Sabbagh’s Socializing Justice reorients justice research from a focus on individual development to one of organizational socialization, offering a timely exploration of how social justice unfolds within and across educational settings. This expansive review advances three propositions. First, a cross-disciplinary depiction of justice typologies reveals how distributive, procedural, relational, and institutional logics are variably privileged across sociological, psychological, and philosophical traditions. Second, blending Sabbagh’s sociological focus on organizational structures with a psychological focus on development and relational practice offers an integrative account of socialization: Individual agency becomes situated within institutional, cultural, and policy-driven processes. Additionally, a normative framework conceptualizes learning environments as moral spaces—sites in which social justice is not merely taught or regulated but actively produced.
Believing in justice can enhance health, especially if one believes the world is personally fair (justice beliefs for self). However, health benefits conferred by believing in justice may be nuanced for racial minorities, whose lived experiences may also reinforce links from health outcomes to beliefs about justice more generally (justice beliefs for others). Across two studies, we consider how the belief in a just world for self and others are related to African Americans’ evaluations of self-reports of discrimination when receiving healthcare – a largely overlooked domain in the justice literature. In study 1, African Americans completed measures of the belief in a just world for self and others, along with measures of perceived healthcare discrimination. In study 2, these measures were re-administered along with measures of perceived personal control over healthcare and trust in the healthcare system. In study 1, the belief in a just world for self was associated with less perceived healthcare discrimination, especially when the belief in justice world for others was low. In study 2, this interactive pattern was replicated. Additionally, believing in justice for self was associated with stronger perceived personal control over healthcare, whereas beliefs about justice for others predicted greater trust in the healthcare system. Justice beliefs may be linked to healthcare experiences in complex ways among African Americans, including through both independent and interactive associations with beliefs about justice for self and others.
Public awareness of the environmental impacts of food systems and their implications for people’s lives is growing in many countries. There is also an increasing recognition of the links between sustainability and social justice goals. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between perceptions of social justice and sustainable consumption in the context of food. The study employed Rawls’s theory of social justice and was based on a survey conducted in Italy with a representative sample of 2000 respondents. The analysis encompassed indicators of sustainable consumption, political orientation, and attitude toward a sustainable lifestyle. The findings confirmed that in Italy, the sense of social justice is mainly inspired by the maximin principle, which drives toward sustainability depending on political orientation and the motivation for lifestyle change. The principle of egalitarianism seems to be the least effective in concretely supporting sustainable consumption, whereas utilitarianism has the potential to facilitate sustainability-related practices when based on personal motivations. This study contributes to advancing knowledge on the relationship between sustainable food consumption and the sense of social justice, which is a crucial condition for societal contexts that support the idea of affordable, sustainable options for all consumers.
Poverty lowers physical and psychological wellbeing. Yet, as economic inequality has grown in the United States, a minority of Americans list it among their top concerns. To understand the psychological underpinnings of this paradox, this study surveyed U.S. young adults (N = 184, Mage = 19.43) about their beliefs around social mobility, attributions of individual sources to wealth, and perceptions of U.S. wealth and wage inequalities. We were particularly interested in the difference between what participants believed were the actual levels of economic inequality and what their ideal levels were–their perceived-ideal disparity. Results revealed that the association between attributions of wealth to individual sources and their perceived-ideal disparity was mediated by perceptions of societal mobility. These findings help to explain attitudes that contribute to perpetuating wealth inequalities.
This study examines the relationship between encounters with the criminal justice system and psychological well-being in a large U.S. sample. This project builds upon previous research about the negative outcomes tied to such encounters by examining potential long term negative effects on people’s subjective well-being and sense of meaning and purpose in life. Panel study participants indicated their lifetime exposure to the criminal justice system, and then, about two years later, indicated their current subjective well-being and sense of meaning and purpose in life. Our findings reveal that the number of past police arrests is associated with reductions in well-being, with the first arrest showing the strongest effect. When controlling for number of previous arrests, no other aspect of exposure to the criminal justice system (e.g., the presence of a criminal conviction, amount of time spent detained) was significantly related to well-being. Race and gender predict encounters with the criminal justice system, but the relation to well-being remains consistent across demographics. Given the importance of meaning and life purpose as a protective factor against trauma and stress, it is vital to understand how first encounters with the criminal justice system, in particular, are related to people’s sense of purpose and meaning.
