Justice Perception and Allocation Rule Preferences: Does Social Disadvantage Matter?

Abstract

The present study compares disadvantaged group (DG) and non-disadvantaged group (NDG) subjects from rural India, with respect to their justice perception and alloca tion rule preferences. Overall, the differences between the two groups in their concep tualisation of justice, the extent of perceived justice in society, perceived injustice under violation of certain allocation rules and allocation rule preferences were found to be non-significant. Contrary to expectations, the recipient's caste and group mem bership per se were not found to be significant determinants in allocation rule prefer ence. Modifying earlier findings on rule preferences among Indians, the present study showed need, merit (effort), equality, and reciprocity preference in response to specific resource and situational variables. Perceived injustice under violations of certain allo cation rules deviated from the expected pattern of allocation rule preferences. The absence of the expected DG/NDG variations was explained on the basis of possible social desirability and the lack of felt disadvantage in the present sample. It was con cluded that social disadvantage probably matters in justice perception only when it is made salient and practically meaningful.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bhatt, A. (1989). Development and social justice: Micro-action by weaker sections. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Chousalkar, A.S. (1986). Social and political implications of the concepts of justice and dharma. Delhi: Mittal Publications.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83 (2), 85-113.

Crosby, F. , & Gonzalez-Intal, A.M. (1984). Relative deprivation and equity theories. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice (pp. 141-66). New York: Plenum Press.

Evans, C. (1981). Justice as desert. In R.L. Braham (Ed.), Social justice (pp. 45-54). Boston : Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.

Fiske, S.T. , & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Krishnan, L. (1992). Justice research: The Indian perspective. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4 (1), 39-71.

—. ( 1996). Reward allocation and distributive justice in Indian society. Unpublished project report, ICSSR, New Delhi.

10.

Leventhal, G.S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. Thibaut , J. Spence and R. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211-39). Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

11.

Lupfer, M.B. , Weeks, K.P. , Doan, K.A. , & Houston, D.A. (2000). Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 405-28.

12.

Menon, N.R.M. (1988). Social justice and social process in India. Allahabad: Indian Academy of Social Sciences.

13.

Mikula, G. , Petri, B. , & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133-49.

14.

Pandey, J. , & Singh, P. (1994). Distributive decisions as a function of recipients' need-performance variations and caste of allocator. In Fons van de Vijver (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 330-38). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

15.

Pandey, S.R. (1991). Community action for social justice: Grassroots organizations in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

16.

Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design . New York: McGraw-Hill.