It was hypothesized that people draw different dispositional inferences about decision makers who allocate resources according to equity, equality, or need and that this difference varies depending on culture and whether the allocation is positive or negative. Results from college students in the United States and Germany revealed the following. First, reactions to allocators form two clusters: intelligent/strong/logical and warm/nice. Second, when giving a positive resource, American allocators are in a real dilemma: If they give on the basis of merit, they are rated high on the first cluster but low on the second; if they favor the needy, reactions reverse. No such dilemma exists for German allocators or in negative allocation situations where everyone approves of a need allocation. Third, Americans evaluate equality allocators quite highly, especially in the negative allocation condition. Fourth, allocators who have bonuses to distribute are evaluated more positively-another example of the fundamental attribution error.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alwin, D. F. (1993, July). Comparative referential structures, system legitimacy, and justice sentiments: An international comparison. Paper presented at Fourth International Social Justice Conference, Trier, Germany.
2.
Chinese Cultural Connection . (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.
3.
Cockerham, W. , Kunz, G., & Lueschen, G. (1988). Social stratification and health lifestyles in two systems of health care delivery: A comparison of the United States and West Germany. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 113-126.
4.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
5.
Feather, N. T. , & O'Driscoll, M. P., (1980). Observers' reactions to an equal or equitable allocator in relation to allocator input, causal attributions, and value importance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 107-129.
6.
Greenberg, J. (1981). The justice of distributing scarce and abundant resources. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior(pp. 289-316). New York: Plenum.
7.
Griffith, W I. (1989). The allocation of negative outcomes: Examining the issues. In E. E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes. (Vol. 6, pp. 107-137). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
8.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18, 285-305.
9.
James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. S. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management(pp. 21-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Jones, E. E. , & Davis, K. E. (1965). A theory of correspondent inferences: From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Kahn, A. , Lamm, H., & Nelson, R. (1977). Preference for an equal or equitable allocator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 837-844.
12.
Leung, K. , & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793-804.
13.
Leung, K. , & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49.
14.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. Thibault, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology. (pp. 211-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
15.
Markus, H. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
16.
Murphy-Berman, V. A. , & Berman J. J. (1993). Effects of responsibility for illness and social acceptability on reactions to people with AIDS: A cross-cultural comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 215-229.
17.
Murphy-Berman, V. , Berman, J., Singh, P., Pachauri, A., & Kumar, P. (1984). Factors affecting allocation to needy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1267-1271.
18.
Reis, H. T. (1981). Self-presentation and distributive justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research. (pp. 269-291). New York: Academic Press.
19.
Reis, H. , & Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality and self-interest: The role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 487-503.
20.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press.
21.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & C. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application. (pp. 85-119). London: Sage.
22.
Spence, J. T. , & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
23.
Tomblom, K. Y , Muhlhausen, S. M., & Jonsson, D. R. (1991). The allocation of positive and negative outcomes: When is the equality principle fair for both? In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social justice in human relation. (Vol. 1, pp. 59-100). New York: Plenum.
24.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
