Two Types of Justice Reasoning About Good Fortune and Misfortune: A Replication and Beyond
While research into justice reasoning has progressed extensively, the findings and implications have been mainly limited to Western cultures. This study investigated the relationship between immanent and ultimate justice reasoning about others’ misfortune and good fortune in Japanese participants. The effects of goal focus and religiosity, which previously have been found to foster justice reasoning, were also tested. Participants were randomly assigned to one condition of a 2 (goal focus: long term or short term) × 2 (target person’s moral value: respected or thief) × 2 (type of luck: misfortune or good fortune) design. For immanent justice reasoning, the results revealed that a “bad” person’s misfortune was attributed to their past misdeeds, while a “good” person’s good fortune was attributed to their past good deeds. Regarding ultimate justice reasoning, it was found that a good person’s misfortune was connected more to future compensation than their good fortune, whereas a bad person’s misfortune was not reasoned about using ultimate justice. There was no significant effect of religiosity or goal focus on justice reasoning, which is inconsistent with the findings of previous studies. The necessity of directly examining cultural differences is discussed in relation to extending and strengthening the theory of justice reasoning.
KeywordsJustice reasoning Types of fortune Immanent justice Ultimate justice Religiosity
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 25780381.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Balslev, A. N., & Mohanty, J. N. (1993). Religion and time (studies in the history of religions). Leiden: Brill Academic Pub.Google Scholar
- Callan, M. J., Sutton, R. M., Harvey, A. J., & Dawtry, R. J. (2014). Immanent justice reasoning: Theory, research, and current directions. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 105–161). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Harvey, A. J., & Callan, M. J. (2014a). Getting “Just Deserts” or Seeing the “Silver Lining”: The relation between judgments of immanent and ultimate justice. PLoS ONE, 9, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Jones, J. M. (1988). Cultural differences in temporal perspectives: Instrumental and expressive behaviors in time. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 21–38). Newbury, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Homes, J. G. (1976). Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 133–162). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Nishi, K. (2009). Something spiritual attracting the Japanese: From ISSP survey on religion. The NHK Monthly Report on Broadcast Research, 59, 66–81.Google Scholar