Justice Sensitivity in Middle Childhood: A Replication and Extension of Findings

Abstract

Previous research showed justice sensitivity (JS) – the tendency to perceive and negatively respond to injustice as a victim, observer, or perpetrator – to be reliably and validly measurable in middle childhood, but unexpected findings concerning mean values and measurement invariance (MI) require replication, and retest reliabilities, longitudinal relations with prosocial and aggressive behavior, and relations with teacher ratings are currently unknown. This study, therefore, examined mean values, factor structure, retest reliabilities, and MI of self- and parent-rated JS as well as their relations with parent- and teacher-rated prosocial and aggressive behavior and a range of social skills in a sample of 1,329 children between 5 and 12 years of age (first measurement: M = 8.05, SD = 1.02, 51.1% girls). Using self- and parent ratings, we could replicate the intended factor structure of three related yet distinct JS subscales (victim, observer, and perpetrator). We found strong MI between those ratings. Retest reliabilities of parent ratings were similar to older age groups, but lower for self-ratings. All JS perspectives were positively related with theory of mind and empathy, indicating a good understanding of others’ internal states. Victim JS was negatively related to affective and behavioral self-regulation, whereas observer and perpetrator JS showed positive relations. Victim JS negatively and observer and perpetrator JS positively predicted prosocial behavior. The opposite pattern was found regarding aggressive behavior. This study provides additional support that JS can be measured via self- and other reports in childhood and that it may influence behavior early on. It adds to explaining the relations with prosocial and aggressive behavior.

Links between justice sensitivity and moral reasoning, moral emotions, and moral identity in middle childhood

“…Regarding the relations between the outcome measures and the JS subscales, differential relations can be expected as well. In previous research, victim JS predicted more aggressive behavior in children, adolescents, and adults (Bondü, 2018; Bondü & Richter, 2016; Strauß et al, 2020), adults’ uncooperative behavior in experimental games (Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer et al, 2009), less prosocial behavior in children (Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021; Strauß et al, 2020), less solidarity with unlucky others or countries in need (Stavrova & Schlösser, 2015), and less moral courage (Niesta Kayser et al, 2010) in adults. Individuals high in victim JS even tended to justify own norm transgressions (Gollwitzer et al, 2012).…”

“…The negative effects of victim JS were explained by exaggerated perceptions of others’ untrustworthiness, concerns about being taken advantage of, and/or generalized expectations of unfair treatment (Bondü, 2018; Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer et al, 2015). In addition, despite positive relations with ToM and empathy (Edele et al, 2013; Schmitt et al, 2005; Strauß et al, 2020), victim JS showed negative relations with affective and behavioral self‐regulation that may hamper the adequate execution of prosocial behavior (Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021). Given the negative relations with prosocial behavior and positive relations with aggression, the interest in justice for one's own sake, justifications of own norm transgressions, and general expectations of norm transgression in others, victim JS should positively relate to more egoistic and hedonistic reasoning (indicating less advanced moral reasoning) in moral dilemma situations and positive emotion attribution in norm transgressors (happy victimizer).…”

“…In contrast, observer and/or perpetrator JS were positively related with less self‐serving and more altruistic behavior in experimental games among adults (Baumert et al, 2014; Edele et al, 2013; Fetchenhauer & Huang, 2004), more prosocial behavior in children and adolescents (Bondü & Elsner, 2015; Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021; Strauß et al, 2020), more sharing and equal distributions among children (Strauß & Bondü, 2021), and less aggressive behavior in various age groups (Bondü, 2018; Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021; Bondü & Richter, 2016; Strauß et al, 2020). Observer JS was positively related to disobeying an authority in order to be honest—particularly when the participants’ moral identity was also high—and to intervening despite physical danger in hypothetical scenarios (Sonnentag et al, 2018).…”

“…Furthermore, gender‐ and age‐related mean‐level differences in JS in childhood and adolescence are well documented, with higher levels for girls compared to boys (most consistent for observer and perpetrator JS) and age‐related increases in JS (most consistent for victim and observer JS; Bondü & Elsner, 2015; Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021). Gender‐ and age‐related moderating effects were shown for associations between JS and depressive symptoms or eating behavior pathology (Bondü et al, 2017, 2020), but less so for aggressive behavior (Bondü & Krahé, 2015).…”

Who May Punish How?

“…Response options ranged from 0 = not at all true to 3/5 = exactly true . Evidence for the reliability and validity of the measures was provided (Bondü & Kleinfeldt, 2021; Strauß et al, 2020). We computed separate mean scores for all three JS perspectives and a combined altruistic JS score from observer and perpetrator JS.…”