, 1979;Homans, 1974) via Bandura's (1977a;1977b;1978;1986) conception of cognitive evaluations of reward conditions. This account of implicit reward phenomena has previously been used to explain similar findings from studies of children's responses under implicit reward conditions (Sharpley, Irvine & Hattie, 1980).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Giving a Reason for Unfairness: Effects of a Rationale upon Australian Students' Performances Within an Implicit Reward Situation

Sharpley

1991

Int J Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experimental conditions (giving a rationale vs no‐rationale for “unfair” rewards) were compared under an implicit reward paradigm in which “target” subjects received rewards directly and contingently for improvements on a simple motor skills task while “peer” subjects who were also performing the same task received no rewards. Data showed that there were significant reinforcement effects on the behavior of both target and peer subjects during the implicit reward situation when no rationale was given for the “unfair” application of rewards. However, when a rationale was given for the non‐reward of the peer subjects, neither target nor peer subjects showed significant increases in responses from baseline. Implications for group reinforcement practices are discussed.

show abstract

“…When studying distributive justice, one may focus on macrojustice, microjustiee, or both (Arts and Van Wijck, 1989;Briekman et aL, 1981;Cohen, 1979;Cook and Hegtvedt, 1983;Jasso, 1983Jasso, , 1989. Macrojustice refers to the fairness of the overall distribution of goods to individuals (or groups), while microjustice refers to the fairness of specific allocations to persons(or groups) with particular characteristics (Brickman et aL, 1981).…”

Section: Variable U: Procedural Versus Distributive Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Cohen observed, such conflicts arise when there is a "f'txed store of resources," and "the sum of the resultant 'deserved' outcomes exceeds the store of available outcomes" (Cohen, 1979). While Jasso (1983) has described mathematically the conditions under which the two sets of justice principles will be consistent, such conditions seldom obtain in the "real world."…”

Section: Variable U: Procedural Versus Distributive Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of global inequality: a call for research

Olson

1997

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Distinction Between Individual Deserving and Distributive Justice

Cited by 28 publications

References 56 publications

Social Identification As a Determinant of Concerns About Individual-, Group-, and Inclusive-Level Justice

Social Identification As a Determinant of Concerns About Individual-, Group-, and Inclusive-Level Justice

Giving a Reason for Unfairness: Effects of a Rationale upon Australian Students' Performances Within an Implicit Reward Situation

Perceptions of global inequality: a call for research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About