Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fifty Years of Justice Research

Seven Signposts Past and Future

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Looking back on fifty years of justice research and ahead to an accelerated growth of knowledge, I collect seven signposts. Current and future scholars—and nature—will do the rest.

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

Source: Jasso, Törnblom, and Sabbagh 2016:202

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Source: Jasso, 2021b:226

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The study was reported in Rossi, Sampson, Bose, Jasso, and Passel (1974).

  2. The set of four central questions integrated two earlier three-question lists proposed by Jasso (1978:1400, 1418) and Wegener and Steinmann (1995).

  3. See also Jasso (2006:387–392).

  4. Three notes to this section and to the whole paper. First, the word “equity” is a dangerous word, dangerous because it has two distinct meanings: (1) synonymous with “justice,” as in “justice research” and “equity research” and (2) synonymous with “merit” or “desert,” as in “merit principle of microjustice” and “equity principle of microjustice.” Second, the words “justice” and “fairness” are used interchangeably, though we are mindful of the important argument that they are distinct, proposed by Rawls (1958, 1971) and explored in Adriaans, Liebig, Sabbagh, and Jasso (2021). Third, “impartiality” is also a core term central to the study of justice (Jasso, Shelly, and Webster 2019).

  5. More deeply, the sense of justice manifests itself in three distinct kinds of behaviors – thinking, saying, doing – with an early herald in the signature constant to be introduced in the section on "Justice Analysis" below (Jasso 1980) and subsequent broad explicit codification (Jasso and Wegener 1997, and, following Jerolmack and Khan’s 2014a, 2014b analysis, Jasso 2015b). Omnes trium perfectum (good things come in threes), said the ancients, and, crosscutting the three kinds of behaviors are three distinct kinds of scholarly research (Granato, Lo, and Wong 2021; Jasso 2004) – building a framework, theoretical analysis, empirical analysis. Finally, both the behaviors and the research are embedded in natural language, and as visible in footnote 4 and explicit in the section on "Non-Justice Uses of the Word “Just”", the growth of reliable knowledge requires explicit attention to matters of language (Jasso 2020:19–23, 2021c). It need only be added that, unlike the matters in footnote 4, the matters in this footnote pertain to the general infrastructure of social science, and are as pertinent to, say, status and migration (Jasso 2004, 2011:1312–1315, 2021a:8–9) as to justice.

  6. Further questions concern the possibility of a set of distinct fairness faculties, leading to distinct justice personality types (Jasso 2017:612–613). Relatedly, Anselm of Canterbury ([1070–1109] 1946–1961) proposed that the human will has two inclinations, to the own good and to justice, an idea Duns Scotus ([1300–1308] 1986) later developed (Jasso 1989).

  7. If the sense of justice is universal and fundamental, attempts to block its expression may hinder human development.

  8. To these may be added empirical tests of deduced predictions so far afield that they do not include a single overt justice word – for example, about parental gifts to children, interruptions in conversation, posttraumatic stress among military veterans, theft, divorce, segregation, migration, etc. (as in Jasso 1988, 2021b).

  9. SUR-based contrast of actual and just reward equations was used with data on students’ actual and just grades in the Israeli Junior High School Study of 1986 (Jasso and Resh 2002) and on actual and just earnings in the International Social Justice Project of 1991 (Jasso and Wegener 1999).

  10. Detailed description of theory types and the four techniques for theoretical derivation is widely available in the justice literature (e.g., Jasso 2021b). These techniques appear to have been first used in justice research, where the starting points are, respectively, the justice evaluation function, the justice evaluation distribution, subsets of actors in justice societies, and observer-rewardee matrices of just rewards and justice evaluations (e.g., respectively, Jasso 1988, 1990, 1993, 1999). Soon the techniques were applied in status research (Jasso 2001). Jasso (2022b) provides an explicit contrast of the macromodel and mesomodel techniques in both justice and status research.

  11. Jasso and Sato (2023) report that data from the International Social Justice Project of 1991, which make it possible to calculate both the average of the justice evaluations and the two inequality measures ATK and MLD, show that the inequality measures are a reasonable approximation to E(J) in the five Western societies but not in the eight post-Communist transition societies. The five Western societies also register the smallest magnitudes of injustice about job income (Jasso 1999:158–159).

  12. Mathematically, this is an application of the classic Newtonian idea that mass accumulates at a point.

  13. Interestingly, when income is lognormal, social distance and intergroup conflict are at their lowest when the subgroups are of equal size.

  14. It is not surprising that results for both models (Table 1, Figs. 2 and 3) are the same in the justice-nonmaterialistic society and the justice-materialistic/power-function society, given that, as noted above, the rectangular distribution is a special case of the power-function. It is also not surprising that results for the justice-lognormal society echo the symmetry of the normal.

