Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 211–238 | Cite as

The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial Validity, Location in the Personality Facet Space, Demographic Pattern, and Normative Data

  • Manfred SchmittEmail author
  • Anna Baumert
  • Mario Gollwitzer
  • Jürgen Maes
Article

Abstract

This article investigates the psychometric properties of a self-report inventory for measuring individual differences in four components of justice sensitivity (JS): victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity, and perpetrator sensitivity. A representative sample (N = 2510) was employed to (a) estimate the reliability of a newly developed perpetrator sensitivity scale, (b) test the factorial validity of this scale together with three previously developed scales (victim, observer, and beneficiary sensitivity), (c) estimate correlations between JS and demographic variables (gender, age, education, employment status, marital status, and residency in East versus West Germany), and (d) provide normative data for the computation of standard scores. A demographically heterogeneous convenience sample (N = 327) was used to locate the JS dimensions in the personality space of narrow facet factors. Results from confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the factorial validity of the JS scales. Regression analyses with JS scales as criteria and personality facet scales as predictors suggested that JS cannot be reduced to combinations of personality facets. Demographic effects were small, explaining a maximum of 1.4% of JS variance. Women and East Germans were found to be more justice sensitive than men and West Germans, respectively. Victim sensitivity decreased with age; perpetrator sensitivity decreased with education. Taken together, our results corroborate the validity of the JS Inventory and contribute to a better psychological understanding of JS.

Keywords

Personality facets Justice perceptions Justice-related traits Five-factor model of personality Perpetrator sensitivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Christine Altstötter-Gleich for assessing participants in Sample 2 and Christine Platzer for providing items for an earlier version of the perpetrator sensitivity scale. We thank Jane Thompson for helpful comments on this article.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfermann, D. (2005). Geschlechtsunterschiede [Sex differences]. In H. Weber & T. Rammsayer (Eds.), Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie (pp. 104–115). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  3. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar nach Costa und McCrae—Deutsche Fassung [NEO-five-factor personality inventory according to Costa and McCrae—German version]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scientific analysis of personality. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, E. S., & Tyler, T. R. (2001). Cloaking power: Legitimizing myths and the psychology of the advantaged. In J. A. Bargh & A. Y. Lee-Chai (Eds.), The use and abuse of power (pp. 241–261). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa, P. T, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (2001). Exploring the multifaceted structure of sense of deprivation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenck, H. J. (1953). The structure of human personality. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  19. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and distributive decisions in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2007). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, and punitive judgments. Social Justice Research, 20, 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gollwitzer, M., & Rothmund, T. (2009). When the need to trust results in unethical behavior: The sensitivity to mean intentions (SeMI) model. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on unethical behavior and decision making (pp. 135–152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  23. Gollwitzer, M., Rothmund, T., Pfeiffer, A., & Ensenbach, C. (2009). Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 999–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, development, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Empathy, role-taking, guilt, and development of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development: Current theory and research (pp. 124–143). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2001). Lisrel 8.51. Chicago, IL: SSI.Google Scholar
  31. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive in social behavior. Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lind, A. E., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the questions, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modelling, 9, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lovas, L., & Wolt, R. (2002). Sensitivity to injustice in the context of some personality traits. Studia Psychologica, 44, 125–131.Google Scholar
  39. Maes, J. (1998). Eight stages in the development of research on the construct of belief in a just world. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 163–186). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  40. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 43–76). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mohiyeddini, C., & Schmitt, M. (1997). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to unfair treatment in a laboratory situation. Social Justice Research, 10, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montada, L., & Lerner, M. (1998). Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  45. Montada, L. (1993). Understanding oughts by assessing moral reasoning or moral emotions. In G. Noam & T. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 292–309). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Montada, L., Schmitt, M., & Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with one’s own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In H.-W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 125–143). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  47. Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When guilt evokes self-punishment: Evidence for the existence of a Dobby effect. Emotion, 9, 118–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-PI-R. NEO Persönlichkeitsinventar, revidierte Form [NEO-PI-R—revised German version]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sabbagh, C., Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). The structure of social justice judgements: A facet approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmitt, M. (1996). Individual differences in sensitivity to befallen injustice. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmitt, M., Behner, R., Montada, L., Müller, L., & Müller-Fohrbrodt, G. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and education as privileges: Exploring the generalizability of the existential guilt reaction. Social Justice Research, 13, 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schmitt, M., & Mohiyeddini, C. (1996). Sensitivity to befallen injustice and reactions to a real life disadvantage. Social Justice Research, 9, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmitt, M., & Montada, L. (Eds.) (1999). Gerechtigkeitserleben im wiedervereinigten Deutschland [Justice in united Germany]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., & Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Social Justice Research, 8, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmitt, M., Rebele, J., Bennecke, J., & Förster, N. (2008). Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität, Kündigungsgerechtigkeit und Verantwortlichkeitszuschreibungen als Korrelate von Einstellungen und Verhalten Gekündigter gegenüber ihrem früheren Arbeitgeber (Post Citizenship Behavior) [Justice sensitivity, layoff fairness, and responsibility attributions as correlates of post citizenship behavior of laid off employees]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 10, 101–110.Google Scholar
  62. Schmitt, M., Reichle, B., & Maes, J. (2001). Responsibility and attitudes towards the disadvantaged. In H.-W. Bierhoff & A. E. Auhagen (Eds.), Responsibility—the many faces of a social phenomenon (pp. 167–178). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Streicher, B., Jonas, E., Maier, G. W., Frey, D., Woschée, R., & Waßmer, B. (2008). Test of the construct and criteria validity of a German measure of organizational justice. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Tobey-Klass, E. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 757–771.Google Scholar
  68. Törestad, B. (1990). What is anger provoking? A psychophysical study of perceived causes of anger. Aggressive Behavior, 16, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van den Bos, K., Maas, M., Waldring, I., & Semin, G. P. (2003). Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity. Social Justice Research, 16, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Hiel, A., De Cremer, D., & Stouten, J. (2008). The personality basis of justice: The five-factor model as an integrative model of personality and procedural fairness effects on cooperation. European Journal of Personality, 22, 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walker, I., & Smith, H. (2002). Relative deprivation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  73. Wegener, B., & Liebig, S. (1995). Dominant ideologies and the variation of distributive justice norms. A comparison of East and West Germany. In J. R. Kluegel, D. S. Mason, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political change (pp. 263–284). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  74. Wen, Z., Hau, K. T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 186–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Schmitt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna Baumert
    • 1
  • Mario Gollwitzer
    • 2
  • Jürgen Maes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of EducationUniversität der Bundeswehr MünchenNeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations