Week 12 Justice and Injustice Exam Notes PDF

**Week 12 Justice and Injustice** **Exam Notes** **Social psychologists are interested in how individuals determine whether something is just or injust** **Social psychologists are interested in how individuals react to injustice and justice** **Social psychologist use their research to try to c...

**Week 12 Justice and Injustice** **Exam Notes** **Social psychologists are interested in how individuals determine whether something is just or injust** **Social psychologists are interested in how individuals react to injustice and justice** **Social psychologist use their research to try to create a more just society** **Social Psychologist & Justice** 1. Focus on the subjective experience of justice within the individuals tha that study 2. Social Psychologists do not attempt to define what is just or fair or unjust 3. Social Psychologists are interested in how other people judge and react to justice 4. Social psychologist are interested in how other people define and respond to justice and injustice, but don't try to define it themselves. **Questions Social Psychologist ask about justice:** 1. What do people perceive as fair? 2. How are fairness perceptions formed? 3. How do fairness perceptions influence cognition, affect and behavioiur? 4. What do people do to achieve justice? **What is Justice?** - People believe that justice prevails when we treat others and by how we treat others, which corresponds to what the recipient is entitled to - We give to other people what they are entitled to - We receive what we are entitled to **What is Injustice?** - We or others receive rewards that are not proportional to what is deserved. - We or others receive punishments that are not proportional to what is deserved. **The Social Exchange Theory of Justice** - Early social psychologist though people were motivated only by self-interest and getting as much as they could for themselves, they were incorrect. - Early scientists believed that people only act in their own material self-interests, they were incorrect - Early social psychologists believed that people don't care about justice, they care about getting as much as they can get for themselves, without caring about anyone else. - Everyone is selfish and self-centred - These above assumptions led to the social exchange theory. **Social exchange theory of justice says that individuals try to get as many good outcomes for themselves with as little effort as possible** **Later in the development of the Social Exchange theory** - The social exchange theory was applied to social relationships to explain how people behave in them - It assumes individuals seek to maximise their rewards and minimize the costs - Say people want to do as little as possible to get the biggest rewards - Rewards should outweigh the costs - Says fairness isn't important in these decisions, it just has to look fair **Examples of The Social Exchange Theory:** 1. Asking how much work you actually have to do to appear fair. 2. How much work do you have to do to avoid being fired? 3. I will do as little work as I can to get by 4. Parents do just enough housework so that their partner doesn't complain. 5. Spending just enough money on a gift makes you appear like you care about the other person but not one cent more. **Research that looks at how to tell what a person''s motivation is.** **Are they acting in self-interest or for fairness** 1. **PRITCHARD ET AL. (1972):** **Looked at the reaction of people who were treated better than they deserve.** - College students overpaying, the proper pay or underpay - If they are motivated by justice they felt discomfort and dissatisfaction when they were overpaid for their work. - Students overpaid performed more work than expected, they felt like they had to do more to justify the extra money, motivated by justice not self interest. - Over paid students felt less satisfaction with their job and felt discomfort for being over paid, this discomfort was associated with the injustice or unfairness of being paid too much. - Student who felt underpaid, decreased their job performance - Students who were underpaid felt less job satisfaction - Students paid fairly were the most satisfied with their job because they were concerned about justice also. **Other Justice Motivation Studies** 1. **(Walster et al., 1978)** People who feel that they are overpaid will work harder, and produce higher levels of output or work longer hours or both. 2. **(Schmitt & Marwell, 1972)** Overpaid people will leave the workplace to be paid less but more fairly elsewhere where the pay is less but it feels fair. 3. **(Walster et al., 1978)** Employees who perceive themselves to be unpaid are more likely to steal from their workplace because they feel that they are not fairly paid, in order to restore a sense of justice. 4. **(Montada & Schneider, 1989)** Advantaged individuals are willing to redistribute their own resources to others who have been disadvantaged. 