Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Focusing on the “Social” in Social Justice Research

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I describe what I see as a very strong connection between fairness perceptions and reactions that show engagement with social entities and social relationships. A brief review of studies on perceived fairness and the fair process effects illustrates how very social is the reaction to fair or unfair treatment—that is, how perceptions of fairness have a strong impact on how people view their inclusion and safety in the social group or relationship in which the treatment occurs. I suggest that this much-observed connection between fairness and group engagement raises some interesting questions about how perceived fairness affects some traditional group process phenomena. I discuss research questions that arise with respect to fairness and social identity process, fairness and obedience to authority, and fairness and conformity. Investigations of these questions, I argue, would give the field a stronger foundation in the basic social psychology of fairness and it would re-invigorate the groups aspect of social psychology as a discipline.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P., Hensler, D., & Nelson, C.E. (1983). Simple justice: How litigants fare in the Pittsburgh Court Arbitration Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

  • Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., Wo, D. X. H., & Griffith, M. D. (2015). Overall justice: Past, present, and future. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 109–135). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2001). Social play behavior: Cooperation, fairness, trust, and the evolution of morality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(2), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (2004). Wild justice, cooperation, and fair play: Minding manners, being nice, and feeling good. In R. Sussman & A. Chapman (Eds.), The origins and nature of sociality (pp. 53–79). Aldine.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and expanding the group engagement model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bobocel, D. R., & Gosse, L. (2015). Procedural justice: A historical review and critical analysis. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 51–87). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, K. V. D., Lind, E. A., Bommelé, J., & VandeVondele, S. D. (2015). Reminders of behavioral disinhibition increase public conformity in the Asch paradigm and behavioral affiliation with ingroup members. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 837.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19, 153–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F. (2011). A hypothesis of the co-evolution of cooperation and responses to inequity. Frontiers in Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2011.00043

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un)fairness. Science, 346(6207), 1251776.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vogli, R., Ferrie, J. E., Chandola, T., Kivimäki, M., & Marmot, M. G. (2007). Unfairness and health: Evidence from the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(6), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.052563

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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(1), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.92.1.105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1964). Significant factors in overevaluation of own-group’s product. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement of experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkran, L. (1979). Effects of “voice” and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, N., Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1973). Some determinants of the violation of rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellwig, P., Buchholz, V., Kopp, S., & Maier, G. W. (2023). Let the user have a say—Voice in automated decision-making. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (2004). Uncertainty and extremism: Identification with high entitativity groups under conditions of uncertainty. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 401–418). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A. (2005). Uncertainty, social identity and ideology. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 22, pp. 203–230). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulst, L., Van den Bos, K., Akkermans, A. J., & Lind, E. A. (2017a). On why procedural justice matters in court hearings: Experimental evidence that behavioral disinhibition weakens the association between procedural justice and evaluations of judges. Utrecht Law Review, 13(3), 114–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulst, L., Van den Bos, K., Akkermans, A. J., & Lind, E. A. (2017b). On the psychology of perceived procedural justice: Experimental evidence that behavioral inhibition strengthens reactions to voice and no-voice procedures. Frontiers in Psychological and Behavioral Science, 6, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. (2018). Norms, normativity and the legitimacy of legal authorities: International perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 145–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Tong, K.-K., & Ho, S.S.-Y. (2004). Effects of interactional justice on egocentric bias in resource allocation decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Tong, K., & Lind, E. A. (2007). Realpolitik versus fair process: Moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 476–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Leung, K. (2014). What signals does procedural justice climate convey? The roles of group status, and organizational benevolence and integrity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 464–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., & Arndt, C. (2016). Perceived fairness and regulatory policy: A behavioural science perspective on government–citizen interactions. OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  • Lind, E.A. & Arndt, C. (2017). Regulations, fairness, and trust. In Trust and public policy: How better governance can help rebuild public trust. OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  • Lind, E.A., & Arndt, C. (2018). Creating trusted regulatory policy. The Regulatory Review, 2018-01-18, https://www.theregreview.org/2018/01/18/lind-arndt-trusted-regulatory-policy/