People are motivated to believe that the world is just and often affirm this belief even in extreme situations through immanent justice reasoning (IJR) and secondary victimization behavior, especially when this supports their belief in a just world (BJW). We investigated this phenomenon by presenting participants with a scenario involving a car accident victim who either affirmed or threatened BJW. In Study 1 (N = 106), participants were randomly assigned to a condition in which a male victim’s past behavior either affirmed or threatened the BJW. Results showed that participants who endorsed individual differences in BJW more strongly reported more IJR and secondary victimization attitudes in the BJW-affirming condition than in the BJW-threatening condition. In Study 2 (N = 158), we presented that the victim was a woman, which allowed us to replicate the findings from Study 1 for participants with lower hostile sexism. However, participants with higher hostile sexism who endorsed individual differences in BJW more strongly responded with more IJR and secondary victimization in the BJW-threatening condition than in the BJW-affirming condition. These findings extend the understanding of justice motives and show how BJW interacts with ideological attitudes such as sexism to shape responses to victimization.
Education is considered a key tool for social mobility and equality of opportunities. However, despite the widespread value of education, disparities in educational outcomes persist over time. This paper is guided by the following research questions: To what extent are such educational disparities justified in society? Is the justification of educational inequality affected in periods of personal and social vulnerability, as in the COVID-19 pandemic? And, what are the main factors driving this kind of justification? The Chilean case offers an interesting context for this study given its high economic inequality, deep neoliberal policies, and commodification of social services such as education. This economic and cultural environment has promoted meritocratic ideals, whereby individual talent and effort are considered key to get ahead in life, disregarding opportunities linked to social origin. The central argument of this article is that the justification of inequalities weakens during periods of vulnerability and crisis (such as the health and economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic). Furthermore, we argue that such changes could be linked to a challenge of meritocratic ideals. For testing the research hypotheses we estimate a series of longitudinal multilevel models with data from a Chilean longitudinal panel survey (2016 – 2023, 6 waves, N = 2,927). Whereas we find support for the association between the perception of meritocracy and justification of inequality, the analyses that involved changes over time showed an increase in the justification of inequality in education. The discussion of these results delves into the social consequences of justifying inequality in a sensitive area as education, as well as the persistence of meritocratic ideals despite challenging events.
The COVID-19 pandemic, as a global health crisis, has disrupted schools and students’ lives, and raised concern about an increase in social inequality. Three hypotheses were examined: 1. Between pre-COVID-19, during COVID-19, and post-COVID-19, there will be a decrease over time in the percentage of matriculation certificate (PMC) and outstanding matriculation certificate eligibility (POMC) in schools; (H2) The decrease in PMC over time will be greater in schools in the Arab sector compared to those in the Jewish sector and within each educational sector, in low-socioeconomic schools compared to high-socioeconomic schools; (H3) Sectorial and socioeconomic differences in schools’ POMC eligibility over time will be greater than the PMC eligibility. These hypotheses were tested within the context of the Ministry of Education modification of the format of matriculation exams, at 12th grade. The data included 863 schools in the Jewish and Arab sectors on four time points: pre (2019), during (2020-2021), and post-COVID-19 (2022). Descriptive analysis and a two-level linear mixed model with repeated measures were conducted. An increase in the percentage of matriculation certificate eligibility was found in schools, particularly in disadvantaged ones, reducing sectoral and socioeconomic inequality. At the same time there was an increase in the percentage of outstanding matriculation certificates, mainly among advantaged schools, leading to an increase in inequality. The findings indicate a decrease in vertical stratification and an increase in horizontal stratification, emphasizing the complexity of promoting educational opportunities in the era of risk society.
Due to its commodification policies, the Chilean educational system is a paradigmatic case for study. It comprises private subsidies, achievement incentives, competition, selection, and segregation. After years of student and social protests, the 2015 Inclusion Law mandated that publicly funded schools accept all admitted students. Critics argue this restricts family choice and undermines merit. The COVID-19 pandemic further deepened inequalities, exposing contradictions in a merit-based system. This article examines how meritocratic ideals emerged post-pandemic in parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of school communities within a neoliberal educational model promoting meritocratic values alongside inclusive policies. Based on 32 interviews with parents and teachers from two private and two publicly funded schools in Santiago, findings show meritocracy is deeply entrenched, even in public education. The “meritorious student” is defined beyond academics, encompassing behavior, responsibility, and respect—traits also expected of families. The importance of effort as a mechanism for improvement permeates the notion of the “good student”, thereby overshadowing the importance of inclusive educational environments, as merit also becomes relativised by the post-pandemic scenario. The deep educational inequalities and behavioural problems force teachers and parents to focus on and solve different aspects rather than academic achievements. Merit, as understood by educational communities, is perceived as a process and an attitude intertwined with social opportunities.
