Research on justice in resource allocation has primarily focused on distri bution (the allocation of positive outcomes), while retribution (the allocation of negative outcomes) has been neglected. This study deals with the question whether the equality and contribution principles are differentially evaluated in distribution as compared to retribution On the basis of a model featuring distinctions among four 'behavioral modalities' (positive and negative com mission and omission) and two types of 'actor relationship' (cooperative and competitive), a set of eight propositions was generated Four of them were tested in a questionnaire study with Swedish female subjects Equality was considered just in all conditions of distnbution and retribution, while the contribution rule was seen as unjust in all but two conditions of distnbution. For cooperative relationships the equality rule was considered more just in distribution than in retribution, while the contrary was found for competitive relationships The contribution rule was rated less unjust in distribution than in retribution for both types of relationship. The discussion of these and other findings results in several suggestions for further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, B.1969. Teoretiska synpunkter på rattvisa och jamlikhet (Theoretical considerations of justice and equality)Sociologisk Forskning6, 27-40
2.
Austin, W.1980Friendship and Fairness: Effects of Type of Relationship and Task Performance on Choice of Distribution Rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin6, 402-407.
3.
Brickman, P.1977a. Preference for Inequality. Sociometry40, 303-310.
4.
Brickman, P.1977 bCrime and Punishment in Sports and Society. Journal of Social Issues33, 140-164
5.
Bnckman, P., Folger, R., Goode, E. & Schul, Y.1981. Microjustice and Macrojustice. In M. J Lerner & S. C. Lerner (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior . New York: Plenum Press.
6.
Cohen, R.L.1979On the Distinction Between Individual Deserving and Distributive Justice. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior9, 167-185.
7.
Cohen, R.L.1982. Perceiving Justice: An Attributional Perspective . In J Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (eds. ), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Cook, K.S. & Hegtvedt, K.A.1983. Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality. Annual Review of Sociology9, 217-241.
9.
Deutsch, M.1975. Equity, Equality and Need: What Determines Which Value will be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice?Journal of Social Issues31, 137-150.
10.
Deutsch, M.1982Interdependence and Psychological Orientation. In V J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (eds.), Cooperation and Helping Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
11.
Deutsch, M.1983. Current Social Psychological Perspectives on Justice . European Journal of Social Psychology13, 305-319.
12.
Eckhoff, T.1974Justice Its Determinants in Social InteractionRotterdamRotterdam University Press.
13.
Festinger, L.A.1954. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations7, 117-140.
14.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I.1973. Attribution of Responsibility: A Theoretical Note . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology9, 148-153.
15.
Gans, H.J.1974. More Equality. New York : Vintage Books.
16.
Goode, W.J.1978. The Celebration of Heroes. Prestige as a Control System . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
Greenberg, J., Mark, M.M. & Lehman, D.R.1985. Justice in Sports and Games. Journal of Sport Behavior8, 18-33.
18.
Hamilton, V.L. & Rytina, S.1980. Social Consensus on Norms of Justice: Should the Punishment Fit the Crime?American Journal of Sociology85, 1117-1144.
19.
Heider, F.1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations . New York: Wiley
20.
Herrmann, T.1971. 'Prescriptive' and 'Postscnptive' Conformity as a Result of Childhood Training. European Journal of Social Psychology1, 140.
21.
Hogan, R. & Emler, N.P.1981. Retributive Justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior . New York: Plenum Press.
22.
Kahn, A. , Nelson, R.E. , Gaeddert, W.P. & Hearn, J.L.1982. The Justice Process: Deciding upon Equity or Equality . Social Psychology Quarterly45, 3-8.
23.
Kayser, E. & Lamm, H.1980. Input Integration and Input Weighting in Decisions on Allocations of Gains and Losses. European Journal of Social Psychology10, 1-15.
24.
Kayser, E. & Lamm, H.1981. Causal Explanation of Performance Differences and Allocations among Fnends. The Journal of Social Psychology115, 73-81.
25.
Kite, W.R.1964. Attributions of Causality as a Function of the Use of Reward and Punishment. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
26.
Lamm, H. & Kayser, E.1978. The Allocation of Monetary Gain and Loss Following Dyadic Performance: The Weight Given to Effort and Ability under Conditions of Low and High Intra-dyadic Attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology8, 275-278.
27.
Lamm, H. , Kayser, E. & Schanz, V.1983. An Attributional Analysis of Interpersonal Justice Ability and Effort as Inputs in the Allocation of Gain and Loss. The Journal of Social Psychology119 , 269-281.
28.
Lemert, E.M.1951. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Lerner, M.J.1974. The Justice Motive: 'Equity' and 'Parity' Among Children . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology29, 538-550.
30.
Lerner, M.J.1975. The Justice Motive in Social Behavior: Introduction . The Journal of Social Issues31 , 1-19.
31.
Lerner, M.J.1977. The Justice Motive: Some Hypotheses as to its Origins and Forms. Journal of Personality45, 1-52
32.
Lerner, M.J.1981. The Justice Motive in Human Relations. Some Thoughts on What we Know and Need to Know about Justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (eds.), The Justice Motive in Social Behavior . New York. Plenum Press.
33.
Lerner, M.J. & Whitehead, L.A.1980. Procedural Justice Viewed in the Context of Justice Motive Theory. In G. Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction. New York. Spnnger-Verlag.
34.