5. **Buckholtz et al., 2008; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Gurerk et al., 2006; Henrich et al., 2006, 2010; Raihani et al., 2012)** Punish rule-breakers and uncooperative individuals even at a personal cost; people are willing to give up their own advantages to help push others who did not abide by the rules. **MCAULIFFE ET AL. (2015, STUDY 1):Skittles** - Decided whether to [accept] or [reject] a proposed equal or unequal distribution of Skittles between other children - Costly Condition: Children have to pay their Skittles to reject the distribution; acceptance free - Free Condition: No cost of acceptance or rejection - Children are willing to give up something they want to punish others, they are happy for everyone to miss out for justice to prevail - 6 year olds are more willing than 5 year olds to reject unequal allocations in exchange for equal allocations - 5 year olds were not affected by justice or doing the right thing - 6 year olds are more likely to notice when things are unfair and punish that unfairness even if it costs them **LEVENTHAL (1976):** The four conditions in which Justice becomes salient: 1\. When the person is an authority to do so like a judge 2\. When injustice is perceived 3\. When other goals don't matter 4\. In pluralistic social systems and not in monolithic social systems 5\. When resources are scarce not abundant 6\. When decisions involve organisms in our scope of justice **The Scope of Justice** **Definition of the Scope of Justice:** The psychological boundary for justice or fairness **Facts about the scope of justice:** 1. Morals, values, rules and consideration are granted to those within the boundary but not to those outside the boundary 2. Individuals or animals outside our scope of justice ar vulnerable to harmful treatment. 3. Individuals tend to feel apathy for those outside their scope of justice 4. We put others outside our scope of justice is wars so that we don't feel terrible about killing them 5. We see people outside our own scope of justice as non-human Left side scope is Dichotomous: clear sections and boundaries The right scope is continuous, a scale or gradient of moral consideration **Organisms that are outside the Scope of Justice** 1. If you are outside the scope of justice, you will experience fewer emotions related to injustice from others; they will care less. 2. You are more likely to encounter rudeness, physical harm, or genocide. 3. You receive less social support from policies that are supposed to help. 4. Individuals who know that they are outside the scope of a society\'s justice expect and feel they deserve to be treated badly and react less intensely because of this. **Scope of Justice Study** **KALS & STRUBEL (2017): Organizations supporting Refugees** 1. Volunteers have a higher scope of justice when they are closely involved with refugees. 2. Greater willingness to volunteer to help refugees exists if they fall within their scope of justice. 3. A person\'s scope of justice is significantly related to their willingness to volunteer. **HERE ARE THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHO IS IN YOUR OWN SCOPE OF JUSTICE:** 1. **How similar you are to the target:** - The more similar you are the further inside your scope of justice that person or object is - The lareger your perceived difference the more significant distance the person or object is outside your scope of justice - We would extend our scope of justice to primates because they are more similar to us than bugs. 2. **Context of Conflict:** - Our scope of justice gets narrower when we are in situations of conflict or resources are scarce - In times of war and scarcity people are more likely to narrow their scope of justice down to family. 3. **Utility of self or own society:** - Organisms who benefit us or benefit society are more likely to be inside the scope of justice - We tend to exclude things that can harm us from our scope of justice - Our scope of justice changes over time through age, experience and context **For example,** plants or animals that harm agriculture will be placed outside the scope, loci are outside, and bees will be inside. **Scope of Justice Study** **OPOTOW (1993): Study to make individuals include in their scope of justice concern for the bombardier beetle** - Looked at ways in which we can manipulate the bombardier beetle that see people adding it to their scope of justice - Examined Similarities, Utility and conflict to see what would make the difference - Similarities where not strong enough to influence the scope of justice - Utility and Conflict were successful - By increasing Utility by showing how the beetle benefits people and the environment, it became added to their scope of justice - When the beetle produced low threat and conflict or harm to people it was added to the scope of justice **Optows 1993 study tried to influence the inclusion of a beetle in the participants scope of justice did not do so when they were just asked to identify with ways the beetle and them were similar** **Types of Justice:** 1. **Procedural Justice** 2. **Distributive Justice** **What is Procedural Justice:** 1. Who makes the decisions 2. What is the decision based on 3. Are both sides represented 4. Is the process the same for everyone 5. Are the individuals involved represented 6. What ethical Standards and values are used in the process **What is Distributive Justice:** 1.How are rewards divided between people 2\. How is punishment divided between people 3\. Is the outcome fair **Definition of Distributive Justice** *The perceived fairness of an allocation is the process by which people judge what they or others should receive.