Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Organizational Underpinnings of Social Justice Theory Development

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 02 September 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Existing psychological theories about justice developed during a classic period when social justice was a core aspect of social psychology. These theories have gone on to have impact on a number of fields concerned with addressing social, political and economic issues. At the same time shifts in the field of psychology have increasingly marginalized social justice scholars, diminishing new theoretical developments. This paper identifies organizational changes that would encourage a new generation of social justice theory researchers, something made important by the increasing number and severity of the justice relevant problems arising in the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1949). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, J. D. (2007). Brain imaging, culpability and the juvenile death penalty. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 13, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, J. D., & Cole, S. A. (2009). Science and the death penalty: DNA, innocence, and the debate over capital punishment in the United States. Law & Social Inquiry, 34, 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. (2005). America’s crisis of values. Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S. (1974). Crime and punishment: An economic approach (pp. 1–54). In G.S. Becker & L.M. Landes (Eds.), Essays in the economics of crime and punishment. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Beijersbergen, K. A. (2015). Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, & M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol.1, pp.43–55). JAI Press.

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, C. O., & Walters, G. D. (2019). The relationship between police procedural justice, police legitimacy, and people’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. (1986). Justice: Views from the social sciences. Plenum.

  • Colquitt, J. A., Hill, E. T., & De Cremer, D. (2022). Forever focused on fairness: 75 years of organizational justice. Personnel Psychology. 76, 413–435.

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Zipay, K. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 75–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. NY: Oxford.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Decety, J., & Yoder, K. J. (2017). The emerging social neuroscience of justice motivation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 21, 6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Organizational justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 418–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 105–108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, J. A. (2009). Procedural fairness in the California Courts. Justice System Journal, 30, 118–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hill, P. C., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 337–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30, 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauchat, G. (2012). Politization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review., 77, 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world.

  • Gold, M. (1999). The Complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader. American Psychological Association Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B. W., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2007). How drug treatment courts work. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why men rebel. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative justice. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Obedience to authority. Yale.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1975). Editor, The justice motive in social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, volume 31(1).

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Lerner, S. (1981). The justice motive in social behavior. Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 27–55). Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lillie, C., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2007). Macro versus micro justice. Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (2013). Moral outrage and opposition to harm reduction. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 7, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (2015). Balancing evidence and norms in cultural evolution. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1975). Obedience to authority. Harper Colophon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, B. (1978). Injustice: The social bases of obedience and revolt.

  • NSF. The state of US science and engineering 2020. Period 2000–2017. Funding for basic research has declined as a proportion of research funding.

  • Park, M. Leahey, E. & Fund, R.J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613, 138–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A metanalytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235–272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. & Darley, J.M. (1996). Justice, Liability and Blame: Community views and the criminal law. Westview.

  • Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). Trends in the social psychological study of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 282–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinkner, R., Tyler, T. R., & Goff, P. A. (2016). Justice from within: The relations between a procedurally just organizational climate and police organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic policing, and officer well-being. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22, 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. & Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115 – 191).

  • Tyler, T. R. (1996, 2005). Why people obey the law.. Princeton.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice and effective cooperation. Social Justice Research, 25, 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2022). Advanced introduction to law and psychology. Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Goff, P., & MacCoun, R. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Nobo, C. (2022). Legitimacy-based policing and the promotion of community vitality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001a). Fairness heuristic theory. In S.W. Gilliland, DD Steiner & Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds). Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 63–84). Greenwich, CT Information age publishing.

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001b). Uncertainty management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2007). Hot cognition and social justice judgments. Advances in the Psychology of Justice and Affect (pp. 59–82).

  • Walster, E. H., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1973). Equity: Theory and research. Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D., & Bolger, P. C. (2018). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. The National Academies Press.

  • Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., & Vovak, H. (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training. PNAS, 119(14), e2218780119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (2020). Psychological science on eyewitness identification and its impact on police policies and practices. American Psychologist, 75, 1316–1329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., Okimoto, T. G., & Worthington, E. L. (2021). Dynamics of moral repair: Forgiveness, self-forgiveness, and the restoration of value consensus as interdependent processes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 607–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Tom R. Tyler

Authors
  1. Tom R. Tyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom R. Tyler.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: "The abstract was from this article and should have read “Existing psychological theories about justice developed during a classic period when social justice was a core aspect of social psychology. These theories have gone on to have impact on a number of fields concerned with addressing social, political and economic issues. At the same time shifts in the field of psychology have increasingly marginalized social justice scholars, diminishing new theoretical developments. This paper identifies organizational changes that would encourage a new generation of social justice theory researchers, something made important by the increasing number and severity of the justice relevant problems arising in the world.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tyler, T.R. The Organizational Underpinnings of Social Justice Theory Development. Soc Just Res 36, 371–384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00414-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00414-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation