Abstract
Although previous studies have shown the association between students’ perceived teacher procedural justice and their aggressive behaviors, there are still mediating mechanisms that need to be explored to fully understand the relationship. This study proposed a parallel mediation model through both legitimacy of authority and through motivation to decrease the advantage of others. A total of 402 fifth and sixth graders (10–12 years of age) from three public primary schools in central China participated in this study. They completed the self-report measures of perceived procedural teacher justice, negative evaluation of school rules, malicious and benign envy, aggressive behaviors, and personal belief in a just world. The results showed that students’ perceived teacher procedural justice negatively predicted their aggression, and this relationship was mediated by both negative evaluation of school rules and malicious envy in a parallel mediation model after controlling for students’ gender and personal belief in a just world. In conclusion, perceiving teachers’ behaviors as procedurally just, students are less likely to have a negative attitude toward school rules and feel malicious envy, and thus are less likely to engage in aggressive behaviors. The findings help understand the psychological processes underlying the relationship between perceived teacher procedural justice and aggression and have practical implications for justice-related daily teaching practices and school-based interventions for reducing aggression.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
23 January 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09757-9
References
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. The MIT Press.
Berti, C., Mameli, C., Speltini, G., & Molinari, L. (2016). Teacher justice and parent support as predictors of learning motivation and visions of a just world. Issues in Educational Research, 26(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.509498410309818.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2015). Relational models of procedural justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 351–370). Oxford University Press.
Brubacher, M. R., Fondacaro, M. R., Brank, E. M., Brown, V. E., & Miller, S. A. (2009). Procedural justice in resolving family disputes: Implications for childhood bullying. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 15(3), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016839
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). The aggression questionnaire manual. Western Psychological Services.
Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385646.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Antisocial classroom communication: Instructor influence and interactional justice as predictors of student aggression. Communication Quarterly, 52(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370184.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.666.
Correia, I., & Dalbert, C. (2008). School bullying: Belief in a personal just world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psychologist, 13(4), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.248.
Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022091609047
Dalbert, C., & Radant, M. (2004). Parenting and young adolescents’ belief in a just world. In C. Dalbert & H. Sallay (Eds.), The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood (pp. 11–25). Routledge.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press.
Donat, M., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V. (2014). Adolescents’ cheating and delinquent behavior from a justice-psychological perspective: The role of teacher justice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(4), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0218-5.
Donat, M., Knigge, M., & Dalbert, C. (2018). Being a good or a just teacher: Which experiences of teachers’ behavior can be more predictive of school bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 44(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21721.
Donat, M., Umlauft, S., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V. (2012). Belief in a just world, teacher justice, and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38(3), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21421.
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804.
Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (2005). Delinquency: Cause or consequence of social exclusion? In D. Abrams, J. Marques, & M. Hogg (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 211–241). Psychology Press.
Estévez, E., Jiménez, T. I., & Moreno, D. (2018). Aggressive behavior in adolescence as a predictor of personal, family, and school adjustment problems. Psicothema, 30(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.294
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-6823-3.
Fondacaro, M. R., Jackson, S. L., & Luescher, J. (2002). Toward the assessment of procedural and distributive justice in resolving family disputes. Social Justice Research, 15(4), 341–371. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021219124369.
Gouveia-Pereira, M., Vala, J., Palmonari, A., & Rubini, M. (2003). School experience, relational justice and legitimation of institutional. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173251.
Grazia, V., Mameli, C., & Molinari, L. (2021). Adolescents’ profiles based on student agency and teacher autonomy support: Does interpersonal justice matter? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(4), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00504-2.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Helm, F., Arens, A. K., & Möller, J. (2020). Perceived teacher unfairness and student motivation in math and German: An application of the generalized internal/external frame of reference model. Learning and Individual Differences, 81, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101891.
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., Carton, S. T., Miller, E., & Raposo, P. C. J. (2013). Testing leader–member exchange theory as a lens to understand students’ classroom justice perceptions and antisocial communication. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2013.799511
Kazemi, A. (2016). Examining the interplay of justice perceptions, motivation, and school achievement among secondary school students. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0261-2.
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/br39f.
Laninga-Wijnen, L., van den Berg, Y. H. M., Mainhard, T., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2021). The role of aggressive peer norms in elementary school children’s perceptions of classroom peer climate and school adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 50(8), 1582–1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01432-0
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Springer.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 91–131). Academic Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances on theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer.
Mameli, C., Biolcati, R., Passini, S., & Mancini, G. (2018). School context and subjective distress: The influence of teacher justice and school-specific well-being on adolescents’ psychological health. School Psychology International, 39(5), 526–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318794226.
Mameli, C., Caricati, L., & Molinari, L. (2020). That’s not fair! The effects of teacher justice and academic achievement on Self and Other’s resistant agency. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 933–947. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12335.