Leventhal, G.S. & Lane, D.W.1970. Sex, Age, and Equity Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology15, 312-316.
35.
Macaulay, S. & Walster, E.1971. Legal Structure and Restoring Equity. Journal of Social Issues27, 173-188.
36.
Major, B. & Adams, J.B.1983. Role of Gender, Interpersonal Orientation, and Self-presentation in Distributive-Justice BehaviorJournal of Personality and Social Psychology45, 598-608.
37.
Major, B. & Deaux, K.1982. Individual Differences in Justice Behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
38.
McClintock, C.G. & van Avermaet, E.1982. Social Values and Rules of Fairness. A Theoretical Perspective. In V. J Derlega and J Grzelak (eds ), Cooperation and Helping Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
39.
McKinney, J.P.1971The Development of Values: Prescriptive or Proscriptive?Human Development14, 71-80.
40.
Mikula, G.1974. Individuelle Entscheidungen und Gruppenentscheidungen uber die Aufteilung gemeinsam erzielter Gewinne: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss der sozialen Verantwortung. Psychologische Beitrage16, 338-364.
41.
Mikula, G.1975. Studies on Reward Allocation in Dyadic Groups . Paper presented at the 2nd Colloquium Ljubljana-Graz: Portoroz.
42.
Mikula, G.1977. Considerations of Justice in Allocation Situations . Paper Presented at the EAESP-conference on Socialization and Social Influence, Warsaw.
43.
Mikula, G.1980On the Role of Justice in Allocation Decisions. In G. Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social InteractionNew YorkSpnnger-Verlag
44.
Mikula, G. & Muller, G.F.1981. Procedural Preferences in the Allocation of Jointly Produced Gains and Losses. Unpublished manuscript, Universitat Mannheim.
45.
Mikula, G. & Schwinger, T.1973. Sympathie zum Partner und Bedurfnis nach sozialer Anerkennung als Determinanten der Aufteilung Gemeinsam Erzielter Gewinne . Psychologische Beitrage15, 396-407.
46.
Mikula, G. & Schwinger, T.1978. Intermember Relations and Reward Allocation. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis & H. Schuler (eds.), Dynamics of Group Decisions. Beverly Hills: Sage.
47.
Miller, D.T. & Vidmar. N.1981The Social Psychology of Punishment Reactions. In M. J Lerner & S C. Lerner (eds.). The Justice Motive in Social BehaviorNew York: Plenum Press.
48.
Rawls, J.1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Rothbart, M.1968. Effects of Motivation, Equity, and Compliance on the Use of Reward and Punishment. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology9, 353-362
51.
Schwinger, T.1975. On the Development of Group-specific Reward Allocation Rules. Paper presented at the 2nd Colloquium Ljubljana-Graz: Portoroz.
52.
Schwinger, T.1980. Just Allocations of Goods: Decisions Among Three Principles In G. Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social InteractionNew YorkSpringer-Verlag .
53.
Schwinger, T. & Nahrer, W.1982. Prinzipien der gerechten Vergabe von interpersonalen Ressourcen in verschiedenen SozialbeziehungenUniversitat Mannheim: Bencht aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich 24.
54.
Shapiro, E.G.1975. The Effect of Expectations of Future Interaction on Reward Allocations in Dyads: Equity or Equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology31, 873-880
55.
Shaw, M.E. & Sulzer, J.L.1964An Empirical Test of Heider's Levels in Attribution of Responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology69, 39-46
56.
Skinner, B.F.1971. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Alfred Knopf
57.
Tajfel, H (ed.). 1978a Differentiation Between Social Groups . New York Academic Press.
58.
Tajfel, H.1978b. Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Companson In H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups . New York: Academic Press.
59.
Tillich, P.1954Love, Power, and Justice. London . Oxford University Press.
60.
Tornblom, K.Y.1971. Own Expectations and Behavior Theory and ExperimentsDoctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia .
61.
Tornblom, K.Y. & Jonsson, D.R.1985. Subrules of the Equality and Contribution Principles: Their Perceived Fairness in Distribution and Retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly48 , 249-261.
62.
Tornblom, K.Y., Jonsson, D.R. & Knowles, E.S.When Justice Is and Is Not Requested: The Effects of Non-recipient Allocators' Social Awareness and Recipient Categorization on Choice of Distribution Rule . Submitted for publication
63.
Tornblom, K.Y., Jonsson, D.R. & Foa, U.G.1985. Nationality, Resource Class and Preferences Among Three Allocation Rules: Sweden vs. USA. International Journal of Intercultural Relations9, 51-77.
64.
Tornblom, K.Y. & Muhlhausen, S.Sharing Equally the Rewards and Punishments Deserved by One Person: Perceived Justice as a Function of the Amount of Outcomes. In preparation
65.
Utne, M.K. & Kidd, R.F.1980Equity and Attribution In G Mikula (ed ), Justice and Social InteractionNew York : Springer-Verlag.
66.
Wegner, D.1982. Justice and the Awareness of Social Entities In J Greenberg & R L. Cohen (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior. New York: Academic Press
67.
Wegner, D. & Giuliano, T.1982. The Forms of Social Awareness In W Ickes & E. S. Knowles (eds.), Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior . New York: Springer-Verlag .
Zetterberg, H.L.1966. On Motivation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr & B Anderson (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress , Vol. 1. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Co.
