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

Abstract

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

VOICE, CONTROL, AND BELONGING: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness

“…The key moderator of fair process concerns in this sample was identication with the superordinate group ("America") rather than ethnic subgroup identity. Similarly, in an Australian survey, Wenzel (2004) found that perceived social norms were positively associated with tax compliance for most people, but that this link was significantly weaker among those who didn't identify with the mainstream culture.…”

“…There are now many lines of evidence testing the Tyler-Lind model (see Tyler, 1994;Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). For example, those treated poorly by authorities experience some reduction in self esteem (Kwong & Leung, 2002), when group identification is strong (Huo et al, 1996;Wenzel, 2004), when the person scores high on a "need to belong" scale (De Cramer & Alberts, 2004), when the authority is an ingroup member rather than an outgroup member (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998; but see Ståhl, Van Prooijen, & Vermunt, 2004). An especially interesting finding is that process effects are weaker for citizens who identify strongly with a subordinate group but weakly with a superordinate group; e.g., minority "separatists" as opposed to "assimilationists" (Huo et al, 1996) -an effect that is discussed in greater detail later.…”

Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas

“…A short list of principles which have routinely appeared in attempts to reconcile distributive justice claims in international climate policy debates would include causality (current and historical), ability to pay, protection of the vulnerable, entitlements to climate security and economic development, burden sharing, and entitlements to atmospheric space (see Klinsky and Dowlatabadi, 2009). In addition, work on the socialpsychology of justice (Deutsch, 1975;Lerner, 1975;Tyler and Dawes, 1993;Montada and Kals, 2000;Opotow, 1994;Konow, 2001;Wenzel, 2001Wenzel, , 2004 contributes two key themes that have been missing from discussions of justice and climate change. These are the importance of boundaries and relationships, and deservingness.…”

Sprawiedliwość proceduralna podatków

“…Percepcję sprawiedliwości podatków, niezależnie od jej rodzaju, można analizować na trzech poziomach: indywidualnym, grupowym i społecznym [Wenzel, 2003[Wenzel, , 2004. Analiza sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej na poziomie indywidualnym oznacza poznanie opinii jednostki na temat jej obciążeń w porównaniu z obciążeniami podatkowymi osób o zbliżonych lub odmiennych dochodach (sprawiedliwość pozioma i pionowa) lub w porównaniu własnych obciążeń w różnych odstępach czasu.…”

“…Na poziomie społecznym chodzi o przejrzystość działań administracji skarbowej i o politykę informacyjną związaną z podatkami. Analiza kosztów płacenia podatków na poziomie indywidualnym obejmuje takie zagadnienia, jak: czas oczekiwania na połączenie telefoniczne z administracją skarbową, długość kolejek do informacji skarbowej, szybkość korespondencji kierowanej do jednostki, grup społecz-nych, a na poziomie społecznym jest to ocena efektywności systemu podatkowego lub stopnia złożoności obowiązującego prawa podatkowego [Wenzel, 2003;Wenzel, 2004]. Gros badań poświęconych subiektywnej sprawiedliwości podatków dotyczy sprawiedliwości dystrybutywnej, która jest analizowana głównie na poziomie indywidualnym oraz grupowym i sporadycznie na poziomie społecznym.…”