Search results

To do “justice” to the theorizing and empirical work on the topic of justice would be a formidable, if not impossible, task. The study of justice spans centuries (see, for example, Solomon & Murphy, 1990) and disciplines – psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy (Cohen, 1986; Scherer, 1992). Some previously published edited volumes on justice circumscribe the content as applicable, for example, to organizations (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005), to the affectional bond (Lerner & Mikula, 1994), or with regard to the role of emotions (De Cremer, 2007). Other volumes fall loosely under titles to the effect of “justice in social behavior” (e.g., Bierhoff, Cohen, & Greenberg, 1986; Montada & Lerner, 1996) or “research and applications” (e.g., Törnblom & Vermunt, 2007). These volumes offer a variety of theoretical and empirical analyses of justice issues, largely from the point of view of scholars trained in psychology. Indeed, in the social psychological realm, focus is often on individual perceptions of and reactions to various forms of injustice.

Despite advocacy for greater dialogue between social psychologists and family scholars, there has been little cross-fertilization between the two. One exception is in the area of equity theory. We address how advances in equity theory and in family research each have even greater capacity to enrich the other. We do so by using the 1996 General Social Survey, 1992–1994 National Survey of Family and Households, and 2002 International Social Survey Programme to explore the relationship between emotion and perceived inequity in the family. We summarize key findings as a prelude to future scholarship in the United States and globally.

Understanding the plight of victims has long been a focus of feminists in the field of criminology. Feminists have made a number of contributions to the study of victims, and here we highlight the contributions that coalesce around three central themes: (1) the gendered nature of criminal victimisation, (2) the relationship between women’s victimisation and offending and (3) violent victimisation of women (and threat of victimisation) as a means of informal social control. In this chapter, the authors trace the development of these themes, highlighting both early feminist work and modern instantiations, paying particular attention to how theoretical developments in the field of feminist victimology have contributed to the understanding of these themes. The authors conclude by discussing the contested nature of ‘feminist victimology’, examining whether such a thing can exist given the androcentric foundations on which the broader field of victimology is based.

Research consistently finds that procedural justice affects emotional reactions to inequity. This research, however, has failed to examine the ways in which contextual factors may alter the impact of fair procedures on emotions. Here, I argue that collective legitimacy is one such contextual factor, and I develop hypotheses related to this argument. I also suggest that procedural justice researchers should examine discrete emotions, because the combined effects of legitimacy and procedural justice vary depending upon the emotion in question. In highlighting the interplay between legitimacy and procedural justice, this paper also underscores the necessity of studying procedural justice within the context of the group.

Processes of legitimacy and justice pervade work organizations. Here we focus on how legitimacy (collective sources of support for an authority) and procedural justice (use of fair procedures) affect how individuals interpret and respond to situations involving unfair outcomes such as underpayment. We draw upon the legitimacy perspective of Walker and Zelditch and the procedural justice approach of Tyler to develop two new models, one in which the two factors constitute objective and independent contextual elements and one in which perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice are reciprocal. Both models have implications for understanding fairness and compliance in organizations.

In the current contribution I suggest that reactions to decision-making procedures often are influenced by egocentric concerns. Such egocentrism can be inferred from various theories that assume people's procedural justice judgments to be based on the implications of decision-making procedures for themselves instead of for others. The present review considers evidence for two propositions: (1) People respond more negatively to procedural injustice when it happens to themselves than when it happens to others, and (2) an egocentric self-focus amplifies people's fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures. It is concluded that egocentric motives play a central role in procedural justice effects.