Reward and Punishment Allocation in the Indian Culture

Abstract

Two scenario studies examined justice perceptions in Indian samples. Study 1 investigated the effect of allocator-recipient relationship and internal/external locus of merit and need on both reward and punishment allocation in a distributive context, involving a meritorious and a needy recipient. Between merit, need and equality, subjects showed a clear equality orientation, in both allocation rule preference and perceived fairness of a given allocation. This finding was inconsistent with the strong need orientation reported in several Indian studies. In order to obtain more information on punishment alone, Study 2 was conducted in order to investigate a non-distributive context, involving internal/external locus of merit and need, and choice of punishment and perceived fairness of a given set of punishments, seriousness of the offence, guilt of the offender and the importance of need and merit. In both studies, the effect of situational variables did not emerge as expected. The apparent absence of effects of the situational variables was interpreted as the expression of a cognitive strategy to combine all the contextual information. The equality orientation found in Study 1 was interpreted as the resultant of such a combination. One part of this combination was in terms of the merit and need rules. It was suggested that subjects thought in terms of merit and need, instead of merit or need. Some evidence for this suggestion was obtained in Study 2. Need and merit were rated as being similar in importance when deciding a fair punishment. Attention was drawn to several aspects of justice perception, especially those related to punishment that requires further detailed investigation with modified methods.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aruna, A. , Jain, S. , Choudhary, A.K. , Ranjan, R. , & Krishnan, L. (1994). Justice rule preference in India: Cultural or situational effect? Psychological Studies, 39(1), 8–17 .

Berman, J.J. , Murphy-Berman, V. , & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perception of fairness . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 55–67 .

Carlsmith, K.M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451 .

Carlsmith, K.M. , Darley, J.M. , & Robinson, P.H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299 .

Cohen, R.L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In J. Greenberg & R.L. Cohen (Eds), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 119–160). New York: Academic Press .

Darley, J.M. (2002). Just punishments: Research on retributional justice. In M. Ross & D.T. Miller (Eds), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 314–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Darley, J.M. , & Pittman, T.S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336 .

Feather, N.T. (2002). Deservingness, entitlement, and reactions to outcomes. In M. Ross & D.T. Miller (Eds), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 334–349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Fischer, R. , & Smith, P.B. (2003). Reward allocation and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 251–268 .

10.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

11.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

12.

Hui, C.H. , Triandis, H.C. , & Yee, C. 1 (1991). Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation? British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 145–157 .

13.

Krishnan, L. (1998). Allocator/recipient role and resource as determinants of allocation rule preference . Psychological Studies, 43(1–2), 21–29 .

14.

Krishnan, L. (2000). Resource, relationship and scarcity in reward allocation in India . Psychologia, 43(4), 275–285 .

15.

Krishnan, L. (2001). Justice perception and allocation rule preferences: Does social disadvantage matter? Psychology and Developing Societies, 13(2), 193–219 .

16.

Krishnan, L. , & Carment, D.W. (2006). Senior/junior recipient status and reward allocation in India and Canada . Psychology & Developing Societies, 18(1), 15–35 .

17.

Lamm, H. , & Schwinger, T. (1980). Norms concerning distributive justice: Are needs taken into consideration in allocation decisions? Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 425–429 .

18.

Lerner, M.J. , & Miller, D.T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead . Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051 .

19.

Murphy-Berman, V. , Berman, J.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(6), 1267–1272 .

20.

Oyserman, D. , Coon, H.M. , & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses . Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72 .

21.

Pandey, J. , & Singh, P. (1989). Reward allocation as a function of resource availability, recipients’ needs, and performance . Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 115(4), 467–481 .

22.

Pandey, J. , & Singh, P. (1997). Allocation criterion as a function of situational factors and caste . Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 121–132 .

23.

Powell, L.A. (2005). Justice judgments as complex psychocultural constructions: An equity-based heuristic for mapping two- and three-dimensional fairness representations in perceptual space . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(1), 48–73 .

24.

Shaver, K.G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag .

25.

Shirazi, R. , & Biel, A. (2005). Internal-external causal attributions and perceived government responsibility for need provision . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(1), 96–116 .

26.

Singh, P. (1994). Perception and reactions to inequity as a function of social comparison referents and hierarchical levels . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 557–565 .

27.

Smilansky, S. (1996). Responsibility and desert: Defending the connection . Mind, 105(417), 157–163 .

28.

Triandis, H.C. , & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128 .

29.

van Yperen, N.W. , van Den Bos, K. , & De Graff, D.C. (2005). Performance-based pay is fair, particularly when I perform better: Differential fairness perceptions of allocators and recipients . European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(6), 741–754 .