Psychology and Justice

Furby, Lita

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3511-3_6

Cited by 71 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 134 publications

(117 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, relative deprivation theory (e.g. deCarufel & Schopler, 1979;Crosby, 1976) and Furby's (1986) notion that meeting expectations is a fundamental component of justice also seem to suggest that we may want to explain the findings of the present paper in a broader perspective. In other words, not only may we ask ourselves why expectations are important for the process of forming procedural fairness judgements; we may also ask ourselves whether expectations may be important for the process of forming distributive fairness judgements as well.…”

Section: K Van Den Bos R Vermunt and H A M Wilkementioning

confidence: 82%

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

Bos

Vermunt

Wilke

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In procedural justice research it has frequently been found that allowing people an opportunity to voice their opinion enhances their judgements of the fairness of a decision-making procedure. The present study investigated how this voice effect is affected by the consistency over time rule, which dictates that, once people expect a certain procedure, deviation from the expected procedure will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. Two experiments were conducted. In both experiments the independent variables manipulated were whether subjects were explicitly told to expect a voice procedure, were explicitly told to expect a no-voice procedure, or were told nothing about a subsequent procedure, and whether or not subjects subsequently received an opportunity to voice their opinion. The manipulations were induced by means of scenarios in Experiment 1, and by means of the Lind, Kanfer and Early (1990) paradigm in Experiment 2. In both experiments it was found that subjects who expected a voice procedure or who expected nothing judged receiving the voice procedure as more fair than receiving the no-voice procedure, but that subjects who expected a no-voice procedure judged receiving the voice procedure (inconsistency) as less fair than receiving the no-voice procedure (consistency). Furthermore, effects of the manipulated variables on subjects' task performance were found in Experiment 2.

show abstract

Section: K Van Den Bos R Vermunt and H A M Wilkementioning

confidence: 82%

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

Bos

Vermunt

Wilke

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They want not just to get a good deal but also to deal and be dealt with fairly. Other things being equal, they should be more willing to accept transactions embedded in legitimate social processes (Furby, 1986;Tribe, 1972). One obvious threat to legitimacy is anything that makes a transaction less satisfactory.…”

Section: Legitimacy Of Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility

Fischhoff¹,

Furby²

1988

J Risk Uncertainty

Self Cite

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People express their value for a good when they pay something for it. Interpreting good and payment very broadly, we offer a general analytical framework for characterizing such transactions. This framework is suitable for interpreting actual transactions as well as for creating hypothetical transactions for research purposes. It is described here both in general terms and with special application to one particular kind of transaction, contingent valuation studies in which individuals estimate the value of possible changes in atmospheric visibility. In these transactions, as in many others, risk (of undesired changes in visibility) is one principal feature; at least some uncertainty often surrounds other transaction features as well (For example: How much will visibility really change ifI promise to pay for it? Will I really have to pay?). The framework presented here conceptualizes any transaction as involving (a) a good, (b) a payment, and (c) a social context within which the transaction is conducted. Each of these aspects in turn has a variety of features that might and in some cases should affect evaluations. For each such feature, the framework considers first the meaning of alternative specifications and then the difficulties of ensuring that they are understood and evaluated properly. As a whole, the framework provides an integrated approach to designing evaluation studies and interpreting their results.Finding out what something is worth to people is easiest when they engage in observable transactions involving it. Thus, the value of a consumer item is related to how much money people pay to acquire it. The value of a recreational experience is revealed, in part, by the amount of time people spend on it. The value of a political cause is, to some extent, reflected in the energies that people expend pursuing it--getting, in return, either the goal itself or the satisfaction of knowing they at least tried to obtain it. In all such overt transactions, latent predispositions are revealed in concrete actions.People may reveal the value to themselves of a particular thing in a variety of

show abstract

“…In a very fundamental way, our sense of deservingness is linked to our expectations abut outcomes in our world (see Furby, 1986). These expectations, we believe, grow out of and reflect our experience in two very different realms: within the family and in our interactions with the larger world.…”

Section: Deservingness That Is Not Associated With Justicementioning

confidence: 88%

“…From our perspective, justice is not synonymous with what is morally right (cf. Furby, 1986); we claim that justice is one type of moral judgment but does not subsume all such judgments. about their accident in terms of fairness.…”

Section: Early Questions: Fairness Versus Deservingnessmentioning

confidence: 97%

Victims' Responses to traumatic life events: An unjust world or an uncaring world?

Janoff‐Bulman

Morgan

1994

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology and Justice

Cited by 71 publications

References 134 publications

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

The consistency rule and the voice effect: the influence of expectations on procedural fairness judgements and performance

Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility

Victims' Responses to traumatic life events: An unjust world or an uncaring world?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About