The Justice Motive: History, Theory, and Research

Ellard, John; Harvey, Annelie J.; Callan, Mitchell J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_7

Cited by 47 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Study 4 went further to differentiate justice sensitivity from the belief in a just world, a preeminent example of a core justice motive (Hafer & Sutton, ). Although presented as a concern with justice, previous research has shown that a strong belief in a just world does not always predict reactions to injustice (Callan, Kay, Davidenko, & Ellard, ; Ellard, Harvey, & Callan, ). Consistent with this literature we found just world beliefs to be unrelated to outrage and negatively associated with third‐party punishment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Righteous or self‐righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third‐party harm‐doer

Rothschild

Keefer

2018

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While bystanders' outrage over moral transgressions may represent a genuine desire to restore justice, such expressions can also be self‐serving—alleviating guilt and bolstering one's moral status. Four studies examined whether individual differences in observer justice sensitivity (JSO) moderate the degree to which outrage at third‐party harm‐doing reflects concerns about one's own moral identity rather than justice per se. Among participants low (vs. high) in JSO, feelings of guilt predicted greater outrage and desire to punish a corporation's sweatshop labor practices (Studies 1 & 2). Furthermore, affirming one's personal moral identity reduced outrage and support for punishing a corporate harm‐doer among those low, but not high in JSO (Studies 3 & 4). Similar moderation was absent for other forms of justice sensitivity and just world beliefs. Effects were not explained by negative affect, empathy, personal harm, or political orientation. Results suggest that JSO uniquely differentiates defensive and justice‐driven moral outrage (150/150).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Righteous or self‐righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third‐party harm‐doer

Rothschild

Keefer

2018

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they can also be interpreted as a preconscious expectation that the outcome will be just, The present findings uncover a theoretically important, hitherto unexplored means by which people preserve the belief that the world is a just place from disconfirmatory evidence. Other wellknown strategies such as immanent justice reasoning, ultimate justice reasoning, and victim derogation have been shown to play an important role in preserving the psychological benefits of just-world beliefs (Ellard, Harvey, & Callan, 2016), including the ability to delay gratification Callan, Harvey, Dawtry, & Sutton, 2013). However, these strategies involve processing of information after it has been encountered, and run into important psychological constraints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective exposure to deserved outcomes

Harvey

Callan

Sutton

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that people often reinterpret their experiences of others' harm and suffering to maintain the functional belief that people get what they deserve (e.g., by blaming the victim). Rather than focusing on such reactive responses to harm and suffering, across 7 studies we examined whether people selectively and proactively choose to be exposed to information about deserved rather than undeserved outcomes. We consistently found that participants selectively chose to learn that bad (good) things happened to bad (good) people (Studies 1 to 7)-that is, they selectively exposed themselves to deserved outcomes. This effect was mediated by the perceived deservingness of outcomes (Studies 2 and 3), and was reduced when participants learned that wrongdoers otherwise received "just deserts" for their transgressions (Study 7). Participants were not simply selectively avoiding information about undeserved outcomes but actively sought information about deserved outcomes (Studies 3 and 4), and participants invested effort in this pattern of selective exposure, seeking out information about deserved outcomes even when it was more time-consuming to find than undeserved outcomes (Studies 5 and 6). Taken together, these findings cast light on a more proactive, anticipatory means by which people maintain a commitment to deservingness.

show abstract

“…The third proposed psychological process that leads to positive attributions and expectations of good outcomes for attractive people is the motivation to believe in a just world, or the need to view the distribution of outcomes in the world as fair and predictable (Lerner, 1980). Just world theory suggests that people make sense of perceived unequal distribution of outcomes, in part, by attending to and even imputing reasons for the unequal distribution of outcomes (for reviews, see Ellard, Harvey, & Callan, 2016;Feather, 1999;Jost & Kay, 2010). K. L. Dion and Dion (1987) argued that people's motivation to see the world as a just place also makes them more likely to view people's physical attractiveness as something that is "deserved" by imputing underlying personal qualities.…”

Section: Pro-attractiveness Bias In Job Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived entitlement causes discrimination against attractive job candidates in the domain of relatively less desirable jobs.

Lee

Pitesa

Pillutla

et al. 2018

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People generally hold positive stereotypes of physically attractive people and because of those stereotypes often treat them more favorably. However, we propose that some beliefs about attractive people, specifically, the perception that attractive individuals have a greater sense of entitlement than less attractive individuals, can result in negative treatment of attractive people. We examine this in the context of job selection and propose that for relatively less desirable jobs, attractive candidates will be discriminated against. We argue that the ascribed sense of entitlement to good outcomes leads to perceptions that attractive individuals are more likely to be dissatisfied working in relatively less desirable jobs. When selecting candidates for relatively less desirable jobs, decision makers try to ascertain whether a candidate would be satisfied in those jobs, and the stereotype of attractive individuals feeling entitled to good outcomes makes decision makers judge attractive candidates as more likely to be dissatisfied in relatively less (but not more) desirable jobs. Consequently, attractive candidates are discriminated against in the selection for relatively less desirable jobs. Four experiments found support for this theory. Our results suggest that different discriminatory processes operate when decision makers select among candidates for relatively less desirable jobs and that attractive people might be systematically discriminated against in a segment of the workforce. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

The Justice Motive: History, Theory, and Research

Cited by 47 publications

References 74 publications

Righteous or self‐righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third‐party harm‐doer

Righteous or self‐righteous anger? Justice sensitivity moderates defensive outrage at a third‐party harm‐doer

Selective exposure to deserved outcomes

Perceived entitlement causes discrimination against attractive job candidates in the domain of relatively less desirable jobs.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About