Universalism in Lay Conceptions of Distributive Justice: A Cross‐cultural Examination

Abstract

In two studies of Japanese and Australian university students, we examined the resource allocation rules of equity and equality. In both cultures, subjects were universalistic rather than relativistic in their judgments of fairness and alterability of these rules in the work place. They judged the equity rule to be unalterable by legislation or consensus. However, in both studies, the Japanese perceived equity to be less fair and equality to be less unfair than their Australian counterparts. In addition, study 2 indicated that cross‐cultural differences in judgments of fairness were influenced by consideration of need. The age of the worker was a more important determinant of fairness judgments for Japanese than for Australians; the debt of a worker was a more important déterminant for Australians than for Japanese. The results are discussed with regard to the role of culture in conceptions of distributive justice.

Distributive justice revisited: A reconceptualization and an empirical test

“…Not the least of these is adherence to an equity standard (Beatty et al, 1988). Indeed, these findings complement a long line of previous research that has confirmed the predominance of equity standards across diverse gender, racial, and cultural populations where pay and compensation are the focal point of consideration (Marin, 1981;Kashima et al, 1988).…”

“…For example, we have previously observed that the United States is perhaps the most individualistic of societies (Beatty et al, 1988). Consequently, although reaffirmed in this study, the predominance of the equity standard across diverse subpopulations may simply not hold in other countries (Matin, 1981 ;Kashima et al, 1988). Another interesting line of comparative research is suggested by the fact that solidaristic wage policies and practices are much more common among European unions than U.S. unions (Freeman and Katz, 1995).…”

“…When organizational monetary rewards are distributed, past research has confirmed that the equity standard predominates among diverse subpopulations of U.S. society (Matin, 1981;Kashima et al, 1988). That is, although relative differences exist in the weight given to the equity standard between communities defined by distinctive sociocultural and institutional experiences, the universal within-group pattern is that equity is endorsed at the highest absolute levels compared to other standards.…”

Cultural Differences in the Role of Economic Competitiveness in Prejudice toward Immigrants and Foreign Workers

“…An emphasis on economic competition is closely related to the Protestant work ethic and meritocracy beliefs, core values of cultures with a NEH (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), whereas social networks rather than maximizing economic capital are emphasized in EA cultures (Brett & Gelfand, 2006). Individual-oriented NEH cultures also have a greater emphasis on equity of outcome distribution, whereas group-oriented EA cultures emphasize equality (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Isaka, 1988). Individual-oriented NEH cultures also have a greater emphasis on equity of outcome distribution, whereas group-oriented EA cultures emphasize equality (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Isaka, 1988).…”

Justice Research: The Indian Perspective

“…With reference to cultural determinants, a number of investigators have reported the effect of cultural factors (characteristics) on reward allocation. These findings indicate that, in general, the preference for merit or equity as a justice rule is stronger in cultures such as that of the United States, whereas the preference for equality (and in some cases, need) is stronger in typical nonwestern cultures (Berman, Murphy-Berman, & Singh, 1985;Feldman, 1968;Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Isaka, 1988;Leung & Bond, 1982Mahler, Greenberg, & Hayashi, 1981;Mann & Greenbaum, 1987;Mann, Radford, & Kanagawa, 1985;Murphy-Berman, Berman, Singh, Pachauri, & Kumar, 1984;Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976). Some studies show self-interest in the western culture (for example, Mann et al, 1985).…”