* **Judgements rely on Comparisons Being Made** 1. Comparision of input 2. Comparison to other people 3. Comparison to both of the above 4. We can only determine what is fair through these comparisions **Distribution Theory 1** **Relative Deprivation Theory Focuses on Distribution of Justice:** - It focuses on what are the outcomes by comparing different individuals experiences. - Example: how much money does a millionaire have and is it unjust or fair? **Distribution Theory 2** **The Equity Theory of Distribution:** - Looks at fairness by considering the input someone does and compares it to others\' input. - People make social comparisons based on input and output. - Justice in this theory means that everyone's input is equal. - However, the judgement of what is fair and equal is very individual, and it's a challenge to determine if things are fair and equitable. - Researchers challenge this theory and say it\'s only partly true; there are two other ways people judge fairness. Theory 3. **Equity Theory Updated** **We distribute justice and fairness based on the following three factors** 1. Equity: 2. Equality 3. Need 1. **Equity:** - Your outcome is proportional to what you contributed Example: The cook gets the most dinner because they worked the hardest and put the most into the dinner 2. **Equality:** - The outcome needs to be the same for everyone Example: everyone gets the same size serving at dinner 3. **Need:** - The outcome is proportional to the need Example: The person who needs to the most food gets the biggest serving. **The Distribution Justice Principles are the factors that determine which justice factors we will use in any situation:** **Will we distribute justice based on Equity, Equality or Need are determined by these factors:** a. Characteristics of the actor b. Contribution c. Social relationship d. Socio-cultural and historical context e. Outcome f. Outcome allocation **Research on the Distribution of Justice in Different Cultures** **LEUNG & BOND (1984, STUDY 1): How can culture influence which justice principal you base your decisions to allocate resources on** **Looks at how the characteristics of the recipient** - Looks at anonymity's influence on decisions about the distribution of justice through the allocation of resources. - **Chinese** participants from collectivist cultures **preferred equal allocations to be made between friends** believing when you do more work you get more rewards. Because collectivist cultures value harmony with the ingroups. - But believe that **equitable** sharing of **distrubutions** for rewards or punishment between **strangers** whas considered fair, when it comes to justice with strangers, they don't wish or feel comfortable to make a big fuss and they believe harmony is maintain thorough equal distrubutions. - **American** or inidivualsist cultures are the opposite they prefer to give **equitable** shares to **ingroup** members and friends based on input and deserving, - **Americans** Individualistic cultures see it fair to give **equal** based on how much you contribute to strangers **outgroups,** because they value competition with strangers more thant amongst friends.  The Chinese participants preferred equal allocation with an ingroup member. The Chinese participants preferred equitable allocation with an outgroup member. The American participants preferred equitable allocation with an ingroup member. The American participants preferred equal allocation with an outgroup member. **Research on the Distributions of justice and fairness in Cultures** **(Törnblorm et al., 1985)** Swedes prefer equal allocations to a greater extent than Americans **(Otto et al., 2011)** - Canadians use the equity principle to allocate material benefits, Germans use the equality principle - Canadians perceive equality as more just when allocating symbolic benefits than Germans **(Murphy-Berman & Berman et al., 2002)** - Hong Kong participants perceive equity to be fairer than need, Indonesian participants perceive need to be fairer. - Both perceived the need allocator as nicer and acting out of concern for others **The Distribution of Justice for Crimes and How We Allocate Punishment** **The distribution of punishments is guided by the same three principles** 1. **Equitable**: The punishment should fit the crime. 2. **Equality:** Everyone who commits the same crime receives the same punishment, regardless of any other factors. Example: consider the difference in punishment between manslaughter and murder. 