Procedural and Distributive Justice Beliefs for Self and Others

Abstract

Both theory and research suggest that beliefs about justice for the self are distinct from beliefs about justice for others. Self-other differences, however, have not yet intersected with research on procedural and distributive justice. We examined the psychometrics and validity of a proposed four-dimensional measure of procedural and distributive justice beliefs for self and others. Participants from three samples (total N = 1463) completed dispositional measures of beliefs about fair outcomes (distributive justice beliefs) and processes (procedural justice beliefs). These measures were modified and expanded to record beliefs about justice for the self and justice for others. We also administered measures of well-being and harsh social attitudes. Factor analyses strongly supported the proposed four-factor model. In addition, higher-order self-others and procedural-distributive factors were indicated by theoretically appropriate lower-level factors. Finally, multiple regression analyses provided evidence for idiosyncratic links between four-factor individual differences and measures of well-being and harsh social attitudes. The proposed four-factor operationalization can provide individual differences researchers with a useful tool for bridging two important areas of justice theory and research that previously have been linked to health behavior, well-being, and harsh social attitudes.

The Relationship between Just World Beliefs and Life Satisfaction

“…A multiple regression analysis revealed that although the two self subscales (distributive and procedural) were significantly predictive of life satisfaction, the two other (distributive and procedural) subscales were not (see Table 3). These results are consistent with the finding by Lucas et al [2].…”

“…Lucas et al [2] found the two self-justice subscales to be more strongly correlated with life satisfaction than the two other subscales. They also found the two self-justice subscales, but not the two other subscales, were predictive of life satisfaction in a multiple regression analysis.…”

“…Belief in a just world (BJW) is predicated on the idea that the world is a just place and that people get what they deserve. This belief can also serve to rationalize perceived injustices [1,2]. People rely on the comfort of the belief in a "just world" and understand their own and others' experiences accordingly.…”

“…The seven-point scale uses the following anchor points: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree. The Belief in a Just World Scale (BJW) [2] consists of 16 items rated on seven-point Likert scales: 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Four subscales are included in the instrument: (a) distributive justice for others (DJ-others) with items such as "I feel that people usually receive the outcome they are due"; (b) procedural justice for others (PJ-others) with items such as "People are generally subjected to processes that are fair"; (c) distributive justice for self (DJ-self) with items such as "I usually receive the outcomes I deserve"; and (d) procedural justice for self (PJ-self) with items such as "People usually use fair procedures in dealing with me".…”

Children’s Inequity Aversion in Procedural Justice Context: A Comparison of Advantageous and Disadvantageous Inequity

“…In fact, children at 9 were able to use procedures to hide their intentions for self-interest maximization ( Shaw et al, 2014 ). The manipulability of procedural justice perhaps explains why people’s belief in distributive justice rather than procedural justice at an individual level is more predictive of their self-rated health ( Lucas et al, 2011 ). Therefore, procedural justice is not entirely the same as distributional justice in terms of uncertainty and manipulability, suggesting the importance of investigating children’s development in the area of procedural justice.…”