  15. Interestingly, the word “status” has two technical meanings in social science – the “prestige” meaning, as in the synonyms listed by Zelditch (1968), and the “condition” meaning, as in “marital status” or “immigration status.” For some time it seemed that social scientists had unconsciously distinguished between the two, pronouncing the “prestige” kind of status with a long “a” (as in “day”) and the “condition” kind of status with a short “a” (as in “map”), as discussed in Jasso (2011:1299). But that unconscious practice seems to be breaking down, as older cohorts leave and newer cohorts bring different languages to the table. Note that in Spanish, for example, it is possible to render the “prestige” kind of status as estatus and the “condition” kind of status as estado.

  16. The Bush ([1945] 2020:10) report stated, “Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.”

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). “Equity Theory Revisited: Comments and Annotated Bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 43–90). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adriaans, J., Liebig, S., Sabbagh, C., & Jasso, G. (2021). What’s in a word? just vs. fair vs. appropriate earnings for self and others. Social Justice Research, 34(4), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00380-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An, W. (2021). Fear not scarcity but inequality, not poverty but instability. Sociological Methods and Research, 50(3), 939–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselm of Canterbury. [1070–1109] (1946–1961). Opera Omnia. F. S. Schmitt. (Ed.) Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson.

  • Aquinas, T. (2007). Commentary on Aristotle’s politics. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1952). The works of Aristotle. Vol 2. (W. D. Ross, Trans). Chicago: Britannica.

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1975). The Economics of Inequality. London: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1975). Equity With the world: The trans-relational effects of equity and inequity. Sociometry, 38, 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbitt, N. (2018). Barking with the Big Dogs: On Writing and Reading Books for Children. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural Aspects of Distributive Justice: A Status-Value Formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119–246). Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L., & Walster, E. (1976). Preface. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction. Vol 9 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (xi-xiii).

  • Brown, R. (1986). Social Psychology (2nd ed.). The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (2020). Science – The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President. With a foreword by France A. Cordova. Report reissued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in celebration of its 75th anniversary and the 70th anniversary of the founding of NSF. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Carroll, L. (1872). Through the Looking-Glass. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The Justice Concept in Social Psychology. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 1–42). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, F. A. (1980). generalized entropy and the measurement of distributional change. European Economic Review, 13, 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, F. A. (2011). Measuring Inequality (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, F. A., & Flachaire, E. (2023). Inequality measurement and the rich: Why inequality increased more than we thought. Review of Income and Wealth. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duns Scotus, J. (1986). Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. (A. B. Wolter, Trans). Washington, DC: Catholic University Press.

  • Falk, A., & Knell, M. (2004). Choosing the Joneses: Endogenous goals and reference standards. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fararo, T. J. (1987). Generativity and theoretical model-building. Advances in Group Processes, 4, 137–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fararo, T. J. (1989a). The Meaning of General Theoretical Sociology: Tradition and Formalization. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fararo, T. J. (1989b). The spirit of unification in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 7, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, R. (1952). Ethical absolutism and the ideal observer. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 12, 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1952). New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. (W. J. H. Sprott, Trans). In: The Major Works of Sigmund Freud. Chicago: Britannica

  • Granato, J., Lo, M., & Wong, M. C. S. (2021). Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models in Political Science. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F. [1821] (1952). The Philosophy of Right. (T. M. Knox, Trans) Chicago: Britannica.

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Revised). Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1976). Commentary. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction, Vol 9 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakes, L. (2023). Drills in Europe Deliver Message for the Kremlin (p. A1). New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1978). On the justice of earnings: A new specification of the justice evaluation function. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1398–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1988). Principles of theoretical analysis. Sociological Theory, 6(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1989). Self-interest, distributive justice, and the income distribution: A theoretical fragment based on St. Anselm’s postulate. Social Justice Research, 3(3), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1990). Methods for the theoretical and empirical analysis of comparison processes. Sociological Methodology, 20, 369–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1993). Analyzing conflict severity: Predictions of distributive-justice theory for the two-subgroup case. Social Justice Research, 6(4), 357–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01050337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1999). How much injustice is there in the world? Two new justice indexes. American Sociological Review, 64(1), 133–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2001). Comparison Theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory (pp. 669–698). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2002). Seven Secrets for Doing Theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory (pp. 317–342). Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2004). The tripartite structure of social science analysis. Sociological Theory, 22(3), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2004.00226.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2008). A new unified theory of sociobehavioral forces. European Sociological Review, 24(4), 411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2010). Linking individuals and societies. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 34, 1–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2011). Migration and stratification. Social Science Research, 40(5), 1292–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.03.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2015a). Societies, Types of. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 22, pp. 878–886). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2015b). Thinking, saying, doing in the world of distributive justice. Social Justice Research, 28(4), 435–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-015-0257-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2017). Inequality in the distribution of a good is a bad, and inequality in the distribution of a bad is a good. European Sociological Review, 33(4), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2020). Factorial Survey. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2021a). Analyzing migration restriction regimes. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 610432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.610432

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2021b). Inequality and Justice. In S. Abrutyn & K. McCaffree (Eds.), Theoretical Sociology: The Future of a Disciplinary Foundation (pp. 209–243). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2021c). “The Methods and Surprises of Sociological Theory: Ideas, Postulates, Predictions, Distributions, Unification. In S. Abrutyn & O. Lizardo (Eds.), Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2022a). On the Essential Unity of Mathematics, Science, and Art: The Justice Evaluation Function and the Golden Number. In N. Rezaei (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity (pp. 57–84). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2022b, August). Advancing knowledge in the spirit of Fararo: Generativity and unification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA (Unpublished).

