Social Justice Research

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 183–201 | Cite as

Asymmetrical Effects of Justice Sensitivity Perspectives on Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior

  • Mario Gollwitzer
  • Manfred Schmitt
  • Rebecca Schalke
  • Jürgen Maes
  • Andreas Baer


Three studies explore the effects of perspective-specific justice sensitivity on indicators of both prosocial behavior (i.e., existential guilt, solidarity, and responsibility ascriptions towards the disadvantaged) and antisocial behavior (i.e., the willingness to transgress a norm in a moral temptation dilemma). On the basis of theoretical considerations and earlier findings it is expected that being sensitive towards injustice from a beneficiary’s perspective is associated positively with prosocial and negatively with antisocial behavior, whereas the opposite should be true for being sensitive towards injustice from a victim’s perspective. The results from all three studies support these hypotheses. It is argued that JS-beneficiary indicates a genuine, “other-oriented” concern for justice and social responsibility, whereas JS-victim indicates a mixture of “self-related” and justice-related concerns.


justice sensitivity prosocial behavior antisocial behavior moral concerns 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research. Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Hum. Dev. 20: 217–239.Google Scholar
  2. Allon, N. (1982). The stigma of overweight in everyday life. In Woldman, B. B. (ed.), Psychological Aspects of Obesity, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 130–174.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. J. Soc. Issues 46: 27–46.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., and Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71: 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., and Wilson, A. D. (1997). In a very different voice: Unmasking moral hypocrisy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72: 1335–1348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., and Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77: 525–537.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, L., and Daniels, L. R. (1964). Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm. Effects of past help on the response to dependency relationships. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 68: 275–281.Google Scholar
  9. Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25: 28–39.Google Scholar
  10. Bierhoff, H. W., and Rohrmann, E. (2004). Altruistic personality in the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Eur. J. Pers. 18: 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychol. Bull. 88: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsmith, J. M., and Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 11: 232–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarkson, P. (1996). The Bystander, Whurr, London.Google Scholar
  14. Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (eds.), The Adapted Mind, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 163–228.Google Scholar
  15. Dar, Y., and Resh, N. (2001). Exploring the multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31: 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dar, Y., and Resh, N. (2003). Social disadvantage and students’ perceived injustice in socially integrated schools in Israel. Soc. Justice Res. 16: 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeCremer, D., and van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. Eur. J. Pers. 15: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dion, K. L., and Dion, K. K. (1987). Belief in a just world and physical attractiveness stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24: 207–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fetchenhauer, D., and Huang, X. (2003). Justice sensitivity and behavior in experimental games. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 36: 1015–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A., and Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 7(2, PT.1): 117–124.Google Scholar
  23. Gollwitzer, M. (2004). Do normative transgressions affect punitive judgments? An empirical test of the psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30: 1650–1660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottfredson, M. R., and Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Hartshorne, H., and May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the Nature of Character, Vol. 1: Studies in Deceit, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a comprehensive moral theory. In Kurtines, W. M., and Gewirtz, J. L. (eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development, Wiley, New York, pp. 283–302.Google Scholar
  27. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., and Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Percept. Motor Skills 61: 1055–1064.Google Scholar
  28. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., and Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12: 222–234.Google Scholar
  29. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development, Clark University Press, Worcester.Google Scholar
  30. Konecni, V. J. (1972). Some effects of guilt on compliance: A field replication. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23: 30–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Konoske, P., Staple, S., and Graf, R. G. (1979). Compliant reactions to guilt: Self-esteem or self-punishment. J. Soc. Psychol. 108: 207–211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108: 480–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Landy, D., and Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 29: 299–304.Google Scholar
  34. Lovas, L. (1995). Nespravodlivost v interpersonalnych vztahoch [Injustice in interpersonal relations]. Ceskoslov. Psychol. 34: 203–212.Google Scholar
  35. Lovas, L., and Pirhacova, I. (1996). Anxieta, hnevlivost a senzitivita voci nespravodlivosti [Anxiety, anger, and sensitivity to injustice]. Ceskoslov. Psychol. 40: 248–255.Google Scholar
  36. Lovas, L., and Wolt, R. (2002). Sensitivity to injustice in the context of some personality traits. Stud. Psychol. 44: 125–131.Google Scholar
  37. Maes, J., and Schmitt, M. (1999). More on ultimate and immament justice: Results from the research project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany.” Soc. Justice Res. 12: 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mikula, G. (1994). Perspective-related differences in interpretations of injustice by victims and victimizers: A test with close relationships. In Lerner, M. J., and Mikula, G. (eds.), Entitlement and the Affectional Bond, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 175–203.Google Scholar
  39. Mohiyeddini, C. (1998). Sensibilität für widerfahrene Ungerechtigkeit als Persönlichkeitseigenschaft [Sensitivity towards befallen injustice as a trait]. In Reichle, B., and Schmitt, M. (eds.), Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit und Moral, Juventa, Weinheim, pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
  40. Mohiyeddini, C., and Schmitt, M. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair treatment in a laboratory situation. Soc. Justice Res. 10: 333–352.Google Scholar
  41. Montada, L., Schmitt, M., and Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with one’s own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
  42. Piliavin, J. A., and Piliavin, I. M. (1972). The effect of blood on reactions to a victim. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23: 253–261.Google Scholar
  43. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., and Clark, R. D. III (1981). Emergency Intervention, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Riddle, M., and Roberts, A. H. (1977). Delinquency, delay of gratification, recidivism, and the Porteus Maze Tests. Psychol. Bull. 84: 417–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. J. Soc. Issues 29: 73–93.Google Scholar
  46. Schmitt, M. (1996). Individual differences in sensitivity to befallen injustice. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 21: 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmitt, M., and Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29: 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitt, M., and Maes, J. (1998). Perceived injustice in unified Germany and mental health. Soc. Justice Res. 11: 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitt, M., and Maes, J. (2002). Stereotypic ingroup bias as self-defense against relative deprivation: Evidence from a longitudinal study of the German unification process. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32: 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmitt, M., and Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real life disadvantage. Soc. Justice Res. 9: 223–238.Google Scholar
  51. Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., and Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Soc. Justice Res. 8: 385–407.Google Scholar
  52. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., and Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.Google Scholar
  53. Schmitt, M., Behner, R., Montada, L., Müller, L., and Müller-Fohrbrodt, G. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and education as privileges: Exploring the generalizability of the existential guilt reaction. Soc. Justice Res. 13: 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, Academic Press, New York, pp. 221–279.Google Scholar
  55. Schwartz, S. H., and Howard, J. A. (1980). Explanations of the moderating effect of responsibility denial on the personal norm-behavior relationship. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43: 441–446.Google Scholar
  56. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28: 588–597.Google Scholar
  57. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation. Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21, Academic Press, New York, pp. 261–302.Google Scholar
  58. Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22: 664–670.Google Scholar
  59. Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., and Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78: 853–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Van den Bos, K., Maas, M., Waldring, I., and Semin, G. P. (2003). Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity. Soc. Justice Res. 16: 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., and Bartusch, D. J. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 103: 192–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario Gollwitzer
    • 1
    • 3
  • Manfred Schmitt
    • 1
  • Rebecca Schalke
    • 2
  • Jürgen Maes
    • 2
  • Andreas Baer
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Koblenz-LandauGermany
  2. 2.University of TrierGermany
  3. 3.University of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations