Sex, age, and equity behavior.

Leventhal, Gerald S.; Lane, Douglas W.

doi:10.1037/h0029611

Cited by 151 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years there have been a large number of studies examining behavior and judgments with respect to the distribution of rewards in experimental settings (for examples, see Adams, 1965;Brickman, 1977;Deci, 1975;Eiser andEiser, 1976, Khan, 1972;Lane and Coon, 1972;Lane and Messé, 197\,L aneet al, 1971;Lerner, 1974;Leventhal and Lane, 1970;Leventful andMichaels, 1969, 1971;Leventhal et ai, 1972Leventhal et ai, , 1973Messé and Lichtman, 1972;Pruitt, 1972;Sampson, 1969;Streater and Chertkoff, 1976;Weiner and Kun, 1976). However, these studies have not examined the applicability of their results to behavior and judgments about the distribution of personal possessions in everyday experience.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequalities in Personal Possessions: Explanations for and Judgments about Unequal Distribution

Furby¹

1979

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines concepts about and evaluations of the unequal distribution of personal possessions. As an exploratory study, its purpose was to map the dimensions of (a) explanations for the existence of unequal distribution and (b) judgments or evaluations of inequality. Interview questions were administered to (a) 150 Americans, 30 at each of five age levels (kindergarten, second, fifth, and eleventh grades, and 40- to 50-year-old adults), and to (b) 120 Israelis, 60 from the kibbutz and 60 from the city (in each case, 30 of kindergarten age and 30 of fifth grade age). A content analysis was performed on the interview responses. The general developmental trend in explanations for the existence of unequal distribution was for (a) both differential amounts of money and differential preferences and needs to be frequent explanations at all ages, (b) differential acquisition explanations to become increasingly active in nature (e.g., working, earning), and (c) an increasing recognition that unequal distribution is due to circumstances beyond the individual’s control. The main cultural difference in reasons given for unequal distribution occurred for fifth graders, where both Israeli groups mentioned differential work and achievement, as a major reason for the existence of inequality, whereas this reason was not frequent among Americans until older age levels. With respect to evaluations of unequal distribution, the youngest two age levels had difficulty making any evaluative statements at all, but those few they made tended to be negative. Fifth graders and high school students also judged unequal distribution more negatively than positively, and only the adults gave as many positive as negative evaluations. The principal difference between cultural groups was that a greater number of kibbutz children stated explicitly that they were indifferent to unequal distribution. There were also a number of smaller developmental and cultural differences, and the general pattern of results is interpreted as reflecting different experiential histories with inequality.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequalities in Personal Possessions: Explanations for and Judgments about Unequal Distribution

Furby¹

1979

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a number of years, researchers have been intrigued with the possibility that distributive justice might change systematically with development (Benton, 1971;Handlon and Gross, 1959;Leventhal and Anderson, 1970;Leventhal and Lane, 1970;Piaget, 1932). Such studies have frequently supported the general hypothesis that sharing increases with age, but have seldom produced more refined statements regarding the pattern of distributive justice development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Judgment and Distributive Justice

Gunzburger¹,

Wegner²,

Anooshian³

1977

Human Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This research focused on the modes of distributive justice employed by individuals differing in the maturity of their moral judgments. Based upon a social exchange model, theoretical distinctions were made among five modes of distribution response: selfinterest, parity, equity, social responsibility, and individual responsibility. Each of 44 male subjects aged 13-18 was led to believe that he was a member of a group of four students whp were to be rewarded for their work. After being induced to work for 1 h, the subject was asked to distribute $ 5.60 among the group members. The inputs of the other (fictitious) members were arranged such that distributions adhering to each of the posited modes could be distinguished. A discriminant analysis of distribution response groups revealed that a subject's orientation in Kohlberg's hierarchy of moral stages was a significant predictor of distribution response, while age of subject was not. Relationships between specific stages and distribution responses were discussed, as were the implications of these results for a general theory of distributive justice.