  • Jasso, G., & Kotz, S. (2008). Two types of inequality: Inequality between persons and inequality between subgroups. Sociological Methods and Research, 37(1), 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108318971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Meyersson Milgrom, E. (2008). Distributive justice and CEO compensation. Acta Sociologica, 51(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699308090039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Resh, N. (2002). Exploring the sense of justice about grades. European Sociological Review, 18(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/18.3.333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Sato, Y. (2023). Taking the Justice Pulse: Inferring Justice from Inequality. In: Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the International Network of Analytical Sociologists (INAS), Princeton, NJ

  • Jasso, G., Shelly, R., & Webster, M. (2019). How impartial are the observers of justice theory? Social Science Research, 79, 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.10.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., Törnblom, K. Y., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive Justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research (pp. 201–218). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Wegener, B. (1997). Methods for empirical justice analysis: Part I. Framework, models, and quantities. Social Justice Research, 10(4), 393–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02683292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Wegener, B. (1999). Gender and country differences in the sense of justice: Justice evaluation, gender earnings gap, and earnings functions in thirteen countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 40, 94–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014a). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods and Research, 43, 178–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014b). Toward an understanding of the relationship between accounts and action. Sociological Methods and Research, 43, 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2023). Root Canal Forces Biden to Push Back Meeting on Ukraine with Alliance Chief (p. A10). New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber, C., & Kotz, S. (2003). Statistical Size Distributions in Economics and Actuarial Sciences. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction (pp. 91–131). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebig, S., & Sauer, C. (2016). Sociology of Justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research (pp. 37–59). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K., and Rossi, A. S. (1950). Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior. In R. K. Merton & P. F. Lazarsfeld (Eds.), Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Scope and Method of "The American Soldier" (pp. 40–105). New York: Free Press. Reprinted as p. 225–280 in Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Second edition, revised and enlarged. New York: Free Press.

  • Miller, D. (1976). Social Justice. Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osberg, L., & Smeeding, T. (2006). ‘Fair’ inequality? attitudes toward pay differentials: The United States in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 450–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. [380 BC] (1952). The Republic. In: The Dialogues of Plato. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Chicago: Britannica.

  • Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as fairness. The Philosophical Review, 67, 164–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scalia, A. (1989). The rule of law as a law of rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 56(4), 1175–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1969). Models of segregation. American Economic Review, 59, 488–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer, A. [1851] (1951). Selected Essays from the Parerga and Paralipomena of Schopenhauer. (T. Bailey Saunders, Trans). London: George Allen and Unwin.

  • Shorrocks, A. F. (1980). The class of additively decomposable inequality measures. Econometrica, 48(3), 613–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Theil, H. (1967). Economics and Information Theory. North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2006). Sociological theories of human emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R. (2014). The Good, the Bad, and the Just: How Modern Men Shape Their World. Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hayek, F. A. (1976). The Mirage of Social Justice. Volume 2 of Law, Legislation and Liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1985). Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 697–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1976). New Directions in Equity Research. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Equity Theory: Toward a General Theory of Social Interaction (pp. 1–42). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, B., & Steinmann, S. (1995). Justice Psychophysics in the Real World: Comparing Income Justice and Income Satisfaction in East and West Germany. In J. Kluegel, D. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social Justice and Political Change: Public Opinion in Capitalist and Post-Communist States (pp. 151–175). Aldine de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zolotow, C. (1976). It’s Not Fair. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A long line of distinguished collaborators contributed to the work on which these reflections are based. I am honored to acknowledge, in alphabetical order, Jule Adriaans, Gabrielle Ferrales, John Hagan, Samuel Kotz, Stefan Liebig, Eva M. Meyersson Milgrom, Karl-Dieter Opp, Nura Resh, Peter H. Rossi, Clara Sabbagh, Yoshimichi Sato, Robert Shelly, Kjell Y. Törnblom, Riel Vermunt, Murray Webster, and Bernd Wegener. I also thank another long line of distinguished correspondents—Joseph Berger, Bernard P. Cohen, Thomas J. Fararo, James S. Granato, Douglas D. Heckathorn, Robert K. Merton, Jonathan H. Turner, David G. Wagner, Joseph M. Whitmeyer, Morris Zelditch—and conference organizers/discussants/participants, as well as the Editors. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the intellectual and financial support of New York University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, New York University, 295 Lafayette Street, New York, NY, 10012-9605, USA

    Guillermina Jasso

Authors
  1. Guillermina Jasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermina Jasso.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

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

Jasso, G. Fifty Years of Justice Research. Soc Just Res 36, 305–324 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00419-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00419-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation