Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998
The research literature in organizational justice has examined in some detail the dynamics and consequences of justice judgments based on direct experiences with fair and unfair authorities, but little is known about how people form justice judgments on the basis of reports of injustice by others or how group discussion changes justice judgments. The present study examined the consequences of distributed injustice, in which all members of a group experience some denial of voice, and concentrated injustice, in which one member experiences repeated denial of voice and others do not. It was predicted and found that mild personal experiences of injustice are a more potent source of group impressions of injustice than are reports of more severe injustice experienced by others. In both conditions, group ratings of unfairness were more extreme than were the mean of individual ratings either before or after discussion. ᭧ 1998 Academic Press
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996
Illusory correlations in procedural justice were investigated in 2 experiments. After receiving information describing the fair and unfair treatment of 2 groups' members by police, participants judged the fairness of each group's treatment. Illusory correlations formed in both experiments, resulting in erroneous associations between the smaller group and the infrequent type of treatment. In Experiment 2, participants made harsher guilt judgments of members of the group perceived as receiving relatively favorable treatment. Mediational evidence suggests that differences in guilt judgments reflected attempts to compensate for perceived injustice, creating real differences in group treatment. The benefit of incorporating cognitive biases in models of procedural justice is discussed.
J Exp Soc Psychol, 2005
The current research investigates the role of relative intragroup status as a moderator of people's reactions to procedural justice. Based on a review of the procedural justice literature, the authors argue that information about intragroup status inXuences people's reactions to variations in procedural justice. In correspondence with predictions, two experiments show that reactions of people who have been informed about their intragroup status position (either low, average, or high) are inXuenced more strongly by voice as opposed to no-voice procedures than people who are not informed about their intragroup status. It is concluded that knowing where we stand in a group enhances reactions to procedural justice.
Justice Sensitivity in Intergroup Contexts: A Theoretical Framework
Social Justice Research, 2022
Individuals differ systematically in how much they are concerned with matters of justice or injustice. So far, in various domains of life, such as romantic relationships, work, and school contexts, dispositional justice sensitivity has been found to be a powerful predictor of individual-level processing and interpersonal behaviors. Yet, matters of justice and injustice often materialize at the group level, especially when conflicts about status, rights, and resources occur between groups. Here, we propose a theoretical framework to understand how different facets of justice sensitivity (i.e., victim, beneficiary/perpetrator, and observer sensitivities) are relevant for group-level processes in intergroup contexts. Integrating research on justice sensitivity and intergroup conflict, we develop several propositions regarding how and under which conditions justice sensitivity influences intergroup experiences, attitudes, and behaviors. We selectively review the existing empirical evide...
2003
Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy . The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2007
When the procedures people experience are uncertain, factors unrelated to principles of procedural justice may nevertheless shape procedural justice judgments. This paper investigates two of these factors: an individual's level of social identiWcation with the group enacting the procedures and the outcomes associated with the procedure. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) levels of identiWcation promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. It was also predicted and found that desirable (vs. undesirable) outcomes promote relatively positive perceptions of procedural justice. These eVects only emerged in the absence of direct information indicating whether procedures were (un)fair. By showing an inXuence of identiWcation and outcomes on procedural justice judgments under conditions of informational uncertainty, these studies provide important experimental evidence that integrates and extends previous research on justice, identity, and uncertainty to understand subjective evaluations of process fairness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986
This study investigates preferences among allocation procedures available for use by those distributing rewards for individual performance in a group effort. Our first hypothesis is that allocators try to balance the payoff distribution in response to all available information about the individual members. We manipulated a target person's level of contribution to the group effort and level of financial need. Results showed a main effect for both individual characteristics, but no interaction between them, thereby supporting our hypothesis of independent additive effects. Second, we argued that group characteristics would serve only to modify the effects of the individual characteristics. We manipulated two group characteristics: morale and task outcome. As predicted, no main effects for either group level variable emerged. Further, the effect of contribution was greater under failure than success and under low than high morale. The effect of need was greater under low morale, but only for female allocators. Consider the challenge facing those responsible for allocating rewards for individual performance in a group effort. Facing a plethora of information about the group and the people comprising it, the allocator's chief concern usually is how to combine this information to devise and justify a distribution procedure that is fair. But disagreements about the relative importance of the available information and the fundamental nature of fairness can make the choice of an allocation scheme difficult. Three general procedures have emerged as the most popular: equity (to each according to input), equality (to each the same), and need (to each according to need).' The purpose of the present article is to examine preferences among allocation schemes. In particular, we base our investigation on the postulate that choices among these schemes are a function of competing concerns, which, in turn, make use of different kinds of information about the group, its members, and its task. Further, we suggest that the choice involves not so much opting exclusively for one distribution procedure, but a synthesis among all of them that comes from a balancing of several concerns. Finally, we present a retraining of the decision process that clarifies the roles of the different kinds of information available and offers a more parsimonious perspective on the search for fairness. To date, most of the research on allocation behavior has focused on the implementation of an equity scheme (e.g., Berkowitz
Journal of Experimental Social …, 2008
Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership.