Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale

Hülle, Sebastian; Liebig, Stefan; May, Meike

doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1580-x

Cited by 46 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally following Deutsch (1975), the equity principle (i.e., allocating rewards proportional to inputs) is dominantly applied to enhance productivity, whereas the equality principle (i.e., allocating rewards equally neglecting inputs) is dominantly applied to foster enjoyable relationships and promote harmony. Within marriage, the entitlement principle (i.e., allocating rewards according to gender) may also be an important justice principle (Hülle, Liebig, & May, 2018). For example, individuals may believe in men's greater financial competence and therefore think that it is fair if husbands have the last word in major financial decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditional gender ideology, that is, individuals' support for a gendered division of labor, might affect fairness evaluations of couples' savings arrangements via the entitlement principle. This principle refers to allocating rewards according to gender or other ascribed status characteristics (Hülle et al, 2018). As mentioned above, despite a trend toward more egalitarian gender ideologies, a modified breadwinner model with 1.5 earners persists in large parts of the German population.…”

Section: Entitlement Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distributive Justice in Marriage: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs about Fair Savings Arrangements

Tisch

Lersch

2020

J of Marriage and Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study examines fairness perceptions of experimentally manipulated savings arrangements in couples (i.e., distribution of control and ownership of savings) to identify distributive justice principles in marriage. Background Theoretically, competing norms about individual ownership rights and autonomy (equity principle) and marital sharing (equality principle) in interaction with gender ideology (entitlement principle) may explain how individuals perceive the fairness of different savings arrangements, but these explanations have not been tested against each other yet. Method In a nationally representative factorial survey experiment, implemented in the German GESIS Panel, 3,948 respondents evaluated the fairness of randomly presented savings arrangements (N = 19,648 evaluations). Results Respondents rated equal control as more important than equal ownership to establish fairness in marriage. The ownership of savings does not seem to be directly linked to control, providing evidence against the equity principle. Inequality in ownership is rated fairer if it is in favor of the husband, whereas inequality in control is rated fairer if it is in favor of the wife. This suggests that gender is an ascriptive characteristic according to which resources should be allocated (entitlement principle). Conclusion The results indicate that the ideal of marital sharing is widespread, but is rather accomplished by equal control than by equal ownership. Individuals' fairness perceptions of inequality in marriage are gendered, that is, depend on whom inequality favors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Entitlement Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive Justice in Marriage: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs about Fair Savings Arrangements

Tisch

Lersch

2020

J of Marriage and Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to basic principles of social justice, a zero-sum game may be resolved fairly by giving due consideration to each of four principles: need, equality, equity, and entitlement [ 94 , 119 ]. The precise weight of consideration for each principle is the focus of discourse and insight in western political theory—ongoing for the past 2500 years.…”

Section: Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding Purpose in the Conservation of Biodiversity by the Commingling of Science and Ethics

Vucetich

Macdonald

Burnham

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Averting the biodiversity crisis requires closing a gap between how humans tend to behave, individually and collectively, and how we ought to behave—“ought to” in the sense of behaviors required to avert the biodiversity crisis. Closing that gap requires synthesizing insight from ethics with insights from social and behavioral sciences. This article contributes to that synthesis, which presents in several provocative hypotheses: (i) Lessening the biodiversity crisis requires promoting pro-conservation behavior among humans. Doing so requires better scientific understanding of how one’s sense of purpose in life affects conservation-relevant behaviors. Psychology and virtue-focused ethics indicate that behavior is importantly influenced by one’s purpose. However, conservation psychology has neglected inquiries on (a) the influence of one’s purpose (both the content and strength of one’s purpose) on conservation-related behaviors and (b) how to foster pro-conservation purposes; (ii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires governance—the regulation of behavior by governments, markets or other organization through various means, including laws, norms, and power—to explicitly take conservation as one of its fundamental purposes and to do so across scales of human behaviors, from local communities to nations and corporations; (iii) lessening the biodiversity crisis requires intervention via governance to nudge human behavior in line with the purpose of conservation without undue infringement on other basic values. Aligning human behavior with conservation is inhibited by the underlying purpose of conservation being underspecified. Adequate specification of conservation’s purpose will require additional interdisciplinary research involving insights from ethics, social and behavioral sciences, and conservation biology.

show abstract

“…Contrary to so-called variable-centred approaches that consider support for particular principles or domains as separate dimensions (e.g. Hülle, Liebig, & May, 2018;Meuleman, Roosma, & Abts, 2020), this person-centred approach has the benefit of uncovering the ideological coherence of individuals' justice preferences (Franke & Simonson, 2018). Because the person-centred paradigm is largely exploratory, it is difficult to predict exactly which configurations of interconnected principles will be retrieved.…”

Section: Configurations Of Distributive Justice Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale

Cited by 46 publications

References 33 publications

Distributive Justice in Marriage: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs about Fair Savings Arrangements

Distributive Justice in Marriage: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs about Fair Savings Arrangements

Finding Purpose in the Conservation of Biodiversity by the Commingling of Science and Ethics

Differentiated Distributive Justice Preferences? Configurations of Preferences for Equality, Equity and Need in Three Welfare Domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About