Social Context and Perceived Justice

  • Hans Werner Bierhoff
  • Ernst Buck
  • Renate Klein
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)


Contemporary research on fairness and justice has focused on the situational determinants of the relationship between performance and reward. Social psychologists have emphasized the influence of contributions of the group members on the reward distribution. In contrast to this major interest area in justice studies, the influence of the reward allocation on the inferred input level of the group members has received relatively little attention.


Equality Principle Equality Rule Perceive Justice Distribution Rule Simple Effect Analysis 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J. S. Carroll, & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abelson, R. P. (1982). Three modes of attitude-behavior consistency. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior. The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 131–146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance on choice of distribution rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin, W., & McGinn, N. C. (1977). Sex differences in choice of distribution rules. Journal of Personality, 45, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benton, A. (1971). Productivity, distributive justice, and bargaining among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Wagner, D. G. (1983). The formation of reward expectations in status situations. In D. M. Messick & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives (pp. 127–168). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  9. Bierhoff, H. W. (1982). Sozialer Kontext als Determinante der wahrgenommenen Gerechtigkeit [Social context as a determinant of perceived justice]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 13, 66–78.Google Scholar
  10. Bierhoff, H. W. (1984). Sozialpsychologie [Social psychology]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Bierhoff, H. W., & Kramp, P. (1982). Rückschlüsse auf Leistungsverteilungen bei vorgegebenen Gewinnaufteilungen [Backward inferences to contributions on the basis of reward allocations]. Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of Experimental Psychologists, 247. Trier: University of Trier.Google Scholar
  11. Bierhoff, H. W., & Renda, O. (1985). Absolute und relative Gleichheit, Ressourcenklasse, sozialer Kontext und Geschlechtsunterschiede [Equality, equity, type of resources, social context, and gender differences]. Unpublished manuscript, Philipps University, Department of Psychology, Marburg.Google Scholar
  12. Brickman, P., & Bryan, J. H. (1976). Equity versus equality as factors in children’s moral judgments of thefts, charity, and third-party transfers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 757–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messé, L. A. (1979). Sex differences in the allocation of pay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook, K. S. (1975). Expectations, evaluations and equity. American Sociological Review, 40, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Debusschere, M., & van Avermaet, E. (1984). Compromising between equity and equality: The effects of situational ambiguity and computational complexity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foa, B. E., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange (pp. 77–94). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grumbkow, J. von, Deen, E., Steensma, H., & Wilke, H. (1976). The effect of future interaction on the distribution of rewards. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hottes, J., & Kahn, A. (1974). Sex differences in a mixed-motive conflict situation. Journal of Personality, 42, 260–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahn, A., O’Leary, V. E., Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and equality: Male and female means to a just end. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kayser, E., & Schwinger, T. (1982). A theoretical analysis of the relationship among individual justice concepts, layman’s social psychology, and distribution decisions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 12, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Kidder, L. H., Fagan, M. A., & Cohn, E. S. (1981). Giving and receiving. Social justice in close relationships. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 235–259). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kourilsky, M., & Kehret-Ward, T. (1984). Kindergarteners’ attitudes toward distributive justice: Experiential mediators. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 49–64.Google Scholar
  24. Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: “Equity” and “parity” among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lerner, M. J. (1981). The justice motive in human relations: Some thoughts on what we know and need to know about justice. In M. J. Lerner, & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 11–35). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Leventhal, G. S., & Lane, D. W. (1970). Sex, age, and equity behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Es geht nicht nur um Fairneß: Eine Theorie der Verteilungspräferenzen [Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences]. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion (pp. 185–250). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1973). Vertrauen [Trust]. Stuttgart: Erike.Google Scholar
  32. Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Mikula, G. (1980). Zur Rolle der Gerechtigkeit in Aufteilungsentscheidungen [On the role of justice in allocation decisions]. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion (pp. 141–183). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  35. Mikula, G., & Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward allocations: Theoretical considerations of affects. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 229–250). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Reis, H. T., & Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: The role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reis, H. T., & Jackson, L. A. (1981). Sex differences in reward allocation. Subjects, partners, and tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sagan, K., Pondel, M., Wittig, M. A. (1981). The effect of anticipated future interaction on reward allocation in same- and opposite-sex dyads. Journal of Personality, 49, 438–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson, E. E. (1981). Social change and the contexts of justice motivation. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 97–124). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schmitt, M., & Montada, L. (1982). Determinanten erlebter Gerechtigkeit [Determinants of perceived justice]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 13, 32–44.Google Scholar
  41. Shapiro, E. G. (1975). Effects of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads: Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity. Austin, TX: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, M. C., & Hall, J. A. (1982). Psychological androgyny: Theories, methods, and conclusions. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Werner Bierhoff
    • 1
  • Ernst Buck
    • 1
  • Renate Klein
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich PsychologiePhilipps-Universität MarburgMarburg/LahnWest Germany

Personalised recommendations