Abstract
The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Love is an expression of affectionate regard, warmth, or comfort. Status indicates an evaluative judgment that conveys prestige, regard, or esteem. Services involve activities that affect the body or belongings of a person and that often constitute labor for another.
Information includes advice, opinions, instruction, or enlightenment but excludes those behaviors that could be classified as love or status. Money is any coin, currency, or token that has some standard unit of exchange value. Goods are tangible products, objects, or materials.
There is disagreement among justice theorists about whether or not procedural and interactional justice should be regarded as separate notions.
Please note that we use the term isomorphism to refer to the similarity of form with regard to (a) procedural rule versus resource type/class and (b) type of response to injustice versus resource type/class. We use congruence to refer to the fit or correspondence between (a) type of injustice (i.e., type of violated procedural or distributive rule) and (b) type of response to injustice; thus, the congruence between (a) and (b) is determined on the basis of their respective isomorphism with resource type/class.
References
Adams, S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
Adams, S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewecki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1 (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brockner, J., & Weisenfeld, B. M. (1996). The interactive impact of procedural and outcome fairness on reactions to a decision: The effects of wat you do depend on how you do it. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1964). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.
Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119–151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social–psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Donnenwerth, G. V., & Foa, U. G. (1974). Effect of resource class on retaliation to injustice in interpersonal exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 785–793.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 171, 345–351.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1976). Resource theory and social excahnge. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–131). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Foa, U. G., Converse, J., Törnblom, K. Y., & Foa, E. B. (Eds.) (1993), Resource theory: Explorations and applications. New York: Academic Press.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of ‘voice’ and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.
Folger, R. (1987). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 1, 143–160.
Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.
Greenberg, J., & Cohen R. L. (1982). Why justice? Normative and instrumental interpretations. In J. Greenberg, & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 437–469). NY: Academic Press.
Hegtvedt, K. A., Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 257–280). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 447–458.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Jasso, G. (1990). Methods for the theoretical and empirical analysis of comparison processes. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 369–419). Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association.
Jasso, G. (1998). Exploring the justice of punishments: Framing, expressiveness, and the just prison sentence. Social Justice Research, 11, 399–424.
Jasso, G., & Wegener, B. (1997). Methods for empirical justice analysis: Part I. Framework, models, and quantities. Social Justice Research, 10, 393–430.
Kayser, E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Input integration and input weighting in decisions on allocations of gains and losses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 1–15.
Kayser, E., & Schwinger, T. (1982). A theoretical analysis of the relationship among individual justice concepts, layman psychology and distribution decisions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 12, 47–51.
Lansberg, I. (1981). Distributive justice: A theoretical overview of fairness in organizations. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.
Lansberg, I. (1984). Hierarchy as a mediator of fairness: A contingency approach to distributive justice in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 124–135.
Lerner, M. J. (1975). The justice motive in social behavior: Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 1–20.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.
Lerner, M. J., & Whitehead, L. A. (1980). Procedural justice viewed in the context of justice motive theory. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice in social interaction (pp. 219–256). New York: Springer Verlag.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211–239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Leventhal, G. S., & Michaels, J. W. (1969). Extending the equity model: Perceptions of inputs and allocations of reward as a function of duration and quantity of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 303–309.
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. Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Meeker, B. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American Sociological Review, 36, 485–495.
Mikula, G., & Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward allocation: Theoretical considerations of affects. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 229–250). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mowday, R. T. (1996). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. M. Steers, L. W. Porter, & G. A. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work (pp. 53–71). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Opsahl, R. L., & Dunnette, M. (1966). The role of financial compensation in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 94–118.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: Life cycles of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sabbagh, C., Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 244–261.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25) (pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. In E. Lawler, & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141–168). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. Scherer (Eds.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 177–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Ahlin, E. (1998). Mode of accomplishing positive and negative outcomes: Its affect on fairness evaluations. Social Justice Research, 11, 425–444.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Foa, U. G. (1983). Choice of a distribution principle: Crosscultural evidence on the effects of resources. Acta Sociologica, 26, 161–173.
Törnblom, K.Y., & Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249–261.
Törnblom, K. Y., Jonsson, D. R., & Foa, U. G. (1985). Nationality, resource class, and preference among three allocation rules: Sweden vs. USA. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 51–77.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1998a). Introduction: The relationship between positive and negative resource allocations and how they affect our justice conceptions. Social Justice Research, 11, 377–380.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (Eds) (1998b) Special issue on “Fairness conceptions in the contexts of positive and negative resource allocations: Part I.” Social Justice Research, 11, 377–442.
Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12, 39–64.
Turner, J. H. (2007). Justice and emotions. Social Justice Research, doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0043-y.
Vermunt, R., Wit, A., Vanden Bos, K., & Lind, A. (1996). The effects ofunfair procedure on negative affect and protest. Social Justice Research, 9, 109–121.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1976). New directions in equity research. In L. Berkowitz, & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Equity theory: Toward a general theory of social interaction) (pp. 1–38). New York: Academic Press.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Younts, C. W. (1997). Justice, expectations, and procedural consequences: Toward an integrated theory of procedural and distributive justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (Toronto, Canada).
Acknowledgements
We are especially grateful to Guillermina Jasso for her thorough review of the paper and to Barry Markovsky, Jonathan Turner, and David Wagner for their valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Törnblom, K.Y., Vermunt, R. Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, and Social Resource Theories. Soc Just Res 20, 312–335 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0054-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0054-8