Social Justice Teacher Education (SJTE) prepares teachers to confront issues of inequity and marginalization within educational contexts—an endeavor that has become increasingly relevant in highly unequal regions in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review maps research on social justice (SJ) theoretical approaches and the production of empirical knowledge about SJTE in Latin American, identifying predominant research foci, theoretical currents, and regional findings. Following PRISMA guidelines, the review included a meta-analysis (metatheory/meta-data) of 52 indexed works (WoS, Scopus, and Scielo Citation Index) published up to 2022. The results show that most research is concentrated in Chile and Brazil, and that theoretical approaches intersect U.S.-based SJTE frameworks and Latin American or international critical educational theories, emphasizing the importance of situated and community-based pedagogies. Most works focus on preservice teachers’ conceptions of SJ, or the challenges faced by teacher educators during the design or implementation of specific SJTE activities. Fewer studies examine SJ-oriented teaching activities designed and implemented by preservice teachers as part of the fieldwork experiences, with the purpose of transforming the realities of marginalized students in local communities. The studies underscore the need to position care, affectivity, and the development of empathy as guiding principles of SJTE and teaching, especially in contexts of continuous political unrest. Further analysis of the design, implementation, and (self-)evaluation of SJTE programs’ pedagogical models, beyond punctual experiences, would contribute to understanding how their decision-making proccesses enable—or constrain—the development of socially just programs, as well as which pedagogical practices facilitate the development of the competences that their future teachers will need to work in challenging post-COVID-19 educational systems.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the February 6, 2023 Earthquake in Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye have posed significant challenges to pre-service teacher education. The swift transition from face-to-face to remote teaching has led to social injustices, while students and pre-service teachers affected by the earthquake have had to adapt to new environments, including practicum schools. This case study, therefore, explores pre-service teachers’ sense of injustices in the aftermath of these crises and the resolutions that they implement to address these challenges. Participants include six pre-service teachers attending their practicum in the aftermath of the earthquake. Data come from retrospective interviews, journals, and social justice-oriented lesson plans. The analysis, carried out through coding, identified themes such as pre-service teachers' perception of injustice, responsive teaching practices, and reflections on these practices in the post-disaster term. In findings, each theme underscores the relationship between social and educational injustices, and professional responsibility and agency, providing a comprehensive understanding of PSTs’ roles in addressing injustices. PSTs reported a transition from viewing teaching merely as content delivery to recognising it as a dynamic interaction that addresses students’ emotional and social needs. PSTs’ responsive practices illustrate that SJTEP can serve as a tool for fostering awareness and advocacy for both social and educational injustices. Implications are shared to empower teacher education policies for promoting SJTEP in practicum.
We critically examine the politicization of international student mobility (ISM) during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on Israel, China, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Applying Vicki Squire’s framework of the politics of control and migration, we reveal how the pandemic intensified existing political tensions and inequalities, challenging depoliticized narratives of ISM. The study demonstrates how crises magnify societal organizing principles and embed mobility policies within broader struggles over national identity, economic priorities, and geopolitical strategies. In Israel, selective border reopening exposed tensions between religious and secular interests, with lobbying efforts shaping mobility outcomes. China’s intensified regulation of ISM highlighted the state’s efforts to leverage mobility as a tool for soft power, narrative control, and geopolitical positioning. In the UAE, private universities adapted by targeting ‘permanently temporary’ expatriates with tuition incentives, revealing systemic inequities within its dual-track higher education system. Our analysis underscores ISM as a dynamic and contested field shaped by the interplay of state power, institutional strategies, and individual agency. We highlight the co-constitutive relationship between control and migration politics, demonstrating how mobility evolves across governance systems and through negotiation and resistance. These findings offer critical insights into ISM’s role as a site of political contestation and its implications for equity, access, and social justice.
This study delves into the enduring influence of egocentric bias within negotiation contexts despite fair settings. We investigate how individuals navigate the interplay between egocentric bias, justice mechanisms (i.e., procedural and retributive justice), and their impact on zero-sum thinking. Across three studies encompassing 947 participants from Japan and the UK, we explored these dynamics through simulated negotiation scenarios like car-trade deals and international environmental negotiations. Our findings reveal a robust egocentric bias, dominating judgments even when justice mechanisms are introduced. Negotiators tend to view personal gains as independent of losses incurred by others, hindering collaborative outcomes. Procedural fairness demonstrates a moderating effect, fostering perceptions of fairness and reducing zero-sum thinking in specific scenarios (car-trade). However, its influence diminishes in complex international contexts. Interestingly, retributive justice, intended to discourage non-cooperative behavior, backfires by intensifying punitive sentiments. Thus, it might have a non-desirable effect in some situations. This research offers valuable insights for academics and practitioners alike. It underscores the pervasiveness of egocentric bias in zero-sum thinking despite the presence of justice mechanisms. By highlighting these dynamics, the study paves the way for developing more effective negotiation strategies that promote cooperation and foster successful conflict resolution in real-world settings.