show abstract

“…Dentre outras coisas, estas pesquisas demonstraram que: os homens tendem a adotar modelos distributivos que buscam recompensar o trabalho e o esforço, enquanto que as mulheres tentam assegurar o bem-estar das pessoas envolvidas na situação de distribuição, escolhendo princípios como a igualdade (Hutz, Conti & Vargas, 1994;Leventhal & Lane, 1970;McGillienddy-De Lisi et al, 1991); a perspectiva adotada pelos indivíduos (ator ou observador) e suas relações com as pessoas que serão beneficiadas ou prejudicadas pela distribuição influenciam significativamente as decisões de justiça distributiva (Assmar, 2000;Skarzynska, 1989); valores coletivistas estão associados a uma maior predi-leção pelo igualitarismo, enquanto que a prevalência de valores individualistas em países capitalistas relaciona-se à uma maior preferência pela eqüidade baseada na produtividade (Giacobbe-Miller, Miller & Victorov, 1998;Murphy-Berman & Berman, 2002).…”

unclassified

Justiça distributiva e empatia em adolescentes do Nordeste Brasileiro

Sampaio¹,

Monte²,

Camino³

et al. 2008

Psicol. Reflex. Crit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoO objetivo principal deste trabalho foi investigar se a empatia exercia influência significativa sobre os raciocínios distributivos de 120 adolescentes, de ambos os sexos e de escolas públicas e particulares. Para tanto, utilizouse uma situação-problema na qual os respondentes tinham que decidir a maneira mais justa de distribuir dinheiro entre seis personagens que haviam trabalhado junto e que diferiam no que diz respeito à naturalidade, produtividade e necessidade. Além disto, utilizou-se o IRI de Davis para avaliar o nível de empatia dos participantes. Nos resultados, observou-se que as dimensões de tomada de perspectiva e de personal distress, além das variáveis sexo e tipo de escola exerceram influência significativa sobre as quantidades de dinheiro distribuídas entre os personagens. Estes resultados são discutidos à luz da teoria de Hoffman e de pesquisas empíricas no campo da moralidade e da justiça distributiva. Palavras-chaves: Moralidade; justiça; distribuição; empatia. AbstractThe main aim of this research was to investigate whether empathy influenced the distributive reasoning of adolescents. A sample of 120 teenagers, controlled by sex and type of school (public or private), took part in the investigation. Distributive justice was evaluated through a dilemma in which the participants had to decide the fairest way to share money among six workers who had worked together but were different terms of productivity, necessity and place of birth. Empathy was measured with IRI (Davis). The results show that role-taking, personal distress, sex and type of school influenced the amounts of money distributed. These results are discussed in the context of Hoffman's theory and empirical research on morality and distributive justice. Keywords: Morality; justice; distribution; empathy.No campo da Psicologia, os primeiros trabalhos sobre a questão da justiça distributiva, a partir de uma perspectiva, psicogenética foram feitos pelo psicólogo suíço Jean Piaget. Em seu trabalho intitulado O juízo moral na criança (1932/1994), Piaget observou que as pessoas passam por estágios de desenvolvimento moral, os quais refletem avanços no campo das dimensões cognitiva e afetiva. No que diz respeito à justiça distributiva, o psicólogo suíço observou que da infância até a adolescência os indivíduos tendem a usar diferentes princípios de distribuição, à medida que evoluem moralmente, em um curso que parte da noção de justiça distributiva por retribuição, passa pelo igualitarismo absoluto e segue em direção à justiça eqüita-tiva. A seqüência proposta por Piaget tem sido verificada empiricamente por estudos com crianças estadunidenses

show abstract

Sex, age, and equity behavior.

Cited by 151 publications

References 12 publications

Inequalities in Personal Possessions: Explanations for and Judgments about Unequal Distribution

Inequalities in Personal Possessions: Explanations for and Judgments about Unequal Distribution

Moral Judgment and Distributive Justice

Justiça distributiva e empatia em adolescentes do Nordeste Brasileiro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About