Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

Abstract

Cooperation is vital to human evolution and the development of society. In addition, social justice is one of humanity’s long pursuits. Based on social exchange theory and system justification theory, we built and tested a comprehensive mediated moderation model of the relationship between social justice and public cooperation intention via the mediation of political trust and with the moderation of outcome dependence. This research consisted of two studies using laboratory experiment (N = 320) and field survey (N = 1240) methods. Data were collected from participants located in China. The results showed that (1) both competence-based trust and motive-based trust mediated the relationship between social justice (i.e., distributive justice and procedural justice) and public cooperation intention; (2) outcome dependence moderated the relationship between social justice and public cooperation intention; and (3) the moderation of outcome dependence functioned through the mediating effect of competence-based and motive-based trust. The theoretical and practical significance of these findings is discussed.

Procedural fairness predicts cooperative behaviour for high‐self‐esteem individuals but not for low‐self‐esteem individuals

“…The present study also supported the positive predictive effect of fairness on cooperation but differed from past research and extended existing findings, to some degree. First, except for a few studies (e.g., De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2003), past research mainly examined indicators of cooperative intention when individuals faced either procedural fairness or unfairness (e.g., Cornelis et al, 2011; Zhang & Zhou, 2018), which may fail to reveal actual cooperative behaviour. The present study used actual cooperative behaviour, which is a better indicator of cooperation.…”

“…Moreover, procedural fairness can also determine individuals' cooperation in an organisational context. Either fair or just procedures (vs. unfair or unjust procedures) by the authority during an allocation scenario led to increased willingness to cooperate within the team (Cornelis, Van Hiel, & De Cremer, 2011; De Cremer & Tyler, 2007; Zhang & Zhou, 2018). Notably, previous studies mainly focused on cooperative intention instead of examining behavioural indicators, when individuals faced procedural fairness or unfairness.…”

“…Notably, previous studies mainly focused on cooperative intention instead of examining behavioural indicators, when individuals faced procedural fairness or unfairness. Although cooperative intention could ideally be substituted for actual cooperative behaviour, it would not always generate cooperative behaviour (Zhang & Zhou, 2018). For example, Person A may initially be willing to cooperate with Person B, but may not ultimately cooperate with person B after picking up on cues that Person B does not want to cooperate.…”

“…Moreover, boundaries (moderators) exist in the effect of procedural fairness on cooperation. Research has indicated that the positive association between procedural justice and cooperative intention is stronger when a person's desires are controlled by an authority to a lesser extent rather than to a larger extent (Zhang & Zhou, 2018). Additionally, the promoting effect of procedural fairness on cooperative behaviour has been shown to be more influential when individuals received an unfavourable outcome (less than an equal share) rather than a favourable outcome (De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2003).…”

Causal Role of the Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Organizational Fairness Perception: Evidence From a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Study

“…OTree (Chen et al, 2016 ) was used to present participants with a scenario from Zhang and Zhou ( 2018 ): “Imagine that your college has received a donation of ¥150,000 (approximately US$2,143), and 10% is dedicated to student welfare. The donors specify that, if one student rejects the money, the corresponding donation will be deducted (in a similar manner to the punishment of proposers in the traditional UG), and the allocation plan should also be consulted for each student’s opinion.…”