Using the pandemic as a natural laboratory for exploring edtech, this study is concerned with the changes in parental involvement that the demands of remote-learning elicited and implications for educational justice across classes. Interviews with 25 middle-class and low-income parents revealed classed practices of parental involvement in remote-learning: middle-class parents espouse a digital well-being approach while low-income parents espouse a superdigital citizenship approach. The former is concerned with maintaining what parents see as a healthy balance between children’s digital activity and school learning; the latter with ensuring children have access to what parents see as varied resources and opportunities for learning and social connection available online and in face-to-face daily interaction, particularly in school. Classed practices of parental involvement reveal that parental involvement is a salient sphere of educational justice particularly in the context of educational technology implementation, and are implicated in issues of cultural and distributive justice.
Despite extensive scholarship on the impact of inequality on political trust, empirical evidence on the role of social mobility in shaping confidence in institutions remains scarce. This article contributes to the literature on political trust by analyzing how perceived social mobility influences trust in institutions across 18 Latin American countries using nine waves of the Latinobarometer survey (2004–2020). Our findings suggest that higher levels of perceived social mobility are positively associated with political trust. However, this relationship is moderated by economic inequality. Random Effects Within-Between models (REWB) reveal two different effects. Respondents who live in countries with higher levels of economic inequality exhibit lower levels of political trust compared to those living in countries with lower levels of economic inequality, regardless of their social mobility backgrounds. However, as economic inequality increases within countries over time, the political trust gap between mobility groups widens rather than narrows. Our results highlight the importance of considering inequality when evaluating the attitudinal consequences of mobility in socially fragmented societies.
Although relative deprivation theory argues that individual differences influence the degree to which people perceive themselves (IRD) or their group (GRD) as unfairly disadvantaged, few studies directly assess the psychological motivators underlying perceptions of injustice. We address this oversight by examining the relationships between psychological entitlement and relative deprivation using twelve annual waves of a nationwide random panel sample of adults (N = 71,587). Random intercept cross-lagged panel modelling revealed that within-person changes in psychological entitlement predicted subsequent changes in IRD and GRD. Within-person changes in IRD and GRD also predicted changes in psychological entitlement over time. These results replicated across structurally advantaged and disadvantaged groups based on ethnicity, gender, and immigrant status. We thus highlight how psychological entitlement shapes—and is shaped by—perceptions of injustice, irrespective of one’s objective societal position. We encourage future research to further explicate the role of individual differences in relative deprivation theory.
Belief in a just world (BJW) is well established as a coping resource, particularly for those times when the world is experienced as uncertain, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. The early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was such a time, and therefore provided an opportunity to test the boundary conditions of BJW theorizing. Here, we make a new methodological contribution, testing (a) cross-lagged panel effects of BJW on mental health and well-being variables and (b) whether these effects generalized cross-nationally. Drawing from data collected in early-mid 2020 by the PsyCorona Project (N = 2574 from 30 countries), BJW-self and BJW-other longitudinally predicted positive social/mental health, well-being, and hope, and these findings generalized across countries. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of BJW as a coping resource in a time of crisis.
Potential whistleblowers, that is, people contemplating revealing potentially damaging information about unethical or unlawful behavior to a third party, are often described as facing a conflict between loyalty and fairness. Yet, whistleblowers often may feel a sense of conflicting loyalties: loyalty towards the party (e.g., a colleague) that may be damaged by their blowing the whistle and loyalty towards the party (e.g., society at large) that may benefit. Understanding how people deal with such conflict of loyalties is critical for increasing whistleblowing and reducing unethical behavior. In three studies (total N = 929), we draw on construal level theory to demonstrate that, when loyalty motives are salient, the level of abstractness at which people construe a whistleblower dilemma affects whistleblowing behavior. Because the party that stands to benefit from whistleblowing is typically more global than the party that will be damaged, cognitive abstraction increases whistleblowing behavior relative to concreteness, particularly when loyalty (vs. fairness) is a salient motive. Moreover, Study 3 findings reveal that cognitive abstraction predicts whistleblowing through increased identification with global entities among people for whom loyalty is more salient. Hence, we demonstrate that whistleblowing decisions are influenced not only by the salience of certain moral motives, but also the way that people construe whistleblower dilemmas, namely, relatively abstractly or concretely. Altogether, our research offers a novel understanding of whistleblowing behavior—as a conflict between loyalties—and identifies a cognitive mechanism for promoting whistleblowing and reducing unethical behavior.