Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 153–173 | Cite as

Equality, fairness, and social conflict

  • David M. Messick
Article

Abstract

There are three generic problems that arise in the use of the concept of equality as a principle of fairness. These problems concern (i) determining when equality is appropriate as opposed to some other principle, (ii) deciding how equality is to be operationalized, and (iii) determining how to implement equality. The proposal is made that these intrapersonal decision conflicts are mirrored by social conflicts when multiple interests are involved. This way of looking at social conflicts also suggests some novel ways to approach conflict resolution.

Key Words

fairness equality conflict resolution justice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R., and Schaerfl, L. M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28: 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, S. T., and Messick, D. M. (1990). Social decision heuristics and the use of shared resources.J. Behav. Decision Making 3: 195–204.Google Scholar
  3. Bies, R. J., and Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Processual fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts.Soc. Justice Res. 1: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., and Neale, M. A. (1993). Procedural fairness and profit seeking: The perceived legitimacy of market exploitation.J. Behav. Decision Making 6: 243–256.Google Scholar
  5. Coombs, C. H., and Avrunin, G. S. (1988).The Structure of Conflict, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Dawes, R. M. (1993). Affirmative action programs: Discontinuities between thoughts about individuals and thoughts about groups. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  7. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?.J. Soc. Issues 31 (3): 137–150.Google Scholar
  8. Eckhoff, T. (1974)Justice: Its Determinants in Social Interaction, University Press, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Elster, J. (1992).Local Justice, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, R. J., and Joyce, M. A. (1980). What's fair? It depends on how you ask the question.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38: 165–170.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., and Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem.J. Polit. Econ. 98: 1325–1348.Google Scholar
  12. Keller, R. L., and Sarin, R. K. (1988). Equity in social risk: Some empirical observations.Risk Anal. 1: 135–146.Google Scholar
  13. Kirkman, B. L. Shapiro, D. L., Novelli, L., and Brett, J. M. (in press). Employee concerns regarding self-managing work teams: A multidimensional justice perspective.Soc. Justice Res. Google Scholar
  14. Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. (1988).The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. (1993).Business Without Bosses: How Self-Managing Teams are Buildings High Performance Companies. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In Mellers, B. A., and Baron, J. (eds.),Psychological Perspectives on Justice, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 11–31.Google Scholar
  17. Messick, D. M., and Rutte, C. G. (1992). The provision of public goods by experts: The Groningen study. In Liebrand, W., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. (eds.)Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings, Pergamon, London, pp. 101–109.Google Scholar
  18. Messick, D. M., and Schell, T. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making.Acta Psychol. 80, 311–323.Google Scholar
  19. Messick, D. M. & Sentis, K. (1983). Fairness, preference and fairness biases (61–94). In Messick, D. M., and Cook, K. S. (eds.)Equity Theory, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Moessinger, P. (1990). Perfect justice procedures.Soc. Justice Res. 4: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls, J. (1971).A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Raiffa, H. (1982).The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Russo, J. E., and Schoemaker, J. H. (1989).Decision Traps, Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Samuelson, C. D., and Allison, S. T. (in press). Cognitive factors affecting the use of social decision heuristics in resource sharing tasks.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision Processes.Google Scholar
  25. Shklar, J. (1990).The Sense of Injustice, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  26. Steinhaus, H. (1948). The problem of fair division.Econometrica 16: 101–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Messick
    • 1
  1. 1.J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations