Abstract
Past research has found that distributive justice preferences vary markedly both as a function of gender of allocator and the domain in which outcomes or rewards are allocated (e.g., relationships vs. work contexts). This study examined the interaction of these two factors in determining distributive justice preferences. Subjects were asked to fill out two scales designed to assess the degree to which their general distributive preferences in work contexts and in relationships were benevolent (prefer inputs to exceed outcomes), equity sensitive (prefer outcome/input ratios to be equal), or entitled (prefer outcomes to exceed inputs). Results revealed that women's preferences were significantly more benevolent (or less entitled) than men's in work domains, but that men's and women's distributive preferences did not differ significantly in relationships. In addition, both sexes indicated significantly more entitled preferences in work domains than in relationships, but the difference between domains was much greater for men than for women. These results suggest that, when considering issues of justice, men make a greater distinction between domains than do women, and that previously observed gender differences in distributive justice preferences may be specific to the work domain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
Clark, M. S. Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 549–557.
Clark, M. S. The Exchange Orientation Scale. Available from the author at the Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 1988.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 31, 12–24.
Clark, M. S., & Waddell, B. Perception of exploitation in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1985, 2, 403–413.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. Recipient's mood, relationship type and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 53, 94–103.
Crosby, F. Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Deutsch, M. Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31, 137–149.
Eagly, A. H. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
Gamson, W. A. Experimental studies on coalition formation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964.
Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. Equity and intimate relations: Recent research. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. M. Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1985, 61, 1055–1064.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. M. A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 1987, 12(2), 222–234.
Kahn, A., O'Leary, V., Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. Equity and equality: Male and female means to a just end. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 1, 173–197.
Leventhal, G. S. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Major, B., & Deaux, K. Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg and R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
Major, B., McFarlin, D., & Gagnon, D. Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 1399–1412.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. Women and work. New York: Praeger, 1982.
Prentice, D. A., & Crosby, F. The importance of context for assessing deservingness. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.
Reis, H. T. Levels of interest in the study of interpersonal justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. I. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. New York: Plenum Press, 1986.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29–39.
Traupmann, J., Hatfield, E., & Wexler, P. Equity and sexual satisfaction in dating couples. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1983, 22, 33–40.
Treiman, D. J., & Hartmann, H. I. Women, work and wages: Equal pay for jobs of equal value. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. Equity theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacan 1978.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Traupmann, J. Equity and premarital sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 82–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Major, B., Bylsma, W.H. & Cozzarelli, C. Gender differences in distributive justice preferences: The impact of domain. Sex Roles 21, 487–497 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289099
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289099