Social Justice Research

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 343–366 | Cite as

The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

  • Karen A. Hegtvedt
  • Jody Clay-Warner
  • Cathryn Johnson


Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.

distributive justice procedural justice legitimacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2: 267-299.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, S., and Ruderman, A. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 177-198.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson, B., and Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formation. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., and Anderson, B. (eds.) Sociological Theories in Progress, Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bies, R. J., and Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 199-218.Google Scholar
  5. Casper, J. D., Tyler, T. R., and Fisher, B. (1987). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law Soc. Rev. 22: 483-507.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R. L. (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 119-160.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, R. L. (1986). Power and justice in intergroup relations. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 65-84.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R. L. (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-42.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, K. S., and Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9: 217-241.Google Scholar
  10. Dornbush, S. M., and Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the Exercise of Authority, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  11. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 14: 161-202.Google Scholar
  12. Fiske, S. T., and Taylor, S. E. (1990). Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognition model. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 145-163.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 73: 606-613.Google Scholar
  15. Hassebrauck, M. (1987). The influence of misattributions on reactions to inequity: Towards a further understanding of inequity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 17: 295-304.Google Scholar
  16. Hegtvedt, K. A., and Cook, K. S. (2001). Distributive justice: Recent theoretical developments and applications. In Sanders, J. and Hamilton, V. L. (eds.), Handbook of Justice Research in Law, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 93-112.Google Scholar
  17. Hegtvedt, K. A., and Johnson, C. (2000). Justice beyond the individual: A future with legitimation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63: 298-311.Google Scholar
  18. Hegtvedt, K. A., and Markovsky, B. (1995). In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 257-280.Google Scholar
  19. Hegtvedt, K. A., Thompson, E. A., and Cook, K. S. (1993). Power and equity: What counts in explaining exchange outcomes? Soc. Psychol. Q. 56: 100-119.Google Scholar
  20. Hollander, E. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncracy credit. Psychol. Rev. 65: 117-127.Google Scholar
  21. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 45: 3-32.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, C. and Ford, R. (1996). Dependence power, legitimacy, and tactical choice. Soc. Psychol. Q. 59: 126-139.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, C., Ford, R., and Kaufman, J. M. (2000). Emotional reactions to conflict: Do dependence and legitimacy matter? Soc. Forces 79: 107-137.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, E. E., and Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1: 389-420.Google Scholar
  26. Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Early, P. C., and Lind, E. A. (1987). Participation in task evaluation procedures: The effects of influential opinion expression and knowledge of evaluative criteria on attitudes and performance. Soc. Justice Res. 1: 235-249.Google Scholar
  27. Kelley, H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 28: 107-128.Google Scholar
  28. Landis, J. M., and Goodstein, L. (1986). When is justice fair? Am. Bar Found. Res. J. 1986: 675-708.Google Scholar
  29. Lawler, E. J. (1975). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization of revolutionary coalitions. Sociometry 38: 163-179.Google Scholar
  30. Lawler, E. J., and Thompson, M. E. (1978). Impact of leader responsibility for inequity on subordinate revolts. Soc. Psychol. 41: 265-268.Google Scholar
  31. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr., and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 167-218.Google Scholar
  32. Lind, E. A., Lissak, R., and Conlon, D. E. (1983). A decision control and process control effects on procedural fairness judgements. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 13: 338-350.Google Scholar
  33. Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Lissak, R. I. (1983). Procedural Fairness: How Employees Evaluate Procedures, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Markovsky, B. (1985). Toward a multilevel distributive justice theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 822-839.Google Scholar
  36. Messé, L. A., Hymes, R. W., and MacCoun, R. J. (1986). Group categorization and distributive justice decisions. In Bierhoff, H., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum, New York, pp. 227-248.Google Scholar
  37. Messick, D. M., and Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 15: 416-434.Google Scholar
