Justice in Performance Situations: Compromise Between Equity and Equality

Chapter

Abstract

Fairness gives social relationships structure and meaning. Individuals attach crucial importance to the perceived fairness of relationship partners which serves as a signal as to whether the relationship is viable or not. At the same time, fairness issues are sometimes controversial. For example, how do contradictory fairness rules influence reward allocation? Such contradictions of rules constitute a problem both in philosophical treatments of moral action and in the social psychology of fairness. In the context of performance, the application of one of two fairness rules appears reasonable: equity and equality. Either the allocators focus on only one of these normative rules or they attempt to generate a compromise between both rules. The reward expectation hypothesis which is part of expectation states theory offers a solution to this problem: It delineates a formula which allows an estimation of the impact of equity and equality for a given reward allocation among a known number of group members whose relative performances are quantified. The use of the formula is explained on the basis of empirical data obtained in a scenario study in which the performances of group members were depicted as unequal. Results indicate that the formula generates valid estimates of weights which represent the relative impact of equity and equality on reward allocation. In addition, the reward expectation hypothesis offers a new interpretation of the reconstruction of performance distributions on the basis of a known reward distribution.

Keywords

Distributive Justice Equity Norm Relationship Partner Equality Rule Performance Distribution 
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.

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. Berger, J., & Fisek, M. H. (2006). Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1038–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 110–146). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  4. Bierhoff, H.-W. (1982). Social context as determinant of perceived justice. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 13, 66–78.Google Scholar
  5. Bierhoff, H.-W., Buck, E., & Klein, R. (1986). Social context and perceived justice. In H.-W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 165–185). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierhoff, H.-W., & Jonas, E. (2011). Soziale Interaktion [Social interaction]. In D. Frey & H.-W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Sozialpsychologie – Interaktion und Gruppe. (pp. 131–159). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  7. Bierhoff, H.-W., & Rohmann, E. (2006). Conditions for establishing a system of fairness: Comment on Brosnan (2006). Social Justice Research, 19, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Brosnan, S. F., & Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 163–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalbert, C., & Maes, J. (2002). Belief in a just world as a personal resource in school. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 365–381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice. Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Fisek, M. H., & Hysom, S. J. (2008). Status characteristics and reward expectations: A test of a theory of justice in two cultures. Social Science Research, 37, 769–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Harrod, W. J. (1980). Expectations from unequal rewards. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  20. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Kienbaum, J., & Wilkening, F. (2009). Children’s and adolescents’ intuitive judgments about distributive justice: Integrating need, effort, and luck. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy – an integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mikula, G. (1972). Reward distribution behavior in dyads under varied performance ratios. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 3, 126–133.Google Scholar
  27. Parsons, T. (1952). The social system. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, J. (1965). The social judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson, K. E. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rohmann, E., Bierhoff, H.-W., & Schmohr, M. (2011). Narcissism and perceived inequity in attractiveness in romantic relationships. European Psychologist, 16(4).Google Scholar
  31. Schwinger, T. (1986). The need principle of distributive justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 211–225). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scott, J. T., & Bornstein, B. H. (2009). What’s fair in foul weather and fair? Distributive justice across different allocation contexts and goods. Journal of Politics, 71, 831–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steiner, D. D., Traban, W. A., Haptonstahl, D. E., & Fointiat, V. (2006). The justice of equity, equality, and need in reward distributions: A comparison of French and American respondents. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 19, 49–74.Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, P., & Moore, J. C. (1992). Wage disparities and performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 49–66). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations