Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale

  • Sebastian Hülle
  • Stefan Liebig
  • Meike Janina May
Article

Abstract

Previous research on social inequalities relied primarily on objective indicators. According to recent studies, however, subjective indicators that reflect a person’s perceptions and evaluations of inequalities are also relevant. Such evaluations depend on an individual’s normative orientation, so respective attitudes toward distributive justice need to be accounted for appropriately. This article introduces a short scale for measuring such order-related justice attitudes. The introduced Basic Social Justice Orientations (BSJO) scale comprises current insights into the empirical justice research and measures individuals’ attitudes toward the following four basic distributive principles: equality, need, equity, and entitlement. The BSJO scale has four dimensions that measure support for these four justice principles on the basis of eight items. We assess the quality of the scale using data from three general population surveys conducted in Germany: the first wave of the panel “Legitimation of Inequality Over the Life Span” (LINOS-1), the Innovation Sample of the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP-IS 2012), and the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS 2014). The scale was found to be a valid instrument that can be used to measure order-related justice attitudes toward distributive justice. The BSJO scale is a short and therefore time-efficient instrument that can be implemented in general population surveys.

Keywords

Social justice Justice attitudes Distributive justice Justice ideologies Attitude measurement Survey research 

Supplementary material

11205_2017_1580_MOESM1_ESM.docx (79 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 79 kb)