  • Lind, E. A. (1995). Social conflict and social justice: Some lessons from the social psychology of justice. Leiden UniversityPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (1997). Social conflict and the fairness heuristic. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 21, 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A. (2020). Exclusion, exploitation, and the psychology of justice. In E. Lind (Ed.), Social psychology and Justice (pp. 75–92). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Erickson, B. E., Friedland, N., & Dickenberger, M. (1978). Reactions to procedural models for adjudicative conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 318–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful termination lawsuits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 557–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990a). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predictions from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 189–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kulik, C., Ambrose, M., & Park, M. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., MacCoun, R. J., Ebener, P. E., Felstiner, W. L. F., Hensler, D. R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T. R. (1990b). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’ evaluations of their experiences in the civil justice system. Law & Society Review, 24, 953–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Shapard, J. E. (1981). Evaluation of court-annexed arbitration in three federal district courts. Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, C. A., & Maiman, R. J. (1981). Small claims mediation in Maine: An empirical assessment. Maine Law Review, 33, 237–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of closeness: A relationship specific sense of felt security. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 74–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1459–1480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, D., Nagpal, M., McGuire, J., Schweitzer, S., & De Cremer, D. (2023). Fairness perceptions of artificial intelligence: A review and path forward. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2210890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 881–889. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (2008). “Not so much as place to lay our head...”: Moral inclusion and exclusion in the American civil war reconstruction. Social Justice Research, 21(1), 26–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ötting, S. K., & Maier, G. W. (2018). The importance of procedural justice in human–machine interactions: Intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Arechaederra, D., Briones, E., Lind, A., & García, L. (2014). Perceived organizational justice in care services: Creation and multi-sample validation of a measure. Social Science and Medicine, 102, 26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. The University Book Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Starr, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment to army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streicher, B., Jonas, E., Maier, G. W., Frey, D., & Spießberger, A. (2012). Procedural fairness and creativity: Does voice maintain people’s creative vein over time? Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 358–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.730334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.

  • Thibaut, J. W., Friedland, N., & Walker, L. (1974). Compliance with rules: Some social determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(6), 792–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). Public support for increases in police authority. Law and Policy, 6, 329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2003). Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 642–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–192). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2013). Meaning making following activation of the behavioral inhibition system: How caring less about what others think may help to make sense of what is going on. In K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, & M. J. Lindberg (Eds.), The psychology of meaning (pp. 359–380). American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2018). Why people radicalize: How unfairness judgments are used to fuel radical beliefs, extremist behaviors, and terrorism. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Ham, J., Lind, E. A., Simonis, M., Van Essen, W. J., & Rijpkema, M. (2008). Justice and the human alarm system: The impact of exclamation points and flashing lights on the justice judgment process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2009). The social psychology of fairness and the regulation of personal uncertainty. In R. M. Arkin, K. C. Oleson, & P. J. Carroll (Eds.), Handbook of the uncertain self (pp. 122–141). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2013). On sense-making reactions and public inhibition of benign social motives: An appraisal model of prosocial behavior. In J. Olson & M. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 48, pp. 1–58). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. (2001). The psychology of procedural justice and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Volume II—From theory to practice (pp. 49–66). Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Van der Velden, L., & Lind, E. A. (2014). On the role of perceived justice in citizens’ reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Review, 10, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VandenBos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L., LaTour, S., Lind, E. A., & Thibaut, J. (1974). Reactions of participants and observers to modes of adjudication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    E. Allan Lind

Authors
  1. E. Allan Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Allan Lind.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest exist.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

No new research is reported in this paper. My research described herein, all of which was previously published in other books, monographs, or journals, was conducted under strict adherence to ethical guidelines and was approved by relevant Internal Review Boards.

Informed Consent

No new research is included in this paper. All of my research described herein observed strict informed consent rules.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Lind, E.A. Focusing on the “Social” in Social Justice Research. Soc Just Res 36, 337–351 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00418-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00418-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation