Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective.

Schmeidler, Emilie; Deutsch, Morton

doi:10.2307/2070672

Cited by 12 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the legal decision-making literature, scholars have proposed that people attend to two types of justice: procedural justice and distributive justice. Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of procedures or processes during legal encounters such as police interactions; distributive justice focuses on the fairness of outcomes or allocation in legal interactions (Deutsch, 1985;Engel, 2005). Although substantial attention has been given to procedural justice in the literature, we argue that distributive-justice concerns are a key component in people's conceptualizations of reasonableness.…”

Section: What Is Reasonable Depends On What Is "Just"mentioning

confidence: 89%

How Do People Come to Judge What Is “Reasonable”? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology

Spruill

Lewis

2022

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people decide what is reasonable? People often have to make those judgments, judgments that can influence tremendously consequential decisions—such as whether to indict someone in a legal proceeding. In this article, we take a situated cognition lens to review and integrate findings from social psychology, judgment and decision-making, communication, law, and sociology to generate a new framework for conceptualizing judgments of reasonableness and their implications for how people make decisions, particularly in the context of the legal system. We theorize that differences in structural and social contexts create information asymmetries that shape people’s priors about what is and is not reasonable and how they update their priors in the face of new information. We use the legal system as a context for exploring the implications of the framework for both individual and collective decision-making and for considering the practical implications of the framework for inequities in law and social policy.

show abstract

Section: What Is Reasonable Depends On What Is "Just"mentioning

confidence: 89%

How Do People Come to Judge What Is “Reasonable”? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology

Spruill

Lewis

2022

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, we advance the justice literature to ensure it permits all to participate as peers in social life rather than in an allocator–receiver paradigm. Prior studies about social justice focus on the evaluation of allocated outcomes and the evaluation of allocating rules, known as distributive justice and procedural justice (Deutsch, 1985; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Both types of justice assume that allocators own the resources and receivers can only passively receive what they are allocated (Jasso et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In social psychology, justice has two forms: distributive justice and procedural justice. The former refers to the socially just allocation of resources (Deutsch, 1985), while the latter is concerned with the just mechanisms for making decisions about distributions or outcomes (Lind & Tyler, 1988). In the world of distributive justice, the allocator plays an important role in justice evaluation.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disembedded consumption increases perceived justice

Qian

Sun

2023

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional theorizing of social justice analyzed people's perceived justice in a bounded society or institution. This conceptualization, however, has limitations in interpreting justice in a boundaryless society with high mobility of people and commodities, which is the reality of contemporary lives. We, therefore, introduce a new concept, “disembedded consumption” (i.e., one's consumption is not constrained by its grounding in the local context of a restricted time and space), to reinterpret social justice. Across five studies, we demonstrate that either human mobility or product mobility can predict disembedded consumption which increases people's perceived justice through heightened resource accessibility. Moreover, we provide further evidence that human mobility and product mobility can be compensated with each other to have a positive effect on disembedded consumption and consequently on perceived justice. The current research for the first time introduces “disembedded consumption” as a consequence of human mobility and product mobility and contributes to the literature on social justice.

show abstract

“…The general consensus in the compensation literature seems to be that dispersed pay structures in interdependent work settings have detrimental effects on individual employees, group functioning, and performance. Arguments from equity (Adams, 1965) and related theories have been used to argue that highly dispersed pay structures in interdependent work settings erode cooperation and foster competition and conflict, leading to low individual and unit-level performance (e.g., Akerlof & Yellen, 1988;Bloom, 1999;Deutsch, 1985;Pfeffer & Langton, 1993;Shaw et al, 2002). However, many studies reporting these negative effects in interdependent work settings have conceptual and methodological shortcomings (see Gerhart & Rynes, 2003).…”

Section: Task Interdependencementioning

confidence: 99%

Contingencies in the effects of job‐based pay dispersion on employee attitudes

Tenhiälä

Kepes

Jokela

2023

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does pay dispersion elicit positive or negative employee attitudes? A review of the pay dispersion literature indicates a controversy around this vital question and suggests that numerous contingency factors moderate the effects of pay dispersion. In an empirical study of four Finnish companies consisting of 141 work units, we examine contingencies in attitudinal reactions to job‐based pay dispersion among blue‐collar workers. Based on archival pay data matched with employee survey responses (n = 536), we find that perceptions of pay basis legitimacy, task interdependence, and an individual's pay standing within the work unit explain the strength and direction of the relation between job‐based pay dispersion and employee attitudes (i.e., work engagement and organizational commitment). Our findings have implications for the design of pay systems and contribute to a better appreciation of the complexities underlying employee attitudinal responses to pay dispersion.

show abstract

Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective.

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

How Do People Come to Judge What Is “Reasonable”? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology

How Do People Come to Judge What Is “Reasonable”? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology

Disembedded consumption increases perceived justice

Contingencies in the effects of job‐based pay dispersion on employee attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About