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2001). Welfare states, solidarity and justice principles: Does the type really matter? Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (2015). Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2A). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. E., & d’Ambrosio, C. (2015). Attitudes to income inequality: Experimental and survey evidence. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2A, pp. 1147–1208). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clasen, J., & Van Oorschot, W. (2002). Changing principles in European social security. European Journal of Social Security, 4(2), 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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(3), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. DIW. (2015). SOEP innovation sample (SOEP-IS), data from 1998–2013. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research, Research Data Center SOEP. doi:10.5684/soep.is.2013.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, M. (1982). In the active voice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forsé, M., & Parodi, M. (2009). Distributive justice: An ordering of priorities. A comparative analysis of European opinions. International Review of Sociology, 19(2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlitz, J.-Y., Mühleck, K., & Scheller, P. (2007). Zur Erhebung von Gerechtigkeitsideologien mit Bezug zur Altersvorsorge. Dokumentation der Instrumentenentwicklung für das ISJP 2006. ISJP Arbeitsbericht No. 117, Berlin: Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  16. Gerlitz, J.-Y., Mühleck, K., Scheller, P., & Schrenker, M. (2012). Justice perception in times of transition: Trends in Germany, 1991–2006. European Sociological Review, 28(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. GESIS. (2015a). ALLBUS/GGSS 2014 (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften/German General Social Survey 2014). Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. ZA5240 Data file Version 2.1.0. doi:10.4232/1.12288.
  18. GESIS. (2015b). ALLBUS Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften: ALLBUS 2014—Variable report: Study no. 5240. GESIS variable reports no. 2015|30. Cologne: GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Gollwitzer, M., & van Prooijen, J. W. (2016). Psychology of justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hadler, M. (2005). Why do people accept different income ratios? A multi-level comparison of thirty countries. Acta Sociologica, 48(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harkness, J. A. (2008). Comparative survey research: Goal and challenges. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 56–77). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hegtvedt, K. A., & Isom, D. (2014). Inequality: A matter of justice? In J. D. McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 65–94). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Jäckle, N. (2002). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Gerechtigkeitsideologien Egalitarismus, Askriptivismus, Individualismus und Fatalismus. ISGF work report no. 38. Berlin: Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  24. Jasso, G. (2015). Thinking, saying, doing in the world of distributive justice. Social Justice Research, 28, 435–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kovaleva, A., Beierlein, C., Kemper, C. J., & Rammstedt, B. (2012). Eine Kurzskala zur Messung von Kontrollüberzeugung: Die Skala Internale-Externale-Kontrollüberzeugung-4 (IE-4). GESIS working papers no. 2012|19. Cologne: GESIS.Google Scholar
  28. Krohne, H. W., & Hock, M. (2007). Psychologische Diagnostik: Grundlagen und Anwendungsfelder. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  29. Kunovich, S., & Slomczynski, K. M. (2007). Systems of distribution and a sense of equity: A multilevel analysis of meritocratic attitudes in post-industrial societies. European Sociological Review, 23(5), 649–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Legewie, J., Gerlitz, J.-Y., Mühleck, K., Scheller, P., & Schrenker, M. (2007). Dokumentation des international social justice project 2006 für Deutschland. ISJP technical report no. 118, Berlin: Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  31. Liebig, S. (2001). Lessons from philosophy? Interdisciplinary justice research and two classes of justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liebig, S., Hülle, S., & May, M. (2016). Principles of the just distribution of benefits and burdens: The “Basic Social Justice Orientations” scale for measuring order-related social justice attitudes. SOEP paper on multidisciplinary panel data research, no. 831. Berlin: DIW Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Liebig, S., & Krause, A. (2006). Soziale Einstellungen in der Organisationsgesellschaft. Betriebliche Strukturen und die gerechte Verteilungsordnung der Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarktforschung, 39(2), 255–276.Google Scholar
  34. Liebig, S., May, M., Sauer, C., Schneider, S., & Valet, P. (2014). Erwartungen an Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. DFG Research Center (SFB) 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities” doi:10.4119/unibi/sfb882.2014.9.
  35. Liebig, S., & Sauer, C. (2016). Sociology of justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 37–59). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liebig, S., & Schlothfeldt, S. (2002). Das Grid-Group-Paradigma und sein Beitrag für die interdisziplinäre soziale Gerechtigkeitsforschung. In S. Liebig & H. Lengfeld (Eds.), Interdisziplinäre Gerechtigkeitsforschung: Zur Verknüpfung empirischer und normativer Perspektiven (pp. 219–242). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  37. Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, D. (1976). Social justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mohler, P., Dorer, B., de Jong, J., & Hu, M. (2016). Translation. Guidelines for best practice in cross-cultural surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. http://www.ccsg.isr.umich.edu/images/PDFs/CCSG_Full_Guidelines_2016_Version.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2017.
  41. Nielsen, F. (2017). Inequality and inequity. Social Science Research, 62, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nolan, B., Salverda, W., Checchi, D., Marx, I., McKnight, A., Tóth, I. G., et al. (2014). Changing inequalities and societal impacts in rich countries: Thirty countries’ experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2015). In it together: Why less inequality benefits all. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  45. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rammstedt, B. (2010). Reliabilität, Validität, Objektivität. In C. Wolf & H. Best (Eds.), Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse (pp. 239–258). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rammstedt, B., Beierlein, C., Brähler, E., Eid, M., Harting, J., Kersting, M., et al. (2015). Quality standards for the development, application, and evaluation of measurement instruments in social science survey research. RatSWD working paper no. 245. Berlin: German Council for Social and Economic Data (RatSWD).Google Scholar
  48. Richter, D., & Schupp, J. (2012). SOEP innovation sample (SOEP-IS)—Description, structure and documentation. SOEP paper of multidisciplinary panel data research no. 463. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research, Research Data Center SOEP.Google Scholar
  49. Roller, E. (1995). The welfare state: The equality dimension. In O. Borre & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The scope of government (pp. 165–197). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rothmund, T., Becker, J. C., & Jost, J. T. (2016). The psychology of social justice in political thought and action. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 275–291). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sachweh, P. (2016). Social justice and the welfare state: Institutions, outcomes, and attitudes in comparative perspective. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 293–313). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sauer, C., & Valet, P. (2014). LINOS-1: Legitimation of inequality over the life-span. SFB 882 technical report no. 13. Bielefeld: DFG Research Center (SFB) 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities”.Google Scholar
  53. Sauer, C., Valet, P., & Meyer, L. (2014). Expectations towards economy and society: Codebook of the employee survey. SFB 882 technical report no. 11. Bielefeld: DFG Research Center (SFB) 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities”.Google Scholar
  54. SOEP. (2014). SOEP-IS 2012—Methodenbericht zum Befragungsjahr 2012/13 des SOEP-Innovationssamples. SOEP survey paper no. 179. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
  55. Stark, G., Liebig, S., & Wegener, B. (2000). Gerechtigkeitsideologien. Theoretische Grundlagen, Operationalisierung und Ergebnisse für die Erhebung von Einstellungen zur sozialen Gerechtigkeit. Lieferung für das ZUMA-Informations-System Sozialwissenschaftlicher Skalen (ZIS). Arbeitsbericht No. 14. Berlin: Nachwuchsgruppe “Interdisziplinäre Soziale Gerechtigkeitsforschung”.Google Scholar
  56. Taylor-Gooby, P. (2005). Ideas and welfare state reform in Western Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ullrich, C. G. (2008). Die Akzeptanz des Wohlfahrtsstaates. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  58. Valet, P., May, M., Sauer, C., & Liebig, S. (2014). LINOS-1: Legitimation of inequality over the life-span. SFB 882 technical report no. 13. Bielefeld: DFG Research Center (SFB) 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities”.Google Scholar
  59. Van Oorschot, W., Reeskens, T., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Popular perceptions of welfare state consequences: A multilevel, cross-national analysis of 25 European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verme, P. (2011). Life Satisfaction and Income Inequality. Review of Income and Wealth, 57(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wegener, B. (1992). Gerechtigkeitsforschung und Legitimationsnormen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 21(4), 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (1995). Hierarchical and social closure conceptions of distributive social justice: A comparison of East and West Germany. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political change. Political opinion in capitalist and post-communist nations (pp. 263–284). New York, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  63. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (2000). Is the “inner wall” here to stay? Justice ideologies in unified Germany. Social Justice Research, 13(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (2010). Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen in Ost- und Westdeutschland im Wandel: Sozialisation, Interessen, Lebenslauf. In P. Krause & I. Ostner (Eds.), Leben in Ost- und Westdeutschland: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Bilanz der deutschen Einheit (pp. 83–102). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of SociologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations