Advertisement

Levels of Interest in the Study of Interpersonal Justice

  • Harry T. Reis
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)

Abstract

The period following 1976 ought to have been the halcyon years of equity theory. The year 1976 stands as a landmark, because in that year, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology devoted an entire volume to equity theory, the only time since its inauguration in 1964 that a single issue has been so dedicated. The reason for this unprecedented attention was the “new mood of optimism [that] is emerging in social psychology.” This hopefulness sprang from the promise of equity theory, because “equity theory was developed in the hope of providing the glimmerings of the general theory that social psychologists so badly need.” (Both quotes, Berkowitz & Walster, 1976, p. xi.) In other words, it was thought, by the editors as well as many other researchers at the time, that equity theory might be the general systems theory that would provide a framework for conceptualizing most aspects of social relations. In so doing, the theory would make available an integrated structure for the myriad of minitheories and isolated experimental phenomena that then predominated the literature.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Equity Theory Relative Deprivation Experimental Social Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.Google Scholar
  2. Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. (1985). Personality in the social process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 208–216.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, L., & Walster, E. (1976). Preface. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, p. xi). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohrnstedt, G. (1982). Editorial footnote. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 126.Google Scholar
  6. Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135–168). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, M. S. (1985), Implications of relationship type for understanding compatibility. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 119–140). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Deaux, K. (1977). Sex differences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior (pp. 357–377). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In J. Thibaut, J. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–131). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  14. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gergen, K. J., Morse, S. J., & Gergen, M. (1980). Behavior exchange in cross-cultural perspective. In H. Triandis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Haan, N. (1978). Two moralities in action contexts: Relationships to thought, ego-regulation, and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris, R. J. (1976). Handling negative inputs: On the plausible equity formulae. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, R. J., & Joyce, M. A. (1980). What’s fair? It all depends on how you phrase the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  21. Kaufmann, W. A. (1973). Without guilt and justice. New York: Wyden.Google Scholar
  22. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lerner, M. J., & Lerner, S. C. (1981). The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, 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
  27. 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 theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Lind, E. A., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., Walker, L., & Thibaut, J. W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399–1412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mikula, G. (1973). “Gerechtigkeit” und “Zufriedenheit beider partner” als Zielsetzungen der Aufteilung eines von zwei Personen gemeinsam erzielten Gewinns [Fairness and partner satisfaction as criteria for dividing a payment between two people]. Unpublished manuscript, Institut für Psychologie der Universität Graz, Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
  32. Mikula, G. (1984). Justice and fairness in interpersonal relations: Thoughts and suggestions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (pp. 204–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, S. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1977). Motivation, competence and reward allocation. Developmental Psychology, 13, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reis, H. T. (1979, August). Theories of interpersonal justice: From exploration through assimilation to accommodation. In J. Greenberg (Chair), Recent developments in interpersonal justice theory and research. Symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Reis, H. T. (1981). Self-presentation and distributive justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 269–291). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Reis, H. T. (1984). The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25–61). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reis, H. T. (in press). The nature of the justice motive: Some thoughts on operation, internalization and justification. In J. Masters & W. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical and policy perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Reis, H. T., & Burns, L. (1982). Self-awareness and reactions to overpay inequity, journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 464–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reis, H. T., Haddad, Y., Levine, R. V., & Shanab, M. Reward allocation in three cultures. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  42. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sampson, E. E. (1969). Studies of status congruence. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 225–270). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Shaver, K. (1970). An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge: Winthrop.Google Scholar
  45. Tedeschi, J. T., & Lindskold, S. (1976). Social psychology: Interdependence, interaction, and influence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. A. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York: Erlbaum/Halstead.Google Scholar
  47. Thorngate, W. (1976). Possible limits on a science of social behaviour. In K. Gergen, F. Aboud, & G. Jahoda (Eds.), Social psychology in transition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tyler, T. R. (1984). The role of perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroom experience. Law and Society Review, 18, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 21–44.Google Scholar
  50. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  52. Walster, G. W. (1975). The Walster et al. (1973) equity formula: A correction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 63–64.Google Scholar
  53. Weber, M. (1904). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  54. Wexler, P. (1983). The social psychology of possessive individualism: A critique of equity theory. In K. Larson (Ed.), Ideology and psychology. Monmouth, NJ: Institute for Theoretical History.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Reis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations