The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2: 267-299.
Alexander, S., and Ruderman, A. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 177-198.
Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson, B., and Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formation. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., and Anderson, B. (eds.) Sociological Theories in Progress, Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Bies, R. J., and Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 199-218.
Casper, J. D., Tyler, T. R., and Fisher, B. (1987). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law Soc. Rev. 22: 483-507.
Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R. L. (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 119-160.
Cohen, R. L. (1986). Power and justice in intergroup relations. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 65-84.
Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R. L. (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-42.
Cook, K. S., and Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9: 217-241.
Dornbush, S. M., and Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14: 161-202.
Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1990). Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognition model. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 145-163.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 73: 606-613.
Hassebrauck, M. (1987). The influence of misattributions on reactions to inequity: Towards a further understanding of inequity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17: 295-304.
Hegtvedt, K. A., and Cook, K. S. (2001). Distributive justice: Recent theoretical developments and applications. In Sanders, J. and Hamilton, V. L. (eds.), Handbook of Justice Research in Law, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 93-112.
Hegtvedt, K. A., and Johnson, C. (2000). Justice beyond the individual: A future with legitimation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63: 298-311.
Hegtvedt, K. A., and Markovsky, B. (1995). In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 257-280.
Hegtvedt, K. A., Thompson, E. A., and Cook, K. S. (1993). Power and equity: What counts in explaining exchange outcomes? Soc. Psychol. Q. 56: 100-119.
Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncracy credit. Psychol. Rev. 65: 117-127.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.
Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 45: 3-32.
Johnson, C. and Ford, R. (1996). Dependence power, legitimacy, and tactical choice. Soc. Psychol. Q. 59: 126-139.
Johnson, C., Ford, R., and Kaufman, J. M. (2000). Emotional reactions to conflict: Do dependence and legitimacy matter? Soc. Forces 79: 107-137.
Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1: 389-420.
Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Early, P. C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Participation in task evaluation procedures: The effects of influential opinion expression and knowledge of evaluative criteria on attitudes and performance. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 235-249.
Kelley, H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 28: 107-128.
Landis, J. M., and Goodstein, L. (1986). When is justice fair? Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 1986: 675-708.
Lawler, E. J. (1975). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization of revolutionary coalitions. Sociometry 38: 163-179.
Lawler, E. J., and Thompson, M. E. (1978). Impact of leader responsibility for inequity on subordinate revolts. Soc. Psychol. 41: 265-268.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr., and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 167-218.
Lind, E. A., Lissak, R., and Conlon, D. E. (1983). A decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgements. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 13: 338-350.
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York.
Lissak, R. I. (1983). Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Markovsky, B. (1985). Toward a multilevel distributive justice theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 822-839.
Messé, L. A., Hymes, R. W., and MacCoun, R. J. (1986). Group categorization and distributive justice decisions. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 227-248.
Messick, D. M., and Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 15: 416-434.
Olson, J. M., and Hafer, C. (2000). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In Jost, J. T. and Major, B. (eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 157-175.
Paese, P. (1985). Procedural Fairness and Work Group Responses to Performance Evaluations Procedures, Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Petty, R., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Pyszcynski, T., Greenberg, J., and LaPrelle, R. (1985). Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-servicing conclusion. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21: 195-211.
Ridgeway, C. L., and Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 281-311.
Ridgeway, C. L., Johnson, C., and Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Soc. Forces 72: 1051-1077.
Scher, S. J., and Heise, D. R. (1993). Affect and the perception of injustice. Adv. Group Processes 10: 223-252.
Schuman, H. (1995). Attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 68-89.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In Turner, J. and Giles, H. (eds.), Intergroup Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 144-167.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G., and Worchel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-37.
Thomas, G. M., Walker, H. A., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1986). Legitimacy and collective action. Soc. Forces 65: 378
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1977). Distributive justice: typology and propositions. Hum. Relat. 31: 1-24.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1982). Reversal in preference responses to two types of injustice situations: A methodological contribution to equity theory. Hum. Relat. 35: 991-1014.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In Scherer, K. (ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 177-236.
Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law Soc. Rev. 18: 51-74.
Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 333-344.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57: 850-863.
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., and Yuen, J. H. (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., and Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70: 913-930.
Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25: 115-191.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on support for political authorities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 15: 700-725.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 72-81.
Utne, M. K., and Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 63-93.
van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., and Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77: 324-336.
Walker, H. A., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Power, legitimacy, and the stability of authority: A theoretical research program. In Berger, J. and Zelditch, M., Jr. (eds.), Theoretical Research Programs, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp.
Walker, H. A., Rogers, L., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1988). Legitimacy and collective action: A research note. Soc. Forces 67: 216
Walker, H. A., Thomas, G. M., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1986). Legitimation, endorsement, and stability. Soc. Forces 64: 620
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., and Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Webster, M., Jr., and Smith, L. F. (1978). Justice and revolutionary coalitions: A test of two theories. Am. J. Sociol. 84: 26
Weick, K. E. (1966). The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Admin. Sci. Q. 11: 414-439.
Weiner, B. (1985). Spontaneous causal thinking. Psychol. Bull. 97: 74-84.
Younts, W., and Mueller, C. W. (2001). Justice processes: Specifying the mediating role of perceptions of distributive justice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66: 125-145.
Zelditch, M., Jr., and Ford, J. B. (1994). Uncertainty, potential power, and nondecisions. Soc. Psychol. Q. 57: 64-73.
Zelditch, M., Jr., and Walker, H. A. (1984). Legitimacy and the stability of authority. Adv. Group Processes 1
Zelditch, M., Jr., and Walker, H. A. (2000). The normative regulation of power. Adv. Group Processes 17: 155-178.
- The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors
Social Justice Research
Volume 16, Issue 4 , pp 343-366
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- distributive justice
- procedural justice