Maxwell, J. P. (2008). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Buss–Warren aggression questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 943–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.037
Molinari, L., Speltini, G., & Passini, S. (2013). Do perceptions of being treated fairly increase students’ outcomes? Teacher–student interactions and classroom justice in Italian adolescents. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2012.748254.
Penner, E. K., Viljoen, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Roesch, R. (2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000055.
Peter, F., & Dalbert, C. (2010). Do my teachers treat me justly? Implications of students’ justice experience for class climate experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.06.001.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2009). Justice in teaching. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 669–682). Springer.
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2014). Justice, belonging and trust among Israeli middle school students. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1036–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3129.
Resh, N., & Sabbagh, C. (2017). Sense of justice in school and civic behavior. Social Psychology of Education, 20(2), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3129.
Sanches, C., Gouveia-Pereira, M., & Carugati, F. (2012). Justice judgements, school failure, and adolescent deviant behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02048.x.
Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 79–99). Guilford Press.
Smith, R. H. (2004). Envy and its transmutations. In L. Z. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of emotions (pp. 43–63). Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206008.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480099.
Thomas, K. J., & Mucherah, W. M. (2018). Brazilian adolescents’ just world beliefs and its relationships with school fairness, student conduct, and legal authorities. Social Justice Research, 31(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0301-6.
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Travlos, A. K., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Gender and age differences in self-reported aggression of high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(8), 1709–1725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468323.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1j66769.16.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Snyder (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115–191). Academic Press.
Xiang, Y., Chao, X., & Ye, Y. (2018). Effect of gratitude on benign and malicious envy: The mediating role of social support. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00139.
Zhang, P., Roberts, R. E., Liu, Z., Meng, X., Tang, J., Sun, L., & Yu, Y. (2012). Hostility, physical aggression and trait anger as predictors for suicidal behavior in Chinese adolescents: A school-based study. PLoS One, 7(2), e31044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031044
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant 15YJC190021 from Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China to the first author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no financial or non-financial interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.
Informed consent
Informed consent from students and their parents was obtained before the questionnaire session. The institutional ethical review board of the university where the authors work approved this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A: Teacher procedural justice inventory
Appendix A: Teacher procedural justice inventory
(a) Voice/representativeness
1. My teacher(s) asked for my input before a decision related to me was made.
12. My teacher(s) gave me an opportunity to express my side before a decision related to me was made.
14. My teacher(s) carefully considered my views before a decision related to me was made.
19. My teacher(s) gave little consideration to what I said when making their decision. (R)
25. I had an opportunity to discuss how I was being evaluated in selection processes.
27. I felt as if my teacher(s) listened to me before a decision related to me was made.
(b) Consistency
2. My teacher(s) favored others over me. (R)
4. My teacher(s) treated me worse than others because of my personal characteristics (i.e., gender, family background). (R)
9. When I compare the way I was treated to the way my teacher(s) generally treat people in similar situations, I received worse treatment. (R)
15. My teacher(s) gave better treatment to others than they gave me. (R)
16. My teacher(s) looked down on me in comparison to others. (R)
28. My teacher(s) used consistent standards to evaluate my actions, performance, or behavior.
(c) Neutrality/bias suppression
5. My teacher(s) showed a real interest in trying to be fair.
7. The methods used by my teacher(s) favored one person over another. (R)
10. My teacher(s) listened to all sides.
17. The procedures followed, rules applied, or approach taken by my teacher(s) were effective in assuring that a situation was handled in a neutral manner.
21. The methods used by my teacher(s) were equally fair to everyone involved.
23. My teachers tried hard to bring all sides of an issue out into the open.
(d) Accuracy
3. My teacher(s) handled an issue in a very careful manner.
8. The procedures or rules that my teacher(s) applied to a situation were very effective in getting at the facts.
11. My teacher(s) got all the information needed to make a good decision.
18. My teacher(s) seemed well organized in how they handled things.
20. My teacher(s) handled issues in a very thorough manner.
24. My teacher(s) tried to bring the issues into the open so that they could be resolved.
(e) Correctability
6. I was able to appeal the outcome of the decision made by my teacher(s).
13. I knew of someone in a position of authority I could have complained to if I felt my teacher(s) were unfair.
22. I learned that I could count on my teacher(s) to correct their mistakes.
26. Any wrong decisions made by my teacher(s) could be easily corrected.
29. I was given an opportunity to improve my performance or behavior before a final decision was made by my teacher(s).
30. I had an opportunity to have the decision reconsidered by my teacher(s).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, H., Chen, Z. Perceived teacher procedural justice and aggressive behaviors among Chinese primary students: The mediating roles of negative evaluation of school rules and malicious envy. Soc Psychol Educ 26, 25–44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09737-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09737-z