  38. Olson, J. M., and Hafer, C. (2000). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In Jost, J. T. and Major, B. (eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 157-175.Google Scholar
  39. Paese, P. (1985). Procedural Fairness and Work Group Responses to Performance Evaluations Procedures, Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar
  40. Petty, R., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Pyszcynski, T., Greenberg, J., and LaPrelle, R. (1985). Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-servicing conclusion. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 21: 195-211.Google Scholar
  42. Ridgeway, C. L., and Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 281-311.Google Scholar
  43. Ridgeway, C. L., Johnson, C., and Diekema, D. (1994). External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups. Soc. Forces 72: 1051-1077.Google Scholar
  44. Scher, S. J., and Heise, D. R. (1993). Affect and the perception of injustice. Adv. Group Processes 10: 223-252.Google Scholar
  45. Schuman, H. (1995). Attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. In Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., and House, J. S. (eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 68-89.Google Scholar
  46. Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In Turner, J. and Giles, H. (eds.), Intergroup Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 144-167.Google Scholar
  47. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G., and Worchel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-37.Google Scholar
  48. Thomas, G. M., Walker, H. A., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1986). Legitimacy and collective action. Soc. Forces 65: 378Google Scholar
  49. Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  50. Törnblom, K. Y. (1977). Distributive justice: typology and propositions. Hum. Relat. 31: 1-24.Google Scholar
  51. Törnblom, K. Y. (1982). Reversal in preference responses to two types of injustice situations: A methodological contribution to equity theory. Hum. Relat. 35: 991-1014.Google Scholar
  52. Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In Scherer, K. (ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 177-236.Google Scholar
  53. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law Soc. Rev. 18: 51-74.Google Scholar
  54. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 333-344.Google Scholar
  55. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group value model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57: 850-863.Google Scholar
  56. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., and Yuen, J. H. (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  57. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., and Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70: 913-930.Google Scholar
  58. Tyler, T. R., and Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25: 115-191.Google Scholar
  59. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and McGraw, K. M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on support for political authorities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 15: 700-725.Google Scholar
  60. Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., and Spodick, N. (1985). The influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48: 72-81.Google Scholar
  61. Utne, M. K., and Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In Mikula, G. (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 63-93.Google Scholar
  62. van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., and Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77: 324-336.Google Scholar
  63. Walker, H. A., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Power, legitimacy, and the stability of authority: A theoretical research program. In Berger, J. and Zelditch, M., Jr. (eds.), Theoretical Research Programs, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp.Google Scholar
  64. Walker, H. A., Rogers, L., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1988). Legitimacy and collective action: A research note. Soc. Forces 67: 216Google Scholar
  65. Walker, H. A., Thomas, G. M., and Zelditch, M., Jr. (1986). Legitimation, endorsement, and stability. Soc. Forces 64: 620Google Scholar
  66. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., and Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and Research, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  67. Webster, M., Jr., and Smith, L. F. (1978). Justice and revolutionary coalitions: A test of two theories. Am. J. Sociol. 84: 26Google Scholar
  68. Weick, K. E. (1966). The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Admin. Sci. Q. 11: 414-439.Google Scholar
  69. Weiner, B. (1985). Spontaneous causal thinking. Psychol. Bull. 97: 74-84.Google Scholar
  70. Younts, W., and Mueller, C. W. (2001). Justice processes: Specifying the mediating role of perceptions of distributive justice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66: 125-145.Google Scholar
  71. Zelditch, M., Jr., and Ford, J. B. (1994). Uncertainty, potential power, and nondecisions. Soc. Psychol. Q. 57: 64-73.Google Scholar
  72. Zelditch, M., Jr., and Walker, H. A. (1984). Legitimacy and the stability of authority. Adv. Group Processes 1Google Scholar
  73. Zelditch, M., Jr., and Walker, H. A. (2000). The normative regulation of power. Adv. Group Processes 17: 155-178.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen A. Hegtvedt
    • 1
  • Jody Clay-Warner
    • 2
  • Cathryn Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyEmory UniversityAtlanta
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthens

Personalised recommendations