3. **Need:** Punishment is based on how much of a deterrent the perpetrator needs to never commit the crime again or how much compensation the victim needs. **Retributive Justice:** **Retributive justice** in social psychology refers to a theory of justice that focuses on punishment and the idea that individuals who violate moral or legal norms should be subjected to penalties or punishment that is proportionate to the offense they committed. The central idea is that justice is achieved when wrongdoers \"pay\" for their actions in a way that matches the severity of their wrongdoing. **Procedural Justice** **Definition of Procedural Justice:** *The perceived fairness of the decision process which allocates resources.* **Procedural justice judgement is a stronger predictor of some organisational justice outcomes, for example a stronger predictor of job satisfaction, performance, and commitment to the organisation that distributive justice judgement** **The procedures we use to evaluate how decisions about fairness and justice should be made are based on:** **Consistency:** Is the process the same for everyone? Everyone treated the same way. **Bias suppression:** Those responsible for making decisions about justice refrain from making decisions based on self-interest and their preconceptions. **Accuracy:** Is the information used to make the decision correct, and is all the information available to make the decisions being used? **Correctability:** Is there an opportunity to get second opinions and for decisions to be modified? **Representativeness:** Are those affected by the decisions involved in the decision-making? **Ethicality:** The standards and principles used to guide the decision are aligned with universal values and standards. **For informal Processes of procedural justice, we use Interactional Justice** - Fairness associated with interpersonal treatment during decision-making - Individuals will evaluate the fairness according to their treatment during decision-making: 1. Truthfulness 2. Justification 3. Politeness 4. Dignity 5. Respect 6. Feedback 7. Adequate explanation of decisions **Procedural Justice VS Distribution Justice Study** **ALEXANDER & RUDERMAN (1987): LOOKED AT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE: IS IT PROCEDURAL JUSTICE OR DISTRIBUTED JUSTICE** 1. Looked at how much job satisfaction was related to procedural justice ( how much say do I have in..) 2. Looked at how much job satisfaction was related to the distribution of justice ( My pay is fair ) 3. I found that both procedural and distributive justice contribute to job satisfaction. 4. However the Procedural factors were the most significantly related to job satisfaction 5. Procedural fairness had these critical factors for job satisfaction a. Fairness in participation b. Fairness in performance c. Fairness in appraisal d. Fairness in conflict in harmony e. Overall job satisfaction f. Evaluation of supervisor g. Trust in management 6. The distributive fairness factors below determine whether a person wants to leave or change jobs. a. Fairly paid b. Fairly promoted based on performance **Study of Procedural Factors Vs Distribution Factors** **COLQUITT ET AL. (2001): STUDY ABOUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE OR PROCEDURAL JUSTICE** - Found different results from the study above - **Distributive Justice** was a stronger predictor of job satisfaction; it predicted the person wanting to leave the job and take more sick leave. - **Procedural justice** was strongly related to generalised job satisfaction and a person's commitment and performance in their role. **The Group Engagement Model**  1. Group membership shapes people's understanding of who they are. 2. The group engagement model tries to understand what drives extra-role behaviour in organisations; the extra role is influenced by the person's social identity with the organisation, and social identity comprises procedural justice and economic outcomes. 3. Extra-role means someone in an organisation that goes above and beyond your job requirements. 4. The group engagement model looks like how identifying with an organisation is related to employees engaging in extra-role behaviours. 5. Identifying with a group through social identity motivates individuals to serve that group because: a. When a person works in a good environment with perceived high quality, they will exert more effort to identify with the group positively. b. The group fulfils some needs. You have to feel good because you belong to a group, so you want to give back to that group by creating extra-role behaviour. c. Group norms become essential when we identify with a group. 6. States individuals will conform to group norms, if the group norm is to serve the group, the individual will comply. 7. Things that cause an individual to identify with a group and do extra-role in the group include: a. **Procedural justice**: positive processes and treatments that people encounter in a group b. **Economic outcomes**: the output of a decision, pay or extrinsic rewards or benefits socially in the group 8. Why do procedural justice and economic outcomes cause people to identify with a group? a. **Procedural justice** causes us to identify with the group, signals fairness in group processes, fosters trust, and willingness to integrate the group into their identity. b. **Ecomonic outcomes:** convey symbolic messaging about the groups evaluation about its members reinforcing social identity and group commitment.